United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Southwest 

Region

January 2010

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Motorized Travel 

Management 

(formerly Motorized 

Route Designation) 

Klamath National Forest

California and Oregon
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.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Abstract

Klamath National Forest i

Motorized Travel Management 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Siskiyou County, California and Jackson County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: PATRICIA A. GRANTHAM, FOREST SUPERVISOR

Klamath National Forest 

1312 Fairlane Road 

Yreka , CA 96097-9549 

For further information, contact: JAN FORD, PUBLIC USES STAFF OFFICER

1312 Fairlane Road Yreka, CA 96097-9549 

(530) 842-6131

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes seven alternatives, six of which 

propose changes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and would prohibit cross-country 

travel on the Klamath National Forest (KNF). These actions are needed in order to implement the 2005 

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) while providing for a diversity of motor vehicle 

recreation opportunities and providing motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the KNF. 

The FEIS discloses environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, a no action alternative, and 

5 additional action alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need and to respond to issues raised by 

the public. 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, no changes would be made to the current 

NFTS and there would be no cross-country travel prohibition. Current management plans would continue to 

guide project area management. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM) would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to 

designated routes. 

Alternative 2 is the proposed action. It includes the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, proposed 

changes to the existing NFTS including vehicle class, and the additions to the NFTS as described in the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) published October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195). It also includes a non-significant 

amendment to the Klamath Forest Plan to be consistent with the Travel Management Rule. 

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

existing NFTS system of roads and trails. Alternative 3 also addresses three significant issues regarding 

maintenance costs, wilderness/quiet use, and natural resource impacts. 

Alternative 4 responds to three significant issues regarding maintenance costs, wilderness/quiet use, and 

natural resource impacts by prohibiting cross-country travel and adding fewer routes to the NFTS than 

alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 responds to a significant issue regarding access and motorized recreation opportunity. This 

alternative is based on corrections to the proposed action (see alternative 6) and proposed changes to the 

existing NFTS including vehicle class, additional routes, and mixed use to provide for more access and 

motorized recreation opportunity. 

Alternative 6 is the refined proposed action. It is based on the original proposed action (alternative 2) which 

was developed to meet the purpose and need described in the October 7, 2008 Notice of Intent. It 

incorporates corrections of errors/omissions identified through further field reconnaissance and 

administrative review, and proposes changes to the existing NFTS including vehicle class, additional routes, 

and mixed use to provide for more access and motorized recreation opportunity. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Abstract

ii Klamath National Forest

Alternative 7 responds to public comments received on the Draft EIS, and includes some routes which were 

inadvertently left out of any action alternative. This alternative is based on corrections to the proposed 

action (see alternative 6) and proposed changes to the existing NFTS including vehicle class, additional 

routes, and mixed use to provide for more access and motorized recreation opportunity.

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the final 

environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to consider and address reviewers 

comments and any new information acquired from these comments in the preparation of the Record of 

Decision, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. Reviewers have an obligation to 

structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and 

alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage 

may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of 

Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the final environmental impact statement should be specific and should address 

the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). 

The opportunity to comment will end 30 days following publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register.

Send comments to: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor 

Klamath National Forest 

1312 Fairlane Road 

Yreka, CA 96097-9549 

Attn: Travel Management

Phone: (530) 842-6131,

FAX: (530) 841-4571

Email: comments-pacificsouthwest-klamath@fs.fed.us 

Acceptable format(s) for electronic comments are MS Word (.doc) and Rich Text Format (.rtf)
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary

Klamath National Forest iii

Summary of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS)

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative for the Klamath National Forest (KNF) Travel Management project 

proposes the following actions: 

1) Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) roads, motorized trails, and areas by the public except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use).

2) Make two non-significant amendments to the Klamath National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP): 

Change the LRMP to conform with the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, by 

removing reference to OHV cross-country travel in the Forest Plan and including a 

Forestwide standard: ―Prohibit motorized vehicle travel (with the exception of 

snowmobiles) off designated roads, trails and areas except as allowed by permit or 

other authorization.‖

Change LRMP Forestwide standard 8-37 to read ―Restrict activities within 1⁄4 mile of 

active Swainson‘s hawk nests during the nesting season (April 15 to August 15). 

Lands within the Butte Valley National Grassland are exempt from this restriction.‖

3) Add 32 existing unauthorized routes (approximately 28 miles) to the NFTS as roads open 

to the public for motorized vehicle use by vehicle class and season of use. Add 192 

existing unauthorized routes (approximately 25 miles) to the NFTS as roads open to the 

public for motorized vehicle use to access dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g. river 

access, dispersed camping, etc.) by vehicle class and season of use.

4) Add 28 existing unauthorized routes (approximately 20.6 miles) to the NFTS as 

motorized trails open to the public for motorized vehicle use by vehicle class and season 

of use. 

5) Allow motorized vehicle use on two open riding areas (53 acres) where motorized 

vehicles would be allowed anywhere within those delineated areas. 

6) Make the following changes to existing NFTS roads:

Allow non-highway legal vehicle use on 14 NFTS roads (approximately 131 miles)

where such use is currently prohibited.

Prohibit non-highway legal vehicle use on 7 NFTS roads (approximately 8 miles)

where such use is currently allowed.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary

iv Klamath National Forest

Open NFTS road 41S10 to public use where such use is currently prohibited to 

enhance motorized recreation by creating a loop opportunity.

Convert 18 NFTS Maintenance Level (ML) 3 roads (approximately 130 miles) to ML 

2 to allow both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicle use and reduce 

maintenance costs.

Proposed changes to existing NFTS roads are discussed in detail in the Transportation section of 

Chapter 3.

Significant Issues

Internal and external scoping identified the following significant issues which were used in 

developing the action alternatives. The significant issues include the following:

Table S - 1. List of significant issues

Issue Topic Cause and Effect 

1. Access and Recreation 

Opportunity 

The proposed action unreasonably restricts motorized recreation use by prohibiting crosscountry travel. The addition of 92 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS does not 

provide enough motorized public access or diversity of motorized recreational opportunity 

to Klamath National Forest lands, including loops, connecting scenic destinations, 

campgrounds, local services, watersheds, and low and high elevation areas.

2. Maintenance Cost The NFTS is too large to provide adequate maintenance and administration, given the 

current maintenance backlog. No new roads should be created as existing roads are 

largely unmaintained. 

3. Wilderness / Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Some roads proposed for addition to the NFTS are in close proximity to wilderness or 

inventoried roadless areas. The designation of unauthorized routes near these areas 

would encourage incursion of motorized use into the wilderness, and impact the ability of 

people to enjoy a quiet recreation experience.

4. Resource Impacts Many of the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are poorly located 

and will cause adverse impacts to plants, wildlife, water quality, soils, riparian areas, and 

other natural resources. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The KNF developed seven alternatives: the no action, the proposed action, and 5 other action 

alternatives to meet the purpose and need, respond to the significant issues listed above, and 

respond to public comment. The seven alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed 

in Table S - 2 below. Complete details of the alternatives are found in chapter 2 of this document.

Table S - 2. List of alternatives considered in detail

Alternative 1:

No Action 

Alternative

The no action alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the no action 

alternative, no changes would be made to the current NFTS and there would be no cross-country travel 

prohibition. Current management plans would continue to guide project area management. The Travel 

Management Rule would not be implemented, and no motor vehicle use map (MVUM) would be produced. 

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

continue to proliferate and have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. 

Adds no new NFTS Facilities

Does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel.

Alternative 2:

Proposed 

The proposed action was developed by an interdisciplinary team using input on public-identified inventoried 

unauthorized routes, maintenance level 1 roads, and mixed use on maintenance level 3 roads. It includes 

proposals to prohibit cross-country motorized travel, change the existing NFTS, and add to the NFTS as 

described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary

Klamath National Forest v

Action The proposed action is the proposed changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of cross country travel as 

described in the NOI published in the Federal Register on 10/7/08: 

Adds 22 unauthorized routes (14 miles) to the NFTS as motorized trails

Adds 258 unauthorized routes (24 miles) to the NFTS as roads to access dispersed 

recreation sites 

Adds 84 unauthorized routes (54 miles) to the NFTS as roads

Opens 65 acres (2 areas) to motorized cross-country travel as open riding areas

Allows mixed use on portions or all of 24 NFTS roads (88 miles* )

Prohibits mixed use on portions or all of 8 NFTS roads (10 miles) 

Opens 2 ML1 NFTS roads (9.96 miles)

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the prohibition

*After the NOI was published, this number was validated and should actually be 119 miles.

Alternative 3:

Cross-Country 

Travel 

Prohibition 

Only - No 

Changes to the 

Current NFTS

Alternative 3 would prohibit cross-country travel and proposes no new additions to the existing system of 

roads and trails. This alternative also provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of other alternatives 

that propose changes to the NFTS. Alternative 3 responds to issues 2-4 (cost, maintenance, wilderness, 

quiet use, and natural resource impacts). 

Adds no new NFTS facilities

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the 

prohibition

Alternative 4:

Maximize Quiet 

Recreation 

Opportunities

Alternative 4 responds to issues 2-4 (cost, maintenance, wilderness, quiet use, and natural resource 

impacts) by prohibiting cross-country travel and adding fewer routes to the NFTS. 

Adds 2 unauthorized routes (0.73 miles) to the NFTS as motorized trails

Adds 25 unauthorized routes (1.71 miles) to the NFTS as roads to access 

dispersed recreation sites

Adds 12 unauthorized routes (4.45 miles) to the NFTS as roads

Allows mixed use on portions or all of 25 NFTS roads (119.25 miles ) 

Prohibits mixed use on portions or all of 7 roads (7.66 miles)

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the 

prohibition

Alternative 5:

Maximize 

Motorized 

Recreation 

Opportunities

Alternative 5 responds to issue 1 (access and motorized recreation opportunity). This alternative is based on 

the refined proposed action (Alternative 6) with additional routes and mixed use to provide for more access 

and motorized recreation opportunity.

Adds 33 unauthorized routes (21.77 miles) to the NFTS as motorized trails

Adds 206 unauthorized routes (30.56 miles) to the NFTS as roads to access 

dispersed recreation sites

Adds 29 unauthorized routes (16.69 miles) to the NFTS as roads

Opens 53 acres (2 areas) to motorized cross-country travel as open riding areas

Allows mixed use on portions or all of 33 NFTS roads (277.77 miles)

Prohibits mixed use on portions or all of 7 NFTS roads (7.66 miles)

Opens 1 closed level 1 NFTS road (4.66 miles)

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the 

prohibition

Alternative 6:

Refined 

Proposed 

Action

The original proposed action was developed to meet the purpose and need described in the October 7, 

2008 Notice of Intent. Additional field reconnaissance and analysis of the existing data led to refinement of 

the proposed action. These refinements are discussed in detail in chapter 2: 

This alternative:

Adds 30 unauthorized routes (18.42 miles) to the NFTS as motorized trails

Adds 164 unauthorized routes (26.30 miles) to the NFTS as roads to access 

dispersed recreation sites

Adds 26 unauthorized routes (14.58 miles) to the NFTS as roads

Opens 53 acres (2 areas) to motorized cross-country travel as open riding areas

Allows mixed use on portions or all of 21 NFTS roads (105.21 miles)

Prohibits mixed use on portions or all of 7 NFTS roads (7.66 miles)

Opens 1 ML1 NFTS road (4.66 miles)

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the 

prohibition
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary

vi Klamath National Forest

Alternative 7: 

Preferred 

Alternative

Alternative 7 responds to public comments received after publication of the draft environmental impact 

statement. This alternative is based on the refined proposed action (alternative 6) with additional routes and 

changes in maintenance levels for several roads. It also includes refined mileage figures.

Adds 28 unauthorized routes (20.59 miles) to the NFTS as motorized trails

Adds 192 unauthorized routes (25.09 miles) to the NFTS as roads to access 

dispersed recreation sites

Adds 32 unauthorized routes (28.55 miles) to the NFTS as roads

Opens 53 acres (2 areas) to motorized cross-country travel as open riding areas

Allows mixed use on portions or all of 14 NFTS roads (131.45 miles)

Prohibits mixed use on portions or all of 7 NFTS roads (7.66 miles)

Opens 1 ML1 NFTS road (4.66 miles)

Converts 18 ML3 roads (130.15 miles) to ML2 

Prohibits cross-country motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the 

prohibition

Amends the LRMP to exempt 3 roads (13 miles) in the Butte Valley National 

Grassland from implementation of a season of use for Swainson’s hawks per 

LRMP standard 8-37
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest vii

Table of Contents

Motorized Travel Management .................................................................................................... i

Final Environmental Impact Statement ....................................................................... i

Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) .................................................. iii

Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................iii

Significant Issues....................................................................................................... iv

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................. iv

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables........................................................................................................................... xvi

List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... xix

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

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

Changes Between Draft and Final Document ............................................................................... 2

Background................................................................................................................................ 3

Travel Management on the Klamath National Forest................................................. 5

Project Location .......................................................................................................... 7

Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 8

Proposed Action........................................................................................................................ 10

Principal Laws and Regulations Influencing the Scope of this EIS .............................................. 11

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 12

Responsible Official.................................................................................................. 12

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 12

Public scoping period for the Proposed Action ........................................................ 12

Comment period for the DEIS .................................................................................. 13

Tribal Consultation................................................................................................................... 13

Issues_________________________________________________ ................................................. 13

Significant Issues...................................................................................................... 14

Non-significant Issues............................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 - The Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 17

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 17

How the Alternatives were Developed ........................................................................................ 17

Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public during Scoping............................... 18

Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................. 18

Monitoring Applicable to All Action Alternatives................................................... 19

Mitigations Applicable to All Action Alternatives................................................... 20

Descriptions of the Alternatives................................................................................ 22

Alternative 1.............................................................................................................. 23

Alternative 2.............................................................................................................. 24

Alternative 3.............................................................................................................. 26
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

viii Klamath National Forest

Alternative 4.............................................................................................................. 27

Alternative 5.............................................................................................................. 29

Alternative 6.............................................................................................................. 30

Alternative 7.............................................................................................................. 32

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 35

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis................................................. 44

Alternative A: Add all unauthorized routes to NFTS or permit cross-country travel, 

and maximize motorized opportunities on the existing NFTS ................................. 44

Alternative B: Allow motorized use of existing NFS non-motorized trails. ........... 44

Alternative C: Allow dispersed camping access along roads through the designation 

of buffers or corridors where cross-country travel would be permitted. .................. 44

Alternative D: Designate staging areas in addition to proposed routes and NFTS 

changes...................................................................................................................... 45

Alternative E: Allow cross-country motorized use off designated routes in order to 

retrieve legally taken big game animals.................................................................... 45

Alternative F: Add more routes and mixed use. ...................................................... 45

Alternative G: Add fewer routes and decommission or close existing NFTS roads.

................................................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................................... 47

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 47

Analysis Process ....................................................................................................... 47

Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................... 48

Affected Environment Overview................................................................................................ 49

Assumptions Applicable to all Resources................................................................. 50

Resource Reports...................................................................................................................... 51

Route-specific Data ................................................................................................................... 52

Law Enforcement Assumptions Common to Effects Analyses ..................................................... 52

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP and Other Direction....................................... 53

Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 55

Introduction............................................................................................................... 55

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ................. 55

Effects Analysis Methodology.................................................................................. 57

Assumptions Specific to the Recreation Analysis.................................................... 57

Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 57

Indicators................................................................................................................... 58

Methodology by Action ............................................................................................ 59

Affected Environment............................................................................................... 60

Environmental Consequences................................................................................... 65

Alternative 1.............................................................................................................. 65

Alternative 2.............................................................................................................. 66

Alternative 3.............................................................................................................. 69

Alternative 4.............................................................................................................. 70

Alternative 5.............................................................................................................. 72
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest ix

Alternative 6.............................................................................................................. 74

Alternative 7.............................................................................................................. 76

Site-specific Mitigations for Recreation ................................................................... 79

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives............................................................ 80

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................... 83

Transportation Management..................................................................................................... 85

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ................. 85

Effects Analysis Methodology.................................................................................. 89

Assumptions Specific to the Transportation Analysis.............................................. 89

Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 89

Indicators................................................................................................................... 90

Indicators of Public Safety........................................................................................ 90

Indicators of Affordability ........................................................................................ 92

Methodology by Action ............................................................................................ 94

Affected Environment............................................................................................... 95

Environmental Consequences................................................................................... 99

Alternative 1.............................................................................................................. 99

Alternative 2.............................................................................................................. 99

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 101

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 101

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 103

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 104

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 105

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 107

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 109

Society, Culture, and the Economy .......................................................................................... 111

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction .............. 111

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 113

Assumptions Specific to the Society/Economic Analysis...................................... 113

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 114

Indicators................................................................................................................. 114

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 115

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 117

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 128

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 128

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 130

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 133

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 133

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 135

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 136

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 137

Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 137

Civil Rights............................................................................................................. 138

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 138

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 140
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

x Klamath National Forest

Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................. 141

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 141

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

Assumptions Specific to the Cultural Resource Analysis....................................... 145

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 146

Indicators................................................................................................................. 146

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 147

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 148

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 151

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 152

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 152

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 153

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 154

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 154

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 155

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 156

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 156

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 161

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Roadless Characteristics......................................................... 163

Introduction............................................................................................................. 163

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 163

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 164

Assumptions Specific to the IRA Analysis............................................................. 166

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 166

Indicators................................................................................................................. 166

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 166

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 167

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 169

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 169

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 170

Alternatives 3 and 4 ................................................................................................ 171

Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 ............................................................................................ 172

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 172

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 175

Visual Resources..................................................................................................................... 177

Introduction............................................................................................................. 177

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 177

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 179

Assumptions Specific to the Visual Resource Analysis......................................... 179

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 180

Indicators................................................................................................................. 180

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 180

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 182

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 184

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 184

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 185
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest xi

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 186

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 187

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 188

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 190

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 191

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 192

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 193

Geological Resources............................................................................................................... 195

Introduction............................................................................................................. 195

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 195

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 196

Assumptions Specific to the Geological Resource Analysis.................................. 196

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 198

Indicators................................................................................................................. 198

Geology Resource Methodology by Action ........................................................... 201

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 202

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 204

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 204

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 205

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 206

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 207

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 208

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 209

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 211

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 212

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 214

Air Resources ......................................................................................................................... 215

Introduction............................................................................................................. 215

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 215

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 216

Assumptions Specific to the Air Quality Analysis................................................. 217

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 217

Indicators................................................................................................................. 217

Air Resources Methodology by Action .................................................................. 217

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 218

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 219

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 219

Alternatives 2-7....................................................................................................... 220

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 221

Soil Resources......................................................................................................................... 223

Introduction............................................................................................................. 223

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 223

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 224

Assumptions Specific to the Soil Resources Analysis............................................ 225

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 226
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

xii Klamath National Forest

Indicators................................................................................................................. 226

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 226

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences............................................ 227

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 227

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 230

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 230

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 231

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 232

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 232

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 233

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 234

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 235

Site-Specific Mitigations for Soils.......................................................................... 236

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 237

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 237

Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 239

Introduction............................................................................................................. 239

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 239

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 241

Assumptions Specific to the Hydrology Analysis.................................................. 241

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 242

Indicators................................................................................................................. 242

Water Resources Methodology by Action.............................................................. 242

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 244

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 247

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 247

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 248

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 250

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 250

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 251

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 252

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 253

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 255

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 257

Fisheries................................................................................................................................. 261

Introduction............................................................................................................. 261

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction .............. 261

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 263

Assumptions Specific to the Fisheries Analysis..................................................... 264

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 264

Indicators................................................................................................................. 265

Fisheries Resource Methodology by Action........................................................... 265

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 266

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 270

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 271

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 273
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest xiii

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 276

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 278

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 281

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 284

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 287

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 291

Consultation ............................................................................................................ 292

Beneficial Uses ....................................................................................................... 294

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 294

Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 295

Introduction............................................................................................................. 295

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 295

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 297

Assumptions Specific to the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis..................................... 301

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 302

Indicators................................................................................................................. 303

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 304

General Wildlife...................................................................................................... 305

Management Indicator Species............................................................................... 307

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 310

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 321

Effects Common to All Species Groups................................................................. 321

Late-Successional Forest Associated Species......................................................... 322

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 324

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 324

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 326

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 327

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 328

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 329

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 330

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 332

Ungulate Group....................................................................................................... 333

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 334

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 334

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 337

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 339

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 340

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 341

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 343

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 344

Riparian Group........................................................................................................ 346

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 347

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 347

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 349

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 350

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 351
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

xiv Klamath National Forest

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 351

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 353

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 354

Cavity Dependent Species ...................................................................................... 356

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 357

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 357

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 358

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 360

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 360

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 361

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 361

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 362

Hardwood and Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Groups.................................................... 363

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 363

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 364

Alternatives 2 - 6..................................................................................................... 365

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 366

Wide Ranging Carnivores....................................................................................... 368

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 368

Alternatives 3 and 4 ................................................................................................ 370

Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 7.............................................................................................. 370

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 372

Botanical Resources................................................................................................................ 377

Introduction............................................................................................................. 377

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 377

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 381

Assumptions Specific to the Botanical Resources Analysis................................... 382

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 382

Indicators................................................................................................................. 383

Botanical Resource Methodology by Action.......................................................... 383

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 384

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 391

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 394

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 396

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 397

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 398

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 399

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 400

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 401

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 402

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 404

Port-Orford-Cedar ................................................................................................................. 405

Introduction............................................................................................................. 405

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 405

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 406

Assumptions Specific to the Port-Orford-Cedar Analysis...................................... 406
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest xv

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 407

Indicators................................................................................................................. 407

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 407

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 408

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 409

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 409

Alternative 2, 5, and 6............................................................................................. 410

Alternatives 3, 4 and 7 ............................................................................................ 410

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 411

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 411

Non-native Invasive Species..................................................................................................... 413

Introduction............................................................................................................. 413

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction ............... 413

Effects Analysis Methodology................................................................................ 414

Assumptions Specific to Non-Native Invasive Species Analysis........................... 414

Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 415

Indicators................................................................................................................. 415

Methodology by Action .......................................................................................... 416

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 417

Environmental Consequences................................................................................. 420

Alternative 1............................................................................................................ 421

Alternative 2............................................................................................................ 422

Alternative 3............................................................................................................ 424

Alternative 4............................................................................................................ 425

Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 426

Alternative 6............................................................................................................ 428

Alternative 7............................................................................................................ 429

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives.......................................................... 431

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction .................................................. 433

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity_________________............................................. 434

Unavoidable Adverse Effects................................................................................................... 434

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................ 434

Energy Requirements.............................................................................................................. 434

Legal and Regulatory Compliance ........................................................................................... 435

Chapter 4 - Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, and Index.................. 439

List of Preparers..................................................................................................................... 439

Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 440

Federal Agencies..................................................................................................... 440

State Agencies......................................................................................................... 440

County Agencies..................................................................................................... 440

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................... 440

Federal Agencies..................................................................................................... 440

State Agencies......................................................................................................... 440
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

xvi Klamath National Forest

Local Government Agencies................................................................................... 441

Organizations and Individuals ................................................................................ 441

Public Libraries....................................................................................................... 441

Federally Recognized Tribes .................................................................................. 441

Acronyms............................................................................................................................... 442

Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 444

References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 447

Recreation Resources.............................................................................................. 447

Transportation......................................................................................................... 447

Society, Culture and the Economy.......................................................................... 447

Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 449

Inventoried Roadless Areas .................................................................................... 451

Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 451

Geological Resources.............................................................................................. 451

Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 451

Soil Resources......................................................................................................... 451

Hydrological Resources.......................................................................................... 452

Fisheries.................................................................................................................. 452

Terrestrial Wildlife.................................................................................................. 453

Botanical Resources................................................................................................ 461

Port-Orford-Cedar................................................................................................... 464

Non-native Invasive Species................................................................................... 464

Index ...............................................................................................................466

Appendix A: Route Specific Data

Appendix B: Present and Reasonably Forseeable Actions

Appendix C: Motorized Mixed Use

Appendix D: Law Enforcement

Appendix E: Response to Comments

List of Tables

Table S - 1. List of significant issues................................................................................. iv

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

Table 2-1. Alternative 1 - summary of actions................................................................. 24

Table 2-2. Alternative 2 - summary of actions................................................................. 25

Table 2-3. Alternative 3- summary of actions.................................................................. 27

Table 2-4. Alternative 4 - summary of actions................................................................. 28

Table 2-5. Alternative 5 - summary of actions................................................................. 30

Table 2-6. Alternative 6 - summary of actions................................................................. 32

Table 2-7. Alternative 7 - summary of actions................................................................. 34

Table 2-8. Comparison of alternatives.............................................................................. 35

Table 2-9. Comparison of environmental effects of alternatives...................................... 37
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest xvii

Table R-1. Klamath NF visitor activity participation and primary activity as reported in 

NVUM results (2001). ...................................................................................................... 61

Table R-2. Klamath NF visits by type of main activity.................................................... 62

Table R-3. ROS acres in each class for all alternatives.................................................... 64

Table R-5. Comparison of the Alternatives...................................................................... 81

Table R-7. Comparison of Motorized Vehicle Use Opportunities Resulting from the 

Alternatives....................................................................................................................... 82

Table R-8. Proposed NFTS trail additions by alternative by degree of difficulty........... 83

Table TM-1. Existing Klamath NFTS roads by operational maintenance level............... 96

Table TM-2. Annual maintenance cost per mile by operational maintenance level ........ 97

Table TM-3. Miles of system roads and miles receiving maintenance (excluding those on 

the Ukonom Ranger District, managed by the Six Rivers NF), FY 2005 thru 

2008................................................................................................................................... 98

Table TM-4. Estimated additional costs by alternative .................................................. 107

Table TM-5. Proposed MMU by alternative .................................................................. 108

Table TM-6. ML2 roads proposed for removal of non-highway vehicle use by alternative

......................................................................................................................................... 109

Table SER-1. Comparison of Alternatives, and the Social Effects of Alternatives ....... 139

Table CR-1. Severity of effects on cultural resources and requirements for mitigation 145

Table CR-2. Historic properties associated with each alternative in Humbug area 

(outside open riding area) ............................................................................................... 157

Table CR-3. Historic properties associated with each alternative on west side other than 

in Humbug ...................................................................................................................... 157

Table CR-4. Historic properties associated with each alternative on east side other than 

adjacent to Juniper Flat open riding area ........................................................................ 158

Table CR-5. Historic properties adjacent to the Juniper Flat concentrated use or open 

riding area and alternative in which they would be affected .......................................... 160

Table CR-6. Comparison of the effects of alternatives on cultural resources ................ 161

Table IRA-2. Unauthorized routes in inventoried roadless areas on the KNF .............. 168

Table IRA-3. Citizen inventoried roadless areas with unauthorized routes (current 

situation) ......................................................................................................................... 168

Table IRA-4. Unauthorized routes within CIRAs proposed for addition to the NFTS by 

alternative........................................................................................................................ 170

Table IRA-5. Summary of effects analysis across all alternatives ................................ 172

Table IRA-6. Summary of direct and indirect effects on roadless characteristics......... 173

Table IRA-5. Comparison of effects on roadless characteristics.................................... 174

Table VR-3. Forest acres and mileage of inventoried unauthorized routes by visual 

quality objectives (National Forest System lands only) ................................................. 184

Table VR-2. Miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in Retention and Partial 

Retention VQOs, and Miles of Visual Recovery by Alternative.................................... 193

Table G-1. Acres open to cross-country motorized travel with geologic measurement 

indicators by alternative.................................................................................................. 212

Table G-2. Miles of unauthorized/proposed routes with geologic measurement indicators 

by alternative................................................................................................................... 212

Table G-3. Changes to the NFTS (addition of mixed use) with geologic measurement 

indicators by alternative.................................................................................................. 213
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

xviii Klamath National Forest

Table G-4. Comparison of effects on geological resources............................................ 213

Table SR-4. Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or routes proposed for 

designation to the NFTS (action alternatives) in each EHR. All values are miles. Some 

miles do not have soil map coverage and therefore no assigned EHR. .......................... 228

Table SR-2. Mitigation for unauthorized routes proposed for addition to NFTS.......... 236

Table SR-3. Comparison of soil resource indicators...................................................... 237

Table H- 5. West side watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS showing current 

CWE calculations............................................................................................................ 246

Table H-3. Route density for watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS (densities 

include state, county, private, NFTS and open unauthorized routes)............................. 256

Table H-4. Comparison of the alternatives on indicators............................................... 257

Table F-1. KNF threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species of fish......... 267

Table F-3. Fisheries indicators values for all action alternatives.................................... 291

Table F-4. Route density for watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS that are 

occupied by the three TES anadromous fish species and the MIS fish species.............. 292

Table TW-1. Forest terrestrial wildlife TES, MIS, and habitat associations................. 298

Table TW-3. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known 

sites ................................................................................................................................. 325

Table TW-4. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known 

sites ................................................................................................................................. 327

Table TW-5. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known 

sites ................................................................................................................................. 329

Table TW-6. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known 

sites ................................................................................................................................. 330

Table TW-7. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known 

sites ................................................................................................................................. 331

Table TW-8. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for latesuccessional focal species (alternatives 5 and 7 are combined) ..................................... 332

Table TW-9. Alternative 1: Seasonal ungulate ranges that could be impacted by crosscountry motorized travel................................................................................................. 335

Table TW-10. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 335

Table TW-12. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 338

Table TW-13. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 341

Table TW-14. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within seasonal habitats for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 342

Table TW-15. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 343

Table TW-16. Alternative 7: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate 

group ............................................................................................................................... 345

Table TW-17. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for ungulate 

focal species.................................................................................................................... 346

Table TW-18. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within potential habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 348
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Klamath National Forest xix

Table TW-19. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 350

Table TW-20. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within potential habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 351

Table TW-21. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 352

Table TW-22. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 354

Table TW-23. Alternative 7: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian 

group ............................................................................................................................... 355

Table TW-24. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for riparian 

focal species.................................................................................................................... 356

Table TW-25. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for cavitydependent focal species................................................................................................... 363

Table TW-26. Alternative 1: Miles and acres of routes within hardwood and 

grassland/shrub-steppe habitats. ..................................................................................... 365

Table TW-27. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for 

hardwood and grassland/shrub-steppe focal species....................................................... 367

Table TW-28. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for wideranging carnivore focal species (black bear) .................................................................. 372

Table BR-1. Botanical Special Interest Areas and Botanical and Geologic Special Interest 

Areas............................................................................................................................... 380

Table BR-2. Federally Listed and FWS Candidate Species from the Klamath NF........ 387

Table BR-3. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species for the Klamath National Forest.. 388

Table BR-4. Sensitive species within 100 feet of unauthorized routes under Alternative 1

......................................................................................................................................... 394

Table BR-5. Comparison of botanical resource indicators............................................. 403

Table BR-6. Comparison of effects on botanical resources ........................................... 403

Table NNIS-7. Klamath National Forest noxious weed list ........................................... 418

Table NNIS-2. Alternative 1: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

......................................................................................................................................... 420

Table NNIS-3. Alternative 2: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

......................................................................................................................................... 423

Table NNIS-4. Alternative 5: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

......................................................................................................................................... 426

Table NNIS-5. Weeds within 100 feet of proposed routes under Alternative 6........... 428

Table NNIS-6. Weeds within 100 feet of proposed routes under Alternative 7............. 430

Table NNIS-7. Comparison of alternatives .................................................................... 431

Table NNIS-8. Comparison of effects on non-native invasive species.......................... 432

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Location Overview Map ......................................................................... 7
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

xx Klamath National Forest

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 1

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement 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. The document 

is organized into four chapters: 

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

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

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

how the public responded. 

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

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

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

chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed action and alternatives with 

respect to their environmental impacts.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environment that will be affected and the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives, as well as discussing the short-term uses and long-term 

productivity, unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources, energy requirements, and legal and regulatory compliance. 

Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, and Index: This 

chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the 

environmental impact statement; lists agencies, organizations and individuals to which 

this document is being sent; and includes lists of commonly used acronyms, a glossary, 

references cited, and an index. 

Appendices: The appendices provide detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the environmental impact statement.

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

found in the project planning record located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

2 Klamath National Forest

Changes Between Draft and Final Document

Changes have occurred between the DEIS and this FEIS. Key changes are discussed in this 

section. 

In response to public comment and refinements in the analyses, an additional alternative 

(Alternative 7) was developed. The recommendation in the Motorized Mixed Use Analysis 

(MMUA) regarding changing maintenance levels of roads currently on the NFTS was 

incorporated into this alternative. Therefore, the number of miles of road proposed for mixed use 

on maintenance level (ML) 3 roads has declined, and the number of miles proposed for 

conversion to ML2 has increased in this alternative. The effects of Alternative 7 have been 

analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

Mitigations common to all action alternatives have been augmented and modified. New 

mitigation measures are described in Chapter 2, and include:

Share-the-Road signs will be installed on ML 3 roads selected for mixed use to inform 

drivers of highway-legal vehicles that the route is open for use by non-highway-legal 

vehicles

Mixed use roads will be closed to non-highway legal vehicles and/or other traffic through 

use of a Forest Order when commercial traffic (e.g. logging or chip trucks) is scheduled.

One cultural resource site will be screened using cut vegetation, and a complete item-byitem inventory of the site will be completed for the alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) that 

include adding a route to the NFTS in the vicinity of this site.

Routes through ultramafic rock proposed for mixed use in the DEIS have been tested for the 

presence of asbestos. Test results indicate that asbestos is not present in quantities beyond the 

threshold deemed unsafe for motorized use of rural routes. Therefore, the mitigation regarding 

provision of information to the public regarding safe use of these roads and methods for reducing 

exposure has been removed.

Information regarding publication and use of the Motor Vehicle Use Map has been included 

in Chapter 2. 

A change was made between DEIS and FEIS to correct the maintenance level of the South 

Fork of Indian Creek Road to fit the current condition and the data in INFRA. The road (17N32) 

is blocked with a barrier from its west intersection with road 17N43. Eight miles of NFTS road 

are not available to public use. These 8 miles of road 17N32 (shown as ML2 on DEIS maps) are

in ML 1 status and the DEIS maps were modified to display the correct condition.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 3

A section documenting the effects of the alternatives on Port-Orford-cedar was added to 

Chapter 3.

A number of inventoried unauthorized routes were field reviewed between DEIS and FEIS to 

validate earlier GIS-based analysis. Several other routes that were not on the original inventory, 

but were identified as potential additions to the NFTS in public comments to the DEIS, were also 

field reviewed; they were analyzed but not included in any action alternative. As a result of these 

efforts, the original figure of 437 miles of unauthorized routes has been revised to 497 miles.

Resource analyses were updated where necessary; for example, some acreage figures were 

refined, and the Northern spotted owl habitat analysis was re-run using the 1992 critical habitat 

layer.

The effects of route addition on fisheries in Key Watersheds (as defined by the KNF Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)) are analyzed and displayed.

Background

Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motor vehicles, particularly offhighway vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), has increased tremendously. 

Nationally, the number of OHV recreation users has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years, from 

approximately 5 million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the highest 

level of OHV use of any state in the nation. There were 786,914 all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and 

OHV motorcycles registered in 2004 in California, up 330 percent since 1980. Annual sales of 

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

four-wheel-drive vehicle sales in California also increased by 1500 percent to 3,046,866 from 

1989 to 2002.

Nationwide, unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in thousands 

of miles of 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. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of ―Four Key 

Threats Facing the Nation‘s Forests and Grasslands‖ (USDA Forest Service, June 2004).

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

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

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

Department of Parks and Recreation. That MOI set in motion a 5 step region-wide effort to 

―Inventory and designate OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for motor 

vehicle travel on maps of the 18 National Forests in California by 2007.‖
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

4 Klamath National Forest

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

the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291). 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 

(36CFR 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.

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

unrestricted repetitive motor vehicle travel has resulted in unplanned and unauthorized routes and 

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

authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the same status as 

NFTS roads and NFTS trails. Nevertheless, some unauthorized routes may be well-sited, provide 

excellent recreation opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation users, and may 

enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized routes are poorly-sited and cause unacceptable 

environmental impacts. Only NFTS roads, NFTS trails, and discrete, specifically delineated open 

areas can be designated for motor vehicle use. In order for an unauthorized route to be designated 

for motor vehicle travel, it must first be added to the NFTS. In order for areas to be designated for 

motor vehicle travel, a discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases 

much smaller, than a Ranger District must be identified.

Of the 1.7 million total acres on the Klamath National Forest (KNF), which includes the 

Butte Valley National Grassland (BVNG), cross-country travel is currently allowed on 

approximately 1.2 million acres. 

In 2005, the KNF began the first 3 steps of the 5 step process to identify routes that may be 

added to the NFTS. In Step 1, the KNF completed an extensive inventory of unauthorized routes 

(roads and trails) on NFS lands open to cross-country travel by motor vehicles as described in the 

regional MOI. In Step 2, the KNF used an interdisciplinary process to review the existing NFTS 

and the inventory of unauthorized routes to identify proposals for limited changes to the NFTS. 

In this process, routes were examined to determine if there were either resource concerns or 

maintenance costs associated with them. This process included review of the KNF land and 

resource management plan, internal and external discussion, including extensive public 

collaboration workshops and input, and internal and external validation of the locations of 

unauthorized routes using the inventory maps. The travel management regulations provide for the 

incorporation of previous decisions regarding travel management. Routes that are part of the 

existing KNF transportation system and open to motor vehicle travel will remain designated for 

such use except as described below under each alternative. This proposal and action alternatives 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 5

make needed changes (vehicle class restrictions, additional motorized routes or travel on routes 

by non-highway vehicles, changes in routes from open to closed and vice versa, etc.) to KNF 

NFTS roads. They also propose addition of motorized NFTS trails, and add open riding areas on 

NFS lands in accordance with 2005 Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B.

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

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

all KNF NFTS roads, trails, and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM 

shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the time of year for which 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 Klamath National Forest and 

Ranger District offices. The unauthorized routes not included in this proposal are not precluded 

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

condition or addition to the NFTS and inclusion on an MVUM. Future decisions associated with 

changes to the NFTS and MVUM are dependent on results of monitoring use and resource 

conditions, and available staff and resources. This may trigger the need for additional 

environmental analysis, public involvement, and documentation. The KNF may initiate such 

modifications based on recommendations from the public or from agency specialists.

Travel Management on the Klamath National Forest

The Klamath National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) was developed over many decades 

to meet a variety of needs. These include timber management, fuel treatment, access to private 

land within the KNF boundary, fire control, utility management, special uses management, 

harvesting of special forest products such as greenery, firewood, mushrooms and plants, and 

recreation. Roads were also acquired through past land exchanges or acquisitions. The KNF

currently manages and maintains approximately 4,536 miles of NFTS roads. There are no NFTS

motorized trails for vehicle use, other than by over-snow vehicles.

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

objectives. Motorized routes range from paved roads to roughly graded high clearance roads, 

depending on the type of access necessary. In some cases, where public access is not currently 

needed, roads are ―stored‖ for future use. The NFTS is displayed on the Forest Transportation 

Atlas. The Forest Transportation Atlas consists of the maps, inventories and plans for forest 

transportation facilities and associated information available as of January 12, 2001 (FSM 

7711.2). Details concerning the management of individual roads and trails are maintained in the 

Forest Infrastructure database (INFRA). 

In 2002, the KNF populated the INFRA database by examining previous records 

(maintenance plans, maintenance expenditures, existing road and trail atlases, forest maps, etc.) to 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

6 Klamath National Forest

capture the entire NFTS, transfer the necessary information into INFRA and verify the Forest 

Transportation Atlas. Roads or trails that had no record of being mapped or maintained for a 

specific use were not included in the NFTS. 

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

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

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

management objectives for each transportation facility. Decisions regarding changes to the NFTS 

(new road construction, realignment, decommissioning, etc.) are subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and require public involvement and disclosure. The NFTS is 

always changing depending on resource needs and management concerns. 

Management of the transportation system on the Klamath National Forest is a dynamic 

process. Implementation of this proposal and the subsequent designation of motor vehicle routes 

through publication of the MVUM is just one project, among many, that affects the Forest‘s 

transportation system. Numerous road actions have been accomplished through vegetation 

management projects, watershed restoration projects, fuel treatment projects, and road 

management decisions. Ongoing efforts to manage motor vehicle travel on the KNF include 

reducing adverse environmental impacts associated with unauthorized routes through various 

project-level planning efforts, and addressing impacts associated with the current NFTS through 

the Forest‘s road maintenance program.

Over the last decade, the KNF has moved away from a commodity (timber) focus to one of 

ecosystem health and integrated vegetation management. In response to this shift, Forest 

Supervisors initiated a number of actions that reduce both road maintenance needs and deferred 

maintenance:

1. Road closures have reduced the number of miles of NFTS roads available for motor 

vehicle use and, in some cases, restricted the season of use. Currently, the Forest has 

more than 800 miles of road closed year-round and more than 1,000 miles of road 

closed during wet weather. Over the last decade, approximately 167 miles of road 

have been permanently decommissioned and removed from the NFTS, and 75 miles 

of unauthorized routes have been rehabilitated. 

2. Over the years, the KNF has systematically addressed design of the low use, nativesurfaced roads (ML 2) through a series of storm-proofing projects. Currently 82 

percent of these roads are out-sloped, with rolling dips and reduced fills. This 

improves drainage and reduces the risk of washout or developing gullies. These 

actions have substantially reduced the need for heavy maintenance and 

reconstruction. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 7

3. As large truck traffic has declined, around 220 miles of ML 3 roads have been 

downgraded to ML 2, reducing maintenance needs. 

4. A variety of fish passage projects has resulted in culvert replacement and upsizing, 

reducing the risk of culvert blockage, down-cutting of stream slopes, and loss of fill 

material. 

For a more thorough explanation of the Forest‘s NFTS and management strategies, refer to 

Appendix C.

Project Location

This analysis considers the entire Klamath National Forest, including the Ukonom Ranger 

District which is managed by the Six Rivers National Forest as part of the Orleans Ranger 

District. 

Figure 1. Project Location Overview Map
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

8 Klamath National Forest

Purpose and Need

The following needs have been identified for this proposal:

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

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

impacts the environment. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212, Subpart B, 

provides for a system of NFTS roads, NFTS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are 

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

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

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

vehicle use by the public. 

2) There is a need for the Klamath Forest Plan (LRMP) to conform to the Travel Management

Rule, 36 CFR 212 Subpart B. During a review, it was found that the LRMP is not fully 

consistent with the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B. For example, the LRMP EIS states 

that off-highway vehicle use is allowed where it is not (1) legislatively restricted, (2) causing 

unacceptable resource damage, or (3) in conflict with other activities. The objective is to 

restrict use only where there is a demonstrated need. The LRMP includes standards and 

guidelines that prohibit or restrict OHV use in certain land allocations (e.g. wilderness, 

research natural areas, backcountry areas), but OHV use is generally allowed in the other land 

allocations. About 70 percent of the Forest is open to unrestricted OHV use. These LRMP 

standards and guidelines are in conflict with the Travel Management Rule, at 36 CFR 212.50 

(a) (Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is 

prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13).

3) There is a need for limited changes to the KNF Transportation System to:

a) Provide motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, 

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). There is a need to maintain motor vehicle access 

to dispersed recreation activities that historically have been accessed by motor vehicles. 

A portion of known dispersed recreation activities are not located directly adjacent to an 

existing NFTS road. Some dispersed recreation activities depend on foot or horseback 

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

vehicles consist of short spurs that have been created and maintained primarily by the 

passage of motorized vehicles. Many such  ̳user-created‘ routes are not currently part of 

the NFTS. Without adding them to the NFTS, the regulatory changes noted above would 

make continued use of such routes illegal through the prohibition of cross-country travel 

and would preclude motorized access to many dispersed recreation activities.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 9

b) Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (4X4 vehicles, motorcycles, 

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

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

consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)). 

Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule will severely reduce 

motorized recreation opportunities relative to current levels. As a result, there is a need to 

consider limited changes and additions to the type of use permitted on existing NFTS 

roads as well as potential additions to the NFTS.

4) There is a need for socially compatible use by non-highway-legal vehicles in the vicinity of 

Hawkinsville where trespass, destruction of private property, and other use conflicts

facilitated by the use of off-highway vehicles have become a problem. The KNF Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) specifies coordination of road management objectives 

with private landowners within the KNF (LRMP Standard and Guideline 20-3). Previous 

complaints from residents, and comments during Steps 1-3 for this project, focused on needs 

for management changes on all or portions of Forest Roads 40N21, 43N30, 45N03X, 45N28, 

45N29, 45N39, 46N16, and 46N16A.

In making any limited changes to the National Forest Transportation System, the KNF will be 

considering criteria contained in Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which include the 

following: 

Impacts to natural and cultural resources.

Public safety.

Provision of public recreation opportunities

Access to public and private lands.

Conflicts among uses of National Forest System Lands

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

neighboring federal lands.

Availability of additional resources for maintenance and administration needs of roads 

trails and areas if the uses under consideration are designated. 

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

Minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat.

Minimizing conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses 

of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

10 Klamath National Forest

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

neighboring federal lands.

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

into account sound, emissions, and other factors. 

When making any limited changes to National Forest System roads, the KNF will also 

consider the following:

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

Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.

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

Proposed Action

1) Prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel (with the exception of snowmobiles) off 

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

authorization. 

2) Make a non-significant amendment to the LRMP to be consistent with the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B), prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle 

travel off designated NFTS roads and NFTS trails outside of designated areas by removing 

reference to OHV cross-country travel in the Forest Plan and including a forest-wide 

standard: ―Prohibit motorized vehicle travel off designated roads and trails except for 

administrative use or uses under permitted activities or within designated areas.‖

3) Add approximately 54 miles (84 existing unauthorized routes) of NFTS roads classified as 

open to all vehicle classes, both highway legal and non-highway legal, by season of use. The 

season of use for approximately 8 miles (14 routes) is from May 1 – October 31 (the 

remainder will be open year round. Add approximately 24 miles (258 existing unauthorized 

routes) to the NFTS as roads open to the public for motorized vehicle use to access dispersed 

recreation opportunities (e.g. river access, dispersed camping, etc.), by vehicle class and 

season of use. 

4) Add approximately 14 miles (22 existing unauthorized routes) of NFTS motorized trails. All 

trails open for motorized use are in the Humbug area. Approximately 2 miles of motorized 

trails would be classified as open for all trail class vehicles. About 4 miles of motorized trails 

would be classified as open for motorcycle only. The remaining 8 miles of motorized trails 

would be classified as open for vehicles 50 inches or less in width. The season of use for all 

14 miles of trail is from May 1 – October 31.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 11

5) Add two areas (Humbug [13 acres] and Juniper Flat [52 acres]) where use of motorized 

vehicles by the public would be allowed anywhere within the designated areas.

6) Make the following changes to existing Forest roads:

a. Allow non-highway legal vehicle use on approximately 88b miles (24 segments) of 

existing NFTS roads where such use is currently prohibited.

b. Prohibit non-highway legal vehicle use on approximately 10 miles (8 segments) of 

existing Forest roads where such use is currently allowed.

c. Open Forest maintenance level 1 roads 41S10 (Doe Peak) and 40N51 (Yellowjacket 

Ridgec) to public use where such use is currently prohibited.

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

Principal Laws and Regulations Influencing the Scope of this 

EIS

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. Principal among these are the Multiple Use and 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through 

the KNF Land and Resource Management 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): The KNF Motorized Travel 

Management EIS is designed specifically to implement the requirements of the November 5, 

2005, Rule for Travel Management, Subpart B. 

 

b After the NOI was published, this number was validated and should actually be 119 miles.

c After the NOI was published, it was determined that road 40N51 had been opened to public use in an 

earlier decision.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

12 Klamath National Forest

Decision Framework

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

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

by the public off the designated system. 

This proposal does not revisit previous administrative decisions that resulted in the current 

NFTS. This proposal is focused on implementing 36 CFR 212 Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule. Previous administrative decisions concerning road construction, road 

reconstruction, trail construction, and land suitability for motorized use on the existing NFTS are 

outside the scope of this analysis. 

Responsible Official

The Forest Supervisor for the Klamath National Forest is the responsible official for this decision 

and will sign the Record of Decision.

Public Involvement

The interdisciplinary (ID) team relied on public involvement to ensure that a full range of 

alternatives, representing a broad array of perspectives, would be analyzed. The Forest used a 

variety of methods to keep the public informed of the route designation process. These methods 

included: public meetings/workshops, news releases, Forest web page updates, newsletters, phone 

calls, mailings, and presentations to a variety of service organizations, clubs, Siskiyou County 

representatives, tribes, and environmental interest groups. The Forest met with the public, tribes, 

local elected officials, community groups, and individuals since 2005 to discuss the Travel 

Management Rule and how it will affect travel on the Forest. In addition to individual meetings 

and discussions, three rounds of public workshops were held in 2005, 2007, and 2008 in 

communities throughout the planning area. These communities included Happy Camp, 

Greenview, Yreka, Orleans, and Macdoel. These workshops were held to share information, learn 

which routes were being used by the public, and assess the recreational value of all known routes. 

During this process, the public identified 497 miles of unauthorized routes, 2,374 miles of NFTS 

roads, and 65 acres of concentrated use area being used by motorized vehicles, or with potential 

to be so used. Information gathered through public involvement was used to assist the ID team in 

developing the proposed action.

Public scoping period for the Proposed Action

On October 7, 2008, the Forest Service published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement in the Federal Register (FR Volume 73, Number 195) for the Klamath National 

Forest Motorized Travel Management project, including a description of the proposed action. The 

public scoping period began on October 7, 2008, and was to have ended on November 6, 2008; 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 13

however, the responsible official elected to extend the scoping period by 30 days in order to 

ensure that all interested parties would have an opportunity to comment. Newsletters announcing 

and extending the scoping period were mailed out to all potentially affected landowners and 

cooperators. The public scoping period ended on December 6, 2008.

Comment period for the DEIS

The DEIS was published on May 21, 2009. The KNF hosted a series of open houses to provide 

additional information to interested parties and to invite public comments. The comment period 

ended July 20, 2009. Public comments were utilized to refine the analysis and develop an 

additional alternative (Alternative 7). Public comments and responses are included in Appendix 

E of this FEIS. Additional documentation of public involvement can be found in the project 

planning record located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka CA.

Tribal Consultation

Comments from, and consultation with, federally recognized and other tribes associated with the 

KNF have been sought during travel management planning. The following ten tribal 

organizations received information and the opportunity to comment on the proposed action: 

Karuk Tribe Klamath Tribes

Quartz Valley Indian 

Reservation

Pit River Tribes Yurok Tribe Hoopa Tribe

Shasta Indian Nation Shasta Tribe, Inc. Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians

Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde Community

Ongoing consultation with tribal governments will continue during implementation of the travel 

management decision.

Issues_________________________________________________

Comments from the public, other agencies, and Native American representatives were used to 

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

the proposed action and its environmental impacts. The Forest Service separated the issues into 

two groups: significant and non-significant. 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

14 Klamath National Forest

Significant Issues

Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action. The interdisciplinary team developed measurement indicators for each 

significant issue.

Issue: The Proposed Action unreasonably restricts motorized recreation use by prohibiting 

cross-country travel. 

The addition of 92 miles of unauthorized roads to the NFTS does not provide enough motorized 

public access to or diversity of motorized recreational opportunity on Klamath National Forest 

Lands, including loops, connecting scenic destinations, campgrounds, local services, watersheds, 

and low and high elevation areas.

Discussion: Concerns were raised that restricting cross-country travel across the entire forest 

severely impacts motorized recreation opportunities and unfairly restricts access for hunting, 

fishing, camping and a host of other outdoor activities. The route inventory includes 497 miles of 

public-identified unauthorized routes and the proposed action only retains 92 miles of these. This 

is insufficient to maintain a quality motorized recreation experience on the Klamath National 

Forest.

Indicators: The key indicators used to analyze this issue are:

Acres open to cross-country motorized travel

Miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS

Miles of mixed use (roads on which both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles 

can travel) added

Issue: The Forest’s current NFTS is too large to provide adequate maintenance and 

administration, given the existing maintenance backlog. 

No new roads should be created as current roads are largely unmaintained. 

Discussion: Concerns were expressed that the roads currently on the KNF NFTS are already 

inadequately maintained and patrolled. Increasing the number of miles open to motorized uses 

would result in an increased need for maintenance when there is already a backlog that is not 

being addressed. Additional Forest Service administration would be required to prevent 

unauthorized uses or resource damage, resolve user conflicts, and provide for public safety.

Indicators: The key indicators used to analyze this issue are:

Miles of unauthorized routes and acres of areas proposed for addition to the NFTS
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Klamath National Forest 15

Cost of maintaining routes added to the NFTS 

Issue: Some roads proposed for addition to the NFTS are in proximity to wilderness or 

inventoried roadless areas. 

The designation of unauthorized routes near these areas will encourage incursion of motorized 

use into the wilderness, and impact the ability of people to enjoy a quiet recreation experience.

Discussion: Concerns were raised that wildernesses and inventoried roadless areas on the 

Klamath National Forest are already impacted by motorized use. The proposed action only 

compounds this problem by adding motorized routes in proximity to these areas. Opportunities 

for solitude and non-motorized experiences will be disrupted by the noise of vehicles.

Indicators: The key indicators used to analyze this issue are:

Number of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within 0.5 mile of 

wilderness boundaries 

Number of miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within 0.5 

mile of wilderness boundaries

Number of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within inventoried 

roadless areas

Issue: Many of the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are poorly 

located and would cause adverse impacts to plants, wildlife, water quality, soils, riparian 

areas and other natural resources.

Discussion: Concerns were expressed about impacts to a variety of natural resources, citing 

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

invasive weeds and other resources that would be impacted by motorized use of roads and trails. 

Indicators: The key indicators used to analyze this issue are:

Miles of unauthorized routes and acres of areas proposed for addition to the NFTS in or 

adjacent to threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) plant sites or suitable TES plant 

habitat

Number of sensitive sites for TES wildlife species within 0.25 miles of an unauthorized 

route proposed for addition to the NFTS

Miles of unauthorized routes and acres affected within the habitat for wildlife species 

groups
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

16 Klamath National Forest

Miles of unauthorized routes and acres of areas proposed for addition to the NFTS in 

watersheds with habitat for TES fish

Density of motor vehicle routes (hydrology and wildlife: ungulate group only)

Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS at risk from ongoing use

Miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within 100 ft. of known 

noxious weed sites

Non-significant Issues

Non-significant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) 

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 

1501.7, ―...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or 

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...‖ A list of nonsignificant issues raised during public scoping, and reasons why they were found non-significant 

can be found in the project record located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka , CA. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 17

Chapter 2 - The Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Klamath National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It describes both 

alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter 

presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts 

can be readily compared. 

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

Service developed five alternative proposals that achieve the purpose and need differently than 

the proposed action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a no action alternative. 

The no action, proposed action, and other action alternatives are described in detail below. 

The chapter is divided into four parts:

Part 1 describes how the alternatives were developed.

Part 2 presents the alternatives considered in detail.

Part 3 presents a summary comparison of the alternatives.

Part 4 presents the alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed 

analysis. It includes the rationale for eliminating these alternatives.

How the Alternatives were Developed

The proposed action and 5 action alternatives (all 6 subsequently referred to as the action 

alternatives) were developed to meet the purpose and need and address a range of issues as 

described in Chapter 1. During the initial planning stages of the KNF travel management project, 

members of the public recommended changes to the existing National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS), focusing on unauthorized routes. Comments regarding specific routes were also 

received during the public scoping period for the Notice of Intent (NOI). 

The KNF interdisciplinary (ID) team screened all the public-identified routes against a variety of 

resource criteria, and identified those routes that had serious resource concerns or did not meet 

the purpose and need for the project. Routes were eliminated from further consideration for the 

following reasons:

Resource concerns could not be mitigated through application of project design standards
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

18 Klamath National Forest

Resource concerns could not be resolved efficiently and cost-effectively, even with 

application of design standards (i.e., maintenance costs would be exorbitant)

The route was a short dead-end spur, and did not provide access to a recreation opportunity

The only destination for the route was private land

The route crossed private lands and the KNF could not establish that a right-of-way for public 

access existed

The route used an existing equestrian or foot trail. These trails were not designed to 

accommodate motorized use, and such use would create safety issues and conflicts among 

users.

The Responsible Official then reviewed the remaining group of routes and used it to develop the 

alternatives based on the Purpose and Need, the scope, the issues raised by the public, and 

resource concerns raised by the ID team. Routes that were considered for addition to the NFTS 

are those that are the most stable, present the fewest resource conflicts, and would require the 

least amount of modification or maintenance to meet standards, but still provide a diversity of 

motorized experiences. With a few exceptions, these routes are on relatively flat ground and do 

not exhibit erosion. Detailed results of this process are available in the project record, housed at 

the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA.

Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public during Scoping

During the 60 day public scoping process, alternatives were submitted for consideration by 2 

groups. After the scoping period concluded, the Forest Service reviewed and gave due 

consideration to their proposals. The resulting alternatives incorporate these and other proposals 

and information offered by the public. 

Also important in this process was the information gathered by the Forest Service in their 

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

employees. State and federal agencies advised the process through numerous informal contacts.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Six action alternatives (alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and a no action alternative (Alternative 1) 

are analyzed in detail in this FEIS. The no action alternative represents the continuation of crosscountry travel. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives, and is 

required by the implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The project area for the alternatives includes National Forest System (NFS) lands on the 

KNF. It does not include any private, state, or other federal lands.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 19

Each alternative assumes that adjacent federal lands will be managed according to existing 

management plans and applicable Federal laws. Each alternative also assumes that activities on 

state and private lands will meet applicable State and Federal land use regulations.

Monitoring Applicable to All Action Alternatives

Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions, the accuracy of 

analysis assumptions, and conclusions. Monitoring of road and trail conditions is required, and 

must meet regional and national standards. If monitoring determines additional resource damage 

is occurring from motorized vehicle use, steps to prevent further damage may be taken. If the 

mitigations are not effective or are not possible, road or trail closures may be needed. This could 

require additional NEPA analysis. Based on consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), the condition of two stream crossings in the Middle Fork Humbug Creek (on 

7H002.2 and 7H002.4) will be monitored for 5 years.

Once a route is added to the NFTS as a road, it will be subject to the monitoring program 

used for the NFTS. Condition surveys are regularly performed on ML 3, 4, and 5 roads to assure 

road user safety. Conditions on ML2 roads are monitored regularly as they are driven for other 

purposes. As problems are identified, they are addressed as resources allow, and appropriate 

management actions (such as emergency closures) are undertaken in accordance with law, 

regulation and policy. ML 1 roads are monitored as necessary for drainage and to ensure closure 

devices are intact.

A separate monitoring effort will be applied to motorized trails and open riding areas. At a 

minimum, 20 percent of the trails and one open riding area will be monitored every year to 

identify sites that lack adequate water control or are experiencing damage to the facility (tread) 

and causing unacceptable effects on soil and water. The KNF intends to apply for grants from the 

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

funds for maintenance. If the grants are secured, monitoring will be conducted annually in 

compliance with standards set forth in the State‘s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations. 

Monitoring of potential effects to heritage sites will be conducted as prescribed in the 

Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region‘s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 

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

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

in California (Motorized Recreation PA). For action alternatives, establishment of baseline data 

through long term monitoring will be completed per recommendations in the PA.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

20 Klamath National Forest

Monitoring for effects on the social and economic environments will be based on 

information generated by the recurring National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys. These surveys 

provide data related to use of KNF facilities and economic investment of users. Effects on the 

social environment are more difficult to measure. As opportunities for recreational activities 

change, so may the lifestyles, attitudes, values and beliefs of user groups. Maintaining working 

relationships with user groups and following public involvement procedures should provide an 

appropriate means of understanding changes in the social environment in the future. 

One aspect of the social environment that has been highlighted is the satisfaction of residents 

on private land adjacent to the KNF. This aspect can be monitored through future comments and 

complaints from this group. Concentrated use of routes, and the resulting safety and satisfaction 

of all motorized vehicle users, can be monitored by accident reports and comments or complaints 

from users.

Monitoring of other resource impacts is part of LRMP implementation monitoring. Results of 

such monitoring are included in the annual Klamath National Forest Monitoring Report and the 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Process report on the KNF website.

Mitigations Applicable to All Action Alternatives 

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

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

necessary for open riding areas, perimeter signing will be installed.

Stream or channel crossings and approaches will be rocked; approach angles will be modified 

as needed. The minimum amount of vegetation will be removed consistent with safety and 

rocking needs.

Wilderness boundaries will be clearly signed when any road approaches within 1⁄4 mile.

Limited physical restoration, barricading, and naturalization treatments may occur at the point 

of closure for unauthorized routes not included in the NFTS. These actions are authorized 

under the action alternatives without further NEPA, as long as the following conditions are 

met:

Ground disturbance is limited to the currently impacted surface of the unauthorized road or 

trail. 

Natural materials, if needed for blocking or restoring the surface, are either gathered within 

close proximity (approximately 30 feet) of the route edge, or imported from a site covered 

under a separate site-specific NEPA decision.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 21

Adequate site clearance is conducted to ensure no natural or cultural resources will be 

negatively affected by the work in the immediate vicinity of the planned activities.

Seasons of use will be implemented on some roads and motorized trails to accommodate a 

variety of resource concerns:

Deer winter range: May 1 – October 30 

Public Safety – separation of uses (separate snowmobiles from motorized vehicles other than 

over-snow vehicles): May 1 – December 25

Swainson's hawk nest site (other than on the BVNG): August 16 - April 14

If unauthorized routes are designated, they will be brought up to standard (where necessary) 

prior to use by the public. Such activities may include surface repair, brushing out, 

construction of drainage structures such as water bars or rolling dips, and grading. All work 

will be confined to the area currently disturbed by the unauthorized route. The details on the 

routes and mitigations are listed in appendix A.

Share-the-Road signs will be installed on ML 3 roads selected for mixed use to inform drivers 

of highway-legal vehicles that the route is open for use by non-highway-legal vehicles

Adequate stopping sight distance on curves of mixed use roads will be maintained by 

brushing as needed.

Mixed use roads will be closed to non-highway legal vehicles and/or other traffic through use 

of a Forest Order when commercial traffic (e.g. logging or chip trucks) is scheduled.

Routes through ultramafic rock proposed for mixed use have been tested for the presence of 

asbestos. Asbestos is not present in quantities beyond the threshold deemed unsafe for 

motorized use of rural routes. Therefore, the KNF will not provide additional information to 

the public regarding safe use of these roads and methods for reducing exposure.

Alternatives 5 & 6 only: One cultural resource site near a route will be visually screened by 

placement of cut vegetation, and will receive a complete item-by-item inventory.

Implementation of the above work would not preclude future management decisions made 

after conducting appropriate site-specific analysis under NEPA (such as converting a NFTS road 

or trail to a mountain bike trail or more extensive decommissioning of the route, using heavy 

machinery, etc.), if the need for such actions was deemed necessary.

As soon as practical after the completion of this plan, a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

will be created and made available to the public at no cost. This map is the legal document 

designating which routes on the Forest may be legally traveled with a motorized vehicle, by what 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

22 Klamath National Forest

type of vehicle, and any seasonal or other use restrictions. Designation of routes, use restrictions, 

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

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

system, the MVUM will be periodically revised and reissued.

Descriptions of the Alternatives

This section describes each of the seven alternatives considered in detail. Each alternative is 

described in six parts: 

1) Prohibition of cross-country travel: All of the action alternatives prohibit motor vehicle 

travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS motorized trails, and areas by the public except as 

allowed by permit or other authorization. Prohibition of cross-country travel is included in 

order to address the need to regulate unmanaged motor vehicle use.

2) Forest Plan Amendment: All of the action alternatives include a non-significant amendment 

to the Klamath NF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to address the need to 

conform with the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B (36 CFR 212). The amendment 

includes the following components:

Amend forest-wide standard and guideline 12-11 to read: ―Prohibit motorized vehicle travel 

(with the exception of snowmobiles) off designated roads, trails and open riding areas except 

as allowed by the motor vehicle use map, permit, or other authorization.‖

Amend Table 4-1 to read ―Open Riding Areas (acres), Roads and Trails (miles)‖, and include 

the number of acres and miles available to OHV use from the selected alternative.

Alternative 7 includes a second amendment (described under that alternative)

3) Addition of Unauthorized Routes as Roads: Some action alternatives would add 

unauthorized routes as roads to the NFTS by vehicle class and season of use. Additions are 

considered in order to respond to the need to provide motor vehicle access to dispersedrecreation areas, and to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities. For 

purposes of this analysis, each of these routes is identified by a unique number, and each has

a proposed road management objective (RMO). Each route is individually addressed in 

Appendix A, which includes the permitted season of use.

4) Addition of Unauthorized Routes as Motorized Trails: Some action alternatives would 

add unauthorized routes as motorized trails to the NFTS by vehicle class and season of use. 

Additions are considered in order to respond to the need to provide a diversity of motorized 

recreation opportunities. For purposes of this analysis, each of these routes is identified by a 

unique number, and each has a proposed trail management objective (TMO). Each trail is 

individually addressed in Appendix A, which includes the permitted seasons of use .
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 23

5) Motorized Open Riding Area Additions: Some action alternatives include proposals of 

discrete, specifically delineated open riding areas for motor vehicle use. Additions are 

considered in order to respond to the need to provide a diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities. For purposes of this analysis, each proposed area is identified by name, size 

(acreage), and season of use. 

6) Changes to NFTS: a) Vehicle class - The action alternatives may include limited changes to 

the vehicle class allowed on existing NFTS roads. Vehicle class indicates the type of vehicle 

(passenger car, motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, etc.) permitted to travel on a road or trail. 

Some alternatives may add vehicle classes to roads where that use is currently prohibited to 

increase motorized vehicle opportunities. Some alternatives may remove vehicle classes from 

roads where that use is currently allowed to respond to the needs of adjacent landowners. b) 

Opening closed roads – Some alternatives include opening one or two NFTS roads to public 

use where such use is currently prohibited to enhance motorized recreation by creating a loop 

opportunity. These changes respond to the need to provide a diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities and access. c) Maintenance Levels – Alternative 7 includes changing 

maintenance levels (from ML3 to ML2) per recommendations in the Mixed Use Analysis. d) 

Season of Use - While the direction guiding development of this project allowed for changing 

season of use on NFTS roads, the alternatives analyzed in this document do not include any 

such proposals. Changes in season of use on NFTS roads are not further addressed.

Alternative 1

The no action alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the no 

action alternative, no changes would be made to the NFTS and there would be no prohibition of 

cross-country travel (see Table 2-1). Current management plans would continue to guide project 

area management. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM) would be published. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be 

limited to designated routes. Unauthorized routes would continue to proliferate and would have 

no status or authorization as NFTS facilities.

1) Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized use areas would continue except as otherwise prohibited.

2) Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would not be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3) Additions of roads: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as roads under this 

alternative.

4) Additions of motorized trails: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails under this alternative.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

24 Klamath National Forest

5) Motorized open riding area additions: No motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative.

6) Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class - No change would be made to the NFTS vehicle 

class under this alternative. b) Opening closed roads – No roads currently closed would be 

opened. c) Changing Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis – none proposed under this alternative.

Table 2-1 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A map displaying

this alternative is included in digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be 

found in the project record located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka 

CA.

Table 2-1. Alternative 1 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country motorized travel Permitted on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 0

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 0 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

0 miles

0 miles

0 / 0miles

0 / 0 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 0 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 0 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1 - October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

0 / 0 miles

0 / 0 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 0 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

0 acres

0 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class:

 ML 3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles

 ML 2 - Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

 Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles)

 Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

Alternative 2

The proposed action was developed by an ID team using input on public-identified inventoried 

unauthorized routes, maintenance level (ML) 1 roads, and mixed use on ML 3 roads. It includes 

proposals to prohibit cross-country motorized travel, change the existing NFTS, and add to the 

NFTS as described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 

195). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 25

1. Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized open riding areas would be prohibited, except as allowed 

by permit or other authorization.

2. Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3. Additions of roads: Under this alternative, 258 unauthorized routes totaling 24 miles would 

be added to the NFTS as roads to access dispersed recreation sites; 84 unauthorized routes 

totaling 54 miles would be added to the NFTS as roads to provide a diversity of motorized

recreation opportunities.

4. Additions of motorized trails: 22 unauthorized routes for a total of 14 miles would be 

added to the NFTS as motorized trails.

5. Motorized open riding area additions: 2 motorized open riding areas would be added under 

this alternative, the Humbug Open Riding Area of 5 acres and the Juniper Flat Open Riding 

Area of 60 acres for a total of 65 acres.

6. Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class – i) vehicle class would be changed on portions or all 

of 24 roads from highway-legal only, to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal allowed 

(allow mixed use). ii) Vehicle class would be changed on portions or all of 8 roads from both 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal, to highway-legal only allowed (prohibit mixed use). 

b) Opening closed roads – Two currently closed ML 1 roads would be opened. c) Changing 

Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the Motorized Mixed Use 

Analysis – none proposed under this alternative. 

Table 2-2 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails, and open riding areas to be added to the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if 

applicable, season of use) can be found in Appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is 

included in digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project 

record located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-2. Alternative 2 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country motorized travel Prohibited on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 1

 Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 78 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

23 miles

54 miles

13 / 7.29miles

1 / 1.43 miles
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

26 Klamath National Forest

Action type Action proposed

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 14 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

3.77 miles

1.91 miles

0.18 miles

8.29 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 14 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

18 / 13.02 miles

4/ 1.13 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 65 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

60 acres

5 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class:

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

 Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles)

 Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles)

88 milesa

10 miles

9.96 miles

0 miles

a - After the NOI was published, this number was validated and should actually be 119 miles. Specialists analyzed all the 

proposed mixed use roads using the larger numbers, so the mileages listed in the Resource sections may conflict with this 

value.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would prohibit cross-country travel, and proposes no new additions to the NFTS. 

This alternative also provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of other alternatives that 

propose changes to the NFTS. None of the unauthorized roads, trails, or areas would be added to 

the NFTS. Alternative 3 also responds to issues 2-4 (cost, maintenance, wilderness, quiet use, and 

natural resource impacts).

1. Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized use areas would be prohibited, except as allowed by permit 

or other authorization. 

2. Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3. Additions of roads: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as roads under this 

alternative.

4. Additions of motorized trails: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as 

motorized trails under this alternative.

5. Motorized open riding area additions: No motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative.

6. Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class - No changes would be made to the NFTS vehicle 

classes under this alternative. b) Opening closed roads – No roads currently closed would be 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 27

opened. c) Changing Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis – none proposed under this alternative. 

Table 2-3 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails, and areas to be added to the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if applicable, 

season of use) can be found in Appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is included in 

digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project record 

located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-3. Alternative 3- summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country travel Prohibited on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 1

 Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 0 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

 0 miles

0 miles

0 / 0miles

0 / 0 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 0 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 0 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

0 / 0 miles

0 / 0 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 0 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

0 acres

0 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class: 

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles 

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 responds to issues 2-4 (cost, maintenance, wilderness, quiet use, and natural 

resource impacts) by prohibiting cross-country travel and adding a few routes to the NFTS.

1) Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized use areas would be prohibited, except as allowed by permit 

or other authorization. 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

28 Klamath National Forest

2) Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3) Additions of roads: Under this alternative, 25 unauthorized routes totaling less than 2 miles 

would be added as roads to the NFTS for accessing dispersed recreation sites; 12 

unauthorized routes totaling 4 miles would be added as roads to the NFTS to provide a 

diversity of motorized recreation opportunities.

4) Additions of motorized trails: Two unauthorized routes for a total of less than 1 mile would 

be added as motorized trails to the NFTS.

5) Motorized open riding area additions: No motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative.

6) Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class – i) Vehicle class would be changed on portions or all 

of 25 roads from highway-legal only, to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal allowed 

(allow mixed use). ii) Vehicle class would be changed on portions or all of 6 roads from both 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal, to highway-legal only allowed (prohibit mixed use). 

b) Opening closed roads – No currently closed roads would be opened. c) Changing 

Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the Motorized Mixed Use 

Analysis – none proposed under this alternative. 

Table 2-4 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails and areas to be added into the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if applicable, 

season of use) can be found in appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is included in digital 

format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project record located at the 

Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-4. Alternative 4 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country travel Prohibited on 1.2 million 

ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 1

 Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 6 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

2 miles

4 miles

0 / 0miles

0 / 0 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 1 mile

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

0 miles

0.73 miles

0 miles

0 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 1 mile

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

0 / 0 miles

2 / 0.73 miles
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 29

Action type Action proposed

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 0 acres

 Juniper Flat

 Humbug

0 acres

0 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class : 

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles 

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

119 miles

7.66 miles

0 miles

0 miles

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 responds to the first significant issue from Chapter 1 (amount of access and 

motorized recreation opportunity). This alternative is based on alternative 6, with additional 

routes and mixed use to provide more access and motorized recreation opportunity. 

1) Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized use areas would be prohibited, except as allowed by permit 

or other authorization. 

2) Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3) Additions of roads: Under this alternative, 206 unauthorized routes totaling 30 miles would 

be added as roads to the NFTS for accessing dispersed recreation sites; 29 unauthorized 

routes totaling 17 miles would be added as roads to the NFTS to provide a diversity of 

motorized recreation opportunities.

4) Additions of motorized trails: 33 unauthorized routes for a total of 22 miles would be 

added as motorized trails to the NFTS.

5) Motorized open riding area additions: Two motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative, the Humbug Open Riding Area of 5 acres and the Juniper Flat Open 

Riding Area of 48 acres for a total of 53 acres.

6) Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class – i) Vehicle class would be changed on portions or 

all of 272 roads from highway-legal only, to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

allowed (allow mixed use). ii) Vehicle class would be changed on portions or all of 7 roads 

from both highway-legal and non-highway-legal, to highway-legal only allowed (prohibit 

mixed use). b) Opening closed roads – One currently closed ML 1 road would be opened. c) 

Changing Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the Motorized 

Mixed Use Analysis – none proposed under this alternative. 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

30 Klamath National Forest

Table 2-5 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails, and areas to be added to the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if applicable, 

season of use) can be found in Appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is included in 

digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project record 

located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-5. Alternative 5 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country travel Prohibited on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 1

 Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 48 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles 

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

30 miles

17 miles

4 / 0.68miles

1 / 1.43 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 22 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

3.82 miles

4.49 miles

0 miles

13.46 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 22 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

31 / 21.33 miles

1 / 0.44 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 53 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

48 acres

5 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class:

 

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles 

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

272 miles

7.66 miles

4.66 miles

0 miles

Alternative 6 

The original proposed action was developed to meet the purpose and need described in the 

October 7, 2008 Notice of Intent. Additional field reconnaissance and analysis of the existing data 

led to refinement of the proposed action. These refinements include:

Removing routes that are overgrown and/or show no sign of use, do not meet the purpose and 

need, do not meet policy, or are inaccessible.

Removing an invalid polygon in T43N R4W S26 MDM.

Correcting the designation of the Long Gulch road from a ML 3 NFTS road to a county road.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 31

Correcting the designation of road 40N51 from closed to open. 

Adding several unauthorized routes as roads and motorized trails to make loops.

Extending the area of proposed mixed use on ML 3 roads to connect loops.

Updating the number of roads and total mileage proposed for mixed use.

Adding a season of use to the Humbug open riding area of May 1-October 31.

Correcting the vehicle class for developed river access along Highway 96 to highway-legal 

only.

This alternative includes:

1) Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized use areas would be prohibited, except as allowed by permit 

or other authorization. 

2) Forest Plan Amendment: The Klamath Forest Plan would be amended to conform to the 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B.

3) Additions of roads: Under this alternative, 164 unauthorized routes totaling 26 miles would 

be added as roads to the NFTS for accessing dispersed recreation sites; 26 unauthorized 

routes totaling 15 miles would be added as roads to the NFTS to provide a diversity of 

motorized recreation opportunities.

4) Additions of motorized trails: Thirty unauthorized routes for a total of 18 miles would be 

added as motorized trails to the NFTS.

5) Motorized open riding area additions: Two motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative, the Humbug Open Riding Area of 5 acres and the Juniper Flat Open 

Riding Area of 48 acres for a total of 53 acres.

6) Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class – i) vehicle class would be changed on portions or all 

of 21 roads from highway-legal only, to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal allowed 

(allow mixed use). ii) vehicle class would be changed on portions or all of 7 roads from both 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal, to highway-legal only allowed (prohibit mixed use). 

b) Opening closed roads – 1 currently closed ML 1 road would be opened. c) Changing 

Maintenance Level (from ML 3 to ML 2) per recommendations in the Motorized Mixed Use 

Analysis – none proposed under this alternative. 

Table 2-6 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails, and areas to be added to the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if applicable, 

season of use) can be found in Appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is included in 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

32 Klamath National Forest

digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project record 

located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-6. Alternative 6 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country travel Prohibited on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 1

 Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 41 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to all vehicles

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

25 miles

14 miles

3 / 0.33miles

1 / 1.43 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 18 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

3.61 miles

4.49 miles

0 miles

10.35 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 18 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

28 / 17.98 miles

1 / 0.44 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 53 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

48 acres

5 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class : 

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles 

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

105 miles

7.66 miles

4.66 miles

0 miles

Alternative 7

Alternative 7 is based on responding to the public comment on the DEIS, additional field 

reconnaissance and analysis of the existing data, and corrections of errors. These responses and 

corrections include those proposed in Alternative 6 of the DEIS and the following:

Adding 3 unauthorized routes as roads available for highway legal vehicles only (12.8 miles) 

in the Butte Valley National Grassland (BVNG) that had inadvertently been omitted from the 

action alternative maps. Further information on the Butte Valley National Grassland is 

provided in the Affected Environment section of Chapter 3.

Clarifying the difference between routes that access dispersed recreation sites (short spurs 

less than 1⁄2 mile each) and other routes to provide a variety of recreational experience by type 

of vehicle likely to use each type of route.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 33

Removing from consideration 3 routes to dispersed recreation sites and one route (0.22) 

previously proposed as a road due to field review which indicated additional resource 

concerns.

Removing from consideration 3 routes previously proposed as motorized trails (1.34 miles)

that were determined to be inappropriate for designation due to field review that indicated 

lack of connectivity with other roads, proposed roads, or proposed trails, because their 

location was not clearly evident on the ground, or due to resource concerns with a stream 

crossing; identifying one trail (0.75 miles) for vehicles 50‖ or less in width.

Implementing the results of the Motorized Mixed Use Analysis to convert 130 miles of ML 3 

road to ML 2 and allow non-highway legal vehicle use on 131 miles of ML 3 road.

This alternative includes:

1) Cross-country travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, NFTS trails, 

and outside designated motorized open riding areas would be prohibited, except as allowed 

by permit or other authorization. 

2) Forest Plan Amendments: (1) the KNF LRMP would be amended to conform to the Travel 

Management Rule, Subpart B; and (2) the KNF LRMP would be amended to exempt 3 routes 

added to the NFTS in the BVNG from the seasonal restriction in Forest-wide Standard and 

Guideline (S&G) 8-37.

3) Additions of roads: Under this alternative, 192 unauthorized routes totaling 25.09 miles 

would be added as roads to the NFTS for accessing dispersed recreation sites; 32

unauthorized routes totaling 28.33 miles would be added to the NFTS to provide a diversity 

of motorized recreation opportunities (29 routes totaling 14 miles open to all types of 

motorized vehicles and 14 miles open to highway-legal vehicles only; 13 of the latter on the 

Butte Valley National Grassland).

4) Additions of motorized trails: Twenty-eight unauthorized routes for a total of 20.59 miles 

would be added as motorized trails to the NFTS.

5) Motorized open riding area additions: Two motorized open riding areas would be added 

under this alternative, the Humbug Open Riding Area of 5 acres and the Juniper Flat Open 

Riding Area of 48 acres for a total of 53 acres.

6) Changes to the NFTS: a) Vehicle class – i) vehicle class would be changed on portions or all 

of 14 roads from highway-legal only to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal allowed 

(allow mixed use) for a total of 131 miles, ii) vehicle class would be changed on portions or 

all of 7 roads for a total of 8 miles from both highway-legal and non-highway-legal, to 

highway-legal only allowed (prohibit mixed use); b) Opening closed roads – 1 currently 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

34 Klamath National Forest

closed ML 1 road would be opened; c) Changing maintenance level (from ML 3 to ML 2) 

per recommendations in the Motorized Mixed Use Analysis on 130 miles of 18 roads. While 

the templates guiding development of this project allow for changing season of use on NFTS 

roads, the alternatives analyzed in this document do not include any such proposals.

Table 2-7 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete listing 

of roads, trails, and areas to be added to the NFTS (including the vehicle class and, if applicable, 

season of use) can be found in Appendix A. A map displaying this alternative is included in 

digital format on the CD attached to this document, and may be found in the project record 

located at the Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office in Yreka CA.

Table 2-7. Alternative 7 - summary of actions

Action type Action proposed

1. Cross-country travel Prohibited on 1.2 million ac.

2. Forest Plan Amendments 2

Prohibit cross-country motorized travel

Exempt 3 roads in BVNG from restrictions in forest-wide S&G 8-37

3. Additions of Roads to the NFTS 53 miles

Roads added to access dispersed recreation sites – open to all vehicles 

Roads added to provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities:

 open to highway legal vehicles only

 # of roads/miles with season of use May 1 – October 31

 # of roads/miles with season of use August 16 - April14

24 miles

14 miles

 4 / 0.68miles

0 / 0 miles

4a. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Type of Vehicle 21 miles

 Motorcycle Only

 All Trail Vehicles

 All Vehicle Types

 Vehicles 50” or less in width

3.82 miles

3.44 miles

0 miles

13.33 miles

4b. Additions of Motorized Trails to the NFTS by Season of Use 21 miles

 # of trails/miles with season of use May 1-October 31

 # of trails/miles with year round use

27 / 20.15 miles

1 / 0.44 miles

5. Motorized Open Riding Areas added 53 acres

Juniper Flat

Humbug

48 acres

5 acres

6. Changes to the NFTS

Vehicle Class 

 ML3 – Open to both highway licensed & non-highway licensed vehicles 

 ML2 – Open to highway licensed vehicles only (mixed use removed)

 Convert ML 1 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

Convert ML 3 roads to ML 2 (open to all vehicles) 

131 miles*

7.66 miles

4.66 miles

130 miles

*This number does not include the mileage of ML 3 roads that were recommended for conversion to ML 2 in 

the Motorized Mixed Use Analysis. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 35

Comparison of Alternatives

This section of chapter 2 compares the alternatives by summarizing key differences between the 

alternatives (Table 2-8) and provides a summary of the effects analysis for all alternatives (Table 

2-9). Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives in detail.

Table 2-8. Comparison of alternatives

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Cross-country Travel

Allowed 

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Prohibited

on 1.2 

million 

acres

Forest Plan Amendment No Yes-1 Yes-1 Yes-1 Yes-1 Yes-1 Yes-2

Additions 

to the NFTS 

(roads)

Roads added 

to access 

dispersed 

recreation 

sites (routes)

0 258 0 25 206 164 192

Roads added 

to access 

dispersed 

recreation 

sites (miles)

0 24 0 1.71 30.56 26.3 25.09

Other Roads 

added to 

provide a 

diversity of 

motorized 

recreation 

opportunities 

(routes)

0 84 0 12 29 26 32

Other Roads 

added to 

provide a 

diversity of 

motorized 

recreation 

opportunities 

(miles)

0 54 0 4.45 16.69 14.58 28.33

Motorized Trails Added 

(routes) 0 22 0 2 33 30 28

Motorized Trails Added 

(miles) 0 14 0 0.73 21.77 18.42 20.59

Motorized Open Riding Areas 

added None

Humbug

Juniper 

Flat

None None

Humbug

Juniper 

Flat

Humbug

Juniper 

Flat

Humbug

Juniper 

Flat

Motorized Open Riding Areas 

added (acres) 0 65 0 0 53 53 53

Changes to 

the NFTS

Mixed Use 

Added (#) 0 24 0 25 33 21 14

Mixed Use 

Added (miles) 0 88a

0 119.25 271.80 105.21 131.45

Mixed Use 

Removed (#) 0 8 0 7 7 7 7

Mixed Use 

Removed 

(miles)

0 10 0 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 

Open Closed 

Roads (#) 0 2 0 0 1 1 1
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

36 Klamath National Forest

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Changes to 

the NFTS

Open Closed 

Roads (miles) 0 9.96 0 0 4.66 4.66 4.66

Add Mixed 

Use by 

Converting 

ML 3 road to 

ML 2 (#)

0 0 0 0 0 0 18

Add Mixed 

Use by 

Converting 

ML 3 road to 

ML 2 (miles)

0 0 0 0 0 0 130.15

Total 

Resulting 

NFTS 

Roads b

ML 1 - ML 5 

(miles) 4536 4614 4536 4542 4583 4577 4589

a - After the NOI was published; this number was validated and should actually be 119 miles. Specialists analyzed all the 

proposed mixed use roads using the 119 figure, so the mileages listed in the Resource sections may conflict with this 

value.

b - Excluding roads added or removed by ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 37

Table 2-9. Comparison of environmental effects of alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7

Recreation

Highest mileage 

and most area 

available for 

motorized 

recreation with 

least amount of 

limitations. 

Greatest access 

for dispersed rec, 

highest impacts 

on quiet 

recreation 

activities.

Provides for a 

diversity of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities, 

including motorized 

trails and 2 open 

riding areas. Good 

access to dispersed 

sites. Provides 

substantial benefits 

for quiet recreation by 

prohibiting crosscountry motorized 

travel.

Least mileage and 

area available for 

motorized use. Does 

not provide any 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation 

sites. Highest amount 

of acreage available 

for quiet recreation 

through prohibition of 

cross-country 

motorized travel.

Little mileage and no 

areas available for 

motorized use; little 

diversity of motorized 

access opportunity. 

Few motorized access 

routes to dispersed 

sites. Opportunities for 

quiet recreation similar 

to Alt 3.

Provides for a 

diversity of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities, 

including motorized 

trails and 2 open 

riding areas, similar to 

Alt. 2. Good access 

to dispersed sites. 

Provides substantial 

benefits for quiet 

recreation by 

prohibiting crosscountry motorized 

travel.

Provides for a 

diversity of 

motorized recreation 

opportunities, 

including motorized 

trails and 2 open 

riding areas, similar 

to Alt 2. Good 

access to dispersed 

sites. Provides 

substantial benefits 

for quiet recreation 

by prohibiting crosscountry motorized 

travel.

Provides for a 

diversity of motorized 

recreation 

opportunities, 

including motorized 

trails and 2 open 

riding areas, similar to 

Alt 2. Provides 

access to birding 

route on Butte Valley 

National Grassland. 

Good access to 

dispersed sites. 

Provides substantial 

benefits for quiet 

recreation by 

prohibiting crosscountry motorized 

travel.

Transportation

No safety 

concerns from 

mixed use. 

Mixed use provided 

on a variety of roads; 

higher level of safety 

concerns for public in 

mixing types of use.

No safety concerns 

from mixed use or 

cross country travel.

Mixed use provided on 

a variety of roads; 

higher level of safety 

concerns for public in 

mixing types of use.

Mixed use provided 

on a variety of roads; 

higher level of safety 

concerns for public in 

mixing types of use.

Mixed use provided 

on a variety of 

roads; higher level 

of safety concerns 

for public in mixing 

types of use.

Mixed use provided 

on a variety of roads; 

higher level of safety 

concerns for public in 

mixing types of use. 

Less mixed use 

proposed (but similar 

effects for motorized 

travel as alternatives 

2, 5 and 6) as ML3 

roads are converted 

to ML2.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

38 Klamath National Forest

Society/Economics

Meets demand 

for off-road 

travel. Highest 

potential for 

dispersed 

recreation; does 

not provide for 

quiet recreation 

opportunities on 

land allocations 

open to crosscountry 

motorized travel. 

High potential for 

negative effects 

from vehicle 

noise, dust and 

disturbance to 

private 

landowners who 

live adjacent to 

NFS lands. 

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience; 

provides good 

diversity of motorized 

opportunity. Provides 

most motorized 

access to dispersed 

recreation sites of any 

action alternative. 

Provides high level of 

quiet recreation 

opportunities. 

Beneficial effects for 

private landowners 

who live adjacent to 

NFS lands due to 

reduced vehicle 

access and 

disturbance.

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience, 

access to dispersed 

sites, or diversity of 

motorized 

opportunity. Highest 

amount of acreage 

available for quiet 

recreation. Beneficial

effects for private 

landowners who live 

adjacent to NFS 

lands due to reduced 

vehicle access and 

disturbance.

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience, 

limited access to 

dispersed sites, very 

limited diversity of 

motorized opportunity. 

High amount of 

acreage available for 

quiet recreation. 

Beneficial effects for 

private landowners 

who live adjacent to 

NFS lands due to 

reduced vehicle 

access and 

disturbance.

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience; 

provides good 

diversity of motorized 

opportunity. Provides 

high level of 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation. 

High amount of 

acreage available for 

quiet recreation. 

Beneficial effects for 

private landowners 

who live adjacent to 

NFS lands due to 

reduced vehicle 

access and

disturbance.

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience; 

provides good 

diversity of 

motorized 

opportunity. 

Provides high level 

of motorized access 

to dispersed 

recreation. High 

amount of acreage 

available for quiet 

recreation. 

Beneficial effects for 

private landowners 

who live adjacent to 

NFS lands due to 

reduced vehicle 

access and 

disturbance.

Does not meet 

demand for off-road 

driving experience; 

provides good 

diversity of motorized 

opportunity. Provides 

high level of 

motorized access to 

dispersed recreation. 

High amount of 

acreage available for 

quiet recreation. 

Beneficial effects for 

private landowners 

who live adjacent to 

NFS lands due to 

reduced vehicle 

access and 

disturbance.

Visual resources

Potential 

negative effect 

on scenery in the 

long term 

through potential 

for new routes 

that do not meet 

VQOs.

High positive effect 

on visual quality 

through prohibition of 

cross-country travel. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS is consistent 

with ROS and VQO 

designations.

High positive effect 

on visual quality 

through prohibition of 

cross-country travel 

and long-term visual 

recovery of routes.

High positive effect on 

visual quality through 

prohibition of crosscountry travel. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS is consistent 

with ROS and VQO 

designations.

High positive effect 

on visual quality 

through prohibition of 

cross-country travel. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS is consistent 

with ROS and VQO 

designations. 

High positive effect 

on visual quality 

through prohibition 

of cross-country 

travel. Addition of 

routes to NFTS is 

consistent with ROS 

and VQO 

designations.

High positive effect on 

visual quality through 

prohibition of crosscountry travel. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS is consistent 

with ROS and VQO 

designations.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 39

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Noise, dust and 

physical intrusion 

from crosscountry 

motorized travel 

continue to 

adversely affect 

some roadless 

characteristics in 

both IRAs and 

CIRAs.

Roadless 

characteristics 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively recover to 

natural conditions. 

Adding routes to 

NFTS affects limited 

acreage in CIRAs.

Roadless 

characteristics 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively recover to 

natural conditions.

Roadless 

characteristics improve 

over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively recover to 

natural conditions. 

Adding routes to NFTS 

affects limited acreage 

in CIRAs.

Roadless 

characteristics 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively recover to 

natural conditions. 

Adding routes to 

NFTS affects limited 

acreage in CIRAs.

Roadless 

characteristics 

improve over time 

as unauthorized 

routes passively 

recover to natural 

conditions. Adding 

routes to NFTS 

affects limited 

acreage in CIRAs.

Roadless 

characteristics 

improve over time as 

unauthorized routes 

passively recover to 

natural conditions. 

Adding routes to 

NFTS affects limited 

acreage in CIRAs.

Air Resources

Effects on air 

quality and 

greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered 

neutral, as the 

total amount of 

motorized use on 

the KNF will 

remain relatively 

static. 

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, 

as the total amount of 

motorized use on the 

KNF will remain 

relatively static.

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, 

as the total amount of 

motorized use on the 

KNF will remain 

relatively static. 

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, as 

the total amount of 

motorized use on the 

KNF will remain 

relatively static.

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, 

as the total amount of 

motorized use on the 

KNF will remain 

relatively static. 

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, 

as the total amount 

of motorized use on 

the KNF will remain 

relatively static. 

Effects on air quality 

and greenhouse gas 

emissions are 

considered neutral, as 

the total amount of 

motorized use on the 

KNF will remain 

relatively static.

Cultural 

Resources

Cross-country 

motorized travel 

and potential 

route proliferation 

negatively affect 

cultural 

resources

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects cultural 

resources on 1.2 

million acres of KNF. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS will have no 

identified negative 

effects.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects cultural 

resources on 1.2 

million acres of KNF.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects cultural 

resources on 1.2 

million acres of KNF. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS will have no 

identified negative 

effects.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects cultural 

resources on 1.2 

million acres of KNF. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS will have no 

identified negative 

effects.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects 

cultural resources 

on 1.2 million acres 

of KNF. Addition of 

routes to NFTS will 

have no identified 

negative effects.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel protects cultural 

resources on 1.2 

million acres of KNF. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS will have no 

identified negative 

effects.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

40 Klamath National Forest

Geological Resources

3,325 acres of 

unstable land will 

be open for offroad motorized 

travel, increasing 

potential for 

landslides. 

Unrestricted 

access to 58,000 

acres of lands 

underlain by 

ultramafic rock 

(potential 

exposure to 

asbestiform dust) 

and 216 

minesites could 

negatively affect 

public safety.

Landslide risk would

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 

3,325 acres of 

unstable lands. Public 

safety would be 

enhanced through 

prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel (eliminates 

exposure to 

asbestiform dust and 

mine sites). Some 

landslide risk remains 

due to 19 miles of 

routes in unstable 

land added to NFTS. 

Changes in NFTS 

through addition of 

mixed use will not 

affect public health.

Landslide risk would 

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 

3,325 acres of 

unstable lands. Public 

safety would be 

enhanced through 

prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel (eliminates 

exposure to 

asbestiform dust and 

mine sites).

Landslide risk would 

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 3,325 

acres of unstable 

lands. Public safety 

would be enhanced 

through prohibition of 

cross-country 

motorized travel 

(eliminates exposure 

to asbestiform dust 

and mine sites). 

Changes in NFTS 

through addition of 

mixed use will not 

affect public health.

Landslide risk would 

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 

3,325 acres of 

unstable lands. Public 

safety would be 

enhanced through 

prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel (eliminates 

exposure to 

asbestiform dust and 

mine sites). Some 

landslide risk remains 

due to 16 miles of 

routes in unstable 

land added to NFTS. 

Changes in NFTS 

through addition of 

mixed use will not 

affect public health.

Landslide risk would 

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 

3,325 acres of 

unstable lands. 

Public safety would 

be enhanced 

through prohibition 

of cross-country 

motorized travel 

(eliminates exposure 

to asbestiform dust 

and mine sites). 8 

miles of routes in 

unstable land added 

to NFTS. Some 

landslide risk 

remains due to 16 

miles of routes in 

unstable land added 

to NFTS. Changes 

in NFTS through 

addition of mixed 

use will not affect 

public health.

Landslide risk would 

decrease due to 

prohibition of crosscountry travel on 

3,325 acres of 

unstable lands. Public 

safety would be 

enhanced through 

prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel (eliminates 

exposure to 

asbestiform dust and 

mine sites). 8 miles of 

routes in unstable 

land added to NFTS. 

Some landslide risk 

remains due to 16 

miles of routes in 

unstable land added 

to NFTS. Changes in 

NFTS through 

addition of mixed use 

will not affect public 

health.

Soil Resources

497 miles of 

unauthorized 

routes will 

continue to be 

used; route 

proliferation 

could result in 

additional routes 

being created. At 

a minimum, soil 

productivity will 

be foregone on 

874 acres of 

routes in the long 

term.

92 miles of routes 

and 65 acres of open 

riding area will be 

added to the NFTS; 

soil productivity will 

be foregone in the 

long term on 249 

acres. As 

undesignated routes 

recover, soil 

productivity will return 

on 690 acres.

497 miles of 

unauthorized routes 

are allowed to 

recover; in the long 

term, soil productivity 

will return on 874 

acres.

7 miles of routes will 

be added to the NFTS; 

soil productivity will be 

foregone in the long 

term on 14 acres. As 

undesignated routes 

recover, soil 

productivity will return 

on 860 acres.

69 miles of routes 

and 53 acres of open 

riding area will be 

added to the NFTS; 

soil productivity will 

be foregone in the 

long term on 191 

acres. As 

undesignated routes 

recover, soil 

productivity will return 

on 736 acres.

59 miles of routes 

and 53 acres of 

open riding area will 

be added to the 

NFTS; soil 

productivity will be 

foregone in the long 

term on 171 acres. 

As undesignated 

routes recover, soil 

productivity will 

return on 756 acres.

74 miles of routes and 

53 acres of open 

riding area will be 

added to the NFTS; 

soil productivity will 

be foregone in the 

long term on 211 

acres. As 

undesignated routes 

recover, soil 

productivity will return 

on 716 acres.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 41

Hydrology

Route 

proliferation from 

cross-country 

motorized travel 

can increase 

road densities,

mileage of routes 

in riparian 

reserves. Trafficgenerated 

sediment

continues to be 

generated on 

497 miles of 

routes. No 

negative effect 

on beneficial 

uses of water.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential 

for new routes in 

riparian reserves. 

Road densities 

decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. Addition 

of routes to NFTS 

does not negatively 

affect beneficial uses. 

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential 

for new routes in 

riparian reserves. 

Road densities 

decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. There 

are no negative 

effects on beneficial 

uses.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential for 

new routes in riparian 

reserves. Road 

densities decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. Addition 

of routes to NFTS 

does not negatively 

affect beneficial uses.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential 

for new routes in 

riparian reserves. 

Road densities 

decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. Addition 

of routes to NFTS 

does not negatively 

affect beneficial uses.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential 

for new routes in 

riparian reserves. 

Road densities 

decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS does not 

negatively affect 

beneficial uses.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces 

watershed effects; 

eliminates potential 

for new routes in 

riparian reserves. 

Road densities 

decrease 

substantially in all 

watersheds. Addition 

of routes to NFTS 

does not negatively 

affect beneficial uses.

Fisheries

Cross-country 

motorized travel 

has the potential 

to negatively 

affect TES fish 

species through 

direct effects at 

14 stream 

crossings, and 

degradation of 

habitat from new 

routes on 1.2 

million acres.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species by reducing 

direct and indirect 

disturbance. 

Eliminating 12 stream 

crossings has direct 

beneficial effects. 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS does not 

adversely affect TES 

fish.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species through 

reduction of direct 

and indirect effects. 

Eliminating 14 stream 

crossings has 

beneficial direct 

effects.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species through 

reduction of direct and 

indirect effects. 

Eliminating 13 stream 

crossings has 

beneficial direct 

effects. Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not adversely affect 

TES fish.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species through 

reduction of direct 

and indirect effects. 

Eliminating 11 stream 

crossings has 

beneficial direct 

effects. Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not adversely affect 

TES fish.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species through 

reduction of direct 

and indirect effects. 

Eliminating 11 

stream crossings 

has beneficial direct 

effects. Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not adversely affect 

TES fish.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on TES fish 

species through 

reduction of direct 

and indirect effects. 

Eliminating 13 stream 

crossings has 

beneficial direct 

effects. Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not adversely affect 

TES fish.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

42 Klamath National Forest

Terrestrial Wildlife

Cross-country 

motorized travel 

has potential to 

negatively 

impact numerous 

wildlife species 

through both 

disturbance and 

removal or 

degradation of 

habitat from new 

routes on 1.2 

million acres.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise and 

elimination of 

potential for loss or 

degradation of 

habitat. Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not negatively affect 

wildlife species or 

habitats.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise and 

elimination of 

potential for loss or 

degradation of habitat 

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise and 

elimination of potential 

for loss or degradation 

of habitat Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not negatively affect 

wildlife species or 

habitats.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise and 

elimination of 

potential for loss or 

degradation of habitat 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS does not 

negatively affect 

wildlife species or 

habitats.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise 

and elimination of 

potential for loss or 

degradation of 

habitat Addition of 

routes to NFTS does 

not negatively affect 

wildlife species or 

habitats.

Prohibition on crosscountry motorized 

travel has beneficial 

effects on numerous 

wildlife species and 

habitats through 

reduction in noise and 

elimination of 

potential for loss or 

degradation of habitat 

Addition of routes to 

NFTS does not 

negatively affect 

wildlife species or 

habitats.

Botanical 

Resources

Cross-country 

motorized travel 

has potential to 

negatively affect 

TES species of 

plants and their 

habitats on 1.2 

million acres.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits to 

TES plants and their 

habitats. None of the 

routes to be added to 

the NFTS affect TES 

plants.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits to 

TES plants and their 

habitats.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits to 

TES plants and their 

habitats. None of the 

routes to be added to 

the NFTS affect TES 

plants.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits to 

TES plants and their 

habitats. None of the 

routes to be added to 

the NFTS affect TES 

plants.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits 

to TES plants and 

their habitats. None 

of the routes to be 

added to the NFTS 

affect TES plants.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel provides 

substantial benefits to 

TES plants and their 

habitats. None of the 

routes to be added to 

the NFTS affect TES 

plants.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 43

Non-native Invasive Species

Cross-country 

motorized travel 

and route 

proliferation have 

potential to 

generate new 

disturbed sites 

and vectors for 

establishment 

and spread of 

non-native plant 

species on 1.2 

million acres. 16 

high risk weed 

sites have been 

identified on 

existing 

unauthorized 

routes.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of nonnative species, and 

eliminates potential 

for creation of new 

vectors through route 

proliferation. Routes 

proposed for addition 

to NFTS are 

associated with 12 

high risk weed sites.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of nonnative species, and 

eliminates potential 

for creation of new 

vectors through route 

proliferation.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of nonnative species, and 

eliminates potential for 

creation of new vectors 

through route 

proliferation. Routes 

proposed for addition 

to NFTS are 

associated with 12 

high risk weed sites.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of nonnative species, and 

eliminates potential 

for creation of new 

vectors through route 

proliferation. Routes 

proposed for addition 

to NFTS are 

associated with 12 

high risk weed sites.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of 

non-native species, 

and eliminates 

potential for creation 

of new vectors 

through route 

proliferation. Routes 

proposed for 

addition to NFTS are 

associated with 12 

high risk weed sites.

Prohibition of crosscountry motorized 

travel reduces soil 

disturbance that can 

create sites for 

establishment of nonnative species, and 

eliminates potential 

for creation of new 

vectors through route 

proliferation. Routes 

proposed for addition 

to NFTS are 

associated with 12 

high risk weed sites.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

44 Klamath National Forest

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not 

developed in detail (40 CFR 15.02.14). The following alternatives were submitted in response to 

the Notice of Intent and Proposed Action published in August 2008.

Alternative A: Add all unauthorized routes to NFTS or permit cross-country 

travel, and maximize motorized opportunities on the existing NFTS

This alternative was developed in response to comments received during scoping (and from the 

public at open houses held in Siskiyou County prior to the NOI) from people who would like to 

add all unauthorized routes to the NFTS and/or permit cross-country travel. This alternative 

would add all of the unauthorized routes that were inventoried, and have no seasonal closures. All 

ML 3 roads would be designated for mixed use.

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need. Many of the inventoried unauthorized 

routes have resource conflicts and create a potential for resource damage if added to the NFTS 

and opened to public use. Adding all of the unauthorized routes would not meet the criteria of 

minimizing damage to soil, vegetation and other Forest resources. Many routes would require 

extensive, expensive work to bring them up to standard. Similarly, many ML 3 roads are 

unsuitable for mixed use due to safety reasons related to design, speed, or level of use. Leaving 

the Forest open to unrestricted cross-country use would not meet the needs of regulating public 

motor vehicle travel and conforming to the Travel Management Rule. 

Alternative B: Allow motorized use of existing NFS non-motorized trails.

This alternative was developed in response to comments received during scoping from people 

who would like motorized use of existing NFS non-motorized trails, such as Trail Creek to 

Siphon Lake, Six Mile Trail, and Deacon Lee Trail. 

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need. Adding motorized use to equestrian and 

foot trails would create conflicts between motor vehicles and existing recreational uses of NFS 

land, and create safety issues associated with those conflicts. In addition, the non-motorized trails 

were not intended for motorized use, and would require engineering review, design, and 

potentially significant reconstruction to accommodate that use. 

Alternative C: Allow dispersed camping access along roads through the 

designation of buffers or corridors where cross-country travel would be 

permitted. 

This alternative was developed in response to comments received during scoping from people 

who would like motorized access to camp away from the road, but not necessarily in a wellestablished site. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

Klamath National Forest 45

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need. Because the Forest has an extensive 

road system, buffers would add a huge area where motorized use and potential resource damage 

can occur, which is inconsistent with the need to regulate motorized use. A slightly more 

restrictive alternative would allow motorized vehicle use within 300 feet of any designated route 

for camping, parking, or other recreation site use. Due to the high density of routes on many 

parts of the KNF, this alternative would have impacts similar to those of the no action alternative.

Alternative D: Designate staging areas in addition to proposed routes and 

NFTS changes. 

This alternative was developed in response to comments received during scoping from people 

who would like staging areas designated in addition to proposed routes and NFTS changes.

Designation of staging areas is outside the scope of this project. OHV users may stage from 

existing designated roads if they are within about 30 feet of the road. Separate staging areas 

would require construction, signing, and possibly other improvements. If needed in the future, 

such areas will be analyzed and authorized under separate analysis processes.

Alternative E: Allow cross-country motorized use off designated routes in 

order to retrieve legally taken big game animals. 

This alternative was developed in response to comments received during scoping from people 

who would like to use motorized vehicles off designated routes to retrieve downed big game. 

Allowing motorized off-road travel to any site where an animal is taken means that all lands 

on the Forest would be open to off-road vehicle use (for a specific purpose) during hunting 

season. While the period of use would be limited (about 8 weeks for rifle and archery seasons), 

the resulting impacts are considered to be similar to, but less intense than, those that would occur 

under the no action alternative. A slightly more restrictive alternative would allow hunters to 

drive up to 300 feet from any designated route to retrieve a big game animal. Due to the high 

road density on many parts of the KNF, this alternative would have impacts similar to one which 

allows unrestricted travel for this purpose.

Alternative F: Add more routes and mixed use. 

This alternative was submitted by a local off-road riding group and local riders. This alternative 

would add more unauthorized routes and more mixed use than any action alternative. It would 

allow motorized use of two non-motorized NFS trails. It would add 1.4 miles of routes, some of 

which were not on the original unauthorized route inventory, to the west of the Juniper Flat open 

riding area on the Goosenest Ranger District.

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project. Many of the unauthorized 

routes proposed in this alternative would not meet the criteria of minimizing damage to soil, 

vegetation, or other Forest resources; and conflicts between motor vehicles and existing 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2: The Alternatives

46 Klamath National Forest

recreational uses of NFS lands. In addition, the non-motorized trails were not intended for 

motorized use, and would require engineering review, design, and potentially significant 

reconstruction to accommodate that use. Many roads proposed for mixed use in this alterntiave 

are unsuitable for simultaneous use by highway and non-highway-legal vehicles due to safety 

reasons related to design, speed, or level of use. 

The area to the north and west of the Juniper Flat open riding area was completely surveyed 

for cultural resources in 2007. Review of the suggested routes indicates that vehicle use is 

currently affecting several identified cultural sites. In January of 2009, representatives from the 

Klamath Tribes visited the area with district personnel. Tribal representatives requested that this 

area be closed to off-road travel in order to eliminate further impacts to identified cultural 

resource sites. The suggested routes do not meet the criterion of minimizing damage to Forest 

resources and will not be evaluated further. 

Alternative G: Add fewer routes and decommission or close existing NFTS 

roads. 

This alternative was submitted by environmental interest organizations. This alternative would 

decommission or close numerous NFTS roads and remove numerous unauthorized routes from 

the proposed action based on concerns for fisheries, wildlife, and citizen inventoried roadless 

areas. 

This alternative is outside the scope of the project. The project‘s purpose and need focuses on 

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which does not address decommissioning of NFTS 

roads. Alternative 3 adds no unauthorized routes, and Alternative 4, which was developed in 

response to public concerns regarding effects to fisheries, wildlife and roadless areas, adds fewer 

unauthorized routes than the proposed action.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 47

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This analysis considers the entire Klamath National Forest (KNF), located primarily in Siskiyou 

County in northern California with a portion (approximately 29,000 acres) in Jackson County, 

Oregon. The 18,400 acre Butte Valley National Grassland (BVNG) is managed by the KNF, and 

is located near the east side of the Forest. Any changes in travel management on the KNF would 

also apply to the BVNG. 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are 

affected by the proposed action and alternatives (affected environment) and the effects on that 

environment that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives (environmental 

consequences). This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the 

alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The affected environment section under each resource topic describes the existing, or 

baseline, condition against which environmental effects were evaluated, and from which progress 

toward the desired condition can be measured. The environmental consequences section forms 

the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives, including the proposed 

action. This section discusses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, along with applicable 

mitigation measures. These terms are defined as follows:

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action.

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Analysis Process

The environmental consequences presented here address the impacts of the actions proposed 

under each alternative for the KNF. This effects analysis was done at the site-specific and forest 

scales (the scale of the proposed action as discussed in Chapter 1). Each route and area proposed 

in the alternatives has been reviewed by resource specialists. These findings are summarized in 

Appendix A. Readers seeking information concerning the environmental effects associated with a 

specific road, trail, or area are directed to this appendix, where mitigation measures or other 

findings are documented. A more detailed display is available in the project planning records in 

the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 Klamath National Forest

For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described 

separately for three discrete actions and then combined to provide the total direct and indirect 

effects of each alternative (see below). The combination of the effects of these discrete actions is 

then added to effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative 

effects analysis. The three discrete actions common to all action alternatives are: 

1) Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel. The direct and indirect effects of this 

action are described generally in each alternative, considering both current conditions and 

projected trends. Both short (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) effects are 

presented. 

2) Addition of new facilities (roads, trails, and/or areas) to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS). As described above, the impacts of new facilities are 

addressed in sum total in this chapter, while impacts of individual routes or areas are 

addressed in Appendix A. For most resources, one or more resource indicators are used to 

measure the direct and indirect effects of each alternative. Both short (1 year) and long-term 

(approximately 20 years) impacts are presented. 

3) Changes to vehicle class on the existing NFTS. Impacts caused by changes to vehicle class 

on the existing NFTS are described generally by alternative. For some impacts (for example 

public safety), impacts are also addressed by route. 

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 KNF including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest 

boundary. 

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 are considered to reflect the aggregate 

impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might 

contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the 

effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There 

are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions 

would be impractical and unduly costly to compile. Current conditions have been impacted by 

innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 49

actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the 

details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects 

of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less 

accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the 

environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and 

every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, 

focusing on the impacts of past human action 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. Third, 

public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information 

on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive 

memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, ―agencies can 

conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of 

past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.‖ Past actions are 

treated similarly in the recently published Forest Service Regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (36 CFR 220). For these reasons, the analysis of past actions 

in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Appendix B lists present and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially contributing to 

cumulative effects. While the appendix lists all actions, every resource is not affected by every 

action. For example, a future project may affect wildlife but not affect water quality.

Affected Environment Overview

There are many aspects of the affected environment shared by all resources. In order to avoid 

repeating these shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section, the 

following general elements of the affected environment are provided.

The Klamath National Forest consists of approximately 1.7 million acres in north central 

California and south central Oregon. On some of the 1.2 million acres of Klamath National 

Forest System (NFS) lands that have long been managed as open to cross-country motor vehicle 

travel, repeated use has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized routes. These routes developed 

without environmental analysis or public involvement, and do not have the same status as NFTS 

roads and NFTS trails included in the forest transportation system. 

The KNF is divided into the east side and west side by Interstate 5. The east side of the KNF, 

approximately 20% of the landbase, consists of the Goosenest Ranger District and the Butte 

Valley National Grassland. This land of relatively gentle terrain was added to the KNF after its 

establishment as a National Forest; the Butte Valley National Grassland (BVNG) was designated 

in 1991; before that it was managed by the KNF as a land use project. The BVNG includes routes 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 Klamath National Forest

that have been maintained by permittees and utility companies; these routes have been used by 

motorized vehicles for years, especially by bird watchers, but were never made part of the NFTS.

The west side of the KNF, approximately 80% of the land, varies from relatively gentle 

to moderately steep terrain west of Interstate 5 to very steep mountains further west. The 

relatively gentle Humbug drainage, just west of the town of Yreka and Interstate 5, was the site of 

mining in the past. Roads were built by mining companies without use of the design standards 

required of NFTS roads. Since the decline of the mines, the resulting unauthorized routes have 

been used by OHV vehicles.

Assumptions Applicable to all Resources

No NEPA decision is necessary to continue use of the NFTS (i.e., OHV and transportation) 

as currently designated and managed under the no action alternative. The decisions to 

construct these roads were made previous to this project.

Unauthorized or user-created roads, trails, and areas are not NFTS facilities. They are 

unauthorized. The agency never took action to create, manage, or construct them for public 

use. Most were created by the public as a result of cross-country travel.

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 not authorized for public use). Any proposal to 

add temporary roads to the NFTS will require a separate NEPA decision.

Any unauthorized routes not included in the proposed action are not precluded from 

consideration for addition to the NFTS in future travel management actions.

The Forest Service 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.

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., fuel-wood permits, motorized special use permits, etc.). Such 

actions are subject to separate NEPA analysis.

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.

For travel management, the Federal action triggering NEPA would be any changes to public 

access from those currently allowed or prohibited (i.e., prohibition of cross-country travel, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 51

changing vehicle class, or closures) and any additions of facilities (roads, trails, or areas) to 

the NFTS.

Previous decisions on the NFTS do not need to be revisited to implement an MVUM or the 

Travel Management Rule. That is, the NFTS consists of existing facilities that either 

underwent NEPA or predate NEPA. Continued motorized use of the system, in accordance 

with existing laws and regulations, does not require NEPA. Since designation is not a Federal 

action subject to NEPA (see #7), no NEPA is needed to designate an existing NFTS facility 

(road, trail, or area) when no changes to current use or management of that facility are 

proposed.

Dispersed camping, as well as any dispersed recreation activity, is not part of the scope of the 

proposed action. These activities are not connected actions to travel management decisions 

because they can be undertaken independently of motorized travel (camping, hunting, fishing, 

hiking, etc.).

Assigning maintenance levels and changes to maintenance levels of roads or trails (where 

vehicle use would be unchanged) is an administrative action and not subject to NEPA. 

However, changes in allowed vehicle class, access, and proposals to construct or reconstruct 

facilities are subject to NEPA.

Law enforcement capability and compliance is being analyzed with the assumption that the 

majority of the public are compliant with laws and regulations (based on field observations) 

and that compliance will increase with implementation of an MVUM.

The newly-designated routes will be signed, and all additions or changes to the NFTS will 

meet standards prior to availability for public use.

The NFTS will continue to be maintained according to the strategies outlined in the Public 

Uses (Roads) white paper in Appendix C.

Resource Reports

Each section in this chapter provides a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, and 

input prepared by Forest Service specialists, which are incorporated by reference in this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Each of the following sections includes a summary of

the report findings, including a description of the methodology used to determine impacts. The 

following reports and memoranda are incorporated by reference: botanical biological assessment

and biological evaluation (BA and BE); BA and BE for fish; BA and BE for terrestrial wildlife; 

socioeconomic report; and the heritage resources report. These reports or memoranda are part of 

the project record on file at the Forest Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California. Copies of most of 

these reports are available upon request by contacting Jan Ford, Project Leader, at 1312 Fairlane 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 Klamath National Forest

Road, Yreka, CA, 96097, or (530)842-6131. The heritage resource report contains confidential 

information and portions of the report are not available to the public.

Route-specific Data

During the planning stages of the travel management project for the Klamath National Forest, 

members of the public recommended changes to the existing NFTS with a focus on unauthorized 

routes. Comments regarding specific routes were also received during the public scoping period 

for the notice of intent (NOI). The Forest developed route cards (summarized in Appendix A and 

contained in the project record) for all routes considered in Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. For these 

routes, each route card identifies the alternative(s) under which the route is proposed, the type of 

vehicles allowed, the season when the route would be open, and any additional work or 

mitigation measures that would be implemented on the route prior to allowing public use. The 

information on the route cards is summarized in Appendix A.

Law Enforcement Assumptions Common to Effects Analyses

The laws and regulations related to travel management 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, there is usually a transitional period for the 

public to understand the changes. It is anticipated there will be a higher number of violations 

to the Travel Management Rule the first few years and the number of violations will decline 

as the users understand and comply with the rules. 

Once the MVUM is published, the implementation of the established dedicated network of 

roads, trails, and areas with signs and user education programs, will reduce the number of 

motor vehicles traveling off of designated routes.

Providing motorized recreation opportunities in popular, key areas will help relieve pressure 

to travel off of designated routes. 

The KNF will give special emphasis to the areas in which most OHV use is likely to occur, 

prioritize and quickly deal with the 1% to 5% of users who create problems, and do so with 

current KNF funds and personnel (with possible additional funds from the State of California 

OHV grant program). 

For more information about law enforcement, see Appendix D.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 53

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP and Other 

Direction 

The National Environmental Policy Act (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 includes a list of applicable laws, regulations, policies and Executive Orders that are 

relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses, and findings required by those laws are addressed in 

those sections. 

National Forest Management Act: The Forest Service is complying with the provisions of 

this law (see Chapter 2 for how the Forest complies with the NFMA in its monitoring activities). 

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212): The Forest Service is complying with the 

provisions of this law (see the project file for a copy of the rule). 

Wilderness Act of 1964: The actions proposed are in compliance with wilderness 

designations and the Wilderness Act of 1964. Motorized activity continues to be prohibited in 

wilderness under all the alternatives per the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 55

Recreation

Introduction

Nearly all visitors to the Klamath National Forest, 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) changes the diversity 

of motorized and non-motorized opportunities available on the KNF. Visitors may be 

participating in motorized recreation, or using motor vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, 

destinations, or geographic areas that are used for non-motorized recreational activities. This 

section of the Motorized Travel Management FEIS examines the extent to which the diversity of 

recreation opportunities are affected by the proposed action and alternatives, and the extent to 

which alternatives are consistent with direction established in the Klamath National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and the Travel Management Rule.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Regulatory direction relevant and specific to the motorized travel management project as it affects 

recreation resources includes:

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) sets forth requirements for development of 

Forest Plans. Implementing regulations set direction for developing standards and guidelines for 

management of recreation including use of off-highway vehicles.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR)Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 212 is the implementing regulation for the Travel Management Rule. 36 CFR 

212.55 (a) requires the responsible official to 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 (b) requires the responsible official to consider 

(and minimize where possible) 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. 

The Klamath National Forest LRMP 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), and planning for recreation opportunities using the ROS is conducted as part of land and 

resource management planning. The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

56 Klamath National Forest

recreation the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given National 

Forest might be able to provide. The 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 Forest Service, 1982). The ROS is incorporated into LRMP management prescriptions, 

and may be used in project level planning. 

The following forest-wide standards and guidelines are relevant to travel management:

12-1 Manage Forest resources to provide a broad range of recreational opportunities that meet 

changing recreational demands. Actively utilize the Forest's meaningful measures 

methodology for establishing recreation program standards, monitoring, and reporting 

accomplishments. Identify, develop, and conserve recreational opportunities within 

developed and dispersed settings. Eliminate or restrictively manage sites that receive 

minimal use; or, remove the facilities and manage them as dispersed spots. Develop a 

range of recreation opportunities within primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semiprimitive motorized, and roaded natural areas. As opportunities are identified for these 

areas, they should be managed to reflect the needs of a multi-cultural public. Provide a 

variety of sites to meet visitor preferences, needs and expectations to complement 

opportunities within the recreation emphasis area in which the site is located.

12-11 Restrict off-highway vehicle (OHV) use to protect key resource values and meet 

management objectives.

12-15 Develop trail management objectives for all trails on the Forest. All trails in the Forest 

system should be inspected regularly to identify trail maintenance needs.

12-26 ROS classes identified for management areas emphasize general direction for recreation 

management. Specific ROS criteria and conditions are subject to adjustment in order to 

achieve desired conditions.

In addition to the above forest-wide standards and guidelines, each management area is 

assigned a ROS class or a range of ROS classes to guide decisions and resource management 

activities. The Forest ROS map displays the ROS class assigned to Forest lands in the LRMP. The 

Forest ROS map was used to determine if proposed route additions would meet the ROS class 

allocated to the management area. See the LRMP for standards and guidelines specific to each 

management area (USDA Forest Service, 1995).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 57

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to the Recreation Analysis

The prohibition of cross-country travel is not a change to the ROS designation; it is simply a 

prohibition within that ROS  ̳zone‘ to travel off designated routes. 

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 and

motorized access to dispersed recreation activities.

The change from an open to cross-country travel condition to a cross-country travel 

prohibited condition will increase the availability of acreage on which only non-motorized 

recreation and non-motorized access to dispersed recreation activities will occur.

Proposed additions to the NFTS will provide a variety of trail riding experiences and increase 

the number of motorized recreation opportunities (loops, connectors), which will have a 

beneficial effect on motorized recreation opportunities.

The Forest‘s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report accurately expresses the most 

popular motorized and non-motorized recreation activities for use in this analysis. 

The area of influence (dust, noise) of motorized use on  ̳quiet recreation‘ opportunities is 1⁄2 

mile.

There has never been any use analysis or traffic counts on the unauthorized routes; therefore,

it would be highly speculative to make assumptions of use levels on these routes.

The majority of the motorized public use occurring on the KNF is occurring on NFTS roads 

(based on observation). 

Adding more routes to the NFTS is not likely to generate additional motorized use across the 

Forest because (1) most current motorized use is on NFTS roads, not on unauthorized routes; 

(2) use will continue to be dispersed across the Forest; (3) most use is by local residents; (4) 

the population of Siskiyou County has remained static for 20 years; and (5) we do not have 

any data that indicate such an increase would occur (see Society, Culture and Economy 

section of this chapter for additional information). 

Data Sources

KNF LRMP for distribution of ROS classes

The GIS data layers for ROS and wilderness boundaries
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

58 Klamath National Forest

The Forest‘s NVUM report for most popular non-motorized and motorized recreation 

activities

Recreation, law enforcement, and other resource staff observations

Indicators

Consistency of project with ROS classes identified in the LRMP

Impact of proposed additions to the NFTS on non-motorized recreation: (1) number of miles 

of unauthorized routes added to NFTS; (2) acres within 1⁄2 mile of added unauthorized routes 

(areas outside of this buffer would be considered available for quiet recreation and nonmotorized activities without the potential for use conflicts with motorized vehicles)

Motorized recreation opportunity on roads or open riding areas proposed for addition to the 

NFTS: miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as roads, and number and acres of 

open riding areas added to the NFTS, by vehicle class and season of use 

Motorized recreation opportunity added to or subtracted from current NFTS roads: (1) miles 

of existing NFTS roads available for non-highway legal vehicles (miles of motorized 

recreation opportunity added by allowing mixed use on NFTS maintenance level 3 roads or 

moving NFTS roads from maintenance level 3 to maintenance level 2); and (2) miles of 

existing NFTS roads available for highway legal vehicles only (subtracted from current 

mixed use)

Motorized recreation opportunity on trails proposed for addition to the NFTS: miles of 

unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as trails by vehicle class, degree of difficulty and 

season of use

Motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities: number of unauthorized routes to 

dispersed recreation sites available for motorized use (in Alternative 1) or added to the NFTS 

(in action alternatives)

Effects on wilderness resources: miles of routes within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries 

available for motorized use (in Alternative 1) or added to the NFTS (in action alternatives)

All indicators were used for all actions, except that cumulative effects analysis for 

alternatives did not consider (1) Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (because all routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS in ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed 

in Appendix B comply with the ROS class in their associated management area) or (2) 

proximity to wilderness areas (because none of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions are within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries). Cumulative effects on ROS and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 59

wilderness are, therefore, identical to those described for direct and indirect effects for each 

alternative.

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. 

Spatial boundary: Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Attempting to quantify where cross-country motorized travel would occur under Alternative 1 is 

speculative since it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how cross-country motorized 

use would occur. For consistency in comparing alternatives, the inventoried unauthorized OHV 

routes were used to determine the area potentially affected by cross-country motorized use and 

provide a minimum baseline for disturbance.

1. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

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.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

60 Klamath National Forest

Spatial boundary: Forest. This analysis area was selected because impacts to the recreation 

system in one area of the Forest can affect the continuity of the system and public access 

opportunities in other parts of the Forest.

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Cumulative effects are the additive effects of this project and of ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (listed in Appendix B). Past actions are considered part of the existing 

condition and are discussed in the Affected Environment. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that may produce short-term effects to quiet, non-motorized recreation and to 

motorized recreation include vegetation management projects (timber harvest, fuel reduction) and 

road-related projects (construction, reconstruction, and removal from the NFTS through 

decommissioning or conversion to non-motorized trails). Although some of the vegetation 

management actions may overlap unauthorized routes in space, these actions have short-lived 

impacts on quiet recreation or motorized recreation use through noise and potential interference 

with recreation use of an area for a limited amount of time. Road-related actions are likely to have 

the same types of effects on quiet and motorized recreation as the actions proposed in this 

motorized travel management project. Because only long term effects are considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis, this document focuses on road-related projects that have the potential 

to affect quiet recreation and motorized recreation in the long term. 

Affected Environment

The Klamath National Forest‘s 1.7 million acre expanse of winding river canyons, rugged

wilderness areas, and distinctive volcanic landscapes provide a setting for a variety of recreational 

activities. Remoteness from large population centers provides opportunities for uncrowded 

recreational experiences. The Klamath‘s rich traditional and contemporary cultures of Native 

Americans, western settlers, ranchers, loggers and miners further enrich the experiences of 

today‘s visitors.

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides information about 

recreation use of National Forest System Lands at the national, regional, and forest levels. 

NVUM data is science-based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality, and location 

of recreation use on public lands. The Klamath National Forest has hosted NVUM monitoring in 

2001 and 2008. In 2008, the KNF was subjected to over 120 days of wildfire, beginning early in 

June. Numerous trails and wilderness areas were closed by Forest Order for public safety during 

the summer. Smoke was dense in many popular recreation areas, and many daily survey records 

show zero recreation use. This situation resulted in use numbers that are unusually low (visitor 

numbers were down by over 35%) and which may be skewed towards certain types of activities. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 61

Forest recreation specialists feel that these results do not accurately reflect the type and 

amount of recreation that would typically be expected on the KNF. Therefore, NVUM data from 

2001 are used here. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail at

(http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

Table R-1. Klamath NF visitor activity participation and primary activity as reported in NVUM results 

(2001). 

Activity Percent 

Participating

Percent as 

Main Activity

Viewing Natural Features 61.4 15.3

Relaxing 38.0 9.7

Hiking / Walking 20.3 3.3

Downhill Skiing 1.4 1.0

Viewing Wildlife 43.9 1.0

Horseback Riding 0.4 0.3

Driving for Pleasure 26.6 8.1

Other Non-motorized 6.9 2.2

Other Motorized 0.0 0.0

Fishing 7.1 3.7

Developed Camping 4.1 2.1

OHV Use 8.5 1.1

Primitive Camping 4.0 1.1

Nature Study 14.4 0.9

Hunting 3.1 2.9

Gathering Forest Products 8.4 6.8

Nature Center Activities 2.0 0.3

Non-motorized Water 2.1 1.2

Motorized Water Activities 0.3 0.0

Picnicking 8.3 3.9

Cross-country Skiing 18.5 18.3

Snowmobiling 0.6 0.6

Bicycling 0.8 0.3

Visiting Historic Sites 1.1 0.0

Backpacking 3.9 2.2

Resort Use 0.3 0.0

Based on the NVUM, there were 535,577 visits to National Forest System Lands on the 

Klamath NF during fiscal year 2001, with the most popular recreational activities being relaxing, 

viewing natural features, driving for pleasure, hiking, cross-country skiing, and viewing wildlife. 

Other popular activities include fishing, hunting, whitewater pursuits, swimming, camping, 

bicycling, snowmobiling, gathering forest products and other automobile travel. Most visitors 

come from nearby communities with more than 50 percent from Siskiyou County, CA, or Jackson 

County, OR (USDA Forest Service, 2001).

It is estimated that 142,463 visits involved some time spent driving for pleasure, 45,524 visits 

involved off-highway vehicles, and for 5,891 visits the primary activity was off-highway vehicle 

use. Approximately 49,273 visits included some kind of motorized activity. About 64,269 visits 

included non-motorized activities (Table R-2).
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

62 Klamath National Forest

Table R-2. Klamath NF visits by type of main activity 

Type of Use NVUM Categories Percent as

Main Activity

Approximate 

Visitors in 2001

Camping

Developed Camping

Primitive Camping 3.2 17,138

Hunting Hunting 2.9 15,532

Motorized Uses

OHV use

Driving for Pleasure

Other Motorized Activity

9.2 49,273

Non-motorized 

Uses

Backpacking

Fishing

Hiking/Walking

Horseback Riding

Bicycling

Other Non-Motorized Activities

12.0 64,269

Other Activities

Resort Use

Picnicking

Viewing Natural Features

Visiting Historic Sites

Nature Center Activities

Nature Study

Relaxing

Gathering Forest Products

Viewing Wildlife

37.9 202,984

Water Sports

Motorized Water Activities;

Non-motorized Water 1.2 6,427

Winter Sports

Downhill Skiing;

Cross-country Skiing;

Snowmobiling

19.9 106,580

Of the 1.7 million acres on Klamath NF, about 455,000 acres, or 38 percent of the Forest, is 

closed to off-road vehicle travel by law or by LRMP management area standards and guidelines. 

Management areas closed to cross-country vehicle travel include wilderness areas, research 

natural areas, designated and recommended wild rivers, and backcountry. Available land outside 

of the management areas listed above results in about 1.2 million acres of land open for crosscountry motorized travel. Topography and slope limit the use of vehicles so most of the use off 

NFTS roads is on the flatter terrain on the east side of the Forest. However, use of off-highway 

vehicles (ATVs, motorcycles, and dual-sport vehicles) is higher on the steeper west side of the 

Forest, where they are used extensively on the NFTS. This is due to proximity to several 

communities, the existence of an organized off-road riders club in Yreka, and the diversity of 

road conditions relatively close to town. There are two areas of concentrated OHV use: the 

Humbug drainage (about 5 miles from the town of Yreka), and the Juniper Flat area along 

Highway A-12 (about 20 miles east of Yreka and 15 miles north of the town of Weed). There are 

currently no designated trails for motorized vehicles on the KNF with the exception of 

snowmobile trails on the east side of the Forest. 

A second type of off-road use occurs primarily with trucks and other large 4-wheel drive 

vehicles. These users generally do not drive cross-country for pleasure, but in support of other 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 63

activities such as dispersed recreation, woodcutting, and big game retrieval. These activities 

generally occur fairly close to designated roads. Overall, OHV use of the Forest is considered to 

be light. 

Dispersed recreation is defined as outdoor recreation occurring over broad expanses of land 

or water and accounts for the majority of recreation use on the Klamath NF. This use occurs 

primarily during the fall and summer months. Approximately 322 dispersed recreation sites

(camping sites and river access points) have been identified on the Forest. Many of these sites are 

located adjacent to NFTS roads, while others are accessed by short unauthorized routes. 

Dispersed recreation opportunities, especially dispersed camping opportunities, are highly valued 

by Forest visitors. Some dispersed sites have been used by the same families for several 

generations. Additionally, some dispersed recreation sites have a uniquely identifiable sense of 

place with vistas and scenery viewing opportunities. The identified river access points have been 

in use for many years, and are safe and reliable locations for launching or removing watercraft 

from the river. In some cases structures and facilities have been provided, primarily to protect 

resources rather than to provide user convenience. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

All or part of the Klamath, Scott and Salmon Rivers are designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Recreation use associated with the Klamath River is a large portion of the total dispersed use on 

the Forest. Wild and Scenic rivers on the west side of the Forest are a recreational attraction 

providing opportunities along approximately 200 miles of river. The Klamath, Scott and Salmon 

Rivers, as well as several of their larger tributaries, provide outstanding whitewater boating 

opportunities. Motorized access to these rivers is important for launching or removing watercraft 

efficiently. Corridors along designated or recommended Wild Rivers are closed to cross-country 

travel by the KNF LRMP, and most of these segments are also protected by wilderness 

designation. Designated and recommended Scenic and Recreational rivers allow a moderate level 

of motorized use (commensurate with protecting the outstandingly remarkable values for which 

the river is designated or recommended for designation). Motorized access to these segments of 

the rivers is important to a number of recreation visitors.

Wilderness

More than 380,000 acres, about 23 percent of the Forest‘s land base, is in wilderness. This 

includes all of the Marble Mountain Wilderness and Russian Wilderness, nearly half of the 

Siskiyou Wilderness, part of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, and a small portion of the Red Buttes 

Wilderness. The 2001 National Visitor Use Monitoring results estimate wilderness use to be 

approximately 24,000 visits per year. NFTS roads provide access to wilderness trailheads and 

some motorized intrusion into wilderness has occurred from these locations, although it is not a 

common occurrence. There is higher potential for motorists to intrude into the wilderness where 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

64 Klamath National Forest

wilderness boundaries are not clearly marked. A few unauthorized routes are close to wilderness 

boundaries; these are primarily associated with established dispersed recreation sites. 

Trails

The Forest trail system of 1,100 miles provides access for non-motorized recreational activities 

only. More than 60 percent of these trails are in wilderness areas and designated for nonmotorized use. Prior to development of alternatives for this project, the Forest Supervisor decided 

that none of the non-motorized trails would be considered for designation as motorized routes. 

This decision was based on the fact that these trails were originally designed and located to 

accommodate hikers and stock animals. Any conversion of trails to motorized use would involve 

site-specific analysis, design, mitigations, and possibly re-routing and reconstruction. In addition, 

such conversion would introduce potential user conflicts as hikers and equestrian users were 

exposed to motorized vehicles. Non-motorized trails will continue to provide quiet recreation 

opportunities. 

On the east side of the Forest there is a system of roads seasonally managed as snowmobile 

trails through the State of California OHV Grants Program. This trail system is the only 

snowmobile trail system on the Forest and provides approximately 140 miles of groomed 

snowmobiling trails. There is currently a Forest Order in place that sets seasons of use for 

different types of vehicles on these routes to avoid conflict between snowmobile use and use of 

other motorized vehicles. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Five of the six ROS classes exist on the KNF. Almost 70% of the Forest is in an ROS class 

that allows construction and use of roads (Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural)

(Table R-3); all inventoried unauthorized routes being analyzed in this project (497 miles) are 

within these ROS classes. If motorized vehicle use were permitted elsewhere, it would conflict 

with direction for management of Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes on 

the remaining 31% of the KNF but that does not currently occur.

Table R-3. ROS acres in each class for all alternatives

ROS Class Acreage Percent of total Forest acres

Primitive 202,800 12%

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 317,795 19%

Semi-Primitive Motorized 38,739 2%

Roaded Natural 841,711 50%

Rural 287,595 17%

Total 1,688,640 100%
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 65

Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on recreation on the 

Forest. This analysis is focused on the effects of three management actions: (1) the prohibition of 

cross-country motorized travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes or areas to the 

national forest transportation system (NFTS), and (3) changes to the existing NFTS (i.e., changes 

in types of vehicles permitted). Nearly all forest visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, 

use the motorized transportation system to reach their destination. Changes to traditionally 

accepted forest practices, such as cross-country motorized travel, alter the diversity of motorized 

and non-motorized opportunities on the Forest. Visitors seeking a quiet, non-motorized 

experience generally use motorized vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, destinations, or 

geographic areas for non-motorized recreational activities.

Alternative 1

Under the no action alternative, the existing condition as described in the affected environment 

section would continue. More than 1.2 million acres would remain available for off-road 

motorized use. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and a motor vehicle 

use map would not be produced. 

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

There is no prohibition of cross-country motorized use under this alternative. Motorized 

recreation opportunities would continue to be available on 497 miles of unauthorized routes and 

about 1.2 million acres, all in Rural, Roaded Natural, and Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classes. 

The open riding area acreage and unauthorized motorized routes would not experience any 

changes or use restrictions. Unauthorized routes would continue to proliferate and have no status 

or authorization as NFTS facilities. To comply with the KNF LRMP, any new unauthorized 

routes would need to be within the Rural, Roaded Natural, and Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS 

classes because motorized use is prohibited in other ROS classes by the LRMP. It is not expected 

that new unauthorized routes would be created in other ROS classes. No net change in motorized 

recreation opportunities would occur, and as a result there would be no short or long term direct 

or indirect effects to motorized recreation opportunities. 

The short-term and long-term effects of cross-country motorized travel include the increased 

potential for conflicts with users seeking a ―quiet‖ recreation experience. In the long term, visitors 

seeking a ―quiet‖ recreation experience would likely be displaced to areas on the western side of 

the Forest, including wilderness, backcountry, designated and recommended Wild River 

corridors, and in unroaded areas where steep topography naturally restricts cross-country 

motorized travel.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

66 Klamath National Forest

Access to dispersed recreation sites is not affected under this alternative. In both the short and 

long term, no change in motorized access to dispersed recreation activities would occur. The 322 

identified sites would continue to be available, along with any other locations that recreationists 

can drive to.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. No direct or indirect 

effects would result.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS would be made for vehicle class under this alternative. No direct or 

indirect effects would result. 

Cumulative effects

Under Alternative 1, cross-country motorized travel would continue to be allowed on 

approximately 1.2 million acres on the Forest. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions that 

may affect recreation in the long term include addition of 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public 

motorized vehicle use) and 26 miles of ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the 

NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of ML 2 road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable actions, would 

result in a reduction of 24 miles of motorized (road-related) opportunity for those who utilize the 

NFTS. This would have a slight negative effect on opportunities for motorized recreation. Since 

there is no prohibition on cross-country travel, vehicles can legally access any portion of the 1.2 

million acres open to vehicles. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would not 

be substantially affected by the reduction of 24 miles of road open to motorized vehicle use. The 

cumulative effects of this alternative on quiet recreation are slightly more positive than the direct 

and indirect effects. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel does not have any effect on ROS classes because no 

motorized travel currently occurs in Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes; 

these ROS classes do not allow motorized use.

The prohibition of cross-country vehicle use will have a beneficial effect on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities in both the short and long term due to a reduction in noise, dust, and 

physical presence over 1.2 million acres of land. Potential user conflicts would be reduced for 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 67

quiet recreation enthusiasts across the Forest, as the potential for contact between hikers, 

horseback riders, and motorized vehicles off designated roads would be greatly reduced.

Prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel will result in loss of 1.2 million acres of 

off-road motorized recreation opportunity. 

Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel will have a negative effect on motorized access to

dispersed recreation. Motorized access will be limited to 258 identified dispersed recreation sites

(camping sites or river access points) or sites immediately adjacent to designated roads and trails. 

Opportunities to access dispersed recreation sites further than 30 feet from designated roads and 

trails by vehicle would be foregone in both the short and long term. 

The prohibition on cross-country travel will reduce dust, noise and presence adjacent to four 

different wilderness areas. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

All proposed route additions under this alternative are located in Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Roaded Natural, or Rural ROS classes; this is consistent with direction in the LRMP. All routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management 

area. 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of added routes (about 59,000 acres) would continue to be affected by 

noise and potentially by dust. These negative effects on non-motorized recreation users will 

persist over the long term. At this time, it is not anticipated that adding these routes to the NFTS 

will generate additional use for the reasons identified in the Society, Culture and Economy 

section of this chapter. Site-specific mitigations to improve recreation experiences and protect 

other resources are listed in Table R-4. 

This alternative proposes to add 24 miles of road to the NFTS to access dispersed recreation 

sites, and about 54 miles of road to provide a diversity of motorized opportunities (78 miles in 

all). Adding presently unauthorized routes will have a beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities. These routes were identified by the public as important, high-value routes. The 

addition of 14 miles of motorized trails would contribute to a variety of experiences with easy to 

extremely difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles (Table R-5). Creation of two 

open riding areas, Humbug Open Riding Area at 5 acres and Juniper Flat Open Riding Area at 60 

acres, is a benefit for those who wish to recreate off designated routes. Implementation of a 

season of use in the Humbug drainage (including the open riding area) of May 1 through October 

31 would limit motorized opportunities in the short and long term for a relatively large number of 

local off-road riders. This reduction of acres available for off-road travel constitutes a loss of 

opportunity for motorized recreation for local off-road riders in both the short and long term. The 

Juniper Flat Open Riding Area will be available year round.
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

68 Klamath National Forest

The proposed route additions provide motorized access to 258 dispersed recreation sites. 

Designation of these routes would ensure that individuals who need or want motorized access to 

dispersed recreation sites can continue to have these opportunities away from the traffic and 

potential dust of primary access routes.

This alternative proposes to add 1.52 miles of unauthorized routes to dispersed recreation 

sites within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries. These 32 routes (average length 250‘) all take off 

from NFTS roads at a point within 1⁄2 mile of a wilderness boundary. Dust impacts should be 

minimal as these routes are rough-surfaced and not suitable for high speeds. Noise impacts from 

these short routes will be indistinguishable from those occurring on adjacent ML 2 roads.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 2 proposes mixed use (by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) on about 

119 miles of NFTS roads, limits use to highway legal vehicles only on 10 miles of road3 where 

non-highway legal vehicle use is currently allowed, and proposes converting two ML 1 roads4(10 

miles that are currently closed to motorized use) to ML 2 (open to highway legal and nonhighway legal vehicle use). The added mileage would be available for all vehicle classes. Since 

these changes will occur on the existing NFTS, they do not affect ROS designations or nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

Changing the maintenance class of two roads from ML 1 to ML 2 will benefit motorized 

recreation by providing an additional 10 miles of road for use by all classes of motor vehicles and 

a loop opportunity to a scenic vista.

The addition of mixed use road mileage would benefit motorized recreation by connecting 

various ML 2 road systems, thereby providing loop opportunities for OHV enthusiasts. The loss 

of mixed use on 10 miles of road currently open to non-highway legal vehicles would be a

negative impact; however, the roads proposed for removal of mixed use dead-end at private 

property and do not access recreation destinations or provide loop opportunities. 

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect recreation in the long term include 

addition of 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 26 miles of ML 2 

road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of ML 2 road.

 

3 After publication of the NOI, it was determined that one road (approximately 2 miles) was not an NFTS 

road but was under the jurisdiction of Siskiyou County; therefore, no limitation to highway legal vehicles 

only on this road would be part of this KNF decision.

4 After publication of the NOI, it was determined that one NFTS road (approximately 5 miles) had been 

converted from ML1 to ML2 in an earlier decision, so public motorized use is already available on this 

road.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 69

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions, would result in the addition of 54 miles of open road and 14 miles of motorized trails, 

and conversion of 10 miles of ML 1 road to ML 2. There would be a gain in the road-related 

opportunity (and a loss of quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the Forest where 25

miles would be added through ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Cumulatively, this alternative would negatively affect opportunities for motorized recreation, 

especially on the west side of the KNF, when added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost 

by the prohibition on cross-country travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource 

would be improved by the prohibition of cross-country travel; that would be slightly offset by the 

addition of the 92 miles of NFTS road and trails open to motorized vehicle use, plus the 

conversion of 10 miles of NFTS road from ML 1(closed to motorized use) to ML 2 (open to 

motorized use), minus the 24 miles closed by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. The 

cumulative effects of this alternative on quiet recreation are slightly more positive than the direct 

and indirect effects. Overall, including the effects of prohibition of cross-country travel, there 

would be some negative effects to motorized recreation opportunities, offset somewhat by the 

addition of 78 miles of motorized access on designated roads and trails. There would generally be 

positive impacts to non-motorized recreation opportunities because of the prohibition of crosscountry travel. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The positive and negative effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. There would be negative 

effects, especially to individuals seeking motorized access to dispersed recreation sites, of not 

adding facilities.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS in regards to vehicle class, or class of roads and trails, would occur

under this alternative. No direct or indirect effects would result.

Cumulative effects

Under Alternative 3, the cumulative effects include the addition of the effects of prohibiting 

cross-country travel to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions. Road-related 

actions will add 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 26 miles of 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

70 Klamath National Forest

ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles of ML 2 

road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, would result in a reduction of 24 miles of open road. There would be a gain in the roadrelated opportunity (and a loss of quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the Forest with 

a gain of 25 miles of road open to motorized use from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, and a loss on the west side with the addition of 1 mile and removal of 50 miles of road 

from motorized vehicle use. 

This would negatively affect opportunities for motorized recreation, especially on the west 

side of the KNF, added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost by the prohibition on crosscountry travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would be improved by the 

prohibition of cross-country travel. The cumulative effects of this alternative on both quiet 

recreation and motorized recreation are slightly greater than the direct and indirect effects. 

Overall, including the effects of prohibition of cross-country travel, there would be substantial 

negative effects on motorized recreation opportunities, and positive impacts to quiet, nonmotorized recreation opportunities except for those that depend on motorized access to reach nonmotorized recreation settings. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The positive and negative effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

All proposed route additions under this alternative are located in Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Roaded Natural, or Rural ROS classes; this is consistent with direction in the LRMP. All routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management 

area. 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of added routes (about 4,480 acres) would continue to be affected by 

noise, physical presence and dust. These negative effects on non-motorized recreation users will 

persist over the long term. At this time, we do not anticipate that adding these routes to the NFTS 

will generate additional use, as described under Alternative 2. Site-specific mitigations to 

improve recreation experiences and protect other resources are listed in Table R-4. 

This alternative proposes to add 1.7 miles of road to the NFTS to access dispersed recreation 

sites, and about 4.5 miles of road to provide a diversity of motorized opportunities (6.2 miles in 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 71

all). These routes were identified by the public as important, high-value routes. In addition, less 

than a mile of motorized trail would be added to the NFTS, which would provide easy and 

moderate riding opportunities but no trails at the difficult or extremely difficult levels. No open 

riding areas would be added to the NFTS. There would be some beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities, but they are slight compared to other action alternatives. Implementation of a 

season of use on the one short (0.29 miles) motorized trail being proposed in the Humbug 

drainage would slightly limit motorized opportunities in the short and long term for some local 

off-road riders.

Alternative 4 proposes motorized access to 25 dispersed recreation sites. Opportunities for 

motorized access to dispersed recreation sites would be very limited under this alternative, 

although some motorized access would be provided for individuals to enjoy this activity.

This alternative does not propose any route additions within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness areas. 

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 4 proposes mixed use (by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) on about 

119 miles of NFTS roads, limits use to highway legal vehicles only on 8 miles of road where nonhighway legal vehicle use is currently allowed, and proposes converting one ML 1 road (5 miles) 

that is currently closed to motorized use to ML 2 (open to highway legal and non-highway legal 

vehicle use). Since these changes will occur on the existing NFTS, they do not affect ROS 

designations or non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Changing the maintenance class of one road from ML 1 to ML 2 will benefit motorized 

recreation by providing an additional 5 miles of road for use by all classes of motor vehicles and a 

loop opportunity to a scenic vista.

The addition of mixed use road mileage would benefit motorized recreation by connecting 

various ML 2 road systems, thereby providing loop opportunities for OHV enthusiasts. The loss 

of mixed use on 8 miles of road currently open to non-highway legal vehicles would be a 

negative impact; however, the roads proposed for removal of mixed use dead-end at private 

property and do not access recreation destinations or provide loop opportunities. 

Cumulative effects

Road-related actions will add 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 

26 miles of ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles 

of ML 2 road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable actions, would 

result in the loss of 18 miles of open road and gain of less than 1 mile of motorized trail, and 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

72 Klamath National Forest

conversion of 5 miles of ML 1 road to ML 2. There would be a gain in the road-related 

opportunity (and a loss of quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the Forest with a gain 

of 25 miles of ML 2 road, and a loss on the west side with the addition of 1 mile and removal of 

50 miles of road from motorized vehicle use through ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

This alternative would affect opportunities for motorized recreation, especially on the west 

side of the KNF, added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost by the prohibition on crosscountry travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would be improved by the 

prohibition of cross-country travel; the combination of adding 6 miles of roads and opening 5 

miles of closed road minus the 24 miles of NFTS road removed through ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in a loss of motorized recreation opportunity. The cumulative 

effects of this alternative on quiet recreation are slightly more positive than the direct and indirect 

effects. Overall, including the effects of prohibition of cross-country travel, there would be 

substantial negative effects on motorized recreation opportunities, and positive impacts to nonmotorized recreation opportunities except for those that depend on motorized access to reach nonmotorized opportunities. 

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The positive and negative effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

All proposed route additions under this alternative are located in Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Roaded Natural, or Rural ROS classes; this is consistent with direction in the LRMP. All routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management 

area. 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of added routes (about 43,860 acres) would continue to be affected by 

noise, physical presence and dust. These negative effects on non-motorized recreation users will 

persist over the long term. At this time, we do not anticipate that adding these routes to the NFTS 

will generate additional use, as described under Alternative 2. Site-specific mitigations to 

improve recreation experiences and protect other resources are listed in Table R-4. 

This alternative proposes to add about 30 miles of road to the NFTS to access dispersed 

recreation sites, and about 17 miles of road to provide a diversity of motorized opportunities (47 

miles in all). These routes were identified by the public as important, high-value routes. The 

addition of about 22 miles of motorized trails would contribute to a variety of experiences with 

easy to extremely difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. Implementation of a 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 73

season of use in the Humbug area (including the open riding area) would limit motorized 

opportunities in the short and long term for a relatively large number of local off-road riders.

The proposed route additions provide motorized access to 206 dispersed recreation sites.

Designation of these routes would ensure that individuals who depend on motorized access can 

continue to enjoy dispersed recreation opportunities away from the traffic and dust of primary 

access routes.

This alternative proposes to add 1.53 miles of unauthorized routes to dispersed recreation 

sites within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries. These 22 routes (average length 360‘) all take off 

from NFTS roads at a point within 1⁄2 mile of a wilderness boundary. Dust impacts should be 

minimal as these routes are rough-surfaced and not suitable for high speeds. Noise impacts from 

these short routes will be indistinguishable from those occurring on the adjacent ML 2 roads. 

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 5 proposes mixed use (by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) on about 

272 miles of NFTS roads, limits use to highway legal vehicles only on 8 miles of road where nonhighway legal vehicle use is currently allowed, and proposes converting one ML 1 road (5 miles) 

that is currently closed to motorized use to ML 2 (open to highway legal and non-highway legal 

vehicle use). The added mileage would be available for all vehicle classes. Since these changes 

will occur on the existing NFTS, they do not affect ROS designations or non-motorized 

recreation opportunities.

Changing the maintenance class of one road from ML 1 to ML 2 will benefit motorized 

recreation by providing an additional 5 miles of road for use by all classes of motor vehicles and a 

loop opportunity to a scenic vista.

The addition of mixed use road mileage would benefit motorized recreation by connecting 

various ML 2 road systems, thereby providing loop opportunities for OHV enthusiasts. The loss 

of mixed use on 8 miles of road currently open to non-highway legal vehicles would be a 

negative impact; however, the roads proposed for removal of mixed use dead-end at private 

property and do not access recreation destinations or provide loop opportunities. 

Cumulative effects

Road-related actions will add 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 

26 miles of ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles 

of ML 2 road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable actions, would 

result in the addition of 23 miles of open road and 22 miles of motorized trails, and conversion of 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

74 Klamath National Forest

5 miles of ML 1 road to ML 2. There would be a gain in the road-related opportunity (and a loss 

of quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the Forest with a gain of 25 miles of ML 2 

road, and a loss on the west side with the addition of 1 mile and removal of 50 miles of road from 

motorized vehicle use from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

This alternative would affect opportunities for motorized recreation, especially on the west 

side of the KNF, added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost by the prohibition on crosscountry travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would be improved by the 

prohibition of cross-country travel that would be slightly offset by the addition of the 69 miles of 

NFTS roads and trails open to motorized vehicle use, and the conversion of 5 miles of ML 1 to 

ML 2, minus the 24 miles closed by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions for an additional 

50 miles of open road or trail. The cumulative effects of this alternative on quiet recreation are 

slightly more positive than the direct and indirect effects. Overall, including the effects of 

prohibition of cross-country travel, there would be negative effects on motorized recreation 

opportunities, offset somewhat by the net gain of 50 designated miles. There would be positive 

impacts to non-motorized recreation opportunities from the prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel. 

Alternative 6

This alternative is based on corrections to the proposed action. When Alternative 2 was field 

checked, a number of the proposed routes were found to have limited value for OHV travel – they 

were short dead-end spurs, did not provide a loop opportunity, or did not access dispersed 

recreation sites or features. Others were inappropriate for inclusion in the NFTS due to slope, 

vegetation, or other resource conflicts. This alternative includes some of the routes in Alternative 

2, and proposes additional routes and mixed use to provide for more access and motorized 

recreation opportunity. 

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The positive and negative effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

All proposed route additions under this alternative are located in Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Roaded Natural, or Rural ROS classes; this is consistent with direction in the LRMP. All routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management 

area. 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of added routes (about 37,760 acres) would continue to be affected by 

the dust and noise generated by motorized activity. These negative effects on non-motorized 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 75

recreation users will persist over the long term. At this time, we do not anticipate that adding 

these routes to the NFTS will generate additional use, as described under Alternative 2. Sitespecific mitigations to improve recreation experiences and protect other resources are listed in 

Table R-4. 

Adding presently unauthorized routes would have a beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities. This alternative proposes to add 26 miles of road to the NFTS to access dispersed 

recreation sites, and about 15 miles of road to provide a diversity of motorized opportunities (41 

miles in all). The addition of about 18 miles of motorized trails would contribute to a variety of 

experiences with easy to extremely difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. 

Implementation of a season of use in the Humbug area (including the open riding area) would

limit motorized opportunities in the short and long term for a relatively large number of local offroad riders.

The proposed route additions provide motorized access to 164 dispersed recreation sites.

Designation of these routes would ensure that individuals who depend on motorized access can 

continue to enjoy dispersed recreation opportunities away from the traffic and dust of primary 

access routes.

This alternative proposes to add 0.87 miles of unauthorized routes to dispersed recreation 

sites within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries. These 19 routes (average length 240‘) all take off 

from NFTS roads at a point within 1⁄2 mile of a wilderness boundary. Dust impacts should be 

minimal as these routes are rough-surfaced and not suitable for high speeds. Noise impacts from 

these short routes will be indistinguishable from those occurring on the adjacent ML 2 roads.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 6 proposes mixed use (by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) on about 

105 miles of NFTS roads, limits use to highway legal vehicles only on 8 miles of road where nonhighway legal vehicle use is currently allowed, and proposes converting one ML 1 road (5 miles) 

that is currently closed to motorized use to ML 2 (open to highway legal and non-highway legal 

vehicle use). Since these changes will occur on the existing NFTS, they do not affect ROS 

designations or non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Changing the maintenance class of one road from ML 1 to ML 2 will benefit motorized 

recreation by providing an additional 5 miles of road for use by all classes of motor vehicles and a 

loop opportunity to a scenic vista.

The addition of mixed use road mileage would benefit motorized recreation by increasing the 

diversity of motorized opportunities and (by connecting various ML 2 road systems) provide loop 

opportunities for OHV enthusiasts. The loss of mixed use on 8 miles of road currently open to 

non-highway legal vehicles would be a negative impact; however, the roads proposed for
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

76 Klamath National Forest

highway legal vehicles only dead-end at private property and do not access recreation 

destinations or provide loop opportunities. 

Cumulative effects

Road-related actions will add 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 

26 miles of ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles 

of ML 2 road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable actions, would 

result in the addition of 17 miles of road and 18 miles of motorized trails, and conversion of 5 

miles of ML 1 road to ML 2. There would be a gain in the road-related opportunity (and a loss of 

quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the Forest with a gain of 25 miles of ML 2 road, 

and a loss on the west side with the addition of 1 mile and removal of 50 miles of road from 

motorized vehicle use due to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

This alternative would affect opportunities for motorized recreation, especially on the west 

side of the KNF, added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost by the prohibition on crosscountry travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would be improved by the 

prohibition of cross-country travel that would be slightly offset by the addition of the 59 miles of 

NFTS roads and trails open to motorized vehicle use minus the 24 miles closed by ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. The cumulative effects of this alternative on quiet recreation are 

slightly greater than the direct and indirect effects. Overall, including the effects of prohibition of 

cross-country travel, there would be negative effects on motorized recreation opportunities, offset 

somewhat by the additional 40 miles of motorized opportunity. There would be positive impacts 

to non-motorized recreation opportunities due to the prohibition of motorized cross-country 

travel. 

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The positive and negative effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

All proposed route additions under this alternative would be located in Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

Roaded Natural, or Rural ROS classes, which is consistent with direction in the LRMP. All routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management 

area. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 77

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of added routes (about 47,360 acres) would continue to be affected by 

the dust and noise generated by motorized activity. These negative effects on non-motorized 

recreation users will persist over the long term. At this time, we do not anticipate that adding 

these routes to the NFTS will generate additional use, as described under Alternative 2. Sitespecific mitigations to improve recreation experiences and protect other resources are listed in 

Table R-4. 

Adding presently unauthorized routes, and opening one ML1 road (about 5 miles) to public 

use, would have a beneficial effect on motorized opportunities. This alternative proposes to add 

28 miles of road to the NFTS to provide a diversity of motorized opportunities, 14 miles for 

motorized use by all vehicles and 14 miles for highway-legal vehicles only. The addition of 

about 21 miles of motorized trails would contribute to a variety of experiences with easy to 

extremely difficult riding experiences for all trail class vehicles. Implementation of a season of 

use in the Humbug area (including the open riding area) would limit motorized opportunities in 

the short and long term for a relatively large number of local off-road riders.

The proposed route additions provide 25 miles of motorized access to 192 dispersed 

recreation sites. Designation of these routes would ensure that individuals who depend on 

motorized access can continue to enjoy dispersed recreation opportunities away from the traffic 

and dust of primary access routes.

This alternative proposes to add 1.51 miles of unauthorized routes to dispersed recreation 

sites within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries. These 21 routes (average length 240‘) all take off 

from NFTS roads at a point within 1⁄2 mile of a wilderness boundary. Dust impacts should be 

minimal as these routes are rough-surfaced and not suitable for high speeds. Noise impacts from 

these short routes will be indistinguishable from those occurring on the adjacent ML 2 roads.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 7 proposes mixed use on about 131 miles of NFTS roads, prohibits mixed use on 

about 8 miles of road where it is currently allowed, and proposes to convert one ML 1 road (5 

miles) to ML 2. Alternative 7 also proposes to convert 130 miles of ML 3 road to ML 2. This 

added mileage would be available for all vehicle classes. These changes do not affect ROS 

designations or non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Changing the maintenance class of one road from ML 1 to ML 2 will benefit motorized 

recreation by providing an additional 5 miles of road for use by all classes of motor vehicles and a 

loop opportunity to a scenic vista.

The addition of mixed use road mileage would benefit motorized recreation users by 

increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities, and connecting various ML 2 road systems 

that will provide loop opportunities for OHV enthusiasts. Converting 130 miles of ML 3 road to
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

78 Klamath National Forest

ML 2 will allow all vehicle classes to use these roads; this would benefit motorized recreation 

users in the same way as a designation for mixed use. The loss of mixed use on 8 miles of road 

currently open to non-highway legal vehicles would be a negative impact; however, the road 

proposed for the removal of mixed use dead-ends at private property and does not access 

recreation destinations or provide loop opportunities. 

Cumulative effects

Road-related actions will add 13 miles of ML 1 road (closed to public motorized vehicle use) and 

26 miles of ML 2 road (open to public motorized vehicle use) to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles 

of ML 2 road. 

The effects of this alternative, added to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable actions, would 

result in the addition of 29 miles of NFTS road open to motorized vehicle use (14 miles of which 

are open to highway-legal vehicles only) and 21 miles of motorized trails, and conversion of 5 

miles of ML 1 road to ML 2. There would be a cumulative gain in the NFTS road-related 

opportunity (and a loss of quiet recreation opportunity) on the east side of the KNF with a gain of 

25 miles of NFTS road open to motorized use and a loss of the west side with the addition of 1 

mile and a loss of 50 miles of NFTS road removed by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. 

This alternative would affect opportunities for motorized recreation, especially on the west 

side of the KNF, added to the motorized recreation opportunities lost by the prohibition on crosscountry travel. Impacts to quiet recreation and the wilderness resource would be improved by the 

prohibition of cross-country travel; this would be slightly offset by the addition of the 74 miles of 

NFTS roads and trails open to motorized vehicle use, and the 5 miles converted from ML 1 

(closed to motorized vehicle use) to ML 2 (open to motorized vehicle use) minus the 24 miles 

closed by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. The cumulative effects of this alternative 

on quiet recreation are slightly more positive than the direct and indirect effects. Overall, 

including the effects of prohibition of cross-country travel, there would be negative effects on 

motorized recreation opportunities, somewhat offset by the added 55 miles of motorized 

opportunity. There would be positive impacts to non-motorized recreation opportunities due to the 

prohibition of motorized cross-country travel. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 79

Site-specific Mitigations for Recreation

Table R-4. Mitigation for unauthorized routes proposed for addition to NFTS.

Route ID Improvement Work Required Alternative Mileage

7J001.11 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2,5,6,7 0.29

7J001.11A Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2 5,6,7 0.41

7J001.9 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2,5,6,7 0.84

8J002.3A Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 5 0.14

45080104 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 5,6,7 0.23

45080201 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 5,6 0.14

45080202 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 5,6 0.1

45080205 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2,5,6,7 0.74

45081203 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2 0.27

46082601 Establish tread/improve drainage 2,5,6,7 0.38

46083301

Establish tread/improve drainage; 

delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush

2,5,6,7 1.13

46083401 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2,5,6,7 2.43

46083502

Develop switchbacks on steep portions, 

delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush

2,5,6,7 0.94

46083503 Delineate route through signing, barriers 

or placement of brush 2,5,6,7 0.38

Humbug Open 

Riding Area

Define perimeter with signs, fencing or 

other barriers; install kiosk with rules, 

regulations and tread lightly information.

2,5,6,7 5 acres
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

80 Klamath National Forest

Route ID Improvement Work Required Alternative Mileage

Juniper Flat Open 

Riding Area

Define perimeter with signs, fencing or 

other barriers; install kiosk with rules, 

regulations and tread lightly information.

2,5,6,7 48 acres

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

All the alternatives analyzed comply with ROS direction from the LRMP. All routes proposed 

for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated management area. 

For every alternative except Alternative 1, the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel 

will substantially improve the number of acres available exclusively for non-motorized recreation 

on the Klamath NF. Under Alternative 1, quiet recreation on 1.2 million acres will continue to be 

impacted by the noise and dust generated by motorized activity. All action alternatives increase 

acreage available for quiet recreation (outside 1⁄2 mile from routes open to motorized travel); 

Alternative 3 and 4 more than other action alternatives.

Alternative 1 provides the greatest opportunity for motorized use on the Forest, because it 

continues to allow vehicle use of 1.2 million acres and motorized access to any site on that 

acreage. As displayed in Table R-5, Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 do not accommodate off-road use but 

do provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunity on roads and trails, including 

motorized access to a large number of identified dispersed recreation sites. Alternatives 3 and 4 

do not accommodate off-road travel, and provide little or no added motorized recreation 

opportunity.

Alternative 1 continues to allow motorized access (through cross-country travel) up to 

wilderness boundaries. The action alternatives all limit the number and mileage of unauthorized 

routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within 1⁄2 mile of wilderness boundaries. Action 

alternatives also reduce conflict among types of recreation visitors by prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel which reduces conflicts between motorized vehicle users and non-motorized 

KNF users. Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 remove non-highway legal vehicles from routes dead 

ending at private land, providing more quiet recreation opportunity near or on private land. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 81

Table R-5. Comparison of the Alternatives

Number of Routes, Mileage and Acres Proposed to be Added to NFTS

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of Motorized 

Additions - Roads 0 78 0 6 47 41 53

Miles of Road 

Added by Season 

of Use

0

8*

1**

69***

0

0*

0**

6***

1*

1**

45***

<1*

1**

39***

1*

0**

52***

Miles of Road 

Added by Vehicle 

Type

0

1 HLO

77 All 0

<1 HLO

6 All

1HLO

46 All

1HLO

40 All

14HLO

39 All

Miles of Motorized 

Additions - Trails 0 14 0 1 22 18 21

Miles of Motorized 

Trail Added by 

Season of Use 

0

14*

0**

1***

0

<1*

0**

<1***

21*

0**

<1***

18*

0**

<1***

20*

0**

<1***

Miles of Motorized 

Trail Added by 

Vehicle Type

0

2.1 All

3.8 Mot

8.3 <50”

0

0.7 All

0 Mot

0 <50”

 4.5 All

3.8 Mot

13.5 <50”

 4.5 All

3.6 Mot

10.4 <50”

 3.4 All

3.8 Mot

13.3 <50”

Acres open to 

Cross-Country 

Travel (in Alt 1) or 

as Open Riding 

Areas

1.2 million 65 0 0 53 53 53

Acres of Open Area 

by Season of Use 

and Vehicle Type

 1.2 

million***

 All 

Vehicles

 

 5* 

60***

All 

Vehicles

0 0

5* 

48***

All 

Vehicles

5* 

48***

All 

Vehicles

5* 

48***

All 

Vehicles

# of Access Routes 

to Dispersed 

Recreation Sites 

Not

calculateda 258 0 25 206 164 192

Acres within 1⁄2 mile 

of added routes 224,871 58,880 0 4,480 43,860 37,760 47,360

Miles (#) of Route 

Additions within 1⁄2 

mile of wilderness 

boundaries

0

1.52

(32) 0 0

1.53

(22)

0.87

(19)

1.51

(21)

Miles of NFTS Road 

with Mixed Use 

Added/ Miles of ML 

3 Road Converted 

to ML 2

0 119 0 119 272 105 131

(130)

Miles of NFTS Road 

with Mixed Use 

Removedb

0 10 0 8 8 8 8

Total Resulting 

NFTS Roads (ML 1-

5)

4536 4614 4536 4542 4583 4577 4589

a - For alternative 1, any site that can be accessed by vehicle can be considered a dispersed recreation site. It is not 

possible to calculate the # of such sites for which motorized access is feasible. 

b - Where such use is currently allowed.

* - Season of Use 5/1 through 10/31;** - Season of Use 8/16 through 4/14;*** - Year round

HLO=Highway Legal Only; Mot=motorcycles only; <50” = motorized vehicles less than 50” in width
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

82 Klamath National Forest

The total number of miles of NFTS roads that would result from each alternative being 

implemented is displayed in Table R-7. This table also displays the total resulting miles of road 

open for motorized use, and the total resulting miles of road open for mixed use (by highway 

legal and non-highway legal vehicles). Resulting miles of recreational opportunity for motorized 

recreation would be least in Alternative 3 and greatest in Alternative 1. The number of miles of 

open NFTS road would be least in Alternative 3, greatest in Alternative 2, and similar for

Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 with small differences among action alternatives. Opportunities for 

motorized use by non-highway legal vehicles on NFTS roads would be greatest in Alternatives 5 

and 7, slightly less in Alternatives 2, 4 and 6, and least in Alternatives 1 and 3.

Table R-7. Comparison of Motorized Vehicle Use Opportunities Resulting from the Alternatives

Motorized trails proposed by Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide for varying riding 

experiences and degrees of difficulty as displayed in Table R-8. Information on which specific 

 

5 Existing NFTS roads open to motorized vehicles plus (1) routes added as open ML 2 NFTS roads by 

alternative; (2) the sum of open ML 2 NFTS roads added by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions 

minus roads closed or removed from the NFTS by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; and (3) 

closed NFTS ML1 roads converted to open ML 2 roads by alternative.

6 Existing NFTS ML 2 roads open to highway legal and non-highway legal motorized vehicles (mixed use) 

plus (1) routes added as ML 2 NFTS roads open to highway legal and non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles by alternative; (2) the sum of open ML 2 NFTS roads added by ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions minus roads closed or removed from the NFTS by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

actions; (3) closed NFTS ML1 roads converted to open ML 2 roads by alternative; (4) existing NFTS ML 3 

roads on which mixed use is allowed by alternative; (5) existing NFTS ML 3 roads converted to ML 2, thus 

allowing mixed use; minus NFTS ML 2 roads on which mixed use is removed, making them available only 

to highway legal vehicles.

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Total Miles of 

NFTS Roads 

(ML 1- ML 5)

(miles) 

Resulting 

from Alt.

Resulting 

from Alt. and 

ongoing and 

reasonably 

foreseeable 

actions

4536

4525

4614

4603

4536

4525

4542

4531

4583

4572

4577

4566

4589

4578

Total Miles

Open To 

Motorized 

Vehicle Use 

(Hwy-legal 

vehicles) 

Unauthorized

NFTS Roads5

Combined 

Total

(miles)

 497

3686

 4183

0

3774

3774

0

3686

3686

0

3697

3697

0

3738

3738

0

3732

3732

0

3744

3744

Total Miles

Open to 

Mixed Use 

(Hwy-legal 

and non-hwy 

legal 

vehicles)

Unauthorized

NFTS Roads6

Combined 

Total

(miles)

 497

2737

3234

0

2933

2933

0

2737

2737

0

2859

2859

0

3052

3052

0

2879

2879

0

3034

3034
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 83

trails provide what levels of difficulty is stored in the project records for this project, available at 

the KNF Forest Supervisor‘s office in Yreka, CA.

Table R-8. Proposed NFTS trail additions by alternative by degree of difficulty

Class of 

Vehicle 

Degree of 

Difficulty Mileage Proposed to be Added to NFTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Highwaylegal HighClearance 

4WD

Easy

0

1.20

0

0.29 4.05 4.06 4.05

Moderate 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44

Difficult 0 0 0 0 0

Extremely 

Difficult 0.27 0 0 0 0

Dual Sport 

Highwaylegal 

Motorcycle

Easy

0

4.56

0

0.29 7.61 7.40 7.61

Moderate 3.10 0.44 5.87 5.20 4.83

Difficult 6.04 0 8.29 5.82 8.29

Extremely 

Difficult 0.27 0 0 0 0

Nonhighwaylegal 4WD

Easy

0

1.20

0

0.29 4.05 4.06 4.05

Moderate 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44

Difficult 0 0 0 0 0

Extremely 

Difficult 0.27 0 0 0 0

Nonhighwaylegal 

Motorcycle 

Easy

0

4.56

0

0.29 7.61 7.40 7.61

Moderate 3.10 0.44 5.87 5.20 4.83

Difficult 6.04 0 8.29 5.82 8.29

Extremely 

Difficult 0.27 0 0 0 0

Nonhighwaylegal ATV

Easy

0

4.35

0

0.29 7.40 7.40 7.40

Moderate 3.10 0.44 5.82 5.15 4.78

Difficult 2.48 0 4.73 2.27 4.73

Extremely 

Difficult 0.27 0 0 0 0

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 provides a broad range of motorized recreational opportunities, and allows crosscountry motorized travel on Rural, Roaded Natural, and Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classes. 

Compliance with standard 12-11 of the LRMP is achieved through implementation of various 

site-specific Forest Orders. Overall, Alternative 1 complies with standards in the LRMP. 

However, the LRMP, as written, is not in compliance with the Travel Management Rule. 

With the exception of Alternative 3, the action alternatives all provide a range of recreational 

motorized opportunities and are in compliance with ROS classes. Alternative 3 would limit 

motorized recreational opportunities to existing NFTS roads, so there would be no motorized 

trails on the KNF. All action alternatives would require a Forest Plan amendment to prohibit 

cross-country motorized travel to meet the Travel Management Rule. 
Motorized Travel management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation

84 Klamath National Forest

Wild and Scenic River Act 

Portions of the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers were formally included within the National 

Wild and Scenic River (WSR) system in 1981, to protect their "outstandingly remarkable" 

fisheries values and their free-flowing condition. With the exception of one segment of the Scott 

River, these rivers are further classified as "Recreational" Wild and Scenic Rivers. The 

Recreational classification applies to those rivers or sections of rivers that are free-flowing, 

readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along the shorelines and may 

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past (USDA Forest Service, 1995). One 

segment of the Scott River is classified as a "Scenic" Wild and Scenic River, due to its largely 

undeveloped condition. The Scenic classification applies to those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but may be accessible in places by roads (USDA Forest Service, 1995). 

There are 15 unauthorized routes (3.8 miles) within WSR corridors. Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 

7 propose to add some of those routes to the NFTS. All proposed routes provide access to 

dispersed recreation sites (both camping sites and areas for launching watercraft) within WSR 

corridor segments designated as Recreational. Based on determinations in the Hydrology and 

Fisheries sections of this document, the additions would meet requirements of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and the Clean Water Act sufficient to protect the outstandingly remarkable 

values of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Recreation analysis determined that all action 

alternatives meet Forest ROS standards; therefore, Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 would meet LRMP 

standards and guidelines. More information is contained in the WSR Analysis paper included in 

the project files in the Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 85

Transportation Management

Introduction

This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which the proposed action and 

alternatives respond to transportation facilities direction established in the LRMP. The NFTS, 

consisting of roads, trails, and airfields, provides for protection, development, management, and 

utilization of resources on the national forests. Other roads and trails on the KNF are not currently 

part of the NFTS; they are either managed by another agency or private entity, or are 

unauthorized. Transportation facilities considered in this analysis include routes that are suitable 

for motor vehicle use as roads or trails. Decisions regarding changes in the transportation 

facilities must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) providing adequate 

maintenance of the routes designated for public use. Adequate maintenance includes maintenance 

to protect the route from deterioration and make it useable for a class of vehicle as well as 

maintenance to protect the environmental values and resources of the KNF surrounding the route. 

The analysis in this section focuses primarily on these aspects. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects transportation facilities includes:

The National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) is the umbrella under which 

transportation is managed on National Forests.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is the law under which National Forests 

developed land and resource management plans. 

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 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. 36 CFR 212.55 requires public safety be 

considered when designating roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use. 36 CFR 212.55

requires consideration of the need for maintenance and administration of the designated NFTS. 

Forest Service Manuals 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. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

86 Klamath National Forest

Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 describes the maintenance management system the Forest 

Service uses and the maintenance standards needed to meet RMOs for the road system including 

considerations for public safety. Some of the terms describing road management and maintenance 

levels are as follows:

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). There may be additional costs 

associated with proposed changes to the NFTS (implementation costs). These costs may 

be for improving unauthorized routes that will be added to the NFTS, costs for proposed 

safety and resource improvements, costs for changing maintenance levels, and costs for 

closing routes to use by motor vehicles. 

Road Management Objective: Defines the intended purpose of an individual road in 

providing access to implement a land and resource management plan. Access needs are 

typically multi-purpose and may include forest health projects, wildlife monitoring, fire 

protection or suppression, and dispersed recreation such as hunting, camping and 

sightseeing.

Annual Maintenance: The expected yearly maintenance required on roads and 

roadsides based on the assigned Maintenance Level. The actual amount of maintenance 

required depends on the amount of use the road has received, the condition of the surface, 

the season of use and physical factors such as topography, soil type, vegetation and 

precipitation. 

Deferred Maintenance: This maintenance work can be deferred, without loss of road 

serviceability, until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed. 

Deferred maintenance needs can be reduced through a number of different actions and 

strategies (Appendix C).

Road maintenance level (ML): The Forest Service maintains roads in 5 defined levels. 

The following terms are rewritten for ease of understanding and tailored to the Klamath 

National Forest. Official definitions can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgibin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?7709.59!.gov

Maintenance Level 5 roads are mostly double lane paved; they require care 

every year and significant mission and safety related maintenance every 8 –

10 years. These roads only make up 1 percent of the KNF transportation 

system. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 87

Maintenance Level 4 roads are mostly chipsealed (gravel topcoat with 

asphalt binder) with some asphalt pavement sections that also require annual 

care and substantial mission and safety related maintenance every 8 – 10 

years. These roads generally provide access to developed recreation and 

administrative sites and make up 2 percent of the KNF transportation system. 

Maintenance Level 3 roads make up 18 percent of the KNF transportation 

system. Many of these roads were aggregate surfaced for heavy timber 

hauling and resurfacing is not required for current use. Much of the aggregate 

has been worn down and pounded into the native material leaving a stable 

roadbed that is graded only as necessary for proper drainage or for safety 

concerns. These roads are the backbone system to access the general forest 

and wilderness areas. The objective is to maintain these roads to be passable 

for a prudent driver in a passenger vehicle. 

Maintenance Level 2 roads make up 61 percent of the KNF transportation 

system. The majority of these roads are maintained as needed to support 

Forest projects or provide access for fire suppression. Some of these roads 

may not see any maintenance for several years. In some cases, roads may 

become impassable due to rocks, down trees and encroaching brush. The 

objective is to maintain these roads for high clearance vehicles such as 

pickups and many SUVs; however, some may be passable by a lower 

clearance vehicle.

Maintenance Level 1 roads are closed to motorized vehicle use. They are 

generally placed into self-maintaining hydrologic storage and closed with a 

closure device. No maintenance is typically performed except to check the 

closure device. These roads make up 18 percent of the KNF transportation 

system. 

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulates the use of motor vehicles in California, 

including motor vehicles used on national forests. The CVC sets safety standards for motor 

vehicles and vehicle operators. Division 1, Sec. 360 defines a highway as  ̳A way or place of 

whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular 

travel. Highway includes street‘. The exclusion of roads from the definition of a highway is 

defined in the CVC as follows: 

Div 16.5, Sec. 38001: (a) Except as otherwise provided, this division applies to 

off-highway motor vehicles, as defined in Section 38006, on lands, other than a 

highway, that are open and accessible to the public, including any land acquired, 

developed, operated, or maintained, in whole or in part, with money from the Off-
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

88 Klamath National Forest

Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, except private lands under the immediate control of 

the owner or his or her agent where permission is required and has been granted to 

operate a motor vehicle. For purposes of this division, 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.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) regulates the use of motor vehicles in Oregon, including 

motor vehicles used on the national forests. Per ORS 821.190, it is unlawful to operate a Class III 

vehicle on a highway, but exemptions are established in 821.200. One of these exemptions is ―(2) 

a snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle may be lawfully operated upon a highway under any of the 

following circumstances...(c) Where the highway is posted to permit snowmobiles or all-terrain 

vehicles. ORS 821.200 states ―The prohibitions and penalties under ORS 821.190 do not apply 

when a snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle that qualifies for the exemption from equipment 

requirements under ORS 821.010...‖

The exemption noted above is described in ORS 821.020: Applicability of off-road vehicle 

exemption from general equipment requirements:

(1) This section establishes the areas where the exemption from equipment requirements for 

off-road vehicles described under ORS 821.010 is applicable. The exemption applies to any 

land, road or place within the State of Oregon that meets the description in subsection (2) of 

this section and that is not posted as closed to off-road use.

(2) The exemption applies to each of the following lands, roads and places:

(a) Lands that are open to the public.

(b) Roads, other than two-lane gravel roads, that are open to the public.

(c) Paved parking lots adjacent to or on designated off-road vehicle areas, trails and 

routes that are open to the public.

(d) Any local two-lane gravel road that is open to the public and that is designated by the 

road authority with jurisdiction over the road as open to off-road vehicles that are 

described in ORS 821.010. [1983 c.338 §711; 1999 c.565 §4]

The Regional Forester of the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, has determined 

that KNF roads with operational maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 do not meet the CVC 38001 

highway definition exclusions. The Pacific Southwest Regional Forester‘s letters, file code 

7700/2350, dated 08/21/06, 06/20/07, 01/13/09, and 2/12/09 contain procedures National Forests 

in the Pacific Southwest Region will follow to evaluate safety aspects of public travel on roads 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 89

when proposed changes to the NFTS will allow both highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic 

on a road. This is termed motorized mixed use (MMU) by the Forest Service. The Oregon statutes 

allow the Forest Service to approve MMU on unpaved roads.

The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) includes 

forest-wide goals for transportation and facilities management. Specific standards pertinent to 

travel management include:

20-1 Transportation planning shall be an integral part of Ecosystem Analysis at the 

landscape/watershed level and of environmental analysis at the site level. Planning efforts 

should include a review of the existing Road Management Objectives (RMOs) and 

proposals for the development of new roads. Develop RMOs through an ID team. Place 

needed non-system [now called unauthorized] roads in the Forest road system. Nonsystem roads not needed for future management shall be "put to bed."

20-4 Road closures may be permanent or seasonal. Road closures can be used to meet wildlife 

needs, water quality and soils protection objectives, fire protection, other resource needs, 

to reduce road damage and maintenance costs and to reduce or eliminate conflicts 

between user groups.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to the Transportation Analysis

Any motor vehicle use authorized by state law is occurring on the NFTS unless there are 

Forest- specific prohibitions. 

Motor vehicle use by special use permit or other permitted activities are outside the scope of 

this proposal (forest products gathering, motorized special use permit event, recreation 

residences, mining activities, etc.).

Once motorized trails are designated, unless they are specifically identified by the travel 

management decision as open only to a particular class of vehicle, they will be maintained for 

high-clearance vehicles (4WD etc.), ATVs and motorcycles.

Some level of maintenance is required for every route open to motor vehicle use by the 

public, but many routes need little active maintenance.

State law regulating motor vehicle drivers sets the standard of care for the safety of 

themselves and other users for the NFTS. 

Data Sources

GIS layers for KNF for locations of unauthorized routes.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

90 Klamath National Forest

KNF Forest-wide Roads Analysis (2002) (this document provided an initial estimate of 

deferred maintenance costs of $55.5 million. In 2007, the estimate was revised to $48 million; 

both these numbers are based on a small national random road sample of deferred 

maintenance needs and are not considered statistically valid at the national forest level; more 

accurate numbers were developed in 2009 that are used in this travel management document). 

Analysis documented in Appendix C of this FEIS for KNF road maintenance strategies and 

related deferred maintenance costs. 

INFRA database for information on individual roads at various maintenance levels.

Indicators

Indicators of Public Safety

1. Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS

The 4,536 miles of KNF NFTS roads have very low traffic volumes and are predominantly low 

speed routes constructed in mountainous, heavily wooded terrain. These roads can present 

hazards such as steep drop offs or debris in the road, but can be used safely by a prudent drivers 

taking proper precautions. The Klamath visitor map advises motorists of driving hazards and 

recommends safety and survival gear to take along. Accidents and especially fatalities are rare 

and, when they occur, usually involve a single vehicle. There are several factors contributing to 

the low rate of safety related problems:

The KNF roads are safe if driven responsibly

The KNF is not located near any major urban centers

Siskiyou County is 60 percent public land with a total population of 45,000

The KNF has one of the lowest visitor use numbers in the nation

There are no large developed recreation sites that concentrate high numbers of vehicles

Use is widely dispersed for activities such as hunting, fishing or wood cutting

Visitors are typically accustomed to mountain roads and many drive high clearance 

vehicles

KNF engineers and other employees review NFTS road conditions on a continuing basis. 

Given the NFTS size, use patterns and debris fall, not every road is driven or drivable. Identified 

safety hazards, such as bridge deficiencies, evaluated danger trees (formerly known as hazard 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 91

trees) or major washouts are corrected or the road is closed. Maintenance funds are prioritized to 

deal with safety concerns first. 

The Forest has 497 miles of publicly-identified unauthorized routes that are currently being 

used. These routes, primarily created by the public, access dispersed recreation sites or connect 

NFTS roads. Since the Forest is currently open to cross-country travel, these unauthorized routes 

have been legally open to all vehicle classes for decades. 

A review and screening of the inventoried routes was conducted for potential resource 

impacts, along with the suitability for addition to the NFTS as a maintenance level 2 road or a 

motorized trail. This screening process resulted in the unauthorized route additions proposed in 

the various alternatives. None of the proposed additions to the NFTS as roads pose a public safety

concern. These routes are short, located on flat to mild slopes, generally do not have stream 

crossings, culverts, ditches, rolling dips or other features requiring maintenance for safety or 

resource mitigation. They have been used for decades with the only maintenance being conducted 

by users through handwork to remove debris blocking access. If added to the NFTS, these routes 

would continue under this maintenance approach, with the only change being minimal signing 

and danger tree abatement. 

2. Miles of Motorized Mixed Use with Safety Concerns

The CVC allows the operation of non-highway-legal vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers on 

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. The ORS allows the 

operation of non-highway legal vehicles on dirt or gravel roads if operated by permitted drivers. 

ML 2 roads are generally roughly graded and are only maintained for high-clearance vehicles. 

Operation of non-highway-legal vehicles on these roads is currently authorized by the Forest 

Service and is considered to be consistent with California and Oregon State law. Oregon law 

furthers extends this provision to ML 3 roads, subject to Forest Service approval. During public 

workshops held throughout Siskiyou County, it became apparent that many OHV users were not 

aware of the difference between ML 2 and ML 3 roads, and the associated vehicle restrictions. 

Their frame of reference is focused on the road surface - whether the road is paved or gravel/dirt. 

OHV users generally agreed that paved roads were not open to OHVs but were unaware of the 

difference between unpaved ML 3 and ML 2 roads. It is clear that some OHV use has occurred 

on ML 3 roads, not because it was sanctioned by the Forest Service but due to public 

misperception and historical practices on a large remote road system. An important aspect of 

implementing any alternative will be educating the public on where use of non-highway legal 

vehicles is allowed. 

On roads considered highways, the CVC allows for non-highway legal vehicle operation if 

approved for ―combined use‖ under Div 16.5, Sec 38026. The Forest Service considers NFTS 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

92 Klamath National Forest

roads maintained for passenger cars to be highways under the CVC, and operation of nonhighway legal vehicles on these routes requires analysis to determine if ―mixed use‖ (the Forest 

Service term) is appropriate. Any decision about motorized mixed use on ML 3 and NFTS roads 

must be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis (MMUA) conducted by a qualified 

engineer. The analysis identifies risks associated with each road proposed for mixed use. The 

analysis may include mitigation measures that would reduce the risk associated with designating 

the road for motorized mixed use. A MMUA has been completed for this project and is included 

in the project files. 

The MMUA for this project followed the Pacific Southwest Region guidance cited above. 

This guidance requires that ML 3 or roads proposed for MMU be reviewed to determine if 

reclassification to ML 2 is appropriate. It was determined that 130 miles of the 272 miles of 

passenger car (ML 3) roads that were proposed for mixed use among the alternatives are actually 

suitable for management as ML 2 roads. The road management objectives for these roads no 

longer support ML 3 status because 1) Forest traffic has shifted away from high traffic volumes

associated with commodity extraction, and 2) these roads do not access communities, developed 

recreation sites or other sites that concentrate use. The results of the MMUA on these roads 

support reassigning them to ML 2. Table TM-5 and Appendix C provide details of the MMUA.

The remaining 142 miles in the action alternatives (37 ML 3 roads and two ML 4 roads) were

evaluated in the MMUA; the probability and severity of a crash were determined to be low to 

moderate in all cases, so all were considered to be eligible for mixed use. Mitigations to enhance 

safety on the routes proposed for mixed use are listed in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. 

There are several NFTS ML 2 roads that access private lands that are currently open to nonhighway legal vehicles. These routes are proposed to change from open to all vehicles to open for 

use by highway legal vehicles only in the proposed action and several action alternatives. This 

proposal responds to a concern voiced by local landowners regarding dust, noise and property 

damage resulting from unmanaged OHV use on NFS lands adjacent to their property. 

Safety issues related to the potential for asbestos dust are addressed in the Geology and Air 

sections of this chapter.

Indicators of Affordability

3. Annual Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs are those required to keep the road in passable condition and to meet safety 

and resource concerns. Based on RMOs, every road does not need or receive maintenance every 

year to meet forest management goals, nor is every type of maintenance task completed when a 

road is maintained. There is no expectation, either by KNF managers or the public, that every 

mile of every KNF road will be passable every year. This holds true for unauthorized routes 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 93

proposed for addition to the NFTS. These routes will be added as ML 2 roads or motorized trails. 

Maintenance costs on the routes added as ML 2 roads will be minimal due to their physical 

attributes, single-purpose road management objectives (RMOs) for access to dispersed recreation

sites, lack of resource impacts over a sustained period, and history of user participation to remove 

downed vegetation, rocks, etc. The total annual maintenance cost for the roads to be added to the 

system is estimated at $50 to $250 per mile. The $50 per mile cost is the minimum, what is likely 

to be needed; only monitoring and sign maintenance are anticipated. This estimate is considered 

to be likely due to the results of the screening efforts and road attributes discussed in 

measurement indicator 1. The $250 per mile (maximum) is the average cost of annual 

maintenance of ML 2 roads on the KNF, most of which have multi-purpose RMOs. Both numbers 

are used in tables to display the likely cost and maximum cost of implementing each action 

alternative. 

The KNF does not have experience with maintaining motorized trails other than over-snow 

trails. An estimate of annual maintenance costs for motorized trails was determined using an 

estimate provided by a unit of the National Forest System that currently maintains motorized 

trails; this figure of $1000 per mile was inflated by 25% to account for lack of information on 

costs of local equipment to accomplish annual maintenance.

4. Implementation Costs

Adding routes to the NFTS will have direct effects in the form of initial costs. Actions associated 

with adding unauthorized routes as ML 2 roads or motorized trails includes initial sign 

construction and installation, and gathering and entering physical route data into the INFRA

corporate database; this is estimated to cost $450 per mile. No reconstruction or major 

maintenance is anticipated for added roads, and no new construction is proposed. 

Most of the proposed motorized trails will require mitigation to meet trail management 

standards based on trail management objectives (at a minimum, surface blading and drainage 

work such as water bars or rolling dips), estimated at $4500 per mile in the Humbug drainage (see 

Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter for additional information on mitigation in this area). 

Accomplishing the signing and data collection work for motorized trails is estimated to cost $150 

per mile for a motorized trail.

The only additional cost for ML 3 motorized mixed use roads will be the installation of 

―Share-the-Road‖ signs (brushing for sight distance is already a requirement on ML 3 -5 roads). 

Initial motorized mixed use signing on ML 3 roads will cost approximately $100 per sign.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

94 Klamath National Forest

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: The KNF boundary. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Attempting to quantify where cross-country motorized travel would occur under the no action 

alternative (Alternative 1) is speculative, since it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or 

how cross-country motorized use would occur. For consistency in comparing alternatives, the 

inventoried unauthorized OHV routes were used as a proxy for the area potentially affected by 

cross-country motorized use and to provide a baseline for safety considerations.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The KNF boundary. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The KNF boundary. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

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 KNF boundary.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 95

Methodology: GIS analysis.

Affected Environment

A majority of KNF visitors travel on NFTS roads; KNF roads are also an integral part of the 

transportation system for Siskiyou County. They provide access for income-producing activities 

such as grazing, timber harvest, mining and forest product gathering and for KNF program work 

such as fish and wildlife habitat management, fire protection, research, and insect and disease 

control. They also provide access to private parcels located within National Forest boundaries. 

The existing NFTS on the KNF developed over the last century, first as a trail system for 

miners and trappers. As four-wheeled modes of travel became available, trails were expanded to 

accommodate larger vehicles and became wagon roads. The first roads through the KNF provided 

wagon access to Happy Camp along the Klamath River, Forks of the Salmon and Cecilville on 

the Salmon River, and the Haight Mountain area on the east side of the KNF. As the need for 

transportation efficiency grew and motor vehicles came into use, these routes were reconstructed 

to higher standards. The road system was greatly expanded in the 1950s and 1960s to 

accommodate timber harvest activities, and to provide access to industrial timber lands located 

within the Forest boundaries. These logging roads also provided access for recreational activities, 

opening up the Forest for a variety of pursuits, and making driving for pleasure one of the current 

most-cited uses of the Forest by recreation visitors. 

Roads in the NFTS are not public roads in the same sense as roads that are under the 

jurisdiction of State and county road agencies. National Forest System (NFS) roads are not 

intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at large. Instead, they are managed only 

for the use and administration of NFS lands. Although generally open and available for public 

use, that use is at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Through authorities delegated by 

the Secretary, the Forest Service may restrict or control traffic to meet specific management 

direction (Forest Service Manual 7731).The current road system within the Klamath National 

Forest evolved to consist of nearly 10,000 miles of State, County, Forest Service and private 

roads, including:

County and other local roads in and adjacent to the KNF – 4,000 miles 

KNF NFTS – 4,536 miles 

State Highways through and leading to the KNF – approximately 300 miles.

Inventoried unauthorized routes - approximately 497 miles. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

96 Klamath National Forest

The Forest grooms 48 miles of snowmobile trails on the Goosenest Ranger District; 32 miles 

of these trails are on NFTS roads. This work is accomplished through use of California Green 

Sticker funds. The season of use for those roads (for other than over-snow vehicles) is May 1 –

December 25. This season of use separates the two kinds of motorized use.

NFTS roads are managed in one of three ways: closed long term to motor vehicles (ML 1 -

closed roads), roads maintained for high-clearance vehicles (ML 2), and roads maintained for low 

clearance (passenger car) vehicles (ML 3, 4, and 5). Existing NFTS trails are managed for nonmotorized user type; the only trails available for motorized use on the KNF are for over-snow 

vehicles. 

Table TM-1. Existing Klamath NFTS roads by operational maintenance level

Operational Maintenance Level Miles

1 - Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 826.5

2 - High Clearance Vehicles (native surface) 2760.9

3 - Suitable for Passenger Cars (gravel or native surface) 805.1

4 - Moderate Degree of User Comfort (paved or chipsealed) 102.6

5 - High Degree of User Comfort (paved) 41.5

Total Miles 4536.6

The majority of the existing roads on the KNF were constructed for timber harvest and log 

haul. The ML 3 roads are fairly wide, have reasonable stopping sight distances and intervisible 

turnouts, and were originally surfaced with crushed aggregate. Maintenance level 2 roads were 

constructed to access timber stands and were designed for logging and administrative traffic only; 

they are generally narrower than ML 3 roads with steeper grades and tighter curves. Some 

originally had aggregate surfacing. Such surfacing longer needed for heavy log haul or resource 

protection; in most cases the original aggregate has worn down to where it is impractical, both 

physically and financially, to maintain the surface in a smooth condition for user comfort. The 

road surfaces are generally hard, stable and erosion resistant; however travel speeds are generally 

slow, between 10 and 25 miles per hour. Recent estimates of average daily traffic volume on the 

majority of NFTS roads range anywhere from less than 1 to around 15 vehicles per day. (At the

higher rate, 15 vehicles over a 12 hour period generate a statistical average of one vehicle every

1.25 hours). A review of records for the past 15 years reveals no instances of highway/nonhighway legal vehicle crashes on KNF roads. Site-specific information regarding road conditions, 

historical uses and safety for proposed mixed use routes is included in the Engineering Analysis 

of Motorized Mixed Use contained in Appendix C.

Maintenance of NFTS roads is funded from one of five sources:

Annual appropriations – for road operation and maintenance using a national distribution 

formula based on several factors such as roaded land area, timber and fuels reduction targets 

and recreation use.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 97

Special appropriations and grants – competitive funds based on resource benefits, typically at 

the watershed level. 

Cooperators – Cooperators are private timber companies that have entered into a cost share 

agreement with the Forest Service to share the construction and maintenance costs of roads

used by both parties. The maintenance of co-op roads is performed by both parties and 

coordinated at the annual co-op maintenance meeting every spring. 

Timber sale purchasers - purchasers perform maintenance on the roads they use to remove the 

timber from sales.

Special use permittees, private landowners, and road use permit holders - As part of their 

permit, they contribute funds and/or perform maintenance on the roads they use 

commensurate with their level of use.

Cooperators maintain around 100-200 miles of road per year. Maintenance is primarily on 

ML2 and ML3 roads. Miles of road maintained by timber purchasers have varied widely in recent 

years due to economic fluctuations in the timber market and resultant effects on the Forest‘s 

timber sale program. Generally, purchasers maintain approximately 25-50 miles of road per year. 

The annual maintenance costs for the current road system are estimated at $3 million; 

estimated maintenance costs for each alternative are included by alternative in the environmental 

consequences section. Forest-wide average costs per mile to maintain each operational 

maintenance level (ML) were developed and applied to the road system to calculate the estimated 

total cost. The average costs per mile are shown in 2. The average costs per mile were derived 

from local unit costs for maintenance items and frequency of maintenance appropriate for each 

operational maintenance level. The KNF does not have any designated trails for motorized 

vehicles other than over-snow vehicles.

Table TM-2. Annual maintenance cost per mile by operational maintenance level

Operational Maintenance 

Level Annual Maintenance Cost $/Mile

1 $30/mile

2 $250/mile

3 $700/mile

4 $7,000/mile

5 $25,000/mile

Table TM-3 shows the past four years of maintenance accomplished by the KNF (excludes 

miles of road receiving maintenance by the Six Rivers National Forest).
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

98 Klamath National Forest

Table TM-3. Miles of system roads and miles receiving maintenance (excluding those on the 

Ukonom Ranger District, managed by the Six Rivers NF), FY 2005 thru 2008

Operational 

Maintenance 

Level

Miles 

Receiving 

Maintenance

FY2005

Miles 

Receiving 

Maintenance

FY2006

Miles 

Receiving 

Maintenance

FY2007

Miles Receiving 

Maintenance

FY2008

Level 1 21.90 12.74 72.3 40.97

Level 2 478.14 367.11 824.3 686.03

Level 3 681.54 479.66 824.1 677.28

Level 4 45.95 40.64 75.1 60.2

Level 5 19.50 11.40 41.0 33.2

Totals 1,247.03 911.55 1836.8 1497.68

The KNF has developed a series of strategies, including an active storm-proofing and 

decommissioning program, to address the deferred maintenance backlog (summarized in 

Appendix C). The KNF has a good history of securing grant and partnership funds to 

decommission and storm-proof roads, thereby eliminating or reducing deferred and annual 

maintenance needs. Although the maintenance backlog costs seem high (approximately $20 

million), these strategies are helping reduce the backlog over time. Appendix C includes a 

description of the variety of activities included in the road maintenance strategy to reduce backlog 

and associated costs. 

The LRMP does not prohibit motor vehicle use over much of the Klamath National Forest. 

Approximately 1.2 million acres of the Forest are open for cross-country travel. Due to slope, 

topography and dense vegetation, not all acres are actually available for use by safety-minded 

motor vehicle operators. There are three large areas on the Goosenest District that have been 

seasonally closed to off-road travel for many years through Forest Orders. Four other smaller 

areas (one on the Goosenest District, two on the Oak Knoll District, and one on the Scott River 

District) are closed to off-road travel year-round by Forest Orders to protect sensitive resources. 

These Forest Orders will be superseded by a decision to implement an action alternative under 

this process. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 99

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Under this alternative, cross-country motorized vehicle travel is allowed on 1.2 million acres of 

the KNF. About 497 miles of unauthorized routes would continue to be used. There would be no 

effects on either safety or affordability of the NFTS in the short or long term. Exposure to 

potential safety hazards, such as rocks or overhanging tree limbs, and potential resource 

remediation costs will continue on the existing unauthorized routes and routes created in the 

future. Due to the low volume of traffic on these routes and the absence of a history of safetyrelated incidents, effects are expected to be minimal. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. There are no effects on 

either safety or affordability of the NFTS.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS 

No changes to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. There are no effects on 

either safety or affordability of the NFTS.

Cumulative effects

Of the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Appendix B, only road-related 

actions are likely to add to the effects of this project on transportation costs. The annual 

maintenance costs for ML 2 roads will decrease by $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum) due 

to removal of 50 miles from the NFTS and addition of 26 miles by ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable road actions. The 13 miles of ML 1 roads added by ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable road actions will be in custodial status and only require closure monitoring (costing

$390/year) for a total savings of $810 (minimum) to $5,610 (maximum) per year in annual 

maintenance costs. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 405 miles of 

existing inventoried unauthorized routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential safety 

hazards on 1.2 million acres. The potential for new unauthorized routes being created with safety 

hazards will be eliminated. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

100 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

The 92 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in this alternative have been evaluated for 

safety and affordability. No safety hazards were identified. Implementation activities and costs 

associated with converting unauthorized routes to operational ML 2 roads are addressed in the 

discussion for Indicator 4; a maximum implementation cost of $35,100 for 78 miles of additional 

NFTS roads is estimated for this alternative (based on $450 per mile). Mitigation activities 

associated with addition of unauthorized routes as 14 miles of motorized trails are estimated to 

cost $63,000 (based on $4500 per mile). Total estimated implementation costs are displayed in 

Table TM-4.

Adding 78 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS will minimally add to the Forest‘s road 

maintenance costs over time. These routes have rough native surfacing, and most need little 

active maintenance. Many of the routes to dispersed recreation sites are short and require very 

low vehicle speeds. Annual maintenance costs are expected to be $3,900 per year with a 

maximum of $19,500 per year if the maximum cost estimate is applied (Table TM-4). Annual 

maintenance costs of $1,250 per mile for 14 miles of motorized trails would equal $17,500; this 

work is expected to be funded out of recreation funds and state grants.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Based on the MMUA, adding motorized mixed use to 119 miles of NFTS roads with the 

suggested mitigations will not adversely affect the safety of Forest users and will add minimal 

cost for signing of these roads.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed changes to the NFTS have reasonable implementation costs and were selected 

because they respond to public desire for certain motorized travel routes that would otherwise be 

eliminated, while not increasing safety risks or adding substantial costs to maintain the current 

NFTS. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of road to the NFTS, 

primarily on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District); 50 miles of road will be 

removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles of road by decommissioning and 

2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail. The 13 miles of ML 1 road added to the NFTS 

will not have much effect on motorized vehicle travel or maintenance costs as they will be closed 

to public motorized vehicle use. The annual maintenance costs for ML 2 roads will decrease by 

$1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). ML 1 roads are in custodial status and only require 

closure monitoring for a total of $390/year. The effects of these road actions added to the effects 

of this alternative would decrease annual maintenance costs by $810 (minimum) to $5,610 

(maximum) per year for a cumulative maintenance cost for roads and trails from $20,590 

(minimum) to $31,390 (maximum) per year for this alternative.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 101

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 497

miles of existing unauthorized routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential hazards 

on 1.2 million acres of open lands. The potential for new unauthorized routes being created with 

safety hazards would be eliminated. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS. There are no impacts on cost or safety under 

this alternative unless motorized vehicle use concentration on existing NFTS roads leads to 

accidents. 

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS 

This alternative does not make changes to the existing NFTS. There are no effects on cost or 

safety under this alternative. 

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of open road to the NFTS, 25 miles

on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) and 1 mile on the west side. A total of 50

miles of road will be removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles by road 

decommissioning and 2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail for a saved annual 

maintenance cost of $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). The 13 miles of ML 1 road added 

to the NFTS will cost an additional $390/year as they will be closed to public motorized vehicle 

use. The effects of these road actions would reduce maintenance costs by $810 (minimum) to 

$5,610 (maximum) per year.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 490

miles of existing unauthorized routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential hazards 

on 1.2 million acres of open lands. The prohibition would reduce exposure to unmitigated hazards 

on routes not proposed in any alternatives. The potential for new unauthorized routes being 

created with safety hazards or resource remediation costs would be eliminated. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

102 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

The 7 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in this alternative have been evaluated for 

safety and affordability. No added safety hazards were identified. Implementation activities and 

costs associated with converting unauthorized routes to operational ML 2 roads are addressed in 

the discussion for Indicator 4; a maximum implementation cost of $2,700 for 6 miles of 

additional NFTS roads is estimated for this alternative (based on $450 per mile). Mitigation 

activities associated with addition of less than1 mile of unauthorized route as motorized trails are 

estimated to cost a maximum of $4,500 (based on $4500 per mile). Signing for added trails is 

estimated to cost $150 per mile. Total estimated implementation costs are displayed in Table TM4.

Adding 6 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS will minimally add to the Forest‘s road

maintenance costs over time. These routes have rough native surfacing, and most need little 

active maintenance. Many of the routes to dispersed recreation sites are short and require very 

low vehicle speeds. Annual maintenance costs are likely to be $300 per year with a maximum of 

$1,500 per year using the maximum cost estimate (Table TM-4). Annual maintenance costs of 

$1,250 per mile for less than 1 mile of motorized trails would be a maximum of $1,250.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Based on the MMUA, adding motorized mixed use to 119 miles of NFTS roads with the 

suggested mitigations will not adversely affect the safety of Forest users and will add minimal 

cost for signing of these roads.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed changes to the NFTS have reasonable implementation costs and were selected 

because they respond to public desire for certain motorized travel routes that would otherwise be 

eliminated, while not increasing safety risks or adding substantial costs to maintain the current 

NFTS. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of open road to the NFTS, 

25 miles on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) and 1 mile on the west side. A 

total of 50 miles of road will be removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles 

by road decommissioning and 2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail. The 13 miles of 

ML 1 road added to the NFTS will not have much effect on motorized vehicle travel or 

maintenance costs as they will be closed to public motorized vehicle use. The annual maintenance 

costs for ML 2 roads will decrease by $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). ML 1 roads are 

in custodial status and only require closure monitoring for a total of $390/year. The effects of 

these road actions added to the effects of this alternative would decrease annual maintenance 

costs by $810 (minimum) to $5,610 (maximum) per year for a cumulative maintenance cost 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 103

savings for roads and trails from $740 (minimum) to $2,860 (maximum) per year for this 

alternative.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 428

miles of existing publicly-identified routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential 

hazards on 1.2 million acres of open lands. The prohibition would reduce exposure to unmitigated 

hazards on routes not proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative. The potential for new 

unauthorized routes being created with safety hazards would be eliminated. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

The 69 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in this alternative have been evaluated for 

safety and affordability. No added safety hazards were identified. Implementation activities and 

costs associated with converting unauthorized routes to operational ML 2 roads are addressed in 

the discussion for Indicator 4; a maximum implementation cost of $21,150 for 47 miles of 

additional NFTS roads is estimated for this alternative (based on $450 per mile). Mitigation 

activities associated with addition of unauthorized routes as 22 miles of motorized trails are 

estimated to cost $99,000 (based on $4500 per mile). Signing for added trails is estimated to cost 

$150 per mile. Total estimated implementation costs are displayed in Table TM-4.

Adding 47 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS will minimally add to the Forest‘s road 

maintenance costs over time. These routes have rough native surfacing, and most need little 

active maintenance. Many of the routes to dispersed recreation sites are short and require very 

low vehicle speeds. Annual maintenance costs are likely to be $2,350 per year with a maximum 

of $11,750 per year if the maximum cost estimate is used (Table TM-4). Annual maintenance 

costs of $1,250 per mile for 22 miles of motorized trails would equal $27,500.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Based on the MMUA, adding motorized mixed use to 272 miles of NFTS roads with the

suggested mitigations will not adversely affect the safety of Forest users and will add minimal 

cost for signing of these roads.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed changes to the NFTS have reasonable implementation costs and were selected 

because they respond to public desire for certain motorized travel routes that would otherwise be 

eliminated, while not increasing safety risks or adding substantial costs to maintain the current 

NFTS. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of road to the NFTS, 25
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

104 Klamath National Forest

miles on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) and 1 mile on the west side. A 

total of 50 miles of road will be removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles 

by road decommissioning and 2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail. The 13 miles of 

ML 1 road added to the NFTS will not have much effect on motorized vehicle travel or 

maintenance costs as they will be closed to public motorized vehicle use. The annual maintenance 

costs for ML 2 roads will decrease by $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). ML 1 roads are 

in custodial status and only require closure monitoring for a total of $390/year. The effects of 

these road actions added to the effects of this alternative would decrease annual maintenance 

costs by $810 (minimum) to $5,610 (maximum) per year for a cumulative maintenance cost for 

roads and trails from $29,040 (minimum) to $33,640 per year (maximum).

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 438

miles of existing publicly-identified routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential 

hazards on 1.2 million acres of open lands. The prohibition would reduce exposure to unmitigated 

hazards on routes not proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative. The potential for new 

unauthorized routes being created with safety hazards would be eliminated.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

The 59 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in this alternative have been evaluated for 

safety and affordability. No added safety hazards were identified. Implementation activities and 

costs associated with converting unauthorized routes to operational ML 2 roads are addressed in 

the discussion for Indicator 4; a maximum implementation cost of $18,450 for 41 miles of 

additional NFTS roads is estimated for this alternative (based on $450 per mile). Mitigation 

activities associated with addition of unauthorized routes as 18 miles of motorized trails are 

estimated to cost $81,000 (based on $4500 per mile). Signing for added trails is estimated to cost 

$150 per mile. Total estimated implementation costs are displayed in Table TM-4.

Adding 41 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS will minimally add to the Forest‘s road 

maintenance costs over time. These routes have rough native surfacing, and most need little 

active maintenance. Many of the routes to dispersed recreation sites are short and require very 

low vehicle speeds. Annual maintenance costs are likely to be $2,050 per year with a maximum 

of $10,250 per year if the maximum cost estimate is applied (Table TM-4). Annual maintenance 

costs of $1,250 per mile for 18 miles of motorized trails would equal $22,500.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 105

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Based on the MMUA, adding motorized mixed use to 105 miles of NFTS roads with the 

suggested mitigations will not adversely affect the safety of Forest users and will add minimal 

cost for signing of these roads.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed changes to the NFTS have reasonable implementation costs and were selected 

because they respond to public desire for certain motorized travel routes that would otherwise be 

eliminated, while not increasing safety risks or adding substantial costs to maintain the current 

NFTS. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of road to the NFTS, 25

miles on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) and 1 mile on the west side. A total 

of 50 miles of road will be removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles of road 

by decommissioning and 2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail. The 13 miles of ML 1 

road added to the NFTS will not have much effect on motorized vehicle travel or maintenance 

costs as they will be closed to public motorized vehicle use. The annual maintenance costs for 

ML 2 roads will decrease by $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). ML 1 roads are in 

custodial status and only require closure monitoring for a total of $390/year. The effects of these 

road actions added to the effects of this alternative would decrease annual maintenance costs by 

$810 (minimum) to $5,610 (maximum) per year for a cumulative maintenance cost for roads and 

trails from$23,740 (minimum) to $27,140 (maximum).

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will remove motorized vehicle use from 423

miles of existing publicly-identified routes and protect OHV users from exposure to potential 

hazards on 1.2 million acres of open lands. The prohibition would reduce exposure to unmitigated 

hazards on routes not proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative. The potential for new 

unauthorized routes being created with safety hazards would be eliminated. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

The 74 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in this alternative have been evaluated for 

safety and affordability. No added safety hazards were identified. Implementation activities and 

costs associated with converting unauthorized routes to operational ML 2 roads are addressed in 

the discussion for Indicator 4; a maximum implementation cost of $23,850 for about 53 miles of 

additional NFTS roads is estimated for this alternative (based on $450 per mile). Mitigation 

activities associated with addition of unauthorized routes as 21 miles of motorized trails are 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

106 Klamath National Forest

estimated to cost $94,500 (based on $4500 per mile). Signing for added trails is estimated to cost 

$150 per mile. Total estimated implementation costs are displayed in Table TM-4.

Adding 53 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS will minimally add to the Forest‘s road 

maintenance costs over time. These routes have rough native surfacing, and most need little 

active maintenance. Many of the routes to dispersed recreation sites are short and require very 

low vehicle speeds. Annual maintenance costs are likely to be $2,650 with a maximum of 

$13,250 per year if the maximum cost estimate is applied (Table TM-4). Annual maintenance 

costs of $1,250 per mile for 21 miles of motorized trails would equal $26,250.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Based on the MMUA, adding motorized mixed use to 262 miles of NFTS roads (ML 3, and ML 3 

downgrades to ML 2) with the suggested mitigations will not adversely affect the safety of Forest 

users and will add minimal cost for signing of 131 miles of ML 3 roads. Alternative 7 would 

downgrade 130 miles of ML 3 road to ML 2; because ML 3 roads have an annual maintenance 

cost of $700 per mile, and ML 2 roads cost between $50 per mile (minimum) to $250 per mile 

(maximum) to maintain each year, cost savings from downgrading 130 miles of ML 3 road to ML 

2 would save between $58,500 per year (maximum cost estimate for ML 2 roads) to $84,500 

(minimum cost estimate for ML 2 roads) in annual maintenance costs.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed changes to the NFTS have reasonable implementation costs and were selected 

because they respond to public desire for certain motorized travel routes that would otherwise be 

eliminated, while not increasing safety risks or adding substantial costs to maintain the current 

NFTS. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will add 26 miles of road to the NFTS, 25

miles on the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) and 1 mile on the west side. A total 

of 50 miles of road will be removed from the NFTS on the west side of the KNF, 48 miles of road 

by decommissioning and 2 miles by conversion to a non-motorized trail. The 13 miles of ML 1 

road added to the NFTS will not have much effect on motorized vehicle travel or maintenance 

costs as they will be closed to public motorized vehicle use. The annual maintenance costs for 

ML 2 roads will decrease by $1,200 (minimum) to $6,000 (maximum). ML 1 roads are in 

custodial status and only require closure monitoring for a total of $390/year. The effects of these 

road actions added to the effects of this alternative would decrease annual maintenance costs by 

$810 (minimum) to $5,610 (maximum) per year for a cumulative maintenance cost for roads and 

trails from$28,090 (minimum) to $33,890 (maximum) per year. Cost savings due to converting 

130 miles of ML3 road to ML2 would be $58,500 (maximum cost estimage) to $84,500 

(minimum cost estimate) per year. The total estimated annual maintenance cost for this alternative 

would be a savings of at least $24,610 (using the maximum cost estimate) to $56,410 (using the 

minimum cost estimate).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 107

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

The following tables summarize the effects analysis by comparing how each alternative responds 

to each measurement indicator. 

Table TM-4. Estimated additional costs by alternative

Item/Cost Center Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

NFS Roads (miles 

added) 0 78 0 6 47 41 53

NFS Motorized Trails 

(miles added) 0 14 0 1 22 18 21

Indicator 3: Annual Maintenance ($)

ROADS

Roads from alternative 

alone (minimum cost)

Roads from alternative 

alone

(maximum cost)

Roads including

reasonably foreseeable 

actions

(minimum cost)

Roads including

reasonably foreseeable 

actions

(maximum cost)

0

0

 -810

-5,610

 3,900

19,500

 3,090

13,890

0

0

 -810

-5,610

300

1,500

 -510

 -4,110

2,350

11,750

 1,540

6,140

 2,050

10,250

 1,240

 4,640 

2,650

13,250

 1,840

7,640

TRAILS 0 17,500 0 1,250 27,500 22,500 26,250

Total Annual 

Maintenance Cost

(minimum cost)

(maximum cost)a

 -810

 -5,610

 20,590

 31,390

-810

-5,610

 

 -740

-2,860

 29,040

 33,640

23,740

 27,140

28,090 

33,890

7

Indicator 4: Implementation Costs ($)

Convert Route to Highclearance Road 0 35,100 0 2,700 21,150 18,450 23,850

Convert Route to 

Motorized Trail 0 2,100 0 150 3,300 2,700 3,150

Motorized Trail 

Mitigation Work 0 63,000 0 4,500 99,000 81,000 94,500

Total Implementation 

Cost 0 100,200 0 7,350 123,450 99,150 121,500

 

a - Includes reasonably foreseeable future road actions.

7 Does not include savings due to conversion of ML 3 roads to ML 2.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

108 Klamath National Forest

Table TM-5. Proposed MMU by alternative

District Road Existing 

Op ML

Proposed 

Op ML

 Miles

Alt 1/3 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

51 12 ML 3 ML 3 0 17.75 17.75 22.69 17.75 22.69

51 20 ML 3 ML 2 0 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09

51 40S01 ML 3 ML 2 0 9.35 9.35 0 9.54 0

51 40S15 ML 3 ML 2 0 7.23 7.23 7.23 7.23 7.23

51 40S16 ML 3 ML 2 0 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4

51 45N28 ML 3 ML 2 0 1.51 1.51 12 1.51 12

51 46N42 ML 3 ML 3 0 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34

51 46N50 ML 3 ML 3 0 6.35 6.35 9.8 6.35 9.8

51 47N69 ML 3 ML 2 0 0 0 4.17 0 4.17

52 15N13 ML 3 ML 2 0 3.09 3.09 0 0 0

52 15N19 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 5.12 0 5.12

52 17N11 ML 3 ML 2 0 6.81 6.81 7.6 6.81 7.6

52 17N16 ML 3 ML 2 0 6.62 6.62 16.56 7.43 16.56

52 45N19 ML 3 ML 3 0 2.45 2.45 0 0 0

52 45N85 ML 3 ML 2 0 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44

52 46N03 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 1.13 0 1.13

54 39 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 32.07 0 32.07

54 10N04 ML 3 ML 2 0 0 0 18.69 0 18.69

54 38N27 ML 3 ML 2 0 0 0 9.86 0 9.86

54 39N23 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 13.29 0 13.29

54 39N41 ML 3 ML 3 0 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32

54 39N60 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 2.33 0 2.33

55 40N08 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 13.21 0 13.21

55 41N08 ML 4 ML 4 0 2.84 2.84 0 0 0

55 46N64 ML 3 ML 2 0 6.66 6.66 0 0 0

57 6 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 2.66 0 2.66

57 43N02 ML 3 ML 2 0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

57 43N03 ML 3 ML 2 0 0.17 0.17 2.24 0.17 2.24

57 43N37 ML 3 ML 2 0 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71

57 43N69 ML 3 ML 2 0 2.68 2.68 0 2.68 0

57 44N03 ML 3 ML 2 0 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82

57 44N23 ML 3 ML 2 0 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.93

57 44N25 ML 3 ML 2 0 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71

57 46N09 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 2.12 0 2.12

57 47N05 ML 3 ML 2 0 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34

57 47N13 ML 3 ML 2 0 0.74 0.74 8.46 0.74 8.46

58 13N11 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 11.77 0 11.77

58 14N01 ML 4 ML 4 0 0 0 10.20 0 0

58 15N17 ML 3 ML 3 0 0 0 13.60 0 13.60

Total Miles ML 3 & ML 4 Proposed For 

MMU in Alternative Descriptions 0

119.25 119.25 271.80 105.21 261.60

Total Miles ML 3 Proposed For ML 2a0 0 0 0 0 130.15

Total Miles ML 3 Proposed For MMU

after Conversion of ML 3 Roads to ML 2b0 0 0 0 0 131.45

a - Miles of ML3 roads considered suitable for management as ML2 roads per MMUA.

b - Actual miles of ML3 roads proposed for mixed use if ML3 roads are converted to ML2 per the MMUA.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Management Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 109

Table TM-6. ML2 roads proposed for removal of non-highway vehicle use by alternative 

District Road ML 2 Road Miles Proposed For

Highway Legal Vehicles Only

Alts1 & 3 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

51 45N03X 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

51 45N29 0 1.41 0 0 0 0

51 45N39 0 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99

51 46N16 0 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25

55 40N21 0 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22

55 45N28 0 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28

55 46N16A 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

57 43N30 0 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54

Total Miles 0 9.39 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 implements the Klamath National Forest LRMP, which allows cross-country

motorized travel on most land allocations, and the applicable standards and guidelines, but does 

not meet the requirements of the Travel Management Rule as it does not prohibit cross-country 

motorized vehicle travel. 

The action alternatives meet all the applicable LRMP standards and guidelines. However, the 

LRMP, as written, is not in compliance with the Travel Management Rule. The action 

alternatives in this FEIS are designed specifically to implement the requirements of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295) through an amendment to the LRMP that 

would prohibit motorized cross-country travel.

All roads analyzed for motorized mixed use were assessed for compliance with the California 

Vehicle Code, Oregon Revised Statutes and the Forest Service EM-7700-30 ―Guidelines for 

Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads.‖ All ML 3 

roads less than 3 miles in length have been reviewed by the California Highway Patrol; ML 3 

roads exceeding 3 miles in length have been approved by the Regional Forester for mixed use 

(see Appendix C for the MMUA analysis). 

 

After publication of the NOI, it was determined that Road 45N29 is under the jurisdiction of Siskiyou 

County; therefore, it was removed from analysis in alternatives to the proposed action (Alternative 2).
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Transportation Management

110 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 111

Society, Culture, and the Economy

Introduction

This section presents information on the social, cultural, and economic environments of 

communities that may be affected by the Klamath National Forest‘s (KNF) motorized travel 

management decision. The social and economic analysis area includes seven counties, 4 in 

California and 3 in Oregon. Communities possibly affected include Yreka, Weed, Happy Camp, 

Fort Jones, Etna, Dorris and Macdoel in California and Ashland, Medford and Klamath Falls in 

Oregon. The KNF serves as a primary recreation spot for local outdoor enthusiasts and a small 

number of visitors from outside the analysis area. Access to locations on the KNF influences 

participation rates in recreational activities. The greatest effect on the number of recreational 

visitors to the KNF, however, comes from the fact that most visitors are from the analysis area 

which has a relatively small population base. 

Activities supported by the Forest affect economic and social conditions for local residents. 

For example, many local residents identify forest recreation and natural amenities with their 

quality of life. Therefore management of the KNF affects lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values. 

In addition to the social implications of forest management, visitors to the Forest have 

consequences for local economic conditions. Ultimately, expenditures related to use of the Forest 

can impact the type and number of jobs and level of income in the local economy. 

Most of the KNF is located in Siskiyou County, California, which is extremely rural in nature 

in relation to most of California. Easily accessible by residents of the analysis area, the KNF 

serves as a venue for a variety of recreational opportunities. The Forest offers recreational 

activities for campers, hikers, wildlife watchers, hunters, fishermen, horseback riders, mountain 

bikers, white water enthusiasts, naturalists and other outdoor enthusiasts.

Both motorized and non-motorized activities are popular on the KNF. Motorized use on the 

Forest provides visitors with a means of getting to other locations for non-motorized activities, 

and serves as a recreational activity by itself. Both motorized and non-motorized activities attract 

visitors to the Forest, and those visitors have implications for economic and social conditions. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Regulatory direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects society, culture, and 

the economy includes:

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) sets forth policy on analysis and 

disclosure of the effects of proposed federal actions on the human environment, and consideration 

of the social and economics effects of actions in the disclosure.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

112 Klamath National Forest

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) sets forth requirements for development of 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs):

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)

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).

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) includes 

program emphases and standards and guidelines for the social and economic environment and 

tribal government program. The following forest-wide standards and guidelines are relevant to 

travel management:

24-24 Provide for Native American needs for collection and/or use of traditional resources.

25-5 Seek interactions and involvement from potentially affected groups or individuals who 

will be, or may be, impacted by the implementation of a specific project. 

27-1 Assist rural, forest dependent communities with efforts to enhance their economic 

stability and social vitality.

The monitoring and evaluation section of the LRMP emphasizes coordination and 

cooperation among federal agencies (including the KNF), local and state governments, tribes, and 

others.

Laws Pertaining to American Indian Tribes

Federal policy for tribes emphasizes self-determination and government-to-government 

relationships. The major laws that shape how the Federal Government supports tribal selfdetermination interests and government-to-government consultation are listed below. In addition, 

a long tradition of case law has defined reserved rights for American Indians, including water 

rights and trust responsibility of the Federal Government, among others (Getches et al. 1998). 

Laws relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects Indian tribes include:

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires consideration of effects on cultural 

values and diversity.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 113

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended in 1994, protects 

Indian religious practices and access to sacred sites.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires federal agencies to coordinate

with Indian tribes to inventory, plan, and manage resources of value to tribes.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1976 requires federal agencies to analyze and 

account for impacts of management on prehistoric and historic sites.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (as amended in 1992) protects 

archeological resources and requires that affected tribes be notified if archeological studies might 

harm or destroy culturally or spiritually important sites.

American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 requires federal 

agencies to consult with tribes about disposition of American Indian remains, funerary objects, 

and other cultural relics.

Laws pertaining to the rights of federally recognized American Indian tribes acknowledge 

that these tribes have specific rights and interests, many unlike those accorded to other 

governments. An important distinction in U.S. law is that federally recognized American Indian 

tribes are not a special interest group; they are sovereign governments distinct from Federal and 

state governments. This legal standing confers government-to-government relations between the 

Federal Government and each federally recognized tribe. Powers that Federal laws do not 

expressly limit remain inherent powers of individual tribes. Reservations, rancherias, and Indian 

colonies all make up ―Indian Country‖ as defined in the 1948 Indian Country Statute. American 

Indian governments have jurisdiction and authority over resources on Indian Country lands. On 

lands outside Indian Country, rights reserved for tribal governments may include rights to hunt 

and fish; rights to gather traditional plants, mushrooms, and lichens; and rights to water. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to the Society/Economic Analysis

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 and

motorized access to KNF activities.

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 non-motorized access to KNF activities.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

114 Klamath National Forest

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report for the KNF accurately expresses, at a 

Forest scale, the most popular motorized and non-motorized activities for use in this analysis, 

as discussed in the Recreation section of this chapter. 

The area of influence (dust, noise) of motorized use on populated areas and private land is 1⁄2 

mile from associated boundaries (e.g., private property line).

There has never been any use analysis or traffic counts on the unauthorized routes; therefore,

it would be highly speculative to make assumptions of use levels on these routes, as discussed 

in the Transportation section of this chapter.

The majority of the motorized public use occurring on the KNF is occurring on the existing 

NFTS (based on observation and NVUM data, as discussed in the Recreation section of this 

chapter). 

Effects on safety are discussed in the Transportation section of this chapter and in Appendix 

C.

Effects on human health from naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) are discussed in the 

Geology and Air sections of this chapter.

Adding more routes to the NFTS will not generate additional motorized use across the Forest 

because (1) most use is on existing roads; (2) use will continue to be dispersed across the 

Forest; (3) most use is by local residents; (4) the population of Siskiyou County has remained 

relatively static for 20 years; and (5) there are not any data that indicate such an increase 

would occur. 

Data Sources

GIS data layers for routes and private land boundaries

KNF NVUM report for most popular non-motorized and motorized recreation activities

U.S. Census; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008; California Department of Labor; 

California Department of Finance; American Community Survey, 2006; Minnesota IMPLAN

Group (MIG), 2006; Headwaters Economics, Economic Profile System (EPS) 2007; for 

population and economic statistics 

Indicators

Effects on social well-being: (1) miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS; (2) acres of area available for motorized cross-country vehicle travel.

Motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities: number of routes to dispersed sites.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 115

Effects on private property owners: number of miles of unauthorized/proposed routes within 

1⁄2 mile of private property

Methodology by Action

Methodology for Economic Impact Analysis

―Economic impact analyses seek to determine short-term effects that Forest Service programs 

have on economic conditions in defined impact areas in which the planning area occurs‖ (FSM 

1900). As prescribed by FSM 1900, short-term effects are those that occur within the first 10 

years.

Models of the local economy (analysis area) were built using IMPLAN Professional 2.0 

software and 2006 data. A change in the activities allowable by the Forest could change the local 

economic stimulus (e.g. increased recreational visits) which could change the total of jobs and 

income in the area. For travel management, however, it is assumed that none of the actions 

proposed in any alternatives will have a predictable effect on the total number of recreational 

visits to the KNF. For example, prohibition of cross-country motorized travel could decrease the 

number of motorized visits to the KNF, or the same number of visitors could be redistributed 

across existing NFTS routes. Without a direct correlation between recreational opportunities 

offered or prohibited and visitor use to the KNF, it is not possible to use any economic model, 

including IMPLAN, to distinguish between the economic effects of different alternatives. 

Comparison of economic effects is not possible. Therefore, measurable economic impacts from 

the activities in each of the alternatives are not provided in this analysis. 

The economic contributions of motorized recreation use for the 7-county analysis area are 

calculated for the existing situation. Specifics on how the number of recreational visits, the 

distribution among types of recreation used, and the proportions of local versus non-local visitors 

affect economic modeling are in a process paper in the records for this project, located at the KNF 

Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA. 

Methodology for Social Impact Analysis

The action alternatives would produce changes in the condition of the social environment, and the 

effects of these changes are more closely tied to recreational opportunities than are economic 

effects. Individuals are affected differently by actions, and increases in the social welfare of one 

group may be offset by decreases to another group. Quantitative measurement of net social 

welfare across alternatives is outside the scope of this analysis; the effects analysis reported here 

relies on a qualitative assessment of changes in social conditions stemming from the 

specifications of the action alternatives. Groups addressed are (1) those who engage in motorized

recreation; (2) those who engage in ―quiet‖ recreation; and (3) residents of private lands within 1⁄2 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

116 Klamath National Forest

mile of the KNF who are disproportionately affected by the dust, noise, and physical presence of 

OHVs. 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: 1 to 10 years.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: The four northern California Counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, 

Trinity) and three southern Oregon Counties (Klamath, Jackson and Josephine), with special 

emphasis on Siskiyou County which encompasses 98% of the KNF. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Attempting to quantify where cross-country motorized travel would occur under the no action 

alternative (Alternative 1) is speculative, since it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or 

how cross-country motorized use would occur. For consistency in comparing alternatives, the 

inventoried unauthorized OHV routes were used as a proxy for the area potentially affected by 

cross-country motorized use and to provide a baseline for disturbance.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 to 10 years.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The four northern California Counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, 

Trinity) and three southern Oregon Counties (Klamath, Jackson and Josephine), with special 

emphasis on Siskiyou County. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 to 10 years.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The four northern California Counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, 

Trinity) and three southern Oregon Counties (Klamath, Jackson and Josephine), with special 

emphasis on Siskiyou County. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 117

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 four northern California Counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, 

Trinity) and three southern Oregon Counties (Klamath, Jackson and Josephine), with special 

emphasis on Siskiyou County.

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Cumulative effects of this project involves analysis of effects from this project and other similar 

projects. Because the analysis focuses on road-related issues (values and economics related to 

availability of certain types of recreation and accessibility to private lands), the projects included 

in the cumulative effects analysis are the reasonably foreseeable activities related to access 

management – construction or decommissioning of roads.

Affected Environment

Population and Demographics

Population structure (size, composition, density, etc.) and dynamics (how the structure changes 

over time) are ―essential to describing the effects and consequences of forest management and 

planning on a social environment‖ (Seesholtz, et al., 2004). Population increases may lead to 

conflicts over forest uses, travel management, recreation activities and values. 

Individuals with different demographic and social backgrounds are likely to be affected 

differently by the KNF motorized travel management decision. Social and economic well being 

may affect their preference of, and demand for, recreational opportunities on the Forest. Forest 

visitors generate important economic stimulus for many businesses, which then impacts 

employment and income levels. 

Current population levels influence the use of natural resources; forecasts of future 

population levels may help to indicate whether there may be the potential for increased pressures 

on KNF resources. Age distributions provide insights into the proportion of individuals in the 

working age group versus retirees and minors who typically have different use patterns and utilize 

local services in different ways. Similarly, the racial or ethnic composition of the population may 

affect cultural uses. Employment and income statistics describe the economic conditions of the 

analysis area, and help identify important sectors of the economy. Additionally, household 

income may affect participation levels in forest recreation.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

118 Klamath National Forest

In recent years, population size of the 7-county analysis area has remained relatively stable; 

most counties have experienced minimal population growth. Siskiyou County, from where more 

than 50% of the KNF recreation visitors come, has increased only 3% over the 8 years between 

2000 and 2008. There have been no sharp increases or decreases in population to suggest 

substantial changes in the economic or social structure. 

The median age in each of the 7 counties is higher than the median age for their respective 

states. This suggests that residents of the analysis area are older than residents in more 

metropolitan areas of California and Oregon. This could be due to the lack of job opportunities to 

draw and retain a younger population, or may be related to a greater number of retirees.

The vast majority of residents around the KNF are Caucasian. The counties have a very 

different ethnic composition from that of California as a whole. California‘s population is 

approximately 60% percent Caucasian; that of Siskiyou County is 87%, which is about average 

for the 7 surrounding counties. Nearly 36 percent of California‘s population is of Hispanic origin; 

Siskiyou County is only 8%. However, the Native American population has a much higher 

presence around the KNF than in California as a whole; Siskiyou County is 4% Native American 

while California is less than 1%. 

Employment and Income Conditions

Employment and income have been relatively stable in the 7-county area until the recent 

recession of 2008-2009. Government and retail trade support the largest percentage of jobs, 

followed by health and social services, and other services. Travel management decisions as they 

pertain to recreation may affect the condition, and relative importance, of tourism-based sectors 

of the local economy. The government sector is the largest employer in all counties except for 

Jackson and Josephine. Retail trade, health and social services and construction are the dominant 

sectors in Jackson County. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting are important employers in 

Siskiyou County, accounting for 7% of total employment respectively. Retail trade accounts for 

11% and accommodation and foods services for 10% of employment. Motorized travel 

management on KNF may support jobs in these sectors. Businesses in the latter sectors likely 

generate economic stimulus from activities on the KNF due to travelers purchasing goods and 

services while on their way to visit the Forest.

Another indicator of economic health is the level of unemployment in the analysis area. All 

seven counties have consistently maintained an unemployment rate near or greater than the state 

average in recent years; Siskiyou County unemployment rate has averaged 2% to 4% higher than 

the state of California. With the higher unemployment rates in Siskiyou County, it is likely that 

any new demands for labor would be supplied from the local labor market rather than by workers 

coming in to the county. Any additional jobs created by activities on the KNF would likely not 

affect household migration patterns, and may serve to reduce unemployment rates.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 119

Under the current situation, recreation use on the KNF generates a total of 217 jobs and 

$6,022,824 in labor income in the 7-county analysis area. Of that number, 67 jobs and 

$1,652,330 in labor income are supported by non-motorized activities, and 12 jobs and $299,025 

in labor income are supported by motorized activities. Driving for pleasure supports the most 

economic activity among motorized recreation; 5 jobs and $130,262 in labor income by locals 

and 3.2 jobs and $77,499 in labor income by non-locals.

The majority of economic stimulus supported by recreation on the KNF is from ―all other‖ 

activities (not categorized as non-motorized or motorized). Visitor use in these activities 

combined supports 139 jobs and $4,071,469 in labor income.

Visitor Use 

According to NVUM, of the main reasons for visiting the Forest, 9.8 percent fall into the 

motorized category and 26.6 percent in non-motorized. Of the motorized activities, driving for 

pleasure was the most popular, accounting for 8.1 percent of main activities and 26.6 percent of 

total activity participation. Nationwide, participation in OHV activities has experienced an 

increasing trend in recent years (see Recreation section of this chapter). California is the highest 

ranked state amongst OHV users with 4.99 million participants or 11.6 percent of the U.S. total 

(Cordell et al, 2008). This increase is not reflected in the NVUM data for the KNF; OHV use 

continues to be low.

When assessing recreational use, it is important to distinguish between local and non-local 

visitors. As defined in NVUM surveying, non-local visitors are those who reside more than 30 

straight line miles from the Forest boundary (Stynes and White, 2005). This distinction allows for 

spending related to the Forest visit to be differentiated between locals and non-locals. It is 

possible that local visitors would substitute other activities for recreation on the KNF, and would 

still make expenditures at local businesses and firms. Spending by non-local visitors (25 percent 

of total annual visits) to the Forest represents new money to the local economy.

Money spent by Forest visitors helps support jobs and income in the local economy. Nonlocals staying the night off the Forest spend the most during their trip. Overall, 53 percent of total 

spending is by non-locals. Visitors make expenditures on a variety of different goods and services 

supporting recreational activities. Non-locals staying off the Forest spend the most among all 

market segments, due in large part to the additional expense of lodging at non-KNF facilities.

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values

The KNF is in a very rural part of the Western United States. Thus, the lifestyles, attitudes, 

beliefs and values of local residents are likely to be different than those in more metropolitan 

areas. Many local residents depend on the environment to support both professional and personal 

interests; this in turn affects their lifestyle and attitudes towards the area. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

120 Klamath National Forest

Travel management and motorized recreation have been a topic of concern among KNF 

stakeholders for many years. The KNF NFTS currently includes more than 2,700 miles of roads

that allow both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles (mixed use). Authorized travel on 

the Forest affects the lives of individuals and groups in many ways. Many residents of the 

analysis area associate their attitudes, beliefs and values with outdoor recreational opportunities 

and natural amenities. The KNF LRMP identified quality of life as the most important social 

issue for local residents. It indicates that many people reside in the area because they value the 

available way-of-life, and changes to their lifestyle are of immense concern (USDA Forest 

Service, 1995). Four social groups were identified to have concerns for forest management: longterm residents, new rural residents, destination-recreation travelers and Native Americans. The 

motorized travel management plan is likely to have implications for each. 

Access to the KNF is important to social groups for different reasons. New and old residents 

may utilize KNF resources for professional and personal reasons. For some, their employment 

status may depend on the removal of forest products; for others, recreational opportunities may 

affect how they spend their leisure time. For destination-recreation travelers, access to the Forest 

may affect their ability to participate in recreational activities and their demand for such 

activities. Furthermore, access to the KNF may affect the cultural and traditional activities 

experienced by Native Americans. 

In Siskiyou County, small communities close or adjacent to the KNF would be affected more 

than those further away. Siskiyou County supports a largely rural way of life. ―The Code of the 

West: the Realities of Rural Living‖ (Siskiyou County, 2005) sheds light on some of the 

conventions of living in Siskiyou County. ―The right to be rural‖ is a fundamental theme among 

County residents. The rugged terrain of the KNF contributes to the isolation of many 

communities, and further promotes a rural lifestyle. Self-reliance, interdependence between 

neighbors, and close interaction with the outdoors are important benefits of living in Siskiyou 

County. This theme directly relates to the use of KNF resources. Many rural residents, through a 

lifetime of use, have been able to drive anywhere they want on NFS lands. This freedom to drive 

off-road is considered by some to be a right rather than a privilege subject to management. 

Although many residents do not actually drive cross-country, they like to know that the 

opportunity exists. For these individuals, this change could affect their perception of their 

relationship to the National Forest more than their actual use. The opportunity to drive crosscountry will be lost under the required implementation of the Travel Management Rule.

Siskiyou County residents have a strong sense of tradition and culture. The Siskiyou County 

Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan states that ―the people of Siskiyou County 

are unique products of the complex web of land and resource uses and practices; values and 

beliefs that nurture their communities, sustain their economies, empower their local government 

and give form and shape to their spiritual and physical environments‖ (Siskiyou County, 1996). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 121

The KNF plays an important role in the values and beliefs developed upon traditional uses of the 

land and community stability. ―Community stability entails an environment where people and 

their customs and cultures are left to their own democratic means.‖ (Siskiyou County, 1996) 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule could affect such traditions and cultural values 

by limiting access to land to which residents have established connections over time. The goal of 

the County‘s comprehensive land and resource planning is to ensure community stability is 

achieved through the empowerment of local customs and culture rather than national consensus 

(Siskiyou County, 1996). Thus, it is apparent that residents of Siskiyou County would be greatly 

concerned by any loss of access to public lands as a result of national policy. Under every 

alternative, the KNF would retain at least 2,700 miles of roads that are open to OHV use, and 

allow mixed use on roads where such use is safe and reasonable. This is consistent with the 

Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan which promotes retention 

of access to federal lands for the benefit of county residents.

Assessments of the socioeconomic environment reveal many issues important to local 

residents (Doak and Kusel, 1997). Given the location of the Forest, residents of Siskiyou County 

would be the most affected by this motorized travel management plan. Many of them have close 

ties to the Forest, and genuine concerns regarding the implications of travel management planning 

on their personal lifestyles. The terms ―custom, culture and tradition‖ are used locally; they refer

to the types of activities and lifestyle that are generated by local residents, and passed on through 

generations of use. Many of those activities are affected by access to the Forest. One important 

issue is the ability to travel cross-county for dispersed camping. Many residents of Siskiyou 

County greatly value the ability to camp away from the noise and dust associated with more 

frequently traveled sites. This is particularly important on the Goosenest District, on the east side 

of the KNF, where more gentle terrain allows cross-country use. Local residents have used 

dispersed camping opportunities for generations; for many families, such activities have become 

a time-honored tradition. Restrictions in access which limit opportunities for dispersed camping 

could result in local residents becoming disconnected from the Forest over time. Maintaining 

those opportunities close to home is part of that tradition. Thus, they may not be likely to look for 

new areas to recreate because that would result in a loss of traditional values. Maintaining the 

ability to participate in dispersed camping, especially in traditionally-used sites, is of great 

importance to the customs and culture of many local residents.

Somewhat in contrast to the supporters of dispersed camping, there are also stakeholders 

concerned with the implications of motorized travel on ecosystems. A healthy environment also 

affects the lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of local residents. Many non-motorized 

recreational activities are enhanced by less motorized travel; thus, these users-groups could 

potentially experience greater value with more restrictions in motorized use. There appears to be 

a tradeoff in the quality of recreation experienced by parties with different interests. As values 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

122 Klamath National Forest

increase for one user group, it is possible for values to decrease for others. Finding a balance 

between all interested parties is a difficult task. 

A variety of other issues have also emerged during public scoping. Big game retrieval is a 

concern expressed by a large segment of the hunting population. This is of particular importance 

to the elderly and those with physical handicaps with limited ability to walk long distances to 

retrieve downed game. Siskiyou County residents have been accustomed to using motor vehicles 

for big game retrieval on flatter terrain on most areas of the Forest, although cross-country travel 

has been seasonally prohibited on three large areas on the Goosenest District for the last 20 years. 

Under every alternative except for the no action, the opportunity to retrieve big game through 

cross-county travel would be forgone. This would be a substantial deviation from traditional 

hunting methods and may result in a greater disconnection between local residents and the Forest. 

Some hunters may choose to no longer hunt on KNF lands because of the idea that under certain 

circumstances they would be unable to drive to harvested animals. 

Other issues that have emerged are unrelated to recreation. Examples of non-recreation 

stakeholders are those who gather forest products (e.g. firewood, mushrooms, posts & poles) as 

part of their lifestyle or for income, contractors involved in reforestation or other activities, and 

mining claimants. Permit holders and contractors have raised concerns regarding the need for 

cross country motorized travel in order to fully execute their permit or contract. Holders of 

special forest products permits (firewood, mushrooms, boughs, posts/poles, etc.) have requested 

authorization to drive cross country to find and harvest products. Grazing permit holders have 

areas where OHVs are used to check improvements or manage livestock. Contractors involved in 

reforestation or other activities have an interest in using ML 1 roads to access their planting sites. 

Mining claimants may need to develop access to their claims. Although the prohibition on cross 

country travel does not include exemptions for specific uses, the Travel Management Rule does 

allow exemptions for ―motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulation.‖ Therefore, accommodation for these types 

of needs can be made through the permit, contract, or Plan of Operations, if appropriate. These 

decisions will be made at the program or project levels.

Generally, Siskiyou County residents enjoy outdoor recreation; for many it was a motivating 

factor in the decision to live there. Although it is possible that local visitors may substitute other 

local activities for those on the KNF, it is unlikely given customs, culture and traditions. With 

relatively low income and high unemployment, it is less likely that County residents would have 

the capacity to go somewhere else to recreate. Since the KNF represents most of the public land 

in Siskiyou County, it is not reasonable to expect that local residents can easily substitute crosscountry motorized recreation on other lands, even if other national forests weren‘t prohibiting it. 

Substitution is even less likely for those who have used cross-country motorized travel to gather 

wood or other Forest products as part of their lifestyle. Likewise, hunters are unlikely to abandon 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 123

their traditional hunting spots just so they can retrieve their big game by vehicle. There may be a 

certain degree of substitution that would occur under implementation of the Travel Management

Rule; however, privately-owned, State or developed national forest campgrounds do not offer the 

quiet and seclusion that may be found at dispersed campsites on the KNF, and many of these 

substitutes require a fee while dispersed camping is free. Although cross-county travel is 

prohibited under all action alternatives, the KNF has addressed access to popular dispersed 

recreation sites through identification of motorized routes serving identified sites so that this 

opportunity will remain available to Forest users.

The relationship between the KNF and the lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of its 

constituents has many components. Effects vary by communities of interest according to their 

uses of the Forest. Communities of interest bring together stakeholders with shared interests in 

the framing and resolution of a problem (Fischer, 2001). For example, the farming and ranching 

community has a shared concern for the grazing resource. How that resource is managed affects 

the social well-being of individuals in that community. The ability to travel cross-county is 

important to many grazing permit holders in order to maintain their operations. Agriculture has 

historically been an important component of northern California‘s and southern Oregon‘s social 

and economic environments. As the social dynamic of the area changes, so does the presence of 

communities of interest. The farming and ranching community will continue to be a prominent 

interest group in the political arena, but as communities evolve, they will continue to be joined by 

other interest groups with varying views of Forest management. Recreational and environmental 

interest groups are becoming increasingly involved in the Forest management process. Their 

lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values also depend on the use and management of resources. The 

Native American community will also continue to use forest resources for cultural and traditional 

reasons. Their way of life depends in part on forest management. With such a variety of 

communities of interest, the KNF influences lives in many ways. Balancing the interests of each 

group is an issue that must be taken into account during the motorized travel management 

process. Siskiyou County supports multiple uses of natural resources. Siskiyou County‘s strategic 

plan expresses the desire for county government to support and encourage diverse recreational 

activities on public lands, including both low impact (e.g. hiking, fishing and wildlife viewing) 

and higher impact (e.g. snowmobiling and OHV riding) activities (Siskiyou County, 2008). The 

County is also proactive in natural resource conservation, promoting forest health and fire

prevention on both public and private lands. Input from the County was helpful in developing 

motorized travel management alternatives.

Private Lands Adjacent to the Klamath National Forest

Residents of private land adjacent to the KNF have special concerns about motorized travel 

management. Cross-country motorized travel increases the potential for dust and noise on 

neighboring private lands, and provides access to private property by users of non-highway legal 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

124 Klamath National Forest

vehicle who may not realize that they have left NFS lands. For several years, landowners in the 

Hawkinsville area have reported OHV trespass on their lands. The OHVs access the KNF on 

several different NFTS and county roads, and then drive cross-country on both KNF and private 

lands. Beyond the noise and dust, residents report that livestock has been spooked and harassed, 

fences have been cut or torn down, and private property and facilities have been vandalized. 

Federal Lands Adjacent to the Klamath National Forest

The KNF is surrounded by other National Forest System lands managed by the Modoc, ShastaTrinity, Six Rivers, Rogue River/Siskiyou and Fremont/Winema National Forests. These national 

forests are also undergoing motorized travel management projects that will prohibit cross-country 

travel. Federal lands in the analysis area managed by Federal agencies other than the Forest 

Service are not immediately adjacent to the KNF. Effects of projects on these lands on the KNF, 

and the effect of the KNF project on them, are discussed in the Environmental Analysis portion of 

this section.

Environmental Justice

Per Executive Order 12898, all federal actions are required to consider the potential of 

disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region. The 

principles of Environmental Justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness 

implications associated with federal land management actions. 

According to the American Community Survey and US Census data, the Native American

population in the analysis area meets the Environmental Justice criterion as a minority population 

that is substantially greater in percentage than its percentage of the population of California or 

Oregon. Therefore, the KNF must pay careful attention to the potential impacts of management 

actions on Native Americans.

In terms of low-income populations, in 2005 all counties except for Jackson County have 

poverty rates higher than that of their respective states. The poverty rate in Siskiyou County 

increased from 2000 to 2005, and has likely increased again during the recession of 2008-2009. A 

substantial proportion of the existing population is considered as a low income group, and 

decisions regarding future management actions on the Forest must carefully assess the effects on 

low income populations.

Civil Rights

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 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 125

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. 

Indian Tribes and the Klamath National Forest

There are four federally recognized tribes that regularly use the KNF: Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley 

Indian Reservation, Klamath Tribes, and Pit River Tribes. There are also two tribes in the area 

that are not federally recognized: Shasta Tribe Inc., and the Shasta Nation.

American Indians living in or around the Klamath National Forest live throughout the 

analysis area and have a significant ongoing interest in the management of the Forest.

Contemporary American Indian uses of the Forest include cultural and spiritual events, 

fishing, hunting, food gathering, collection of medicinal plants, and the collection of basketry 

materials. Numerous sites on the KNF are used for traditional cultural activities (ceremonies, 

gathering, etc.). Depending on the site, access may be provided by existing routes or crosscountry motorized travel.

Often, important places to local American Indians are those that supply native foods or 

provide a spiritual connection to the land. Harvesting of native foods is very important to local 

tribes. National Forest System Lands provide salmon, acorns, wild plums, berries, bulbs, and 

many other foods vital to traditional diets. Traditional food sources serve to regulate health 

conditions of many American Indians (Martinez, 2008). As American Indians have moved away 

from traditional foods, negative health effects have been encountered; diabetes is one chronic 

condition affecting many American Indians forced away from traditional foods (Martinez, 2008). 

Thus, the availability of Federal lands for food harvesting is an important issue to tribes in the 

areas in and adjacent to the KNF. 

American Indians have a spiritual connection to the environment and native landscapes. 

Maintaining this type of relationship with the lands managed by the KNF is important to local 

tribes for passing along knowledge to future generations.

Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not 

discriminatory. However, some groups could be impacted more than others. The public 

involvement process for this project (detailed in Chapter 1) and interdisciplinary discussions 

identified the following concerns:
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

126 Klamath National Forest

Gathering of Special Forest Products

It is known that many people, including members of protected groups, use motor vehicles to 

gather special forest products including mushrooms, greenery, firewood, posts, poles, etc. Such 

products are gathered for both personal and commercial use. Some protected groups are known to 

be very active in gathering certain special forest products. Concerns have been raised that the 

prohibition on cross country travel will restrict such activities to designated roads or trails, and 

thereby limit people‘s ability to gather such products and disproportionately impact protected 

groups. For many years the Goosenest Ranger District has maintained three large road 

management areas prohibiting cross-county travel during six months of the year. People using 

those areas during the closure period (e.g. for mushroom picking) will not be affected by 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule.

Currently, under 36 CFR 261.6, removing any timber, tree or other forest product, except as 

authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation is 

prohibited. While permitted activities may be exempted from the prohibition on cross-country 

motorized travel when provided in the permit (36 CFR 212.51 (8)), analysis of such exemptions 

is outside the scope of this document. Such activities have been, and will continue to be, subject 

to separate, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis before permits are issued. 

A prohibition on cross-country motorized travel may result in additional travel time for those 

who gather forest products, as they may be required to walk rather than drive to gathering sites. In 

addition, removal of large products (posts and poles) may be limited to sites adjacent to roads. 

Regardless of the product, all gatherers of forest products will be equally affected by the 

prohibition; no protected groups will be disproportionately affected. 

Impacts on People with Disabilities and the Elderly

Throughout scoping, concerns have been raised about the impact of this travel proposal on people 

with disabilities and the elderly. Some people who commented 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 primarily focused on access to dispersed camping 

sites and hunting locations, and access for woodcutting. Where possible, these comments were 

used to develop alternatives. Hunting and woodcutting sites are dispersed throughout the Forest; 

it is not possible to develop a route system that would fulfill every hunter‘s need. Woodcutting is 

a permitted activity and is addressed under special forest products. Dispersed camping 

opportunity was addressed through identification of currently used dispersed camping sites across 

the Forest. Many of these sites are used regularly, and some are traditional use sites for families 

or individuals. Motorized routes to these identified sites were included in several of the action 

alternatives. Motorized access to dispersed camping sites provides opportunities for the elderly 

and mobility-impaired individuals to enjoy camping away from heavily-used roads and trails. It 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 127

should be noted that the KNF NFTS contains more than 2,700 miles of roads that are open for use 

by off-highway vehicles. These roads provide access to a diversity of vegetative types and 

recreational opportunities, and will continue to be available regardless of the alternative selected 

for implementation.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, including the prohibition of 

cross- country motorized travel, is forest-wide and applies to all forest users equally. Changes to 

the NFTS are largely limited to changes in vehicle class. There is no legal requirement to allow 

people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on routes 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. 

Access by American Indians 

Concerns were raised by American Indians 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 or by 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 motorized travel management ((36 CFR 212.51 (8)). 

The Forest Supervisor can provide such authorization. This will ensure that motor vehicle access 

to sacred sites or gathering areas may continue; such access will not be affected by this proposal.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

128 Klamath National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Under the no action alternative, no cross-county travel prohibition would be put into place. About 

497 miles of unauthorized routes would continue to have no status or authorization as NFTS 

facilities, and motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated routes. 

There is no anticipated change in motorized or non-motorized use on the KNF; therefore, it is 

assumed that current levels of recreation provide an accurate representation of the effects of 

visitation on the local economy. There are no predictions of changes to current economic 

conditions. 

The only change in the amount of recreation use on the Forest would be that occurring as a 

natural progression from changes in population and preferences for recreational activities. Since 

population is not expected to increase more than 0.3% per year, there would be minimal effects 

from population growth. Preferences for recreational activities are difficult to predict as 

discussed earlier. 

The short-term and long-term effects of cross-country motorized travel include continuing 

potential impacts to neighboring private lands. Under this alternative, 213 miles of unauthorized 

routes lie within 1⁄2 mile of private lands within the National Forest boundary; those residents 

would continue to be affected by noise and dust from off-road travel. 

Access to dispersed recreation sites is not affected under this alternative. In both the short and 

long term, no change in motorized access to dispersed recreation activities would occur. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. No direct or indirect 

effects would result.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS would be made for vehicle class, or class of roads and trails, under this 

alternative. No direct or indirect effects would result except for the effects on residents of private 

lands inside the NFS boundary where the use of non-highway legal vehicles would continue to be 

allowed. Since this alternative does not restrict that use, motorized vehicle users would be 

positively affected and residents of private land would be negatively affected.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 129

Cumulative effects

Adding the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road actions to the effects of not prohibiting 

cross-country travel would reduce the number of miles on which motorized vehicle travel can 

occur by 49 miles on the west side of the Forest and increase the number of miles by 25 on the 

east side (Goosenest Ranger District). None of the miles removed from, or added to, the NFTS 

by ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions on the KNF are adjacent to private land. Given this 

information, and the fact that no measurable direct and indirect effects on society, culture or the 

economy would occur under the no action alternative, there would also be no measurable 

cumulative effects.

In the 7-county analysis area, other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects are occurring 

that may cumulatively affect the social environment. National Forests in Jackson, Josephine, 

Klamath, Trinity, Del Norte, Humboldt, and the rest of Siskiyou County outside the KNF are all 

implementing the Travel Management Rule that will prohibit cross-country travel. This change 

in management will profoundly affect the type (and potentially amount) of motorized use on these 

National Forests. No decisions have yet been published for these lands so it cannot be estimated 

how many unauthorized routes or open riding areas might be added. Individually, these decisions 

may have minimal impacts on social and economic conditions; however, cumulatively they may 

affect motorized access and travel in the analysis area in a way that will have some measurable, 

but currently unknown, effects. This may affect the availability of substitute motorized 

recreational activities, and may change employment and income conditions in the analysis area, 

as well as influence the lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of residents. The amount to which 

the socioeconomic environment would be affected, as well as the distribution of effects, cannot be 

precisely determined from the information available. The KNF motorized travel management 

decision, however, is unlikely to add substantially to any cumulative effects.

Federal lands under the management of Federal agencies other than the Forest Service may 

also undergo changes to transportation systems that would influence cumulative effects. 

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a substantial land base in the 

analysis area and supports a variety of motorized recreational opportunities. The Arcata Field 

Office manages the Samoa Dunes Recreation Area which allows year-round OHV use on 220 

acres. Another area open to OHV use is the waveslope at South Spit; however, a 15 mph speed 

limit is imposed and no play activities are allowed (Cann, 2009). There are currently no reported 

projects planned by the Arcata Field Office that would substantially influence motorized 

recreation on these lands. The Redding and Alturas Field Offices also manage lands on the 

California side of the analysis area. Although some OHV roads and trails exist in close proximity 

but not directly adjacent to the KNF, there are no present or reasonable foreseeable projects that 

would influence motorized recreation to a large extent (Zaffarano, 2009; Singleton, 2009). Thus, 

any influence on cumulative effects would be minimal.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

130 Klamath National Forest

The BLM‘s Medford Field Office is managing projects that could influence motorized 

recreation in the analysis area. In December 2008, the BLM issued a Record of Decision for the 

Western Oregon Plan Revision; plans under the revision included the designation of seven OHV 

emphasis areas (Byrd, 2009). This decision has been overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals; however, the OHV areas could be proposed in a revised decision. The Timber Mt. 

OHV Area Management Plan Draft EIS, released in February 2009, identifies existing trails to be 

designated as part of an OHV trail system and analyzes alternatives providing additional OHV 

opportunities on adjacent private lands (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2009). These 

projects would create additional opportunities for motorized recreation, and serve as substitute 

activity areas for those on the KNF. 

Lands under private ownership offer additional opportunities for motorized recreation. Both 

authorized and unauthorized travel across private land occurs in the analysis area. The Timber 

Mt. OHV Area Management Plan Draft EIS addresses OHV use on private lands adjacent to 

BLM land. There may be other projects prohibiting or improving motorized recreation by large 

scale landowners that could impact social and economic conditions. Private land developments 

would likely require a permit or fee, which could affect the public‘s willingness to use these 

lands. Possible projects on private land cannot be considered ―reasonably foreseeable‖ at this time 

as they have not been publicly proposed. Surveying private land owners in the analysis area is 

outside the scope of this analysis; actual implications for cumulative effects remain unknown.

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

This alternative prohibits cross-country vehicle travel on 1.2 million acres. This will be a 

substantial loss of motorized recreation opportunity on the KNF. This prohibition could result in 

fewer visitor days for motorized recreation, if visitors only wish to travel cross-country. Since 

OHV use is currently low and generated primarily by local users, it is likely that restrictions on 

cross-county travel under this alternative would not substantially reduce visits. The effects of this 

alternative on employment may not be evenly distributed; communities and businesses in close 

proximity to areas previously open to cross-country travel are likely to be more affected than 

similar communities and businesses in other parts of the analysis area. Due to unavailability of 

data at any level below the county, estimating the effects at such a small scale is outside the scope 

of this analysis. 

Changes due to prohibiting motorized recreation could stimulate a transformation in 

recreational visits for non-motorized and other activities. This may serve to mitigate any adverse 

economic impacts resulting from fewer motorized recreation visits, if fewer visits occur. 

Currently data do not exist to estimate changes in jobs and income resulting from the substitution 

effect between motorized and other recreational activities. Total jobs and income supported by 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 131

recreation on the KNF are a very small percentage of total economic activity. Therefore, any 

economic impacts that would be realized under this alternative would be negligible. 

Effects of this change would be noticed most by local residents. Analysis of the social 

environment indicates that both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are important 

to user groups in the analysis area. Advocates of cross-country motorized recreation would be 

more limited in terms of access; this could adversely impact the value they experience from use 

of the KNF. There might be a slight net loss in motorized recreational visits, or visitation may 

relocate to existing NFTS routes. The total value experienced by stakeholders concerned with 

motorized recreation would likely decline as opportunities to participate in such forms of 

recreation decline. 

User groups concerned with other forms of recreation requiring motorized access may also be 

adversely affected. For example, dispersed camping is a common activity among local residents. 

The prohibition of cross-county travel would limit motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. 

This is more relevant on the Goosenest District, where terrain is more accommodating to crosscounty travel. Going elsewhere for recreation could adversely affect local residents. Increased 

travel time and fuel consumption, as well as additional expenses such as campground fees, would 

limit the substitutability of recreation on the KNF for many individuals. Additionally, the quality 

of the experience at other sites may not be comparable to the quality they have traditionally 

experienced. Knowing that motorized access to certain areas would be prohibited may cause

ideological impacts that result in individuals becoming more disconnected from the KNF.

The prohibition of cross-county travel may also improve natural resource conditions, which 

could then increase opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Advocates of quiet recreation and 

user groups concerned with natural resources would likely experience an increase in well-being 

due to greater restrictions in motorized access. There appears to be a tradeoff between 

opportunities provided for different user groups. Forest resources are in fixed supply; as 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation would increase, opportunities for cross-country 

motorized recreation decrease. In terms of economic impacts, it is likely that changes in use by 

one group would mitigate changes in use by the other group. In terms of net social welfare, there 

may be individual user groups that are adversely affected. Currently there is no means of 

quantitatively measuring the net impact to social welfare. 

Closure of 405 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use, especially those in areas with 

resource concerns, would have a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation. The 

prohibition on cross-country travel will reduce dust, noise and presence of OHVs on KNF lands 

adjacent to private lands. This will improve the social well-being of some local residents.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

132 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative would add 92 miles of roads and motorized trails, and 2 designated open riding 

areas totaling 65 acres, to the NFTS. The added routes and designated open riding areas could 

serve to mitigate some of the loss in OHV recreation from prohibiting cross-country travel. 

Visitor use is expected to remain at the current levels, although use may be distributed differently.

Under this alternative, 258 unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS for access to 

dispersed recreation sites. This would mitigate some of the adverse effects of prohibiting crosscountry travel to local residents participating in dispersed camping. 

Under this alternative, 43 miles of unauthorized routes within 1⁄2 mile of private lands within 

the KNF boundary would be added to the NFTS. Residents on those lands would continue to be 

affected by the dust and noise generated by motorized activities on these routes.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 2 would allow mixed use on an additional 119 miles of NFTS routes. Adding mixed 

use has been thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Appendix C of this FEIS. These additions 

would increase motorized vehicle opportunities and could potentially offset some of the effects on 

OHV users of prohibiting cross-country travel. 

Removing mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles would be prohibited from routes they now 

use) from 10 miles of road that access private lands will reduce the potential for dust, noise, 

trespass, and property damage from OHV use on or near private lands. Impacts to OHV users 

should be minimal, as most of these routes are short and dead-end at the private property.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the total change in social and economic conditions that would result 

from this alternative added to the direct and indirect effects of other ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable activities being conducted in the analysis area, on both public and private lands. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road actions on the KNF include removing 49 miles of road 

on the west side of the Forest from the NFTS (and thus from motorized vehicle use), and adding 

25 miles for motorized vehicle use on the east side (Goosenest Ranger District). Due to the large 

number of roads and the high mileage currently on the NFTS, the effects of reducing the NFTS 

by 24 miles, and the overall effect to Siskiyou County residents are considered to be minimal. 

The KNF shares borders with the Rogue-Siskiyou NF, the Modoc NF, the Six Rivers NF, the 

Shasta-Trinity NF, and the Fremont-Winema NF. The KNF has been coordinating management 

of one NFTS road that extends from the Rogue-Siskiyou onto the KNF; the Forests have agreed 

to manage the road as ML 2 on both sides of the Oregon/California border to provide consistency.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 133

Cumulative effects of actions in other parts of the analysis area are the same as discussed in 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2. The closure of 497 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use 

would have a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative. No direct or indirect 

effects would result. 

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS would be made for vehicle class, or class of roads and trails, under this 

alternative. No direct or indirect effects would result except for the continuing effects on residents 

of private land adjacent to the KNF where the use of non-highway legal vehicles is allowed on 8

miles that dead-end at the private land boundary. Since this alternative does not restrict that use, 

motorized vehicle users would be positively affected and residents of private land would be 

negatively affected.

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 2 

except there may be a greater displacement of motorized vehicle users from open areas of the 

KNF to other state, federal or private lands or onto existing KNF NFTS routes. There will be no 

miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS within 1⁄2 mile of private land.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel would be the same as those 

described under Alternative 2. The closure of 490 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use 

would have a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Social and economic effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS would be minimal as 

there would be only 12 miles of roads and less than one mile of motorized trail added to the 

NFTS. Twenty-five routes to dispersed recreation sites would be added. The direct and indirect 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

134 Klamath National Forest

effects would be similar to those reported for Alternative 3. There will continue to be a tradeoff 

among motorized and non-motorized activities, resulting in a loss of well-being to advocates of 

motorized recreation and a gain in social welfare to conservationists and participants in nonmotorized activities that do not required motorized access. The distribution of effects across 

stakeholders remains unknown; however, benefits will be skewed towards opponents of 

motorized recreation. This alternative can improve the quality of non-motorized activities and 

opportunities for the protection of natural resources, and enrich the lifestyles of user groups with 

those concerns. Conversely, fewer routes suggest that there will be a decrease in the quality and 

diversity of motorized recreation opportunities which can deteriorate the social benefits to those 

user groups.

Adding fewer miles of routes could possibly lead to a greater disconnection between the 

Forest and local residents who participate in motorized recreation activities. There will be fewer 

opportunities for motorized access to dispersed camping, which can result in a greater loss in 

social welfare to those users. Conversely, this alternative will yield social benefits to individuals

concerned with resource conservation and non-motorized activities.

Alternative 4 proposes less than 3 miles of road and trail route additions within 1⁄2 mile of 

private lands within the KNF boundary. Residents on those lands would continue to be affected 

by the dust and noise generated by motorized activities on these routes.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 4 would allow mixed use on an additional 119 miles of NFTS routes. Adding mixed 

use has been thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Appendix C of this FEIS. These additions 

would increase the motorized vehicle opportunities and offset some of the effects on OHV users 

of prohibiting cross-country travel.

Removing mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles would be prohibited from routes they now 

use) from 8 miles of road that access private lands will reduce the potential for dust, noise, 

trespass, and property damage from OHV use on or near private lands. Impacts to OHV users 

should be minimal, as most of these routes are short and dead-end at the private property.

Cumulative effects

This alternative would yield a substantial displacement of motorized recreation visitors. However, 

substitute activities would likely continue to occur within the analysis area. The only change to 

the cumulative effects reported under Alternative 2 would be differences in the distribution of 

social effects across user groups defined in the direct and indirect effects section of this 

alternative. Added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions described in 

Alternative 2, the social and economic cumulative impacts of this alternative would be minimal.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 135

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel are the same as those described 

under Alternative 2. The closure of 428 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use would 

have a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 47 miles of roads and 22 miles of motorized trails, and 53 acres of open 

riding area to the NFTS. Routes would be designated to 206 dispersed recreation sites. Motorized 

vehicle user groups would experience greater social welfare and there would be fewer 

opportunities for quiet recreation which may result in less social welfare experienced by groups 

interested in that. Advocates of dispersed camping would have motorized access to a large 

number and variety of sites. 

Social benefits would accrue more towards groups with interests in motorized access and 

recreation than to others. 

Alternative 5 proposes 24 miles of route additions within 1⁄2 mile of private lands that are 

within the KNF boundary. Residents on those lands would continue to be affected by the dust 

and noise generated by motorized activities on these routes.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 5 would allow mixed use on an additional 272 miles of NFTS routes. Adding mixed 

use has been thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Appendix C of this FEIS. These additions 

would increase the motorized vehicle opportunities and offset some of the effects on OHV users 

of prohibiting cross-country travel.

Removing mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles would be prohibited from routes they now 

use) from 8 miles of road that access private lands will reduce the potential for dust, noise, 

trespass, and property damage from OHV use on or near private lands. Impacts to OHV users 

should be minimal, as most of these routes are short and dead-end at the private property.

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects would be similar to those of Alternative 2.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

136 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel are the same as those described 

under Alternative 2. The closure of 438 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use would have 

a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative would add 41 miles of roads, 18 miles of motorized trails, and 53 acres of open 

riding areas to the NFTS. Routes would be designated to 164 dispersed recreation sites. The 

social welfare of motorized users would be decreased from the current situation, but there would 

continue to be a fair number of motorized access routes to dispersed recreation sites. Advocates of 

resource conservation and quiet non-motorized recreation would be better off than currently. 

Thus, a tradeoff among activities on the Forest would still exist; the exact distribution of effects 

across stakeholders remains unknown.

Alternative 6 proposes 23 miles of route additions within 1⁄2 mile of private lands within the 

KNF boundary. Residents on those lands would continue to be affected by the dust and noise 

generated by motorized activities on these routes.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 6 would allow mixed use on an additional 105 miles of NFTS routes. Adding mixed 

use has been thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Appendix C of this FEIS. These additions 

would increase the motorized vehicle opportunities and potentially offset some of the effects on 

OHV users of prohibiting cross-country travel. 

Removing mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles would be prohibited from routes they now 

use) from 8 miles of road that access private lands will reduce the potential for dust, noise, 

trespass, and property damage from OHV use on or near private lands. Impacts to OHV users 

should be minimal, as most of these routes are short and dead-end at the private property.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 137

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel are the same as those described 

under Alternative 2. The closure of 423 miles of unauthorized routes to motorized use would 

have a positive benefit to stakeholders interested in conservation. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 53 miles of roads, 21 miles of motorized trails, and 53 acres of open riding 

area to the NFTS. A total of 192 routes would be designated to access dispersed recreation sites. 

Motorized vehicle user groups would experience greater social welfare and there would be fewer 

opportunities for quiet recreation and potentially less resource conservation which may result in 

less social welfare experienced by some groups. 

Social benefits would accrue more towards groups with interests in motorized access and 

recreation than to others. 

Alternative 7 proposes 23 miles of route additions within 1⁄2 mile of private lands within the 

KNF boundary. Residents on those lands would continue to be affected by the dust and noise 

generated by motorized activities on these routes.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

Alternative 7 would convert 130 miles of ML 3 road to ML 2, and add 131 miles of mixed use on 

ML3 roads. Adding mixed use has been thoroughly analyzed and effects disclosed in Appendix C 

of this FEIS. These additions would increase the motorized vehicle opportunities and offset some 

of the effects on OHV users of prohibiting cross-country travel.

Removing mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles would be prohibited from routes they now 

use) from 8 miles of road that access private lands will reduce the potential for dust, noise, 

trespass, and property damage from OHV use on or near private lands. Impacts to OHV users 

should be minimal, as most of these routes are short and dead-end at the private property.

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects would be similar to those of Alternative 2.

Environmental Justice

While American Indian and low-income populations may exist in greater presence in the analysis 

area than the general population of the states of Oregon and California, none of the alternatives 

are expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

138 Klamath National Forest

on these groups. Impacts to local communities are expected to be negligible, and there is no 

reason to suspect that any impacts will disproportionately affect minority and low income 

populations.

Civil Rights

All action alternatives will restrict motorized access. This may have a greater effect on the 

elderly and physically disabled than on the younger or more physically fit because it will be more 

difficult for hunters to retrieve game animals without using motorized vehicles. Access to 

dispersed recreation sites by individuals who require assistive devices will be more difficult in 

alternatives that limit or prohibit motorized access to these sites. This restriction would not apply 

to motorized assistive devices for mobility-impaired individuals; however, due to slope and rough 

ground, it is unlikely that such devices would be able to operate effectively more than 30 feet 

from most currently existing KNF roads. Because these restrictions are applied consistently to 

everyone, however, they are not considered to be discriminatory.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

No alternative has a disproportionate effect on minorities or low income populations; there are no 

discriminatory effects under any alternative. 

Alternative 1 provides the greatest opportunity for motorized use on the Forest, because it 

continues to allow vehicle use of 1.2 million acres and motorized access to any dispersed site on 

that acreage. Social benefits to various users are balanced differently in the action alternatives. 

Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 do not accommodate cross-country motorized vehicle use but provide a 

diversity of motorized recreation opportunity on roads, trails, and open riding areas; motorized 

access is provided to a large number of identified dispersed recreation sites. Alternatives 3 and 4 

do not accommodate off-road travel, and provide little or no motorized recreation opportunity on 

roads, trails, or open riding areas; however, these alternatives provide the most non-motorized 

opportunity and the highest benefit to quiet recreation enthusiasts. Alternative 1 continues to 

allow motorized access on NFS lands up to the boundaries of private lands, where landowners are 

struggling with noise, dust, and property damage generated by motorized activities. The action 

alternatives all deal effectively with this by prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel, 

and removing motorized use from roads that access private property; all but Alternative 3 also 

remove non-highway legal vehicle use from roads that dead-end at private property. 

There is little evidence of any substantial effect of any action alternative on the economy of 

the analysis area. Table SER-1 provides a comparison of the effects of alternatives on the social 

indicators.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Society, Culture, and the Economy Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 139

Table SER-1. Comparison of Alternatives, and the Social Effects of Alternatives

Mileage/Acres Proposed as Open to Motorized Use (Alternative 1) or to be Added to 

NFTS (Action Alternatives) and Group Receiving Advantage by Alternative

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of Route 

Additions

Group 

receiving 

advantage

0

motorized 

vehicle 

users

92

motorized 

vehicle 

users

0

users of 

nonmotorized 

recreation

7

motorized 

vehicle 

users

69

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

59

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

74

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

Acres 

available to 

motorized use

Group 

receiving 

advantage

1,200,000

motorized 

vehicle 

users

65

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

0

users of 

nonmotorized 

recreation

0

users of 

nonmotorized 

recreation

53

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

53

motorized 

and nonmotorized 

users

53

motorized

and nonmotorized 

users

Number of 

Dispersed 

Rec. Sites 

Accessed

Group 

receiving 

advantage

Not

calculated

a

258

motorized 

users of 

dispersed 

sites

0

users of 

nonmotorized 

recreation

25

users of 

nonmotorized 

recreation

206

motorized 

users of 

dispersed 

sites

164

motorized 

users of 

dispersed 

sites

192

motorized 

users of 

dispersed 

sites

Miles of 

routes added 

within 1⁄2 mile 

of private land

Group 

receiving 

advantage

213

(existing)

Motorized 

vehicle 

users

43

Motorized 

vehicle 

users

0

Private 

landowners

2.5

Private 

landowners

24

Private 

landowners

&

motorized 

vehicle 

users

23

Private 

landowner 

&

motorized 

vehicle 

users

23

Private 

landowner

&

motorized 

vehicle 

users

Miles of Mixed 

Use Added

Group 

receiving 

advantage

0

None

119

motorized

vehicle 

users

0

None

119

motorized 

vehicle 

users

272

motorized 

vehicle 

users

105

motorized 

vehicle 

users

131

motorized 

vehicle 

users

Miles of Mixed 

Use 

Removedb 

Group 

receiving 

advantage

0

motorized 

vehicle 

users

10

Private 

landowners

0

motorized 

vehicle 

users

8

Private 

landowners

8

Private 

landowners

8

Private 

landowners

8

Private 

landowners

Miles of 

ML 3 Road 

Converted to 

ML 2

Group 

receiving 

advantage

0

None

0

None

0

None

0

None

0

None

0

None

130

motorized 

vehicle 

users

a - For alternative 1, any site that can be accessed by vehicle can be considered a dispersed recreation site. It is not 

possible to calculate the # of such sites for which motorized access is feasible. 

b –Where such use is currently allowed.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Society, Culture, and the Economy

140 Klamath National Forest

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 implements the Klamath National Forest LRMP, which allows cross-country

motorized travel on most land allocations, and complies with the applicable standards and 

guidelines. However, the LRMP, as written, is not in compliance with the Travel Management

Rule. No motor vehicle use map would be produced. 

The action alternatives all meet the applicable LRMP standards; however, they would all

require a Forest Plan amendment to prohibit cross-country motorized travel in order to be 

consistent with the Travel Management Rule. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 141

Cultural Resources

Introduction

Cultural resources provide information about past human behavior and activities. They are found 

in a variety of physical forms that include, but are not limited to, material objects, archaeological 

sites, historic architecture, and cultural landscapes. Cultural resources are non-renewable and 

frequently consist of ephemeral materials susceptible to destruction or deterioration. 

Congress declared in 1966 that it would be national policy to ―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). 

This need was made more explicit when the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was 

amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to expand and underscore Federal agency 

responsibility for identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding unnecessary damage 

to them. Many historic properties are fragile and, once damaged or destroyed, they can not be 

repaired or replaced. The term ―historic properties‖ is used interchangeably with ―cultural 

resources‖ or ―cultural resource sites‖ throughout this document. The former has a more specific 

definition according to the NHPA, but the two are used synonymously here as a literary 

convenience to reduce repetition.

Section 106 of the NHPA compels federal agencies to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Historic Properties). The 

Travel Management rule requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the 

objective of minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use 

on National Forest lands (36 CFR 212.55(a), 212.55(b)(1)).

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant and specific to this project as it affects cultural resources includes:

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, provides 

comprehensive direction to federal agencies about their historic preservation responsibilities. The 

Act 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. Section 106 of the NHPA directs all Federal agencies to take into 

account effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

142 Klamath National Forest

included in or eligible for the National Register. Section 110 of the NHPA sets inventory, 

nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for Federally-owned historic properties.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

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. 

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800, outlines the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation‘s (ACHP) regulations for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005) outlines Forest Service policy and minimal 

requirements for considering possible effects to historic properties that may be associated with 

designating routes and areas as part of a National Forest‘s travel management process. 

Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

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

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

Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized 

Recreation on the National Forests in California (USDA Forest Service 2006 - Motorized 

Recreation PA) defines the area of potential effects and includes a strategy outlining the 

requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of historic properties, and effect 

determinations; it also includes protection and resource management measures that may be used 

where effects may occur. 

The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) outlines 

the minimum conditions that will be retained throughout the Forest in order to ensure resource 

protection and enhancement. The LRMP specifically lists the following standards and guidelines, 

management area specifications, and the minimum resource conditions necessary to protect 

cultural resources. 

24-3 Conduct a cultural resource survey before all ground-disturbing activities in compliance 

with applicable Federal historic preservation legislation (FSM 2360). In addition, 

surveys and applicable site evaluations should be completed before a Record of 

Decision or Decision Notice is signed. Document the results of project-level cultural 

resource inventories in the cultural resources report.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 143

2-10 Surveys are expected to be adequate to identify cultural sites. All identified cultural sites 

will be avoided until a determination of significance can be made.

24-7 Consider the effects of all Forest Service undertakings on significant cultural resources. 

Develop measures to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. Give priority to those 

properties that may be affected by project activities. 

24-14 Maintain significant and eligible historic sites and mitigate any adverse effects. 

Stabilization or rehabilitation may be carried out for significant sites that have been 

damaged. 

24-17 Monitor mitigation measures established during the environmental analysis of a given 

project to insure all stipulations are being met. Current records are necessary to indicate 

compliance with legal mandates. Tracking of the mitigation plan is necessary during 

and following ground-disturbing activities where cultural resource values are present. 

24-25 Protect traditional Native American rights and practices (Public Law (PL) 95-341) to 

insure the integrity of the site and to assure that use will continue to occur and will not 

be impaired. 

MA8-5 Do not direct recreational use to Native American cultural areas. River-related 

recreational use will be managed to minimize conflicts.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966 and amendments) requires federal 

land-managing agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic 

properties. The regulation to implement the NHPA (36 CFR 800) defines a historic property as:

―...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places 

maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, 

and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term 

includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian 

tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register 

Criteria. (36 CFR §800.16(1)(1))‖

For the purposes of this analysis, all cultural resources within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) are considered historic properties regardless of whether or not 

they have been formally evaluated for the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). In order for the Forest to determine the potential effects of the proposed 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

144 Klamath National Forest

action on historic properties, it is first necessary to identify the APE. The 36 

CFR§800 regulations define an APE as:

―...the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

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.‖(36 CFR§800.16(d))

The APE for the cultural resources component of the travel management project is 

specifically defined in the Motorized Recreation PA :

―APEs include vehicular use areas, such as roads, trails, routes, corridors, stopping points, 

trailheads, off-route use areas, or other associated areas where maintenance for and motorized 

recreation occur or that are considered for designation.‖

The Motorized Recreation PA includes a strategy that outlines cultural resource inventory 

requirements for routes and areas considered for addition to the NFTS; however, needs and 

priorities for survey may be based upon a variety of factors including motorized recreation use 

levels. Use levels are as follows:

Heavy use 1501 or more motorized vehicles per week

High use 501-1501 motorized vehicles per week

Medium use 101-500 motorized vehicles per week

Low use 25-100 motorized vehicles per week

Light use Fewer than 25 motorized vehicles per week

Motorized vehicle use of roads and routes on the Klamath National Forest falls into the ―light 

use‖ category. Thus, cultural resource inventory of many of the routes identified on the KNF 

were deferred. Of the 497 miles of unauthorized routes considered in this project, 195 miles were 

designated as not needing immediate inventory (inventory can be deferred). However, where 

existing cultural resource data indicated the presence of a site, a field visit was conducted to 

verify the level of effect to the site as a result of motorized vehicle use. 

Prior to the inventory of routes and the effects assessment, a background literature review and 

examination of cultural resource databases and documents maintained by the KNF was 

conducted. Using this information, cultural resource field surveys were completed on selected 

routes and open riding areas included in one or more action alternatives to identify new cultural 

resource sites or examine existing ones. Surveys were conducted according to methods and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 145

standards outlined in the Motorized Recreation PA. Reports documenting the results of the 

surveys (Goetz 2009a and 2009b, LaLande, 2008, 2009a and 2009b) are in the project record on 

file at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA. These reports include site specific analysis of 

cultural resources associated with all routes or open riding areas being considered for addition to 

the NFTS. The reports also supply background information, outline the methodologies employed 

and describe the condition of sites. Site conditions were then quantified by assessing effects to 

them as outlined in Table CR-1.

Table CR-1. Severity of effects on cultural resources and requirements for mitigation

Severity of 

Effects Definition Explanatory Notes

Negligible

Route bisects some portion of the 

cultural resource site, but the 

effect on NRHP values is 

insignificant

No measurable effect on the cultural 

resource; no mitigation measures are 

prescribed. 

Minor

Effects on cultural resources are 

minor, but not insignificant. 

Integrity of the NRHP values may 

diminish if measures are not 

taken to alleviate the potential 

effect.

Some type of mitigation measure may be 

required. Monitoring may be prescribed to 

ensure that the minor degree of 

disturbance does not increase over time. 

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 

A moderate determination requires 

mitigation. An adaptive management 

strategy will be employed where 

progressively more complex and potentially 

costly protective measure will be employed

to eliminate a sustained potential for 

adverse effects. 

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. 

More complex and potentially costly 

mitigation measures are required to 

prevent direct effects to the resource. In 

most cases, the only viable option may be 

re-routing the road/trail around the 

resource. Mitigation may necessitate 

scientific data recovery, which can be 

expensive and requires additional 

consultation under 36 CFR§800. 

Assumptions Specific to the Cultural Resource Analysis

Unauthorized routes and open areas of concentrated use may have already affected historic 

properties within route/area prisms.

Under the action alternatives, use will continue at current levels or may slightly increase over 

time on the NFTS with the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. (See the Society, 

Culture and Economy section of this chapter for support for this assumption.)
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

146 Klamath National Forest

There is no measurable difference in potential impact to cultural resources, given identical 

environmental variables, between that generated by different vehicle classes, i.e., full size 

four wheel drive vehicles, off-road vehicles, and motorcycles.

Per the Motorized Recreation PA, all cultural resources identified within the APE for all 

alternatives adding facilities to the NFTS are considered historic properties for the purposes 

of this undertaking, unless they already have been determined not eligible in consultation 

with the CA SHPO or through other agreed-on procedures (36 CFR §60.4; 36 CFR §800).

Mitigation measures developed for all action alternatives per the Motorized Recreation PA 

will eliminate or lessen effects to cultural resources (Chapter 2).

Data Sources

Site-specific cultural resource inventories. The Forest conducted cultural resource field 

surveys for this undertaking throughout 2008 and 2009. The primary objective of these 

surveys was to identify historic properties in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking 

and collect information on their current condition. 

Cultural resource records, previous survey data, historic archives, site records, maps and GIS 

spatial layers.

Indicators

The average number of historic properties per acre protected from creation of new routes or 

from addition of routes to the NFTS is Degree to which the integrity of historic property 

values are diminished (measured by the number of properties in each category of severity of 

effects)

Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing motor vehicle 

use (measured by the number of properties sustaining minor to major effects)

Average number of historic properties at risk if new routes or areas are created (to calculate 

the number of sites that might be affected by Alternative 1 in which cross-country motorized 

travel is not prohibited, the number of surveyed sites (2,224) per surveyed acre (787,308) as 

of 2006 were used to determine the number of sites that may potentially be affected on the 

1,200,000 acres open to cross-country travel. For action alternatives, the number of historic 

properties at risk if new routes or areas are created would equal the number sustaining minor 

to major effects in each alternative, based on the number of routes and acres of open riding 

areas added to the NFTS, because new routes or areas cannot be created without a future 

decision based on separate environmental analysis and disclosure.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 147

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 

Spatial boundary: Forest 

Indicators: (1) Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing 

use; and (2) Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if new routes or open riding 

areas are created.

Methodology: Use existing data to identify cultural resources in the APE that may be at risk or 

affected if cross-country travel is not prohibited (Alternative 1) or will be protected from direct or 

indirect effects by prohibiting cross-country motorized travel (Alternatives 2 through 7).

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Location of historic property 

Indicator: 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 to identify the degree to which the integrity of historic property 

values in the APE may be diminished by routes or open riding areas that are proposed for addition 

to the NFTS (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7).

3. Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the existing NFTS

Changes to vehicle type on existing NFTS roads are not considered undertakings subject to 

NHPA Section 106 compliance (USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA 

Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005)). 

Motorized vehicles can already use NFTS roads. Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle 

use will have no effect on cultural resources. This action will not be addressed further in this 

section.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

148 Klamath National Forest

4. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the additive effects of this project and of ongoing and reasonably

foreseeable future actions (Appendix B). Past actions are considered part of the existing condition 

and are discussed in the Affected Environment. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that may affect cultural resources include vegetation management projects (timber 

harvest, fuel reduction), ground-disturbing special use permits, livestock grazing and road-related 

projects (construction, reconstruction, decommissioning). The effects of all these actions on 

cultural resource sites are being, or will be, analyzed in each project environmental analysis. 

These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on historic properties due to 

the application of project design standards and mitigation measures. Project design standards and 

mitigation measures are being, or will be, developed and implemented for each project to 

minimize the effects of these activities to cultural resources. 

Road-related actions are likely to have the same types of effects on cultural resource sites as 

the actions proposed in this motorized travel management project. Road-related actions will add 

13 miles of ML 1 and 26 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles of ML 2 road. 

The environmental analyses of these actions all include compliance with NHPA section 106; 

cultural resource surveys will be completed as necessary, and consultation with the California or 

Oregon SHPOs will be undertaken if required. No effects on cultural resources from ongoing or

reasonably foreseeable road-related actions are anticipated; therefore, the cumulative effects of 

each alternative are the sum of the direct and indirect effects. 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest 

Indicator: Number of historic properties affected by unauthorized routes that are at risk from 

ongoing use.

Methodology: Identify cultural resources in the APE that may be subject to direct or indirect 

effects.

Affected Environment

The objective of this section is to review the most current information available regarding the 

scale, nature, and condition of cultural resources identified within the project area. 

Human presence on the lands managed by the Klamath National Forest begins with sporadic 

use by 11,000 years before present (BP) (Goebel 1996), with more distinct patterns of use 

appearing by 8000 to 6000 BP (Fentress 2002). The Shasta Valley, Klamath River and Butte 

Valley areas were all occupied by 7000 BP (Mack 1979, 1989, 1991; Jensen and Farber 1982), 

with Proto-Shastan and Modoc populations present by 5000 to 4000 BP (Cressman 1942). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 149

Ethnographically, the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) was occupied by 

Shasta, Klamath and Modoc, all of whom retain a presence in the area (Ray 1963; Silver 1978; 

Stern 1998). The Shasta were concentrated along the Klamath, Salmon and Scott Rivers, and their 

tributaries, where riverine resources were the focus of settlement and subsistence. The Klamath 

and, to a lesser degree the Modoc focused settlement and subsistence on the lacustrine resources 

of the Klamath Basin marshes (the Modoc focused more on terrestrial resources). These groups 

were traditionally ―hunters and gatherers‖ relying on local plant and animal resources for 

subsistence as they became available. Consequently, these groups practiced a highly mobile 

―seasonal round‖ type of settlement pattern moving frequently across the landscape. Many trails 

established by these ethnographic groups for travel and trade became major travel routes across 

the forest during the historic era.

The west side of the Klamath is also represented by a long history of cultural interactions 

with tribal groups along the Klamath River. This can be depicted as the area west of Interstate 5, 

following the Klamath River to Orleans. Ethnographic documentation for the west side is 

reflected in research presented by William Bright (1978) in his discussions of the Karuk; Kathryn 

and Robert Winthrop‘s research of the Konomihu (1991); and Shirley Silver‘s (1978) research of 

the Shasta. In essence, riverine resources played a major role in settlement and subsistence 

patterns, as well as the spiritual connectivity to the land through scheduled ceremonies (Palmer 

1980). Travel routes accessed groups for trade, acquisition of resources such as acorns, basketry 

materials, wildlife, and ceremonial activities. 

Euro-American explorers of the 1820s-40s found the Hupa, Karuk, and Shasta people living 

along portions of the lower/middle Klamath River drainage. Ancestors of the Shasta and Karuk 

people, speaking Hokan-family languages are believed to have been long-time residents of the 

region, and apparently inhabited or used much of the western portion of the KNF, to the near 

exclusion of non-Hokan-speaking neighboring groups (such as the Hupa, the Takelma, the 

Klamath/Modoc, and the Wintu, respectively). 

During the late 1820s through the 1840s, trappers and explorers began venturing into 

California. With the discovery of gold in Yreka in 1851 came a massive emigration of gold 

seekers and settlers into the area now encompassed by the Klamath National Forest. Numerous 

trails and routes crossing the Forest were the result, including: the Yreka Trail, a branch of the 

California National Historic Trail; the Tickner Road; the Lockhart Wagon Road, the Kelsey Trail, 

and the Deacon Lee Trail. These early roads were established to link settlements, transport 

supplies and access different mining communities. 

In the 1870s, large-scale hydraulic mining of the area‘s low-elevation placer deposits began. 

These were generally well-capitalized operations that hired crews of wage laborers (many of 

them Chinese). From the 1870s into the early twentieth century, systems of high ditches, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

150 Klamath National Forest

headboxes, iron-pipe penstocks, giant nozzles, huge sluice systems, and the other accoutrements 

of hydraulic mining transformed some low-elevation areas into extremely modified landscapes of 

vast, linear  ̳washing pits‘ (the mined-out ancient alluvium) located within, adjacent, and parallel 

to the stream courses. Huge piles of alluvial cobbles and boulders accumulated within and near 

the washing pits as tailings – which today form an extensive tree-shaded/moss-covered habitat for 

small mammals, birds, and reptiles. Along the banks of the Klamath River, the size and depth of 

the river permitted large-scale hydraulic mining with wings dams exposing the river bed and 

―China pumps‖ removing the water seepage (this activity was then followed by early-twentieth 

century gold dredging in the creeks and rivers and along their banks). 

With the end of the early years‘ labor-intensive placer operations, the area‘s mining

population declined dramatically. In the nearby valleys, ranching took hold, with cattle and other 

livestock being driven up to the summer ranges in the mountains‘ high-elevation meadows. Lode 

(or ―hard-rock) mining for gold in the bedrock slopes of the project vicinity began with small 

operations during the late nineteenth century. Soon after 1900, a number of better-capitalized, 

longer-term underground-mining operations took place. 

Logging occurred throughout the Forest to supply lumber and various wood products to 

support other industries. On the Goosenest District, with its open Eastside Pine habitat and 

terrain, logging was and continues to be the primary industry. In 1904 the Weed Lumber 

Company began extending its railroad based logging from Weed, California, reaching Klamath 

Falls, Oregon in 1909. In the process of this and later expansion, a substantial railroad grade 

system was established to facilitate logging operations. These railroad grades provide the 

footprint for the majority of roads on the Goosenest. 

During the same period, the U.S. Forest Service began managing the new established 

Klamath National Forest, building trails into the high country. Small-scale placer and lode mining

attracted a number of individuals hard-pressed by the Great Depression; large-scale dredgemining operations also occurred during this time along a number of stretches of the Klamath and 

Scott Rivers. 

Livestock grazing has occurred on Forest lands since the 1850s when cattle, pigs, and sheep 

were raised to feed local miners. Seasonal patterns of stock movement between valleys and 

higher elevations developed with grazing on the Goosenest concentrated on the crest of the 

Cascades and in Butte Valley. However, after a series of large land exchanges in the 1930s and 

1940s, grazing was substantially expanded on the Goosenest. Similarly, stock movement on the 

west side of the forest utilized high elevation areas such as the Siskiyou Crest to lower elevations 

such as Scott Valley. Stock trails from grazing activities are evident across all districts and many 

of these trails are still used today to move cattle to and from grazing allotments.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 151

The Klamath National Forest has a history of recreational use, and opportunities for 

recreation exist at both developed as well as dispersed sites throughout the Forest. Recreational 

activities tend to concentrate at lake or creek-side settings (fishing, camping), high elevation 

snowparks (snowmobiling, cross-country skiing), the area of concentrated use at Juniper Flat 

along County Highway A12, the Humbug area of concentrated use, and at dispersed campsites 

(hunting). 

Existing Conditions 

A total of 2,880 cultural resource sites have been identified and mapped within the 1.2 million 

acres that are open for cross-country motorized use.

For this project, cultural resource specialists conducted field surveys in search of historic 

properties in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking. Field surveys identified 63 historic 

properties on or immediately adjacent to routes or open riding areas proposed for addition to the 

NFTS. On the west side of the Forest, 35 sites were identified; 30 sites were associated with 

routes and none with open riding areas. On the east side of the Forest, 28 prehistoric sites were 

identified; 20 sites were associated with routes and 8 sites are adjacent to, but not within, the 

proposed open riding area at Juniper Flat.

Environmental Consequences

This section outlines the effects of each action alternative on cultural resources. The disclosure of 

specific data related to the location or character of a historic property is regulated pursuant to 

stipulations in 36 CFR§800.11 and section 304 of the NHPA when disclosure may cause a 

significant risk. The LRMP also specifies that the location of cultural resource sites is confidential 

information. Therefore, information regarding the location of cultural resources or historic 

properties is provided by focus area instead of by route.

Effects on cultural resources take the form of direct effects, which are caused by the action 

and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are 

later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Disturbance agents can combine in a variety of ways to create a potential threat to historic 

properties. Common direct effects include a direct impact of vehicle tires on cultural resources, or 

movement of artifacts as soil is displaced. Indirect effects could include exposure of artifacts

from soil displacement, down-cutting or rutting in route surfaces, displacement over time, 

damage from vandalism, alteration of historic structures, and looting.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

152 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 1 

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country vehicle travel. Continued off-road vehicle travel 

is likely to result in the creation of new routes which could adversely affect the 2,880 historic 

properties that have been identified on the 1.2 million acres of lands open for cross-country 

travel. The 63 historic properties identified for this project will continue to be subject to 

disturbance. Seven properties are not currently being affected; 58 show negligible to major 

effects. Continued cross-country travel, without mitigation, could increase the severity of effects. 

The severity of effects to the 8 currently affected sites adjacent to the Juniper Flat area of 

concentrated use would continue and may increase. Tables CR-2 through CR-4 display the effects 

of this alternative.

Expansion of the unauthorized route system could also increase the number of properties that 

may be affected. There is no way to accurately estimate the number of properties that might be 

affected by the proliferation of unauthorized routes.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS. There will be no effects on cultural resources 

from this action.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

The prohibition of cross-country vehicle travel on 1.2 million acres of the KNF would have a 

beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the Forest in the short and long term. It would 

curtail the creation of new routes, eliminating the threat of additional impacts to 2,800 identified 

historic properties on 1.2 million acres of lands open for cross-country travel. This prohibition 

would protect unidentified sites from direct impact of vehicles and from the soil displacement and 

erosion that can occur from unmanaged motor vehicle use on routes that are not well-sited. Under 

this prohibition, there will be no addition of unauthorized routes and all future proposed additions 

to the NFTS will require compliance with the NHPA section 106. Potential effects to cultural and 

historic properties will be identified and mitigated through separate environmental analyses. 

Effects to the 8 sites adjacent to the Juniper Flat open riding area from motorized vehicle use will 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 153

be eliminated by this prohibition. Overall, effects from prohibiting cross-country motorized 

vehicle travel are considered to be beneficial to cultural resources.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 92 miles of routes and 65 acres in two open riding areas to the NFTS. There 

are no identified sites in either of the open riding areas. The routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS potentially affect 52 sites with identified historic properties; 47 sites are currently affected

with negligible to minor effects, 4 are not currently affected, and effects to 1 site are moderate. 

The effects on these sites are displayed, by focus area, in Tables CR-2 through CR-4. 

Of the 33 sites on the west side of the Forest, potential effects for 28 sites have been 

identified as negligible or minor; there is no current effect to 3 sites as displayed in Tables CR-2 

and 3. Effects to 1 site are moderate; mitigations to protect this site are displayed in Table CR-3.

Of the 19 properties on the east side of the Forest that could be directly affected by this 

project, 1 was considered to not be affected. The other 18 properties are sustaining negligible to 

minor effects as displayed in Table CR-4. There are 8 sites located outside the Juniper Flat open 

riding area. These properties are not considered ―at risk‖ in Alternative 2 due to the prohibition of 

cross-country travel. However, signing and barriers will be used along the boundary of the 

Juniper Flat open riding area to ensure that vehicles cannot leave the area and drive over these 8 

sites (Table CR-5). These sites will be monitored according to the Motorized Recreation PA 

monitoring protocols for ―at-risk‖ properties to protect them from unauthorized motorized vehicle 

use.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel on cultural resources are the same as described 

in Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS. There will be no effects on cultural resources 

from this action.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

154 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are the same as described in Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 7 miles of routes to the NFTS; the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

affect 2 identified historic properties on the east side of the KNF that are currently sustaining 

minor effects. There are no sites affected on the west side of the KNF. No open riding areas are 

added to the NFTS in this alternative. The direct or indirect effects to cultural resources from this 

action on these 2 sites are displayed in Table CR-4.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are the same as described in Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 69 miles of routes and 53 acres in two open riding areas to the NFTS. There 

are no identified sites in either of the open riding areas. The routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS potentially affect 40 sites with identified historic properties; 35 sites are currently affected

with negligible to minor effects, 4 are not currently affected, and effects to 1 site are moderate. 

The effects on these sites are displayed, by focus area, in Tables CR-2 through CR-4. 

Of the 28 sites on the west side of the Forest, potential effects for 23 sites have been 

identified as negligible or minor; there is no current effect to 4 sites as displayed in Tables CR-2 

and CR-3. Effects to 1 site are moderate; mitigations to protect this site are displayed in Table 

CR-3.

Of the 12 properties on the east side of the Forest that could be directly affected by this 

project, all are sustaining negligible to minor effects (Table CR-4). There are 8 sites located 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 155

outside the Juniper Flat open riding area. These properties are not considered ―at risk‖ in 

Alternative 5 due to the prohibition of cross-country travel. However, signing and barriers will be

used along the boundary of the Juniper Flat open riding area to ensure that vehicles cannot leave 

the area and drive over these 8 sites (Table CR-5). These sites will be monitored according to the 

Motorized Recreation PA monitoring protocols for ―at-risk‖ properties to protect them from 

unauthorized motorized vehicle use.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are the same as described in Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 59 miles of routes and 53 acres in two open riding areas to the NFTS. There 

are no identified sites in either of the open riding areas. The routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS potentially affect 39 sites with identified historic properties; 35 sites are currently affected

with negligible to minor effects, 3 are not currently affected, and effects to 1 site are moderate. 

The effects on these sites are displayed, by focus area, in Tables CR-2 through CR-4. 

Of the 27 sites on the west side of the Forest, potential effects for 23 sites have been 

identified as negligible or minor; there is no current effect to 3 sites as displayed in Tables CR-2 

and CR-3. Effects to 1 site are moderate; mitigations to protect this site are displayed in Table 

CR-3.

Of the 12 properties on the east side of the Forest that could be directly affected by this 

project, all are sustaining negligible to minor effects as displayed in Table CR-4. There are 8 sites 

located outside the Juniper Flat open riding area. These properties are not considered ―at risk‖ in 

Alternative 6 due to the prohibition of cross-country travel. However, signing and barriers are 

used along the boundary of the Juniper Flat open riding area to ensure that vehicles cannot leave 

the area and drive over these 8 sites as displayed in Table CR-6. These sites will be monitored 

according to the Motorized Recreation PA monitoring protocols for ―at-risk‖ properties to protect 

them from unauthorized motorized vehicle use.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

156 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are the same as described in Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 74 miles of routes and 53 acres in two open riding areas to the NFTS. There 

are no identified sites in either of the open riding areas. The routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS potentially affect 40 sites with identified historic properties; 35 sites are currently affected

with negligible to minor effects, 4 are not currently affected, and effects to 1 site are moderate. 

The effects on these sites are displayed, by focus area, in Tables CR-2 through CR-4. 

Of the 26 sites on the west side of the Forest, potential effects for 22 sites have been 

identified as negligible or minor; there is no current effect to 3 sites as displayed in Tables CR-2 

and CR-3. Effects to 1 site are moderate; mitigations to protect this site are displayed in Table 

CR-3.

Of the 14 properties on the east side of the Forest that could be directly affected by this 

project, 13 are sustaining negligible to minor effects and 1 is not affected as displayed in Table 

CR-4. There are 8 sites located outside the Juniper Flat open riding area. These properties are not 

considered ―at risk‖ in Alternative 7 due to the prohibition of cross-country travel. However, 

signing and barriers will be used along the boundary of the Juniper Flat open riding area to ensure 

that vehicles cannot leave the area and drive over these 8 sites as displayed in Table CR-5. These 

sites will be monitored according to the Motorized Recreation PA monitoring protocols for ―atrisk‖ properties to protect them from unauthorized motorized vehicle use.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects described 

above.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

The known cultural resource sites (historic properties) that may be affected by each alternative 

are displayed in Tables CR-2 through CR-5 by focus area. It is assumed that effects to sites would 

continue under Alternative 1; therefore, Alternative 1 is identified for each site even though 

mitigation measures would not be applied in this alternative. Each identified property was 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 157

assigned a severity of effects rating which resulted in the decision to remove the route from 

consideration or develop appropriate mitigation. These results are also displayed by focus area in 

Tables CR-2 through CR-5. The focus areas are the Humbug area (not including the open riding 

area because it contains no properties), the rest of the west side of the KNF (west of Interstate 5), 

the east side of the KNF (east of Interstate 5), and the area immediately adjacent to the Juniper 

Flat concentrated use area (in Alternative 1) or open riding area (in Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7).

Table CR-2. Historic properties associated with each alternative in Humbug area (outside open 

riding area)

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-55-10 indirect looting minor monitor yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-162 indirect looting minor monitor yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-276 none none none none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-277 none none none none no 1,5

05-05-55-278 none none none none no 1,5,6,7

05-05-55-279 indirect camping minor monitor yes 1,2,5,6,7

Table CR-3. Historic properties associated with each alternative on west side other than in Humbug

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-51-189 indirect camping minor monitor no 1,2

05-05-51-212 indirect

erosion/

camping moderate

define route

with 

barriers;

sign & 

monitor

 no

1,2,5,6,7

05-05-51-213 indirect camping minor monitor no 1,2

05-05-51-214 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2

05-05-52-14 indirect logging negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-52-55 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-52-87 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-52-129 indirect logging negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-52-152 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2

05-05-52-181 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2

05-05-52-234 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6

05-05-52-245 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-05 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-106 direct/ 

indirect

vandalism

/camping minor monitor no

1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-107 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-109 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-112 indirect camping/

privy negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-113 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-121 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-250 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

158 Klamath National Forest

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-54-327 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-384 indirect camping negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-54-385 indirect camping minor monitor yes 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-17 direct

camping/

improvementsminor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-126 indirect camping/

looting minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-270 none none none none yes 1,2

05-05-55-271 indirect looting minor monitor yes 1,2

05-05-55-286 none none none none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-55-287 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

Table CR-4. Historic properties associated with each alternative on east side other than adjacent to 

Juniper Flat open riding area

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-57-42 direct/

 indirect

rutting,

erosion,

camping,

looting

minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-334 direct/

 indirect

rutting,

displacementminor monitor no 1,2,4,5,6,7

05-05-57-190 direct/

 indirect

rutting,

camping minor monitor no

1,2,7

05-05-57-200 direct/

 indirect

erosion, 

looting, 

camping

minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-294 none none none none no 1,7

05-05-57-717 direct rutting minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-718 direct/

 indirect

rutting,

downcutting,

displacement

minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-663 direct/

 indirect

rutting,

erosion,

downcutting

minor monitor no1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-1548 direct/

 indirect

rutting, 

erosion, 

camping

minor monitor no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-1549 direct rutting minor monitor no 1,2

05-05-57-56 indirect camping negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-1309 direct rutting negligible none no 1,2,5,6,7
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 159

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-57-254 direct

rutting/

displacementnegligible none no 1,2,5,6,7

05-05-57-816 direct rutting negligible none no 1,2

05-05-57-585 none none none none no 1,2

05-05-57-1292 indirect looting negligible none no 1,2

05-05-57-640 direct/

 indirect

erosion,

looting,

camping,

rutting

minor/

negligible

monitor no 1,2

05-05-57-1284 direct/

 indirect

erosion,

looting,

camping,

rutting

minor/

negligible

monitor no 1,2

05-05-57-105 direct

rutting,

displacementminor monitor yes 1,2,4,5,6,7

05-05-57-348 direct rutting negligible none yes 1,2,5,6,7
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

160 Klamath National Forest

Table CR-5. Historic properties adjacent to the Juniper Flat concentrated use or open riding area

and alternative in which they would be affected

Site # Type 

of Effect

Nature 

of 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Effect 

Protection

Mitigation

Defer

Survey

?

Alt. #

05-05-57-675 indirect

rutting,

erosion,

looting major

barrier & 

signing 

around open 

riding area

no

1

8

05-05-57-676 indirect

rutting, 

erosion major

barrier & 

signing 

around open 

riding area

no 1

05-05-57-1049 indirect

rutting,

erosion major

barrier & 

signing 

around open 

riding area

no 1

05-05-57-1208 indirect

rutting,

erosion,

looting moderate

barrier 

&signing 

around open 

riding area

no 1

05-05-57-1209 indirect rutting minor monitor no 1

05-05-57-1210 indirect rutting, 

looting minor monitor no 1

05-05-57-1280 indirect rutting,

looting minor monitor no 1

05-05-57-1283 indirect rutting,

looting minor monitor no 1

Under all the action alternatives, the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

will provide protection to sites that were identified within the APE but were not associated with a 

route or area. 

The effects of each alternative on (1) the degree to which integrity of historic property values 

is diminished, (2) the number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from 

ongoing use, and (3) the average number of historic properties at risk from creation of new routes 

are displayed in Table 6.

 

8 Although these sites would be affected only in Alternative 1, barriers and signing around the Juniper Flat 

open riding area would be mitigations applied to Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cultural Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 161

Table CR-6. Comparison of the effects of alternatives on cultural resources

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Degree to which integrity 

of historic property values 

are diminished - low (# of 

sites with negligible 

effects)

25 25 0 0 20 20 19

Degree to which integrity 

of historic property values 

are diminished –

low/medium (# of sites 

with minor effects)

26 22 0 2 15 15 16

Degree to which integrity 

of historic property values 

are diminished – medium 

(# of sites with moderate 

effects)

2 1 0 0 1 1 1

Degree to which integrity 

of historic property values 

are diminished – high (# of 

sites with major effects)

3 0 0 0 0 0 0

# of historic properties 

within unauthorized routes 

at risk from ongoing use

31 -

2,880a 23 0 2 16 16 17

Average # historic 

properties at risk if new 

routes or areas are 

created or added to NFTS

3,390 23 0 0 16 16 17

aAlthough 31sites are currently at risk, the total number of known sites on the 1.2 million acres open to motorized crosscountry travel is 2,880 and all might possibly be affected in the future if Alternative 1 is implemented.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Surveys have been conducted per the LRMP and all identified eligible sites will be protected and 

monitored as appropriate. Alternative 1 would comply with LRMP standards and guidelines for 

identified sites; however, since Alternative 1 would allow creation of new unauthorized routes 

that could potentially have unmitigated effects on an unknown number of historic properties, it is

not likely to meet standards from the LRMP in the future. It would not comply with the Travel 

Management Rule which requires that National Forests prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

and restrict motorized use to designated roads, trails and areas. 

All action alternatives comply with applicable standards and guidelines from the LRMP, but 

would require an amendment to the KNF LRMP to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Alternative 3 would not require mitigation to comply with the Motorized Recreation PA 

which is the means by which this project complies with regulations for implementing Section 106 

of the NHPA in California. Alternative 4 would only require monitoring. With appropriate 

mitigations (displayed in Tables 2 through 5), Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 will comply with the 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

162 Klamath National Forest

Motorized Recreation PA. For routes in Oregon, the KNF consulted with the Oregon SHPO on 

routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in action alternatives. The Oregon SHPO concurred 

with the KNF‘s determination of ―no effect‖ for the proposed travel management undertaking on 

March 24, 2009. No new additions to the NFTS are proposed in Oregon in Alternative 7 which 

was developed after March 24, 2009. Therefore, all action alternatives are in compliance with 

NHPA Section 106 regulations for properties in Oregon.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 163

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Roadless Characteristics

Introduction

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) were identified through the Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation II (RARE II) process. The California Wilderness Bill (1984) designated wilderness 

areas in the state, and released undesignated roadless areas to other uses. The LRMP (1995) 

addressed the roadless areas and identified which portions had lost roadless character since 

passage of the bill. Since 1995, the Forest Service has managed roadless areas under several 

different directives. Current management direction (outlined below) requires that any proposed 

road construction in IRAs be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The California Wilderness Coalition and The Wilderness Society has an interest in promoting 

roadless character within a number of citizen-inventoried roadless areas, which are lands 

immediately adjacent to existing wilderness, or within or adjacent to IRAs. There are 11 CIRAs 

identified on the KNF. The LRMP does not prohibit management activities that would affect 

roadless character in these areas. The Wilderness Society proposes that the KNF limit roadrelated activities in these areas to preserve their roadless character so that they may be considered 

in the future for additions to wilderness, or for management as backcountry or primitive areas. 

Effects on citizen-inventoried roadless areas (CIRAs) were addressed for this project.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects agency identified IRAs includes:

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required 

the development of management prescriptions for definitive lands areas of national forests during 

the Forest planning process. 

The Travel Management (TM) Rule does not cite IRAs specifically but requires local 

agency officials to consider minimization of conflicts among uses of National Forest System 

(NFS) lands.

Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1042-154 (5/28/09) reserves to the Secretary 

decision-making authority over the construction and reconstruction of roads in inventoried 

roadless areas, except in emergency situations (authority redelegated to National Forest 

Supervisors in USDA memorandum of 8/3/09).

The Klamath National Forest Plan (LRMP) does not consider inventoried roadless areas as

a separate management area, but did identify and consider 19 IRAs. The Record of Decision 

(ROD) does not address motorized use in these areas except in Research Natural Areas, the 

Backcountry Management Area, designated and recommended Wild Rivers, and the special 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

164 Klamath National Forest

habitat area for the Calochortus persistens sensitive plant where such use is prohibited. The ROD 

for the LRMP states:

―No new roads will be constructed within inventoried roadless areas in Key 

Watersheds [LRMP standard 6-23]. All other released roadless areas will be 

managed according to the direction of the management area in which they occur.‖ 

(p.3)

―Portions of 2 released roadless areas will maintain their roadless characteristics 

and be managed as the Backcountry Management Area. New road construction will 

not be permitted in inventoried roadless areas within Key Watersheds that have a 

roadless character...I determined that allocating released roadless areas for other 

multiple use needs such as habitat for Threatened and Endangered species, LateSuccessional Reserves and timber production was a higher need than maintaining 

options for future wilderness or providing additional backcountry opportunities. 

Late-Successional Reserves allow for vegetative management to enhance latesuccessional habitat which is critical for many Threatened and Endangered Species

and could not be provided under wilderness designation. Due to the more pressing 

needs of Threatened and Endangered species and to low projected demand for 

wilderness use on the Forest over the next 50 years relative to the current supply, I 

did not feel that additional wilderness recommendations were warranted.‖ (p. 7)

Effects Analysis Methodology

This analysis focuses on how each alternative would affect roadless characteristics within IRAs 

and CIRAs on the Klamath National Forest. Roadless characteristics identified in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule include: (1) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; (2) 

sources of public drinking water; (3) diversity of plant and animal communities; (4) habitat for 

threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive (P), semi-primitive non-motorized 

(SPNM) and semi-primitive motorized (SPM) classes of dispersed recreation; (6) reference 

landscapes; (7) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; (8) traditional cultural 

properties and sacred sites and, (9) other locally identified unique characteristics (66 FR 3245, 

Jan. 12, 2001). Extensive modification of or effects to roadless characteristics could affect an 

area‘s potential for inclusion in the Wilderness System at a later date.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 165

Table IRA-1. Roadless characteristics and descriptions

Characteristics Description 

Soil, water and air resources These three key resources are the foundation upon which 

other resource values and outputs depend. Healthy 

watersheds provide clean water for domestic, agricultural, 

and industrial uses; help maintain abundant and healthy 

fish and wildlife populations; and are the basis for many 

forms of outdoor recreation. 

Sources of public drinking water NFS lands contain watersheds that are important sources 

of public drinking water. Careful management of these 

watersheds is crucial in maintaining the flow of clean 

water to a growing population. 

Diversity of plant and animal 

communities 

Inventoried roadless areas may play a role in conserving 

native biodiversity by providing areas where nonnative 

invasive species are rare, uncommon, or absent. 

Habitat for TES and species dependent 

on large undisturbed areas of land 

Large undisturbed areas of land function as biological 

strongholds and refuges for many species. 

Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, 

and semi-primitive motorized classes of 

recreation 

These areas often provide outstanding recreation 

opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife 

viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and 

canoeing. While they may have many wilderness-like 

attributes, unlike wilderness, the use of mountain bikes

and motorized vehicles is allowed. 

Reference landscapes for research 

study or interpretation 

The body of knowledge about the effects of management 

activities over long periods of time and on large 

landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes can 

provide comparison areas for evaluation and monitoring. 

These areas provide a natural setting that may be useful 

as a comparison to study the effects of more intensely 

managed areas. 

Landscape character and integrity High quality scenery, especially scenery with naturalappearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people 

choose to recreate. In addition, quality scenery 

contributes directly to real estate values in neighboring 

communities and residential areas. 

Traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites 

Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, structures, 

art, or objects that have played an important role in the 

cultural history of a group. Sacred sites are places that 

have special religious significance to a group. Traditional 

cultural properties and sacred sites may be eligible for 

protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Direct effects on roadless characteristics can result from disturbance of soil and vegetation, or 

changes in habitats. Effects such as noise may be generated by activity on the route and affect 

roadless characteristics (such as primitive recreation opportunities) at a distance. Results from 

resource analyses in other sections of this chapter were used to inform the discussion of effects on 

roadless characteristics. 

The potential for impacts to roadless areas was determined through a GIS analysis overlaying 

unauthorized routes on the map of inventoried roadless areas and citizen-inventoried roadless 

areas. Miles of routes were multiplied by 320 acres (representing a 1⁄2 mile buffer).
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

166 Klamath National Forest

Assumptions Specific to the IRA Analysis

Adding road miles in IRAs to the NFTS (even if the route already exists) is considered to be 

road construction (per the 2001 Roadless Rule).

New road construction is restricted by the Secretary of Agriculture‘s memorandum 1042-154 

(5/28/09) in IRAs but not in CIRAs.

Since there has been no analysis to determine the extent to which the acres within CIRAs 

have retained roadless character, all acres within CIRAs are considered to currently have 

roadless characteristics.

Effects of unauthorized routes on roadless characteristics occur both on the disturbed site 

(effects to soils and vegetation) and adjacent to the route (effects on primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized classes of recreation, and landscape integrity, primarily scenery).

Each mile of route = 2 acres of ground where roadless characteristics (effects on soil or 

vegetation) are foregone.

Off-route effects (primarily sound) can extend for up to 1⁄2 mile on either side of the route. 

Sound is considered to affect the quality of primitive recreation experiences.

Data Sources

GIS layers of unauthorized routes

GIS layers of IRAs and CIRAs (submitted by The Wilderness Society)

Indicators

Measurement indicators for this analysis are:

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or miles of roads and trails proposed for addition 

to the NFTS within IRAs and CIRAs (action alternatives).

Acres of IRA or CIRA where roadless characteristics could be affected by designation of 

routes.

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. 

Spatial boundary: The IRA and CIRA boundaries. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 167

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

Attempting to quantify where cross-country motorized travel would occur under the no action 

alternative (Alternative 1) is speculative, since it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or 

how cross-country motorized use would occur. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The IRA and CIRA boundaries. 

Methodology: GIS analysis. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

This action affects only roads that are currently on the NFTS. There will be no effects to roadless 

character from a change in vehicle type on existing roads. This action is not addressed further in 

this section.

4. Cumulative Effects

The greatest potential threats to maintaining roadless characteristics are road construction, 

reconstruction, and timber harvesting. These activities pose disproportionately greater risks of 

altering and fragmenting natural landscapes at regional and national scales (Federal Register, 

Volume 66, No. 9, pg. 3244). No ongoing or reasonably foreseeable vegetation management or 

road construction activities are proposed for IRAs or CIRAs on the Klamath National Forest, so 

cumulative effects will be the same as those described for direct and indirect effects.

Affected Environment

T here are 19 Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Klamath National Forest. The California 

Wilderness Act of 1984 released these areas to other uses, and since that time timber harvest and 

road construction activities have resulted in a loss of natural integrity or natural appearance on 

about 10% of the acres (Table IRA-2). Benefits from retaining roadless characteristics would 

apply to those portions of the IRAs that still retain roadless character. The LRMP does not 

prohibit off-road vehicle use in IRAs, and there are no Forest Orders in place that do so. About 4 

miles of unauthorized routes occur within IRAs. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

168 Klamath National Forest

Table IRA-2. Unauthorized routes in inventoried roadless areas on the KNF

Inventoried 

Roadless Area Acres

 Acres no 

longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character 9

Acres 

retaining 

roadless 

character

# / Miles of 

unauthorized 

routes

Acres 

Affected

Boulder 500 250 250

Callahan Flow 2,000 2,000 2 / 0.9 576

Condrey Mtn. 3,100 3,100

Crapo 1,500 1,500

Grider 11,000 11,000

Johnson 9,300 2,600 6,700

Kangaroo 40,500 40,500

Kelsey 3,000 2,600 400

Mt. Hoffman 500 500 3 / 0.7 448

Muse 300 300

Orleans Mtn. 48,730 7,000 41,730

Portuguese 20,400 8,000 12,400

Russian 16,800 16,800

Shackleford 1,585 1,585

Siskiyou 53,600 53,600 1 / 2.3 1,472

Snoozer 23,030 1,400 21,630

Tom Martin 9,400 3,760

Ukonom Ck. 900 900

 TOTALS 246,045 25,610 220,435 6 / 3.9

The Callahan Flow and Mt. Hoffman IRAs are on the east edge of the Goosenest District; 

they are adjacent to roadless areas on the Modoc National Forest. Both areas have retained 

natural integrity and appearance. The Siskiyou IRA is made up of 5 parcels surrounding the 

Siskiyou Wilderness. Steep topography has limited off-road travel by vehicles, so all five parcels 

have retained natural integrity and appearance. The one identified route connects two ML2 roads 

in the Pony Peak area. None of the action alternatives proposed to add routes or open riding areas 

within IRAs to the NFTS. 

Currently there are 45 unauthorized routes (4.4 miles) within CIRAs (Table IRA-3). The 

unauthorized routes within CIRAs are generally short (only 6 are longer than 0.1 mile). All are 

associated with ML2 roads, and provide access to dispersed recreation sites. 

Table IRA-3. Citizen inventoried roadless areas with unauthorized routes (current situation)

Citizen’s 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

Acres

Unauthorized 

routes 

# / miles

Acres 

affected* 

% of Total 

Acres

Siskiyou 42,827 3 / 1.59 1,018 2.4

China Mountain 4,451 4 / 0.19 122 2.7

Condrey Mountain 4,064 3 / 0.42 269 6.6

Marble Mountain 135,665 15 / 0.88 563 <1

Red Buttes 50,038 2 / 0.15 96 <1

Russian 32,440 1 / 0.09 58 <1

Tom Martin 16,624 1 / 0.02 13 <1

Trinity Alps 69,118 16 / 1.06 678 1

TOTAL: 359,599 45 / 4.4 2,817

* Number of acres potentially affected by vehicle noise (1/2 mile on either side of a route)

 

9

Figures from Appendix C – Released Roadless Areas, from Klamath NF LRMP.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 169

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Alternative 1 allows the continuation of motorized cross-country travel within IRAs and CIRAs. 

Because there is no way to know where a motorized vehicle might travel, all 220,435 acres in 

IRAs that currently retain roadless characteristics could be negatively affected by creation of new 

routes or disturbance from vehicles. Another 357,000 acres within CIRAs (those acres not 

currently adjacent to unauthorized routes) could potentially be affected. Over time, repeated 

cross-country motorized travel could result in new routes that have the appearance of roads. New 

unauthorized routes could negatively affect roadless characteristics through compaction of soils 

and removal of vegetation, which could remove or degrade wildlife or plant habitats, and create 

visual contrasts that could affect landscape character. Effects on reference landscapes could 

include changes in soil character, water runoff, habitat and landscape character, which could 

negatively affect research or study activities proposed for these areas. Sounds and sights of motor 

vehicles could affect the quality of primitive/semi-primitive nonomotorized recreational 

experiences. This alternative could also result in direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources 

exposed to vehicle use. There is no way to quantify the number of miles of new routes that could 

be created, or the number of acres that could be affected by route proliferation.

About 4 miles of existing unauthorized routes within IRAs and 4.4 miles within CIRAs 

would continue to be used under this alternative (Table IRA-3). Effects of these routes are 

considered to be minor at the Forest scale, although they can affect roadless character in the areas 

where they occur. Under this alternative, about 2,500 acres in IRAs and about 2,830 acres in 

CIRAs adjacent to these routes would continue to be subjected to noise, dust and physical 

intrusion by motorized vehicles. A minimum of 8 acres of plant and wildlife habitat in IRAs and 

8.8 acres in CIRAs would be foregone in the long term.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS so there are no direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects

There are no ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities located within IRAs or CIRAs. The 

cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

170 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for creation of new unauthorized 

routes in IRAs and CIRAs, with associated impacts to roadless characteristics. In the short term, 

until restoration occurs, 4 miles of unauthorized routes within IRAs and 0.54 mile within CIRAs 

will have the appearance of roads. Over time, soils will loosen, improving infiltration, and 

vegetation will grow on the disturbed portions of the routes, reducing visual contrasts; effects of 

these routes on roadless characteristics such as wildlife habitat and landscape integrity will 

diminish. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not propose to add routes or open riding areas within IRAs to the NFTS; 

therefore, there are no effects on the roadless character of IRAs.

Alternative 2 proposes to add 3.86 miles in 36 routes (no riding areas) within CIRAs to the 

NFTS (Table IRA-4). Four routes are over 0.10 mile in length. All proposed routes branch off 

from existing ML 2 roads that will continue to be open for motorized vehicle travel. Roadless 

characteristics (primarily nonmotorized recreation opportunities) on approximately 2,470 acres 

could be negatively affected. About 7.5 acres of plant and wildlife habitat in CIRAs would be 

foregone in the long term.

Table IRA-4. Unauthorized routes within CIRAs proposed for addition to the NFTS by alternative. 

CIRA Alt 2 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Siskiyou

42,827 acres

52-9 (.16)

52-9b (.06)

52-10 (1.37)

52-9b (.06)

52-10 (1.37)

52-9b (.06)

52-10 (1.37)

52-9b (.06)

52-10 (1.37)

SUBTOTAL 3 rts – 1.59 mi 2 rts – 1.43 mi 2 rts – 1.43 mi 2 rts – 1.43 mi

Red Buttes

50,038 acres

51-07 (.04)

51-28 (.11)

51-28 (.11)

51-28a (.03)

51-28 (.11) 51-28 (.11)

51-28a (.03)

SUBTOTAL 2 rts – 0.15 mi 2 rts – 0.14 mi 1 rt - 0.11 mi 2 rts – 0.14 mi

China Mtn 

4,451 acres

55-78 (.09)

55-79 (.04)

55-80 (.01)

55-83 (.05)

55-78a (.01)

55-79 (.04)

55-80 (.01)

55-83 (.05)

55-79 (.04)

55-80 (.01)

55-83 (.05)

55-78a (.01)

55-79 (.04)

55-80 (.01)

55-83 (.05)

SUBTOTAL 4 rts – 0.19 mi 4 rts - 0.11 mi 3 rts – 0.1 mi 4 rts – 0.11 mi

Condrey Mtn 

4,064 acres

51-09 (.29)

51-10 (.03)

51-11 (.10)

51-11 (.10)

51-11a (.13)

51-11 (.10)

51-11a (.13)

51-11 (.10)

51-11a (.13)

SUBTOTAL 3 rts – 0.42 mi 2 rts – 0.23 mi 2 rts – 0.23 mi 2 rts – 0.23 mi
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 171

CIRA Alt 2 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Marble Mountain 

135,665 acres

51-36 (.09)

51-37 (.09)

51-38 (.02)

51-39 (.09)

54-05 (.09)

55-24 (.03)

55-26 (.04)

55-27 (.02)

55-28 (.03)

55-32 (.09)

51-38 (.02)

51-39a (.07)

55-26 (.04)

55-27 (.02)

55-28 (.03)

55-26 (.04)

55-27 (.02)

55-28 (.03)

51-38 (.02)

51-39a (.07)

55-28 (.03)

SUBTOTAL 10 rts – 0.59 mi 5 rts – 0.18 mi 3 rts – 0.09 mi 3 rts – 0.12 mi

Russian

32,440 acres

54-02 (.09)

SUBTOTAL 1 rts – 0.09 mi

Tom Martin

16,624 acres

51-41 (.02) 51-41a (.26) 51-41 (.02) 51-41 (0.02)

SUBTOTAL 1 rt – 0.02 mi 1 rt – 0.26 mi 1 rt – 0.02 mi 1 rt – 0.02 mi

Trinity Alps

69,118 acres

54-40 (.01)

54-42 (.09)

54-43 (.10)

54-49 (.04)

54-51 (.09)

54-52 (.03)

54-56 (.02)

54-57 (.13)

54-58 (.03)

54-61 (.09)

54-62 (.09)

54-63 (.09)

54-40 (.01)

54-43 (.10)

54-49 (.04)

54-52 (.03)

54-56 (.02)

54-57 (.13)

54-62 (.09)

54-40 (.01)

54-43 (.10)

54-49 (.04)

54-52 (.03)

54-56 (.02)

54-57 (.13)

54-58 (.03)

54-59 (.22)

54-62 (.09)

54-40 (.01)

54-43 (.10)

54-49 (.04)

54-52 (.03)

54-56 (.02)

54-57 (.13)

54-62 (.09)

SUBTOTAL 12 rts – 0.81 mi 9 rts – 0.42 mi 9 rts – 0.67 mi 9 rts – 0.42 mi

 

TOTAL - ALL 36 rts – 3.86 mi

2,470 acres*

25 rts – 2.77 mi

1,773 acres

21 rts – 2.65 mi 

1,696 acres

25 rts – 2.47 mi

1,581 acres

*Acres potentially affected by vehicle noise (1/2 mile on either side of route)

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for creation of new unauthorized 

routes in IRAs and CIRAs, with associated impacts to roadless characteristics. In the short term, 

until restoration occurs, 4 miles of unauthorized routes within IRAs and 4.4 miles of routes within 

CIRAs will have the appearance of roads. Over time, soils will loosen, improving infiltration, and 

vegetation will grow on the disturbed portions of the routes, reducing visual contrasts; effects of 

these routes on roadless characteristics such as wildlife habitat and landscape integrity will 

diminish. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Alternative 3 does not propose to add routes or open riding areas within IRAs or CIRAs to the 

NFTS, so there are no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 4 proposes one route (0.02 mile) in 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

172 Klamath National Forest

the Marble Mountain CIRA to the NFTS; this would affect less than one acre of plant and wildlife 

habitat and 13 acres for noise disturbance. This level of effect is considered to be immeasurable 

for a CIRA of 135,000 acres. 

Alternatives 5, 6 and 7

Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 do not propose to add routes or open riding areas within IRAs to the 

NFTS. They all propose to add routes, but not open riding areas, within CIRAs to the NFTS 

(Table IRA-4). Most of the proposed routes are short; only 4 are over 0.1 mile in length. All 

proposed routes branch off from existing ML 2 roads that will continue to be open for motorized 

vehicle travel. All are at the edges of CIRAs; none encroach further than 0.4 mile. The proposals 

are very similar, ranging from 2.47 to 2.77 miles. Roadless characteristics (primarily 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities) on approximately 1,581 to 1,773 acres could be 

negatively affected in the long term. About 7.5 acres of plant and wildlife habitat in CIRAs 

would be foregone in the long term.

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives

Cumulative effects are the same as those described for direct and indirect effects since no ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions are within IRAs or CIRAs.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Alternative 1 would continue to allow cross-country use in IRAs and CIRAs, and proliferation of 

routes could add to the 4 miles of unauthorized routes in IRAs and the 4.4 miles of unauthorized 

routes in CIRAs. 

All action alternatives would prohibit cross-country motorized travel in IRAs. No authorized 

routes in IRAs would be added to the NFTS under any action alternative; effects of these 

alternatives on roadless character in IRAs are entirely beneficial.

All action alternatives would prohibit cross-country motorized travel in CIRAs, which would 

generate beneficial effects to roadless character on 356,782 acres. Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 

could negatively affect aspect of roadless character on 1,581 to 2,470 acres adjacent to routes in 

CIRAs. Wilderness potential on these acres (about 0.7% of the area within CIRAs available for 

future wilderness designation) would be negatively affected in the short and long term.

Table IRA-5. Summary of effects analysis across all alternatives 

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt 7

Miles of unauthorized 

routes available for use 

in IRAs

43 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Miles of unauthorized 

routes available for use 

in CIRAs

5.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 173

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt 7

Miles of routes added 

to NFTS within IRAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes added 

to NFTS within CIRAs 0 1.5 0 0 1.1 0.6 1.1

Acres of IRAs where 

roadless characteristics 

could be negatively 

affected

220,435 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acres of CIRAs where 

roadless characteristics 

could be negatively 

affected

359,599 2,470 0 13 1,773 1,696 1,581

Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on roadless characteristics are summarized in 

Table IRA-6. 

Table IRA-6. Summary of direct and indirect effects on roadless characteristics

Roadless 

Characteristics Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt 7

Soil, Water & 

Air Resources Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Sources of 

public drinking 

water

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Diversity of 

plant and 

animal 

communities

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Habitat for TES 

and species 

dependent on 

large 

undisturbed 

areas of land

Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Primitive and 

semi-primitive 

recreation 

opportunities

Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Reference 

landscapes for

research study 

or interpretation

Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Landscape 

character

and integrity

Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Traditional 

cultural

properties and 

sacred sites

Negative Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

174 Klamath National Forest

Table IRA-5. Comparison of effects on roadless characteristics.

Roadless 

Characteristics Description of Effect

Soil, Water & Air 

Resources

Alternative 1: Traffic-generated sediment on 4 miles of routes in CIRAs will continue. 

There is a potential for new routes to be created. These routes would result in additional 

soil compaction and potential sedimentation which would negatively affect soil and water 

resources.

Action Alternatives: Short term effects of cross-country travel prohibition will be an 

immediate reduction in fine sediment (<0.5mm diameter particle size) from running 

surfaces on up to 4.3 miles of unauthorized routes. Watersheds where routes would be 

added in CIRAs are currently healthy and that will not change through implementation of 

any action alternative. All routes not designated to be added to NFTS will, over the long 

term (>30 years), re-vegetate and regain a degree of soil productivity, assuming some 

remnant soil cover. Routes added to the NFTS would be dedicated to transportation 

uses and would not be subject to soil productivity standards. Effects on soil and water 

resources are considered to be beneficial.

Sources of public 

drinking water

There are no direct sources of public drinking water in CIRAs affected under any 

alternative.

Diversity of plant and 

animal communities

Alternative 1: The potential for route proliferation could adversely affect habitat for plant 

and wildlife species. There is no indication that this would negatively affect species 

diversity in either the short or long term.

Action Alternatives: The Wildlife and Botanical Resources analyses do not indicate 

that there would be any negative impact to diversity of plant or animal communities.

Habitat for TES and 

species dependent on 

large undisturbed 

areas of land

Alternative 1: Routes that currently exist within habitat in IRAs CIRAs would continue to 

be unavailable in the long term, as unauthorized routes would be subject to repeated 

use. Additional effects on TES species could occur if new routes are created within 

important habitats in large undisturbed areas of land. However, the extent of this effect 

would be limited on the KNF because (1) topography on the west side of the KNF limits 

the extent of vehicle travel within large undisturbed areas, and (2) the east side of the

KNF does not support any large undisturbed land areas.

Action Alternatives: There would be beneficial effects on plant and wildlife habitats due 

to the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on 220,435 acres (that retain roadless 

character) in IRAs on the KNF, and on about 356,000 acres of habitat within CIRAs. 

Primitive and semiprimitive classes of 

recreation

Alternative 1: Recreation activities such as hiking, backpacking, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing would continue to be subject to noise, dust and physical intrusion by motor 

vehicles on 220,435 acres (that retain roadless character) in IRAs, and on about 356,000 

acres within CIRAs. 

Action Alternatives: The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would eliminate 

noise, dust and physical intrusion by motor vehicles, and enhance the experience for 

recreationists participating in non-motorized recreation activities on acres. Depending on 

the alternative, a maximum of 960 acres (.08% of the currently open land area) would 

continue to be affected by these factors. The action alternatives would have beneficial 

effects on opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreation.

Reference landscapes 

for research study or 

interpretation

Alternative 1: Existing unauthorized routes would continue to affect reference 

landscapes; new routes could be created and negatively affect reference landscapes.

Action Alternatives: The routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are all short and 

associated with ML 2 roads. They do not intrude further than 0.4 mile into CIRAs, and do 

not present a substantial intrusion into reference landscapes. Prohibiting cross-country 

travel will reduce the opportunity of noise disturbance and habitat degradation, and will 

benefit the natural condition of the landscape. 

Landscape character 

and integrity

Alternative 1: Currently, IRAs and CIRAs meet the Visual Quality Objectives for the 

KNF as stated in the LRMP. Landscape character and integrity might be negatively 

affected in the future through proliferation of unplanned routes. Current and predicted 

low levels of traffic on unauthorized routes make this less likely. 

Action Alternatives: None of the alternatives are anticipated to detract from the 

landscape character and integrity of CIRAs, as rugged terrain masks the visibility of 

existing routes and motorized use levels are light. Routes to be added to the NFTS are 

low standard, primitive, native surface routes that remain visually subordinate to the 

landscape by following natural terrain and contour. 

Traditional cultural 

properties and sacred 

Alternative 1: Creation of unplanned routes could affect cultural properties in the future.

Action Alternatives: There are no identified Traditional Cultural Properties or sacred 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 175

Roadless 

Characteristics Description of Effect

sites sites on or near the routes proposed for addition within CIRAs. Consultation with local 

American Indian groups is ongoing to ensure the protection of, and access to, traditional 

secular, religious, and ceremonial sites. Elimination of unmanaged motorized travel into 

areas with spiritual values is considered to be a beneficial effect.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction 

Alternative 1 implements the Klamath National Forest LRMP, which allows cross-country 

motorized travel on all lands outside of Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, designated and 

recommended Wild Rivers, the Calchortus persistens Special Habitat Area, and Backcountry land 

allocations. The LRMP, as written, is not in compliance with the Travel Management Rule, and 

does not have any mechanism for protection of roadless characteristics in IRAs or CIRAs. Under 

this alternative, new unauthorized routes could be constructed within IRAs through unmanaged 

motorized use, which is inconsistent with direction in the ROD. The action alternatives all 

propose a Forest Plan amendment prohibiting motorized cross-country travel and would thereby 

comply with LRMP direction and the intent of the Secretary‘s Memorandum regarding protection 

of IRAs from creation of new unauthorized routes.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Inventoried Roadless Areas

176 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 177

Visual Resources

Introduction

This section of the Motorized Travel Management environmental analysis examines the extent to 

which alternatives respond to visual resources management direction established in the Klamath 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The LRMP visual resources 

direction was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA).

In the development of the LRMP, the Forest‘s visual resources were inventoried to determine 

the landscape‘s scenic attractiveness (variety class inventory) and the public‘s visual expectations 

(sensitivity level inventory). Based upon these inventories, visual quality objectives (VQOs) were 

established for all forest land areas. The VQOs establish minimum acceptable thresholds for 

landscape alterations from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. For example, areas 

with a Retention VQO are expected to retain a natural appearance; areas with a Partial Retention 

VQO may have some alterations, but they remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape; 

areas with a Modification or Maximum Modification VQO can have alterations that do not appear 

natural.

Roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that can be mitigated through sound 

design. Unmitigated, they present uncharacteristic line qualities in forest landscapes. Landscapes 

with a dense canopy cover have the capability of masking these linear alterations; sparsely 

covered landscapes have less capability. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, particularly in 

sparsely covered landscapes, can adversely affect the Forest‘s visual resources.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects visual resources includes:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): The National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required the inventory and evaluation of the Forest‘s 

visual resource, addressing the landscape‘s visual attractiveness and the public‘s visual 

expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive lands areas of the forest are to include 

visual quality objectives. 

Travel Management Rule: The TM Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the 

designation of trails or areas the responsible official shall consider effects on forest resources, 

with the objective of minimizing effects of motor vehicle use. 

Klamath National Forest Plan (LRMP): The LRMP contains direction for visual resource 

management, which is focused on conserving the natural scenic character of the Forest through 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

178 Klamath National Forest

meeting the LRMP visual quality objectives (VQOs). Emphasis is on management of the visual 

resource seen from communities, high-use recreation areas and major roads and trails, conserving 

the inherent scenic attractiveness of distinctive landscapes, and rehabilitating areas not currently 

meeting VQOs (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

LRMP standards and guidelines that apply to travel management include: 

11-1 The VQOs [Visual Quality Objectives] are minimum conditions to be achieved as soon as 

possible in all management areas and within 3 years for all VQOs except preservation and 

maximum modification, which must be met immediately. 

11-4 Perpetuate the ecologically established landscape character when implementing management 

activities. Manage activities in accordance with VQOs to reflect the form, line, color, and texture 

of natural occurrences.

11-6 State Highways 3, 96, 97 and Interstate 5 are potential State scenic highways which will be 

managed to maintain their eligibility. Manage to meet a Retention VQO for foreground views in 

the viewshed, except for the BVNG [Butte Valley National Grassland] which will have a partial 

retention VQO for foreground views. Manage to meet a Partial Retention VQO for the 

middleground views in the viewshed.

11-8 Areas not visible from inventoried high or moderate sensitivity viewpoints (level 1 and 2) shall 

be managed to appear as little modified as possible consistent with management goals, and no 

more altered in appearance than maximum modification.

In addition to the forestwide standards and guidelines, each land allocation is assigned a VQO

or a range of VQOs to guide decisions and resource management activities (a map showing 

VQOs by land allocation is included in the project files).

VQOs provide direction for visual resources to determine the level of acceptable change for 

the landscape and are established in the Klamath LRMP. This analysis uses VQOs to determine if 

the alternatives meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines by comparing the degree of alterations 

from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. There are 5 defined VQO levels:

Preservation VQO – This VQO provides for ecological changes only (USDA 

Forest Service, 1995). Management activities, except for very low visual impact 

recreation facilities, are prohibited (USDA Forest Service, 1974).

Retention VQO – Activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor (USDA 

Forest Service, 1995). This VQO provides for management activities that are not 

visually evident. Under Retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, 

and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape (USDA 

Forest Service, 1974). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 179

Partial Retention VQO – Activities may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service, 1995). 

Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found 

infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain 

subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest 

Service, 1974). 

Modification VQO – Activities may dominate, but must utilize naturallyestablished form and texture. These areas should appear natural when viewed in 

foreground or middleground situations (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Maximum Modification VQO – Activities may dominate, but should appear as 

a natural occurrence when viewed in background situations (USDA Forest 

Service, 1995).

Unauthorized routes have been identified in lands covered by all of these VQO levels with 

the exception of the Preservation VQO (approximately 0.1 miles of unauthorized route is 

identified on a GIS based map as entering Preservation VQO; field review identifies that this is 

probably due to lack of identification of the boundary on the ground). 

Effects Analysis Methodology

This analysis was completed using the Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service, 1974), 

which is outlined in Forest Service Manual 2380. 

The proposed route additions have the potential to continue to affect the visual resource. 

Roads and trails can create changes to a naturally appearing landscape by introducing noticeable 

deviations to the characteristic form, line, color or texture of a landscape. Continuing to use these 

routes forgoes opportunities to remove them from the landscape. Non-characteristic line quality 

associated with routes added to the NFTS is the greatest impact to the visual resources from this 

project.

Assumptions Specific to the Visual Resource Analysis

Routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are generally low impact roads or trails, which 

easily meet the modification or maximum modification VQO. These VQOs allow for 

activities, such as roads and trails, which dominate the characteristic landscape but utilize 

naturally-established form and texture.

Routes on lands within Modification or Maximum Modification VQOs will not be analyzed 

because visual effects created by unauthorized routes comply with these VQOs.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

180 Klamath National Forest

The prohibition of cross-country travel would have a beneficial effect on scenery because it 

will eliminate creation of unauthorized future routes with no consideration for scenery 

resources. 

Changing the road use or vehicle class on existing NFTS roads would have no effect on 

scenery. 

All ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions will have a visual resource analysis, and 

comply with VQOs for the land allocations in which they occur.

Data Sources

LRMP for distribution of VQOs and identification of key scenic viewsheds.

Forest‘s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report (2001) to determine the popularity 

of viewing scenery or driving for pleasure.

Forest Service Handbook 462 – The Visual Management System.

GIS for spatial data on unauthorized routes.

Indicators

Miles of unauthorized routes that will not be added to the NFTS (and are, therefore, available 

for vegetative and visual recovery in the long term).

Miles of existing unauthorized routes (for Alternative 1) or routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS (for action alternatives) within the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs.

Number of key viewsheds that are, or have the potential to be, affected by motorized vehicle 

travel. Key viewsheds are defined as areas visible from State Highways 3, 263, 96, and 97, 

and Interstate 5.

Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Impacts to visual resources from prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are primarily indirect 

and long-term. Indirect effects include (1) elimination of the potential for additional unauthorized 

routes on the landscape; and (2) eventual recovery of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

which will reduce the impacts of these routes on the visual resource.

Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; changes to the visual resource occurring from 

prohibiting cross-country motorized travel will only occur over the long term.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 181

Long-term timeframe: 20 years, the approximate length of time for natural rehabilitation of 

unauthorized routes. 

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Methodology: Representative routes were field reviewed to verify VQO compliance. ArcMap 

was used to analyze key viewshed locations and VQOs assigned to the area.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. In the short term, until passive recovery of unauthorized routes 

not proposed for addition to the NFTS occurs, visual impacts are the same for all action 

alternatives.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: The ―viewshed‖ (the area visible from a specified set of viewpoints) is the 

unit of spatial analysis when considering effects associated with additions to the NFTS. 

Methodology: Representative routes were field reviewed to verify VQO compliance. ArcMap 

was used to analyze key viewshed locations and VQOs assigned to the area. 

3. Changes to the existing NFTS.

Visual resources will not be affected by changing maintenance levels of NFTS roads from closed 

(ML 1) to open (ML 2), or by adding mixed use to ML 3 roads. This action will not be addressed 

further in this section.

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, the approximate length of time for visual recovery of unused 

routes.

Spatial boundary: The viewshed.

Methodology: Key viewsheds were evaluated for the potential to be affected by the combined 

effects of unauthorized routes and ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

The cumulative effects analysis for scenery considers the impact of the alternatives when 

combined with ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management actions. Ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect visual resources include vegetation management 

(harvest, thinning, and fuel reduction), recreation facility development, livestock grazing, mining, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

182 Klamath National Forest

and road construction or decommissioning. Several of these actions can decrease the vegetative 

cover adjacent to both NFTS roads and unauthorized routes; however, management actions 

include project design standards to meet VQOs that assure visual impacts will be short-lived. 

Long term impacts to visual resources are most likely to be generated by facilities (such as roads) 

that involve removal of vegetation and will remain on the landscape for a long period of time. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis focuses on ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions that overlap with this project. 

Affected Environment

Americans highly value scenery, or visual quality, within their National Forest. Natural appearing 

forests offer scenes, which are valued as recreational settings and living environments. Such 

settings contribute to the well-being of many individuals in today‘s complex and fast-paced 

society. Conservation of the naturally established scenic character of these settings is the primary 

goal of visual management on all national forests. 

The Klamath National Forest‘s 1.7 million acres provide opportunities for a variety of 

recreational activities. Remoteness from large population centers provides opportunities for 

uncrowded recreational experiences. The Klamath National Forest is known for its vegetative and 

topographical diversity, ruggedness, and primitive character. An abundance of scenic river 

canyons, mountain crests, and pristine, undisturbed landscapes offer high-quality settings for a 

many types of recreation pursuits. Of the Forest‘s landscapes, 22 percent are classified as highly 

attractive. These landscapes occur in mountain ranges above 5,000 feet elevation, river canyons, 

large wet meadows, or other of the Forest‘s prominent geologic features. The majority of the 

Forest consists of mostly pleasing, yet common, landscapes located on moderately steep slopes 

and ridges or on fairly level terrain. 

Forest landscapes have been altered by both human activities and by natural processes. 

Impacts from human activities are primarily the result of past logging, road building, and, to a 

lesser extent, mining activity. The effects of wildfires are also noticeable on the landscape. In the 

long-term, wildfires are positive elements that have contributed to the Forest‘s natural landscape 

character, patterns, and diversity. At present, 74 percent of the Forest has a natural appearance, 

while the remainder appears altered. Most of the strong visual contrasts occur either in the 

background distance zone or out of sight of major highways, trails, or recreation areas.

The Forest has a high proportion of lands with steep to moderately steep slopes and soil 

colors that can sharply contrast with its green forests and other more subtle vegetative patterns.

Thus its overall capability to retain a natural appearance when altered is relatively low. Although 

roads and trails cause visual contrasts noticeable on the landscape, they often provide the 

platform for viewing scenery and other natural features. The top four activities by Forest visitors 

based on 2001 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data were viewing natural features, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 183

relaxing, viewing wildlife, and driving for pleasure. Viewing natural features was the most 

popular activity on the Forest with about 61 percent of Forest visitors participating in this activity. 

Driving for pleasure was the fourth most popular activity with about 27 percent of Forest visitors 

reporting participation in this activity (USDA Forest Service, 2001). The Recreation section of 

this chapter includes more information about NVUM results. 

Use of off-highway vehicles occurs across the KNF, primarily on the existing road system. 

Popular concentrated off-road use areas are in Humbug on the Oak Knoll Ranger District on the 

west side of the KNF, and on the Goosenest Ranger District on the east side. Relatively little 

vehicle use occurs off-road on other KNF lands. However, there are 497 miles of identified 

unauthorized routes on the Forest. Although off-road traffic levels are low, it is likely that 

additional routes are being and will be created by vehicles traveling off roads. These routes are 

unplanned and may not conform to the assigned VQOs.

Visual impacts from off-highway vehicle use include unauthorized routes which often create 

linear alterations on the landscape and have the potential to be viewed by Forest visitors looking 

from locations other than on the unauthorized route or by Forest visitors traveling on the route 

itself. Routes, when viewed from other locations, have the potential to create negative visual 

impacts by introducing non-characteristic linear features on a non-linear landscape with color 

contrasts from exposed soils on the routes and high use areas. Due to topographic and vegetative 

screening, many of these deviations are not noticeable in key viewsheds from the identified travel 

routes. In most cases, the visual impact is a short duration view of a low impact unimproved road 

or trail intersecting the road or highway. These low impact intersections are generally not evident 

to the casual Forest visitor or, if they are evident, remain subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape. The deviations from the characteristic landscape caused by off-highway vehicle use 

are most noticeable to the person riding on the route itself.

Key viewsheds include areas viewed from five highways traversing the Forest (State 

Highways 3, 263, 96, and 97, and Interstate 5) that were identified by the State of California as 

eligible State Scenic Highways. Lands along these routes are managed with a Retention VQO, 

except for the Butte Valley National Grassland along Highway 97 which is managed with a 

Partial Retention VQO. Views from these key viewsheds will be analyzed for VQO compliance. 

No unauthorized inventoried routes are identified as sensitive viewpoints or key viewsheds. 

Thus, views from unauthorized routes will not be analyzed as to VQO compliance.

Unauthorized routes occur within land allocations in all 5 VQO levels, although less than 0.1 

mile of route is mapped in the Preservation VQO (Table VR-1). 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

184 Klamath National Forest

Table VR-3. Forest acres and mileage of inventoried unauthorized routes by visual quality 

objectives (National Forest System lands only)

Visual Quality Objective Acres

Percent of 

total Forest 

acres

Mileage of inventoried 

unauthorized motorized 

routes

Preservation 389,000 23% <0.110

Retention 128,000 8% 41

Partial Retention 802,000 47% 240

Modification 248,000 15% 184

Maximum Modification 113,000 7% 32

Totals 1,680,000 100% 497

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Under this alternative, cross-country motorized vehicle travel would not be prohibited. In the 

short term, due to topography and vegetation, existing unauthorized routes are not very 

noticeable, and comply with assigned VQOs. 

Over the long term, about 41 miles of unauthorized routes in the Retention VQO, 240 miles 

in the Partial Retention VQO and 216 miles in the Modification/Maximum Modification VQOs 

would continue to be used and would not naturally re-vegetate, so visual impacts would persist 

over time. While these impacts are currently in compliance with VQOs, there is no way to know 

where additional unauthorized routes may be established. It is impossible to predict exactly 

where, when, or how cross-country motorized use would occur. Newly-created routes have the 

potential to impact Retention and Partial Retention VQO areas, which are managed as natural to 

near-natural appearing in character. In the short-term, due to topographic and vegetative 

screening, the uncharacteristic linear and color effects typically associated with cross-country 

motorized travel would not be noticeable in the key viewsheds identified for this analysis. 

However, visual impacts from cross-country motorized use may be noticeable in areas outside of 

these viewsheds. In the long term, the potential of new motorized cross-country routes 

developing in key viewsheds could increase. Cross-country motorized travel in areas with sparse 

vegetation could be more visible to Forest visitors and the uncharacteristic linear features and 

lighter colored exposed soils could have a negative effect on the visual resource. In most cases, 

uncharacteristic linear features seen on the landscape would not meet the Retention or Partial 

 

10 According to GIS data, one unauthorized route (39N70B.1) approaches and may enter the Trinity Alps 

Wilderness for less than 0.1 mile. This is the only unauthorized route in the Preservation VQO. The route 

is not proposed for addition to the NFTS in any action alternative.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 185

Retention VQOs. In the long-term, the public would notice more impacts to visual resources from 

unauthorized routes.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions or changes to the existing NFTS would be made under this alternative so there 

would be no direct or indirect effects to scenery from these actions. 

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1

roads and 26 miles of ML2 road to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). Removing roads from the 

NFTS generally results in a more natural appearing landscape in the long term. The effects of 

these actions are analyzed in separate environmental analyses that disclose the effects of each on 

visual quality. The analyses include appropriate project design features and mitigation that 

minimize the impact; all will comply with the VQOs for the land allocations in which they occur. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 405 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 

The effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more natural-appearing 

landscape in the long term. Overall the landscape would have higher scenic integrity than 

currently exists, with less evidence of human activity.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 92 miles of road and motorized trail proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative, 

about 1.5 miles of roads are proposed to be added in the Retention VQO, and 26.1 miles in the 

Partial Retention VQO. Where proposed route additions intersect the road or highway, views of a 

low impact, unimproved route may occur for short durations, but these intersections generally 

would not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor. The visual effects from these proposed route 

additions meet the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. The key viewsheds identified for this 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

186 Klamath National Forest

analysis would not be affected by the proposed unauthorized route additions under this 

alternative.

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 405 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

This alternative proposes 65 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel, 5 acres in the 

Humbug Open Riding Area and 60 acres in the Juniper Flat Open Riding Area. These open riding 

areas would allow off-road motorized travel, resulting in uncharacteristic linear and color effects 

which would be especially noticeable from within the area itself. The Humbug area is located in 

the Maximum Modification VQO which allows these types of impacts. The Juniper Flat area is 

located in the Retention VQO due to its proximity to Highway 97. Juniper Flat is not visible from 

the identified key viewshed of Highway 97 because of topographic and vegetative screening. 

Designation of both of these areas would meet the assigned VQOs. 

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1 

roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects that add roads to 

the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with the VQOs for 

the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally results in a 

more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 2 would not have a substantial effect on visual resources. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 497 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 187

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 497 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

In the long term, the effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more naturalappearing landscape, with higher scenic integrity than currently exists and less evidence of human 

activity.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes no new additions to the NFTS.

Cumulative Effects

Because this alternative does not propose any additions to the NFTS, the cumulative effects are a 

result of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel combined with the effects of ongoing 

and foreseeable actions. Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to 

those of adding unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13

miles of ML1 roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48

miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects 

that add roads to the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with 

the VQOs for the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally 

results in a more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the 

prohibition of cross-country would have a minimal effect on visual resources. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 490 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 430 miles of 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

188 Klamath National Forest

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

In the longterm, the effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more naturalappearing landscape. The landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists, with 

less evidence of human activity.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 7 miles of road and motorized trail proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative, 

this alternative proposes no additions in the Retention VQO, and 3.6 miles in the Partial 

Retention VQO. Where proposed route additions intersect the road or highway, views of a low 

impact, unimproved road or trail may occur for short durations, but these intersections generally 

would not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor. The visual effects from these proposed route 

additions meet the Partial Retention VQO. The key viewsheds identified for this analysis would 

not be affected by the proposed unauthorized route additions under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1 

roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects that add roads to 

the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with the VQOs for 

the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally results in a 

more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 4 would not have a substantial effect on visual resources. 

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 428 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 189

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 368 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

In the long term, the effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more naturalappearing landscape. The landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists, with 

less evidence of human activity.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 69 miles of unauthorized route proposed for addition to the NFTS, this alternative 

proposes to add about 7.9 miles roads in the Retention VQO, and 28.4 miles in the Partial 

Retention VQO. Where proposed route additions intersect the road or highway, views of a low 

impact, unimproved road or trail may occur for short durations, but these intersections generally 

would not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor. The visual effects from these proposed route 

additions meet the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. The key viewsheds identified for this 

analysis would not be affected by the proposed unauthorized route additions under this 

alternative.

This alternative proposes 53 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel; 5 acres in the 

Humbug Open Riding Area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat Open Riding Area. Visual impacts of 

these open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects analysis for scenery considers the impact of the alternatives when 

combined with ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions include vegetation management actions that may decrease the 

vegetative cover of roads and trails added to the NFTS in the short term. Although some of the 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation management actions may overlap in space with 

newly designated NFTS roads and trails, vegetation management actions include project design 

standards to meet VQOs that assure visual impacts will be short-lived. Cumulative impacts would 

be within VQOs. Other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions that may overlap added roads 

and trails, such as recreation development, grazing, and mining, also include design standards to 

meet VQOs so cumulative impacts would be within VQOs. 

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1 

roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects that add roads to 

the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with the VQOs for 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

190 Klamath National Forest

the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally results in a 

more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 5 would not have a substantial effect on visual resources. 

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 438 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 378 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

In the long term, the effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more naturalappearing landscape. The landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists, with 

less evidence of human activity.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 59 miles of road and motorized trail proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative, 

this alternative proposes to add about 7.9 miles roads in the Retention VQO, and 27.2 miles in the 

Partial Retention VQO. Where proposed route additions intersect the road or highway, views of a 

low impact, unimproved road or trail may occur for short durations, but these intersections 

generally would not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor. The visual effects from these 

proposed route additions meet the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. The key viewsheds 

identified for this analysis would not be affected by the proposed unauthorized route additions 

under this alternative.

This alternative proposes 53 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel; 5 acres in the 

Humbug Open Riding Area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat Open Riding Area. Visual impacts of 

these open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 191

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1 

roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects that add roads to 

the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with the VQOs for 

the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally results in a 

more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 6 would not have a substantial effect on visual resources. 

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel would not be noticeable in the short-term, as 

vegetative restoration of unauthorized routes would take longer than one year. Over time, the 

visual impact of 423 miles of unauthorized routes will decrease. Most unauthorized routes and 

their associated visual impacts are currently not noticeable due to topographic and vegetative 

screening. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect a road or highway, a short duration view of 

a low impact, unimproved route may be noticeable but complies with assigned VQOs. 

Most of the strong visual contrasts would continue to occur either in the background distance 

zone, in areas not assigned Retention or Partial Retention VQO, or out of sight of major 

highways, trails, or recreation areas. No new, unplanned routes will be created, and 358 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would revegetate and visually recover in the long term which would 

result in a more natural-appearing landscape. The majority of the Forest would continue to have a 

natural appearance, and the landscape will show less evidence of human activity over time.

In the long term, the effects of this action on visual resources would result in a more naturalappearing landscape. The landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists, with 

less evidence of human activity. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 74 miles of road and motorized trail proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative, 

this alternative proposes to add about 7.9 miles roads in the Retention VQO, and 41 miles in the 

Partial Retention VQO. This increase in miles in the Partial Retention VQO is due to the addition 

of 12.8 miles of routes on the Butte Valley National Grasslands. Routes in the Grassland are not 

visible from Highway 97 due to vegetative screening and the flat terrain. These routes are not 

easily discerned from the higher elevation areas to the west due to distance and vegetation. Where 

proposed route additions intersect the road or highway, views of a low impact, unimproved road 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

192 Klamath National Forest

or trail may occur for short durations, but these intersections generally would not be noticeable to 

the casual Forest visitor. The visual effects from these proposed route additions meet the 

Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. The key viewsheds identified for this analysis would not 

be affected by the proposed unauthorized route additions under this alternative.

This alternative proposes 53 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel; 5 acres in the 

Humbug Open Riding Area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat Open Riding Area. Visual impacts of 

these open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions have impacts similar to those of adding 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS. Road-related actions include the addition of 13 miles of ML1 

roads and 26 miles of ML2 roads to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). The projects that add roads to 

the NFTS will have an associated visual resource analysis, and will comply with the VQOs for 

the land allocations in which they occur. Removing roads from the NFTS generally results in a 

more natural appearing landscape in the long term. Adding these effects to the direct and indirect 

effects of Alternative 7 would not have a substantial effect on visual resources. 

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

All alternatives have the same minor effects on visual resources in the short term, until 

unauthorized routes not proposed for addition to the NFTS visually recover. Due to topography 

and vegetative screening, those effects are generally not noticeable. All action alternatives fall 

within the LRMP-designated VQOs. In the long term, for the action alternatives, routes not 

added to the NFTS will slowly revegetate and provide less contrast with surrounding vegetation. 

Although fewer acres will naturally revegetate in Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7 than in Alternatives 3 

and 4, views from key viewsheds will continue to meet VQOs and not be negatively affected by 

routes or open riding areas added to the NFTS in these alternatives. Alternative 1 meets VQOs in 

the short-term, with the exception of less than 0.1 mile of unauthorized route that may intrude 

into the Trinity Alps Wilderness, but in the long-term this alternative allows proliferation of 

unplanned, unauthorized routes that could adversely affect visual resources. Table VR-2 

compares the alternatives. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 193

Table VR-2. Miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in Retention and Partial Retention 

VQOs, and Miles of Visual Recovery by Alternative

Indicator Miles by Alternative

Alt 1a Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of routes available for visual 

recovery in the long term 0 405 497 490 428 438 423

Total miles of routes in Retention & 

Partial Retention VQOs added to 

NFTS

281 27.6 0 3.6 36.3 35.1 49.1

Number of key viewsheds potentially 

affected by motor vehicle travel 1

b

0 0 0 0 0 0

a - Alternative 1 includes all unauthorized routes.

b – The Highway 97 viewshed is the most likely to be affected by the proliferation of routes in this alternative. Highways 

96 and 263 are not likely to be affected due to the difficulty in creating unauthorized routers on the steep terrain 

surrounding these highways. The viewsheds from Interstate 5 and Highway 3 are so far in the distance that unauthorized 

routes would be difficult to see, and visual resources would not be affected.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Under Alternative 1, a short (0.1 mile) segment of route in Preservation VQO could continue to 

be used. In addition, Alternative 1 allows cross-country motorized travel, which could promote 

changes to the landscape in key viewsheds that may not comply with Retention and Partial 

Retention VQOs in the long term. Long-term, this alternative may not be in compliance with 

Visual Resource standards and guidelines in the LRMP.

All the action alternatives meet the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs as viewed from the 

travel routes identified as key viewsheds for this analysis and, therefore, meet LRMP standards 

and guidelines.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Visual Resources

194 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 195

Geological Resources

Introduction

Geological resources affect all aspects of National Forest System lands. Geology determines 

watershed morphology, soil types, and other essential aspects of National Forest System lands. 

Geological resources include caves, paleontological resources, geological special interest areas, 

mining and minerals, and ground water. Geological hazards can affect public safety on National 

Forest System lands. Hazards can include rock falls, debris flows, slope stability issues, miningrelated hazards, and public health concerns. 

Forest management activities can result in resource damage when the activity‘s location, 

design, construction, or implementation is not based on an understanding of geologic conditions 

and geomorphic processes.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

The following statutory authorities govern geologic resources and services activities essential to 

Forest Service programs:

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (RPA) (88 

Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) as Amended by National Forest Management Act of October 22, 

1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1609). This act requires consideration of the geologic 

environment through the identification of hazardous conditions and the prevention of irreversible 

damages. The Secretary of Agriculture is required, in the development and maintenance of land 

management plans, to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated 

consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences.

Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Surface Application: The 

ATCM rule was adopted by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) in 1990 and amended in 

2000. The amendment lowered the asbestos content to 0.25 percent for asbestos-bearing 

ultramafic rock materials used for surfacing applications subjected to vehicular, pedestrian or 

non-pedestrian use, such as cycling and horseback riding. In remote areas the naturally occurring 

asbestos (NOA) content can be as high as 1% without concern. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq).

This act provides that Federal lands be managed to protect and maintain, to the extent practical, 

significant caves.

Region 5 Regional Forester’s Direction on Naturally Occurring Asbestos issued 

February 11, 2009: The regional forester provided direction on addressing NOA on national 

forest lands in California. ―Any land management decisions regarding NOA must be based on 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

196 Klamath National Forest

sound data and analysis. According to EPA, the scientific assessment and identification of actual 

public health risks associated with NOA is a complex and time intensive process. Until such 

studies are performed, the Region will not have definitive information regarding actual employee 

and public health risks posed by NOA on national forest lands. Therefore, no decisions are being 

made or direction issued at this point in time to restrict or alter public access to and/or 

recreational use of the national forests.‖ The letter further directs forests to make the public 

aware of the potential risk of NOA and its presence on national forest lands as well as guidance 

on how visitors can reduce their exposure to the substance. 

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): The KNF 

LRMP geology standards and guidelines provide a framework for the geologic resources and 

hazards evaluation and geologic report content.

1-6

2-3

Where existing roads and trails travel through asbestos-bearing formations or where roads 

are surfaced with asbestos-bearing aggregate, potential mitigations measures, such as road 

or trail relocation, closure, paving and watering, shall be considered to maintain public 

safety. 

A geologic evaluation will be conducted for all projects involving ground- or vegetationdisturbing activities on potential unstable lands.

Effects Analysis Methodology

The effects analysis will focus on the methodology and indicators for addressing the direct and 

indirect effects of each of the three actions that make up the alternatives, and the cumulative 

effects of implementing an alternative including the effects of ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

The term ―landslide‖ refers to both large-scale events (toe slope failures and debris slides) as 

well as small-scale, localized earth movements. Large-scale events are unusual, and can be 

triggered by a number of factors. The type of landslide triggered by cross-country travel would 

most likely be a small-scale event involving slope or fill failures on routes with cut and fill 

features. While failure of an unauthorized route without cuts and fills is possible, it is unlikely. 

Effects of small-scale events are generally limited in both extent and duration. The routes 

considered in this analysis present landslide risks associated with small-scale events.

Assumptions Specific to the Geological Resource Analysis

The stability of active landslides, toe zones, landslide deposits and inner gorges is sensitive to 

ground-disturbing activities, such as cross-country motorized travel, and to concentration of 

water from roads. Gouging and gullying on these sensitive areas due to motorized travel on 

the hillslopes and the road surfaces can concentrate water, increasing the landslide potential. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 197

Impacts from unauthorized routes are occurring currently as the routes are being used.

Most of the unauthorized routes considered in this analysis were established through repeated 

use by motor vehicles and do not have cuts and fills. 

Unauthorized routes in the Humbug area are old mining or logging routes, and many have 

cuts and fills. These routes are in granitic soils, and may be on unstable land. They present 

the highest risk of landslides of the routes considered in this analysis.

Routes on the east side of the Forest are not considered to present landslide risk.

Road maintenance, especially on roads with cuts and fills, can reduce landslide risk. 

Maintenance activities (such as cleaning culverts and ditches) maintain drainage, keep water 

off road surfaces, and reduce the potential for failures of fills.

Routes already on the landscape that pose a threat to slope stability will not fully recover; 

therefore, the impacts to slope stability will continue, at least in the short term. Altered 

hillslope hydrology due to re-routing of water by the existence of the road prism is an effect 

that will persist following the prohibition of motorized travel on existing unauthorized routes. 

Vegetation recovery will ultimately reduce, but not eliminate, the landslide potential in 

currently disturbed areas. 

The timeframes for this analysis are based on measurable changes in landslide potential in the 

Forest due to revegetation of disturbed areas. The short-term timeframe of 1-5 years is the 

amount of time it typically takes for vegetation of to become reestablished after a disturbance 

has been discontinued. At 5 years the root support from the vegetation begins to stabilize the 

ground and landslide potential begins to decrease measurably. The long-term timeframe of 50 

years is based on revegetation by large trees, which provide significant root support to 

unstable land. This support substantially reduces the landslide potential of an unstable 

hillslope. 

Cross-country travel currently is allowed on 1.2 million acres; it is feasible and practicable on 

areas with slopes <35% that lie outside of wilderness and other land allocations that prohibit 

OHV use.

All areas underlain by ultramafic bodies are considered to potentially contain naturally 

occurring asbestos unless testing indicates otherwise. 

The ramifications of the proposed action and alternatives are spread throughout the Forest. 

Therefore, the spatial scale of the analysis is the Forest boundary. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

198 Klamath National Forest

Data Sources

Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data sets.

Forest bedrock geology and geomorphic mapping.

Aerial photos. 

Anecdotal information documenting the time required for passive restoration of routes closed 

to motor vehicle traffic based on observations of KNF staff. 

Indicators 

Geologic changes occur not only over spans of geologic time, but also at observable intervals of 

time that can be monitored or measured. Geo-indicators have been developed by the International 

Union of Geological Sciences as high-resolution measures of short-term changes in the geologic 

environment, which are significant for environmental monitoring and assessment for use in 

environmental reporting and ecosystem management (FSM 2880.61, paragraph 2). 

The following indicators will be used to compare the differences in geological effects 

between alternatives.

1. Slope Stability

Slope stability is a concern both in a route‘s role in potential landslides, and how a landslide will 

affect a route. Roads affect the hillslope hydrology and can concentrate surface runoff onto 

sensitive ground increasing the potential for landslides. Damage to routes as a direct or indirect 

result of slope instability is a potential physical hazard to an unsuspecting motorist. The sediment

delivered to streams and hillslopes by landslide activity can be exacerbated by the presence and 

use of routes. 

A preliminary analysis was performed to highlight areas that may have geological hazards. 

Areas of concern for slope stability are known active landslides, inner gorges and steep (greater 

than 65 percent) slopes, and sites underlain by granitic bedrock. On the KNF, these are areas that 

are prone to landslides when disturbed. This disturbance includes the change in hillslope 

hydrology by channeling water, and gullying that can result from driving on wet soils. 

In alternatives that propose to add routes to the NFTS in areas with slope stability concerns, 

routes were assessed at the project level scale, using data collected from field evaluations and 

measurements.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 199

2. Asbestos Hazard

Asbestiform minerals are naturally-occurring fibrous silicate minerals that are commonly 

associated with ultramafic rock, including serpentinite. Asbestos exposure has been associated 

with several forms of lung and esophagus diseases. In order for asbestos to be a public health 

issue it must be released as dust into the air and inhaled by a human. The greatest risk is an offhighway vehicle driving on a ground surface that contains asbestos and either generating dust, or 

following another vehicle that is doing so. This would most commonly occur on a straight 

segment of road where high speeds are possible (such as a mixed use road). 

For this project, areas underlain by serpentinite or ultramafic rock, which may contain 

asbestos, were delineated at the scale of 1:24000. About 58,000 acres were identified and 

mapped. Unauthorized routes that were proposed for addition to the NFTS, and roads proposed 

for mixed use in these areas were further evaluated. All routes in ultramafic rock that were 

proposed for addition to the NFTS in all alternatives are short (<0.5 mile) spurs that access 

dispersed recreation sites. These are rough surfaced routes that are unsuitable for high vehicle 

speeds. Low vehicle speeds (less than 15 mph) will result in minimal dust. It was determined 

that the risk of exposure to asbestiform minerals (if present) on these routes was very low, and no 

further testing was conducted. 

Roads proposed for mixed use would allow higher vehicle speeds that could result in 

significant amounts of dust. All thirteen routes proposed for mixed use that lie within ultramafic 

rock types were sampled and tested for presence of asbestos. Seven roads tested negative for 

presence of the mineral. Six roads tested positive: three <0.1%, one at 0.1%, and two at 0.4%. 

The most stringent California Air Resource Board suggestion for NOA on roads is that the 

surface material must contain less than 0.25% NOA. The Board suggests that in remote areas the 

NOA content can be as high as 1%. None of the samples exceeded the remote road guidelines. 

All the asbestiform minerals detected were chrysotile asbestos. Studies have shown that low 

exposures to the chrysotile form of the mineral do not present a detectable health risk. A detailed 

discussion of the testing and results is included in ―Naturally Occurring Asbestos Sampling and 

Testing – Travel Management Analysis‖ (Bell, 2009) which is included in the project files. 

3. Abandoned Mine Hazard

There is a potential physical hazard to the users of roads and trails in close proximity to 

abandoned and active mines. The primary hazard is a person or vehicle falling into a shaft or 

adit. 

Routes within a 500 foot buffer of a known mine were considered to be affected by this geoindicator and were analyzed at a project level. The project level analysis included open adits, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

200 Klamath National Forest

shafts, or other features that may pose a falling or asphyxiation hazard. Any risks associated with 

abandoned mines in close proximity to proposed routes will be mitigated on a site-specific basis.

The following three indicators were considered for this analysis but determined to be not 

applicable to this process: 

Groundwater

Groundwater sensitive areas are areas within a municipal groundwater basin (California 

Department of Water Resources) or in zones of permeable rock (alluvial deposits, fault zones, 

young lava flows, and caves). The risk to groundwater quality by the addition of routes to the 

NFTS or changing the class of existing NFTS routes will have a negligible impact on water 

quality. Vehicle accidents are uncommon on NFTS routes, and any spills from a vehicle accident 

would likely be small amounts of automotive fluids. The primary issue of concern with open 

roads and groundwater is potential groundwater pollution as a result of large fluid spills such as

overturned tanker trucks or large diesel spills from an accident. Any large spills of hazardous 

fluids initiate an emergency response from the Forest Service, California Department of Fish and 

Game, and other affected agencies with the purpose of immediate containment, control, and 

mitigation in order to minimize impacts to groundwater quality. Catastrophic spills are not 

considered to be an action related to this project, and their impacts cannot be meaningfully 

evaluated. In light of this, the impact to groundwater will not be addressed further in this 

analysis. 

Unique Geologic Areas

Easier access to special interest areas, natural research areas and caves may increase the 

frequency of visits to the location. This in itself is not detrimental to the resource. However, 

increased access to unique geologic areas has the potential to increase vandalism in sensitive 

areas. There has been little to no notable damage to the resource thus far and none of the routes in 

the alternatives run through or to the unique geologic areas. Therefore, the risk to unique geologic 

areas from this project is considered to be minimal. 

Paleontological Resources

There are sparse paleontological resources on the Forest. Radiolarian fossils in chert deposits are 

the most common fossils, although there are occasional fossils in the limestone bedrock. Plant 

fossils such as the Western White Pine bark molds at the Fourmile Hill Tree Molds Geologic 

Special Interest Area have been found in the Western Cascades. Pleistocene-age vertebrate fossils 

have been found in a few caves on the Forest. To date there has been little to no notable damage 

to the paleontological resources on the Forest, and in general the routes proposed in the 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 201

alternatives avoid potential fossil-bearing areas. Therefore, the risk of destruction of 

paleontological resources is minimal and will not be addressed further in this analysis.

Geology Resource Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: 1 – 5 years 

Long-term timeframe: 50 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: Acres of land on which motorized cross-country travel is allowed. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of the acres affected by indicators.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 – 5 years

Long-term timeframe: 50 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: Miles of unauthorized routes open to motorized use (Alternative 1) or of 

unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS (in action alternatives) in areas identified 

as having unstable lands, asbestos or abandoned mine hazards. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of unauthorized routes compared to GIS layers displaying unstable 

lands, asbestos or abandoned mine hazards. 

3. Changes to the existing NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 - 5 years 

Long-term timeframe: 50 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicator: Miles of routes with changes that may affect indicators.

Methodology: GIS analysis of changed routes compared to GIS layers of indicators. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

202 Klamath National Forest

4. Cumulative effects

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 50 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: Miles of unauthorized routes being added to the NFTS in areas affected by the geoindicators (unstable lands, asbestos or abandoned mine hazards). 

Methodology: GIS analysis of unauthorized routes, changed routes and routes being added by 

present and future actions compared to GIS layers displaying identified geo-indicators. 

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are considered part of the 

existing conditions and are discussed within the Affected Environment section.

Ongoing and foreseeable management activities affect geological resources primarily through 

channeling water or runoff. Vegetation management activities do not generally affect geological 

indicators except through activities such as construction or decommissioning of roads, which can 

cause landsliding or provide access to mine hazards, or changes in type of use on roads through 

ultramafic rock, which can expose the public to asbestos dust. Therefore, this analysis focuses on 

the cumulative effects of this project and any roads or trails proposed in ongoing or foreseeable 

management projects. Appendix B provides a list and description of ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable road-related projects on the KNF.

Affected Environment

The KNF is easily separated geographically – and geologically – into the Klamath Mountains to 

the west and the Cascade Mountains on the east side of the Forest. The Klamath Mountains are 

dominated by a series of accreted terranes that have been folded and faulted into the rugged 

landscape. The Mesozoic and Paleozoic (200-500 million years old) rocks are composed of 

varying lithologies including metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks, limestone/marble, 

schist and ultramafic rock. There is a potential for naturally occurring asbestos hazard in the 

ultramafic rocks, specifically the landslide-prone serpentinite. Extensive granitic intrusion of the 

terranes occurred during the Jurassic Period (200 – 150 million years ago). The resulting contact 

metamorphism can produce asbestiform minerals. Areas underlain by granitic bedrock are highly 

erodible and dissected by drainage networks and relatively unstable lands. Landslides in the steep 

Klamath Mountains are common and often associated with roads. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 203

The Cascade Mountains consist of Tertiary to Quaternary (30 million years ago to recent) 

volcanic rocks such as lava flows, tuffs, breccias, and volcaniclastic rocks. The terrain is 

significantly less rugged than the Klamath Mountains. There are two chains of volcanoes, one 

extending northward from Mount Shasta to Goosenest Mountain and Eagle Rock, and the other 

extending Northeast from Mount Shasta to Medicine Lake. Lava flows in Shasta Valley (Pluto 

Cave Basalt) and Butte Valley (Butte Valley Basalt) are important groundwater aquifers. 

Quaternary-aged north-trending faults, related to basin and range extension, occurring between 

Meiss Lake and Lower Klamath Lake create closed basins such as Butte Valley and Antelope 

Sink. 

Use of unauthorized routes and cross-country travel is contributing to ground cover 

disturbance on the KNF. This is a concern primarily on the steeper western side of the Forest, 

and especially in the Humbug drainage. Humbug is located chiefly in granitic bedrock, with 

highly erodible soils. The area has a long history of resource use, including hard-rock mining, 

wildfire suppression (with an extensive system of firebreaks), and logging (including skid roads 

and artificial terraces created for reforestation purposes). The canyons are riddled with poorlydrained unauthorized routes, many of which are old cut and fills that are heavily gullied and have 

steep segments (20 percent grades). The majority of these routes are not proposed for addition to 

the NFTS. There is also evidence of soil displacement and erosion as a result of cross-country 

motorized travel (see Soils section). 

There are 3,325 acres open to motorized cross-country travel on unstable lands on the west 

side of the Forest with 28 miles of unauthorized routes, some with cuts and fills. These 

constructed routes are concentrated in the Humbug area, where past mining and logging activities 

have resulted in routes with potential for small fill failures.

Forest geologists have identified about 58,000 acres of lands on the KNF that are underlain 

by ultramafic rock. Exposure to asbestos dust could occur on these acres.

Motorized access to abandoned mines may present public health and safety issues. There are 

216 known abandoned mines in the area open to cross-country motorized travel on the KNF. 

These mines may include shafts, holes and adits that pose a collapse or falling hazard. Klamath 

National Forest personnel have identified 216 abandoned mines to date, with knowledge of the 

general location of many of these mines; however, most have not been identified on the ground. 

There may be additional shafts and adits that could pose a hazard as well. The U.S. Mine Safety 

and Health Administration reported that between 2003 and 2007 there were 29 fatalities 

(nationwide) as a result of motorized travel in mining areas. There have been no recent reported 

accidents related to abandoned mines on the Klamath National Forest.

Due to its popularity for motorized use, Humbug was surveyed for mines and several small 

earth workings were identified; no adits or shafts were found. Other historical mining areas on the 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

204 Klamath National Forest

west side of the Forest present risks to recreationists who travel cross-country, as there is a risk of 

falling into unidentified shafts or pits. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motorized vehicle travel

Cross-country motorized travel is not prohibited in this alternative, and use of unauthorized routes 

would not be restricted. This discussion centers on effects from continued off-road travel.

About 28 miles of unauthorized routes on unstable lands will continue to be available for 

motorized use. In addition, unmanaged travel on 3,325 acres of unstable lands can lead to 

creation of new routes, resulting in gullying that can channel water and destabilize slopes. This 

could increase the landslide potential for these areas. 

Cross-country motorized travel allows for surface disturbance to occur on over 58,000 acres 

of ultramafic bedrock. Existing unauthorized routes underlain by serpentine or ultramafic bedrock 

(12 miles total) were not tested for presence of asbestiform minerals. Motorized vehicle users 

traveling at high speeds in areas of ultramafic rock (especially those in open vehicles such as 

motorcycles and ATVs) could be directly exposed to asbestos dust; however, most unauthorized 

routes in this rock type are short and rough-surfaced, so it is unlikely that vehicles could reach 

speeds sufficient to generate dust. The potential for exposure to asbestos dust is considered to be 

low.

There are 216 known abandoned mines in the area open to cross-country motorized travel on 

the KNF; most are not signed. About 18 miles of unauthorized routes are within 500 feet of 

known mines. These facilities present a hazard for OHV enthusiasts traveling off designated 

roads and trails. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No facilities would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes to the NFTS are proposed under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

There are currently 28 miles of unauthorized routes through unstable lands. Ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable road-related actions will not add any miles of routes to the NFTS, and 

remove 5.9 miles through decommissioning activities on unstable lands. Under the current 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 205

scenario, motorized cross-country travel may also occur on 3,325 acres of unstable land. 

Continued cross-country travel through unstable areas can result in new unauthorized routes that 

can concentrate surface runoff and increase landslide potential. There is no way to quantify the 

number or mileage of potential new routes in this acreage. 

This alternative allows for the continued use of 12 miles of unauthorized routes through 

ultramafic rock, and unrestricted cross-country travel on about 58,000 acres of lands underlain by 

serpentine or ultramafic rock. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities do not add any 

miles of unauthorized route and remove 2.8 miles in ultramafic rock from the NFTS.

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities do not propose to add any routes within 500

feet of known mines. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motorized vehicle travel

This alternative closes 9 miles of unauthorized routes and 3,325 acres of unstable land to 

motorized cross-country travel. Prohibition of cross-country travel will eliminate the potential for 

creation of new routes, and allow passive recovery of routes not added to the NFTS. Disturbed 

areas will revegetate in the long term, reducing landslide potential on unstable lands. 

There are 58,000 acres of land in serpentine or ultramafic bedrock that would be closed to 

cross-country motorized travel. These lands have not been tested for presence of asbestos, so it is 

unclear whether the prohibition of cross-country travel would decrease the public‘s exposure to 

asbestos dust.

Hazards related to abandoned mines would be greatly reduced because of the elimination of 

motorized travel in the areas of 216 known abandoned mines.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative will add 19 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Routes 

proposed as roads have stable running surfaces and do not require active maintenance; no 

additional work will be required to bring them up to standard for designation as an ML2 road. 

Routes in the Humbug area on unstable lands will be designated as motorized trails; these routes 

will receive improvement work to correct drainage problems and improve tread. Over time, 

maintenance performed on motorized trails added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of 

landslides. 

Six miles of routes to be added to the NFTS are underlain by ultramafic rock. The rough 

surfacing on these routes will require low vehicle speeds (less than 15 mph), which reduces the 

potential for dust and risk of exposure to asbestiform minerals (if present). This alternative does 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

206 Klamath National Forest

not add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned mine. The two open riding areas 

proposed for addition to the NFTS are not underlain by ultramafic rock, and do not contain any 

known abandoned mines. There are no effects on these geo-indicators.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

The addition of mixed use on routes through unstable lands should have no effect on landslide 

risk. 

This alternative adds mixed use (allowing non-highway legal vehicle use) on 14 miles of 

NFTS roads in ultramafic rock. Based on asbestos test results, this change is not considered to 

represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose mixed use on routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative will add 19 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related actions will not add any miles of road to the NFTS, and remove 5.9 

miles through decommissioning from unstable lands. The ongoing projects include mitigation 

measures that minimize impacts from road construction on landslide risk. Maintenance 

performed on motorized trails added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of landslides. 

Landslide risk would slightly increase Forest-wide under this alternative.

This alternative adds 6 miles of routes to the NFTS, and allows 14 miles of mixed use in 

ultramafic rock. Ongoing and foreseeable actions remove 2.8 miles of roads in ultramafic rock 

from the NFTS. No testing for asbestiform minerals was conducted on the routes to be added to 

the NFTS because they are all roughly-graded, short spur routes that are not conducive to high 

speeds. Use of motorized vehicles on these routes should not generate dust. These changes are 

not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose to add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS within 500 feet 

of a known abandoned mine, and none will be added through ongoing or reasonably foreseeable

future actions.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motorized vehicle travel

Effects of the prohibition of cross country travel are the same as discussed for Alternative 2, 

except that 28 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands will be closed to motorized use. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 207

Beneficial effects include a reduction in landslide risk, decrease in exposure to asbestos dust, and 

reduction in risk of encountering abandoned mine hazards. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No facilities would be added to the NFTS under this alternative.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

No changes are made to type of vehicle used under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

This alternative will not add unauthorized routes in unstable lands. Ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions will not add any miles of road to the NFTS, and will remove 5.9 miles 

through decommissioning from unstable land. At a Forest level scale, the landslide risk will be 

decreased.

This alternative does not add routes to the NFTS. Ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

activities remove 2.8 miles of roads in ultramafic rock from the NFTS. There is no risk of 

asbestos dust exposure from either cross-country motorized travel or use of non-highway legal 

vehicles on ML3 roads under this alternative. 

This alternative does not propose to add any routes to the NFTS within 500 feet of a known 

abandoned mine, and none will be added through ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motor vehicle travel

Effects of the prohibition of cross country travel are the same as discussed for Alternative 3. 

Beneficial effects include a reduction in landslide risk, decrease in exposure to asbestos dust, and 

reduction in risk of encountering abandoned mine hazards. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No routes through ultramafic rock, on unstable lands, or within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine are added to the NFTS in this alternative. This activity does not affect the geo-indicators.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

The addition of mixed use on routes through unstable lands should have no effect on landslide 

risk. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

208 Klamath National Forest

This alternative adds mixed use on 14 miles of roads in ultramafic rock. Per asbestos test 

results, this change is not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose mixed use on routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine.

Cumulative effects

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions will not add any miles of road in unstable 

lands to the NFTS, and will remove 5.9 miles through decommissioning from unstable lands. 

This would result in a slight reduction in landslide risk Forest-wide.

This alternative does not add any uauthorized routes to the NFTS but adds 14 miles of mixed 

use on roads in ultramafic rock. Ongoing and foreseeable actions remove 2.8 miles from

ultramafic rock on the NFTS. These changes are not considered to represent a health risk to the 

public.

This alternative does not propose to add any routes to the NFTS within 500 feet of a known 

abandoned mine, and none will be added through ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motorized vehicle travel

Effects of the prohibition of cross country travel are the same as discussed for Alternative 2, 

except that 12 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands will be closed to motorized use. 

Beneficial effects include a reduction in landslide risk, decrease in exposure to asbestos dust, and 

reduction in risk of encountering abandoned mine hazards. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative will add 16 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Routes 

proposed as roads have stable running surfaces and do not require active maintenance; no 

additional work will be required to bring them up to standard for designation as an ML2 road. 

Routes in the Humbug area on unstable lands will be designated as motorized trails; these routes 

will receive improvement work to correct drainage problems and improve tread. Over time, 

maintenance performed on motorized trails added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of 

landslides. 

Five miles of routes to be added to the NFTS are underlain by ultramafic rock. The rough 

surfacing on these routes will require low vehicle speeds (less than 15 mph), which reduces the 

potential for dust and risk of exposure to asbestiform minerals (if present). This alternative does 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 209

not add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned mine. The two open riding areas 

proposed for addition to the NFTS are not underlain by ultramafic rock, and do not contain any 

known abandoned mines. There are no effects on these geo-indicators.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

The addition of mixed use on routes through unstable lands should have no effect on landslide 

risk.

This alternative adds mixed use on 22 miles of roads in ultramafic rock. Per asbestos test 

results, this change is not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose mixed use on routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine.

Cumulative effects

This alternative will add 16 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Ongoing 

and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions will not add any miles of routes in unstable lands 

to the NFTS, and will remove 5.9 miles through decommissioning activities. The ongoing 

projects include mitigation measures that minimize impacts from road construction on landslide 

risk. Maintenance performed on routes added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of 

landslides. Landslide risk Forest-wide would increase under this alternative.

This alternative adds 5 miles of routes to the NFTS and 22 miles of mixed use on roads in 

ultramafic rock. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions remove 2.8 miles of roads in 

ultramafic rock. No testing for asbestiform minerals was conducted on the routes to be added to 

the NFTS because they are roughly-graded, short spur routes that are not conducive to high 

speeds. Use of motorized vehicles on these routes should not generate dust. These changes are 

not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose to add any routes to the NFTS within 500 feet of a known 

abandoned mine, and none will be added through ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motor vehicle travel

Effects of the prohibition of cross country travel are the same as discussed for Alternative 5. 

Beneficial effects include a reduction in landslide risk, decrease in exposure to asbestos dust, and 

reduction in risk of encountering abandoned mine hazards. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

210 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative will add 16 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Routes 

proposed as roads have stable running surfaces and are self-maintaining; no additional work will 

be required to bring them up to standard for designation as an ML2 road. Routes in the Humbug 

area on unstable lands will be designated as motorized trails; these routes will receive 

improvement work to correct drainage problems and improve tread. Over time, maintenance 

performed on motorized trails added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of landslides. 

Five miles of routes to be added to the NFTS are underlain by ultramafic rock. The rough 

surfacing on these routes will require low vehicle speeds (less than 15 mph), which reduces the 

potential for dust and risk of exposure to asbestiform minerals (if present). This alternative does 

not add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned mine. The two open riding areas 

proposed for addition to the NFTS are not underlain by ultramafic rock, and do not contain any 

known abandoned mines. There are no effects on these geo-indicators.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

The addition of mixed use on routes through unstable lands should have no effect on landslide 

risk.

This alternative adds mixed use on 9 miles of roads in ultramafic rock. Per asbestos test 

results, this change is not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose mixed use on routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine.

Cumulative effects

This alternative will add 16 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands. Ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable road-related actions will not add any miles of routes to the NFTS, and will 

remove 6.9 miles through decommissioning from unstable lands. The ongoing projects include 

mitigation measures that minimize impacts from road construction on landslide risk. Over time, 

maintenance performed on routes added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of landslides.

This alternative adds 5 miles of roads and 9 miles of mixed use on roads in ultramafic rock. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions remove 2.8 miles in ultramafic rock on the NFTS, 

and 9 miles available for mixed use. No testing for asbestiform minerals was conducted on the 

routes to be added to the NFTS because they are roughly-graded, short spur routes that are not 

conducive to high speeds. Use of motorized vehicles on these routes should not generate dust. 

These changes are not considered to represent a health risk to the public.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 211

This alternative does not propose to add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine, and none will be added through ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross country motorized vehicle travel

Effects of the prohibition of cross country travel are the same as discussed for Alternative 5. 

Beneficial effects include a reduction in landslide risk, decrease in exposure to asbestos dust, and 

reduction in risk of encountering abandoned mine hazards. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative will add 6 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands to the NFTS. Routes 

proposed as roads have stable running surfaces and do not require active maintenance; no 

additional work will be required to bring them up to standard for designation as an ML2 road. 

Routes in the Humbug area on unstable lands will be designated as motorized trails; these routes 

will receive improvement work to correct drainage problems and improve tread. Over time, 

maintenance performed on motorized trails added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of 

landslides. 

About 3 miles of routes to be added to the NFTS are underlain by ultramafic rock. The rough 

surfacing on these routes will require low vehicle speeds (less than 15 mph), which reduces the 

potential for dust and risk of exposure to asbestiform minerals (if present). This alternative does 

not add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned mine. The two open riding areas 

proposed for addition to the NFTS are not underlain by ultramafic rock, and do not contain any 

known abandoned mines. There are no effects on these geo-indicators.

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the existing NFTS

The addition of mixed use on routes through unstable lands should have no effect on landslide 

risk.

This alternative adds mixed use on 9 miles of roads in ultramafic rock. Per asbestos test 

results, this change is not considered to represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose mixed use on routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine.

Cumulative effects

This alternative will add 6 miles of unauthorized routes in unstable lands. Ongoing and 

foreseeable road-related actions will not add any miles of routes onto the NFTS, and will remove 

5.9 miles through decommissioning on unstable lands. The ongoing projects include mitigation 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

212 Klamath National Forest

measures that minimize impacts from road construction on landslide risk. Over time, maintenance 

performed on routes added to the NFTS could slightly reduce the risk of landslides.

This alternative adds 3 miles of roads and 9 miles of mixed use on roads in ultramafic rock. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions remove 2.8 miles in ultramafic rock on the NFTS. 

No testing for asbestiform minerals was conducted on the routes to be added to the NFTS because 

they are roughly-graded, short spur routes that are not conducive to high speeds. Use of 

motorized vehicles on these routes should not generate dust. These changes are not considered to 

represent a health risk to the public.

This alternative does not propose to add any routes within 500 feet of a known abandoned 

mine, and none will be added throughongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

The measurement indicators for slope stability, asbestos hazard, and abandoned mine hazard 

(Tables G-1, G-2 and G-3) were based on the number of miles of routes and acres affected by the 

geo-indicators for each alternative. 

Table G-1. Acres open to cross-country motorized travel with geologic measurement indicators by 

alternative

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Geologic 

Hazards 

(acres) 

Slope 

Stability 3,325 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ultramafic 

Rock 58,390 0 0 0 0 0 0

Abandoned 

Mines 3,895 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Acres 61,715 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table G-2. Miles of unauthorized/proposed routes with geologic measurement indicators by 

alternative

 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Geologic 

Hazards 

(miles)

Slope 

Stability

28 19 0 0 16 16 6

Ultramafic 

Rock

12 6 0 0 5 5 3

Abandoned 

Mines

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 42 25 0 0 21 21 9
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Geological Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 213

Table G-3. Changes to the NFTS (addition of mixed use) with geologic measurement indicators by 

alternative

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Geologic 

Hazards 

(miles)

Slope 

Stability 

(No Effect)

0 8 0 9 23 8 8

Ultramafic 

Rock

0 14 0 14 22 9 9

Abandoned 

Mines

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 0 22 0 23 45 17 17

Mixed use for Alternative 7 includes ML 3 roads converted to ML 2 that will now allow non-highway legal 

motor vehicles, as well as ML 3 roads that will allow non-highway legal motor vehicles.

Alternative 1 has the highest impact on geologic resources and hazards because it allows 

motorized cross-country travel (Table 4). It has the highest landslide potential, and risk exposure 

for both asbestos and mine hazards. Alternatives 3 and 4 have the lowest impacts on the three 

geo-indicators because they prohibit motorized cross-country travel and do not add routes that 

affect geo-indicators to the NFTS. Other action alternatives are similar in their effects.

Table G-4. Comparison of effects on geological resources

Alternative 1

This alternative has the highest potential for negative effects to both geological 

resources and the public. 3,325 acres of unstable lands will remain open for crosscountry motorized use, increasing landslide potential. About 58,000 acres of lands 

underlain by ultramafic rock could expose the public to asbestos dust, although the 

risk is considered to be low. 3,895 acres (18 unauthorized routes) within 500’ of 216 

known abandoned mines would continue to be open for motorized travel, representing 

a safety hazard for the recreating public. 

Alternative 2

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the potential for 

creation of new routes on 3,325 acres of unstable lands. This prohibition coupled with 

maintenance work on 19 miles of unauthorized routes could slightly reduce landslide 

potential Forest-wide in the long term. Removal of motorized travel from 58,000 acres 

of lands underlain by ultramafic rock would eliminate a slight risk of exposure to 

asbestos dust. Designation of 6 miles of route and addition of mixed use on 14 miles 

of roads underlain by ultramafic rock is not considered to be a public health risk. 

Closure of 3,895 acres within 500’ of 216 known mines will eliminate a potential safety 

hazard. Effects of this alternative on all geoindicators are considered to be beneficial.

Alternative 3 This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel and does not propose 

addition of new routes to the NFTS. Alternative 3 offers the greatest benefits for 

geological resources. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geological Resources

214 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 4

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel and adds no routes that 

affect any geologic indicators. Because the addition of mixed use does not affect slope 

stability and is not considered to be a public health risk, the impacts and benefits of 

Alternative 4 are considered to be identical to Alternative 3.

Alternative 5

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the potential for 

creation of new routes on 3,325 acres of unstable lands. This prohibition coupled with 

maintenance work on 16 miles of unauthorized routes could slightly reduce landslide 

potential Forest-wide in the long term. Removal of motorized travel from 58,000 acres 

of lands underlain by ultramafic rock would eliminate a slight risk of exposure to 

asbestos dust. Designation of 5 miles of route and addition of mixed use on 22 miles 

of roads underlain by ultramafic rock is not considered to be a public health risk. 

Closure of 3,895 acres within 500’ of 216 known mines will eliminate a potential safety 

hazard. Effects of this alternative on all the geo-indicators are considered to be 

beneficial.

Alternative 6

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the potential for 

creation of new routes on 3,325 acres of unstable lands. This prohibition coupled with 

maintenance work on 16 miles of unauthorized routes could slightly reduce landslide 

potential Forest-wide in the long term. Removal of motorized travel from 58,000 acres 

of lands underlain by ultramafic rock would eliminate a slight risk of exposure to 

asbestos dust. Designation of 5 miles of routes and addition of mixed use on 9 miles 

of roads underlain by ultramafic rock is not considered to be a public health risk. 

Closure of 3,895 acres within 500’ of 216 known mines will eliminate a potential safety 

hazard. Effects of this alternative on all the geo-indicators are considered to be 

beneficial.

Alternative 7

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the potential for 

creation of new routes on 3,325 acres of unstable lands. This prohibition coupled with 

maintenance work on 6 miles of unauthorized routes could slightly reduce landslide 

potential Forest-wide in the long term. Removal of motorized travel from 58,000 acres 

of lands underlain by ultramafic rock would eliminate a slight risk of exposure to 

asbestos dust. Designation of 3 miles of route and addition of mixed use on 9 miles of 

roads underlain by ultramafic rock is not considered to be a public health risk. Closure 

of 3,895 acres within 500’ of 216 known mines will eliminate a potential safety hazard. 

Effects of this alternative on all the geo-indicators are considered to be beneficial.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Over time, Alternative 1 may not meet LRMP geologic standards and guidelines due to the 

potential creation of unauthorized routes, which could occur on unstable lands or in areas with 

asbestos hazard (although there is minimal risk expected from asbestos dust exposure). This 

alternative does not meet the requirements of the Travel Management Rule. 

The action alternatives would meet applicable LRMP geologic standards and guidelines, and 

would comply with the Travel Management Rule through implementation of an LRMP 

amendment prohibiting cross-country motorized travel. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Air Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 215

Air Resources

Introduction

This chapter examines existing air resources and any potential for the Motorized Travel 

Management project on the Klamath National Forest (KNF) to affect these resources. Air 

emissions are generally managed and analyzed spatially by air basins where topographic features 

delineate common air quality characteristics. Air quality conditions are largely determined by 

short- and long-term meteorological and climatic conditions.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects air quality includes:

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is the federal law passed in 1970, and last amended in 1990, 

(42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) which is the basis for national control of air pollution. The 1990 

amendments to the Clean Air Act include a list of 189 pollutants identified as hazardous to human 

health. Asbestos is one of the pollutants included on the list.

Regional Haze Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), 40 CFR Part 51.: The Regional 

Haze Rule requires states to demonstrate ―reasonable progress‖ toward improving visibility in 

each class I area over a sixty-year period (to 2064), during which visibility should be returned to 

natural conditions. Class I areas include wilderness or national parks greater than 5,000 acres, 

which existed on August 7, 1977. 

General Conformity Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) (Section 176 (c) of the Clean 

Air Act (part 51, subpart W, and part 93, subpart B.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) passed the final General Conformity rule in 1993. Under the rule, Federal agencies must 

work with State and local governments in a non-attainment or maintenance area to ensure that 

federal actions conform to the initiatives established in the applicable state implementation plan 

(U.S. EPA 2008).

California Clean Air Act (H&S §§ 39660 et seq.): California adopted the California Clean 

Air Act (CCAA) in 1988. The Act provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation in 

California independent of federal regulations, and establishes ambient air quality standards for the 

same criteria pollutants as the federal clean air legislation (CARB 2007). According to the 

technical advisory issued in July 2008 by the Office of Planning and Research for the State of 

California, all agencies should identify the nature and extent of exposure to naturally occurring 

asbestos (NOA) based on the project location and type of project being proposed. 

California Air Resource Board Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards 

Rulemaking (California code of regulations § 2410-2415): In 1994, the CARB approved new 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Air Resources

216 Klamath National Forest

off-highway recreational vehicle regulations (since amended in 1998). The rulemaking 

established emission standards for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) including off-road motorcycles 

(dirt bikes) and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) (CARB 2006). OHV registration became contingent 

on vehicle compliance to California emissions standards.

KNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): The LRMP includes the following 

applicable direction related to air quality management:

Program emphasis—maintain air quality consistent with legal requirements.

1-3

5-1

Implement BMPs [Best Management Practices] to meet air quality objectives.

Manage for air quality consistent with the Clean Air Act. Management activities 

also shall comply with the air quality standards established by the CARB and the 

Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District in California or by the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Smoke Management

Plan in Oregon.

Effects Analysis Methodology

The potential health hazards of asbestos dust posed by motorized use of roads underlain by 

ultramafic rock have been analyzed and disclosed in the Geology section of this chapter. The 

overall effects of dust on air quality will be addressed here.

Ozone is formed when hydrocarbons, released during the combustion of fossil fuels, react 

with nitrates in the presence of solar radiation. Ozone is a component of smog and is a common 

in areas with stagnant air such as valleys between mountain ranges. Ozone can result in chronic 

health effects if exposure to high levels is prolonged. Fine particle matter (PM2.5) can aggravate 

respiratory illnesses such as asthma and heart disease. Dust generated from motorized travel on 

unpaved routes and ground surfaces can contain a PM2.5 component. Changes to the current 

travel system on the Forest may change the concentration or the focus of these contaminants. 

The release of ―greenhouse gases‖ into the atmosphere is believed to be related to the 

warming trend of the earth‘s climate (climate change). Some of these gases, carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons, are incorporated into the climate change 

emission standards of the State of California. The standards, expressed in terms of ―CO2-

equivalent‖ emissions, taken into account the fact that different pollutants vary in the severity of 

their climate change impact. The Air Resource Board for the State has responsibility to establish 

emission levels to be met by 2020. Motor vehicle use will have an effect on meeting emission 

levels.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Air Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 217

Vehicle travel is associated with an elevated risk in human-caused fires, which can put smoke 

into the air. A review of historic fire occurrence on the KNF was conducted to determine the 

potential effects of motorized routes on the risk of human-caused fires; this is available in the 

project record located at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA.

Assumptions Specific to the Air Quality Analysis

The ramifications of the proposed action and alternatives are spread throughout the Forest. 

Therefore, the spatial scale of the analysis is the Forest boundary. 

Implementation of any alternative will not result in an increase in motor vehicle use on the 

KNF. 

Data Sources

Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management (as discussed in Chapter 1 of this 

FEIS) and associated tabular data sets.

Air resources from the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District

KNF fire history information

Indicators

Miles of routes and acres of open riding area available for use by motorized vehicles that 

could put dust or greenhouse gases into the air.

Risk of human-caused fires that could generate smoke associated with unauthorized routes.

Air Resources Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: 1 – 5 years 

Long-term timeframe: 50 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicator: (1) Miles of unauthorized route and acres open to cross-country travel, (2) fire risk.

Methodology: GIS analysis of the acres affected.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 – 5 years
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Air Resources

218 Klamath National Forest

Long-term timeframe: 50 years 

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: (1) Miles of routes and acres of open riding area added to the NFTS, (2) fire risk.

Methodology: GIS analysis of unauthorized/proposed routes and riding areas. 

3. Changes to the existing NFTS 

The type of motorized vehicle used on the NFTS would make no difference in the amount of dust 

or particulate matter produced by vehicles, in greenhouse gas emissions or in fire risk. This 

action is not addressed further in this document.

4. Cumulative effects 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 50 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: Miles of routes added to the NFTS as roads or trails.

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes and open riding areas.

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions. Actions that could affect air 

quality include construction and use of roads and trails, and prescribed fire. Dust from vehicle 

use on roads is an ongoing and long term effect. Prescribed fire has the potential to generate a 

substantial amount of particulate matter; however, it is conducted in compliance with all state and 

county air quality requirements and produces localized, short term effects. There is no indication 

that prescribed burning contributes to a cumulative effects on air quality. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects analysis for air quality focuses on road-related projects that could generate 

dust over the long term. 

Affected Environment

The Northeast Plateau Air Basin, in which the KNF is located, is comprised of three districts – (1) 

the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), (2) the Modoc County APCD, and 

(3) the Lassen County APCD. The KNF is regulated by the Siskiyou County APCD. The National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the Environmental Protection 

Agency for outdoor air, and are meant to protect public health and the environment from 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Air Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 219

contaminants. The entire Northeast Plateau Air Basin is classified as in attainment for NAAQS. In 

order for an air basin to reach NAAQS attainment status, the 8-hour ozone must be less than 

0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual mean) and the fine particle matter (PM2.5) must be less 

than 35.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (annual mean). The Siskiyou County APCD is in 

attainment for ozone and PM2.5 according to the most recent annual data (2006). In 2006, the 8-

hour ozone annual mean was 0.064 ppm and the PM2.5 annual mean was 22.0 μg/m3(Cox 2008).

A review of fire history for the KNF indicates that from 1907 to 2007, 73% of all ignitions on 

the Forest were caused by lightning. The number of human-caused fires each year has declined 

over time. Currently, in the area surrounding the 497 miles of unauthorized routes, the KNF 

experiences an average of 2 fires per year; in the past 20 years 87% of these have been lightning 

starts. Information on fire risk is included in the process paper ―Effects on Fire Risk – KNF 

Travel Management Project‖, located in the project files in the KNF Supervisor‘s Office.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Cross-country motorized vehicle travel is not prohibited in this alternative. Use of motor vehicles 

off designated roads can increase the amount of bare soil due to soil displacement and damage to 

vegetation, thus creating more dust (and particulate matter) and adversely impacting air quality. 

Approximately 1.2 million acres are available for motor vehicle use; cross-country travel occurs 

or is likely to occur on at least 497 miles of unauthorized routes.

Some greenhouse gases are being emitted into the atmosphere from the motorized vehicles 

traveling off roads. However, since the amount of motorized vehicle use is low (see 

Transportation section), the level of emissions are also low. The Northeastern Plateau Air Basin 

is in attainment with the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter set by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and will remain in attainment under this alternative. There 

would be no substantial adverse impacts to air quality from this alternative.

Most wildfires on the KNF are started by lightning. Historically, human-caused fires along 

the 497 miles of unauthorized routes comprise 13% of total fire starts, representing a low fire risk. 

Fire risk is not expected to increase substantially under this alternative. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions are being made to the NFTS so there are no direct or indirect effects from this 

action.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Air Resources

220 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS

No changes are being made to the NFTS; there are no effects from this action.

Cumulative effects

The minor effects to air quality and greenhouse gases from this alternative are not increased by 

the addition of the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road actions (Appendix B). Addition of 26

miles of open roads to the NFTS in ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, and removal of 

50 miles from the NFTS, may slightly change the distribution of traffic but will not change the 

amount of motorized use occurring on the KNF. There should be no substantial increase in dust 

or greenhouse gases. The Northeastern Plateau Air Basin will continue to be in attainment with 

the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter set by the Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Alternatives 2-7 

Direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross country motorized vehicle travel

Under these alternatives, motorized vehicle users would be redirected from the 1.2 million acres 

of lands currently open for off-road travel to designated NFTS road, trails and areas. There is no 

information available to suggest that the total number of vehicle miles traveled annually by Forest 

users will change under any of the alternatives; use will just be redistributed. As a result, no 

effects to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Action alternatives propose adding from 0 to 92 miles of routes to the NFTS and 0 to 65 acres of 

open riding area. None of the action alternatives propose adding routes or areas that are expected 

to result in a significant increase or change in concentration of use. None of the alternatives 

propose adding areas or routes located in federal (national) non-attainment areas for pm 2.5 and 

ozone 8-hour. Tailpipe emissions have been accounted for by CARB, suggesting that CARB has a 

program to regulate these emissions to achieve state implementation plan targets. The amount of 

vehicle use on the KNF is not expected to substantially increase or decrease as a result of 

implementing any of these alternatives (see Society, Culture and the Economy section), so there 

would be no substantial effect on the production of dust or greenhouse gases. The Northeastern 

Plateau Air Basin will continue to be in attainment with the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter set by the Environmental Protection Agency for any of these alternatives.

Fire risk was calculated for Alternative 2, which proposes to add the most routes to the NFTS 

and is therefore considered a worst-case scenario. Historical fire risk associated with these routes 

is a little higher over the last 20 years than for all the unauthorized routes considered in the no 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Air Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 221

action alternative, which indicates that these routes are more popular and receive more use than 

others. Even so, the fire risk for Alternative 2 was determined to be low. Fire risk from other 

action alternatives is expected to be as low, if not lower, than from Alternative 2. 

Cumulative effects

The negligible effects to air quality and greenhouse gases from this alternative are not 

substantially increased by the addition of the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road actions 

(Appendix B). The road actions would not substantially increase the dust or greenhouse gases. 

The Northeastern Plateau Air Basin will continue to be in attainment with the NAAQS for 8-hour 

ozone and fine particulate matter set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

All alternatives comply with state and federal laws and with applicable Air Quality standards and 

guidelines of the LRMP. There are no Best Management Practices associated with air quality for 

this project. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Air Resources

222 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 223

Soil Resources

Introduction

The soil resource provides many essential functions for National Forest System (NFS) lands. It 

sustains plant growth that provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection. It 

absorbs precipitation, stores water for plant growth, and gradually releases surplus water which 

attenuates runoff rates. It sustains microorganisms which recycle nutrients for continued plant 

growth. The primary focus for management of soils is retention of productivity in the long term.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the project as it affects the soil resource includes:

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 1991) is a 

national soils handbook that defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, 

establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity, and establishes thresholds to assist in forest 

planning. 

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement. The Forest Service Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1) establishes regional 

soil quality analysis standards. The Forest plan standards and guidelines for soil productivity 

closely follow regional 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 to be used for 

areas dedicated to growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, 

such as developed campgrounds, administrative facilities or, in this case, the actual land surface 

authorized for travel by the public using various kinds of vehicles.

Regional Forester’s Letter (dated Feb 5, 2007). This letter provided clarification to forest 

supervisors on the appropriate use of the R5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH 

Supplement 2509.18-95-1). It states in part:

Analysis or evaluation of soil condition is the intended use of the thresholds and 

indicators in R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1. They are not a set of mandatory 

standards or requirements. They should not be referred to as binding or mandatory 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

224 Klamath National Forest

requirements in NEPA documents. Standards and guidelines in Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans provide the relevant substantive standards to comply 

with NFMA. 

The thresholds and indicators represent desired conditions for the soil resource. Utilization of 

the thresholds and indicators provides a consistent method to analyze, describe, and report on soil 

condition throughout the Region.

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): The KNF 

LRMP soils standards and guidelines relevant to this project include:

3-1 Plan and implement land management activities to maintain or enhance soil 

productivity and stability.

3-2 With the exception of roads, permanent facilities or other projects that will 

permanently occupy a site, [specified] levels of total soil cover should be 

maintained...to reduce the potential of soil erosion.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Soil productivity is affected by soil type, cover, compaction, and displacement (erosion). Soil 

characteristics of texture, slope, and hydraulic conductivity are grouped by the Soil Resource 

Inventory (USDA Forest Service, 1990). The Inventory classifies Forest soils into Erosion Hazard 

Rating (EHR) categories, which are broad evaluations of a soil‘s susceptibility to erosion. The 

EHR categories are low, moderate, high and very high. Combinations of steep slopes, noncohesiveness, and coarse texture (which promote erosion and degrade water holding capacity for 

plants) add to higher EHR ratings and make recovery of productivity in the long term 

problematic. A classification of high or very high indicates that these soils, once de-vegetated, 

will not recover quickly. On the KNF, an EHR of very high generally occurs on sandy soils 

derived from granitic bedrock on steep slopes. While High or Very High ratings can provide a 

relative gauge of the potential for soil displacement (movement of soil off the site which can end 

up as sediment in a stream), they are not indicative of soil movement or sedimentation issues on 

any specific route. They are a better guide for whether the route will recover soil productivity 

within the foreseeable future. 

The potential for sedimentation reaching a stream is dependent on a site‘s connectivity to a 

stream channel (see Hydrology section of discussion of sediment impacts). While some 

unauthorized routes have evident gullying problems, others are stable and show no signs of 

surface damage. Routes with erosion concerns are identified, and mitigations would be 

implemented to reduce or eliminate the potential for sedimentation.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 225

Effects of compaction on soil productivity are calculated on a management unit basis (Soil 

Quality Standards require that 15% or less of a unit be subjected to compaction resulting in 

detrimental impacts to soils). Application of this standard Forest-wide would not provide a 

meaningful result. Therefore, effects on soil productivity are presented as the number of acres (by 

alternative) where soil productivity would be foregone in the long term due to addition of a route 

to the NFTS.

Assumptions Specific to the Soil Resources Analysis

Soil productivity is adversely affected by soil displacement, compaction and erosion. 

Soil productivity is considered lost on unauthorized routes when ongoing vehicle use 

maintains compaction and inhibits the growth of vegetation.

Over the long term, where vehicle use of a route is discontinued, soils can regain productivity 

through natural recovery of soil porosity lost to compaction, and vegetative recovery.

Short term effects on the soil resource will continue after the cross-country closure is in place. 

Revegetation of soils on unauthorized routes could require 30 years. Assumption is based on 

on-the-ground observations of recovery of closed roads on the Klamath National Forest by 

Tom Laurent, KNF Soil Scientist (personal communication).

Recovery times for routes in soil types with high or very high EHRs are variable (depending 

on rainfall, and soil and compaction) but will generally be longer than for routes in other 

EHRs (at least 30 years, and probably longer).

Effects to soils from ML1 roads are similar to those from ML2 roads.

There is no difference in effects to soils from different types of vehicles using existing NFTS 

roads. 

Roads are administrative facilities and a dedicated use of soil for non-productive use. Land 

areas dedicated to trails or roads are not expected to meet soil productivity standards. 

Routes in High and Very High EHRs that are not added to the NFTS will not recover in either 

the short or long term (more than 30 years), although they may begin the recovery process 

during that period. Routes in these EHRs that are added to the NFTS will not begin to 

recover. In either case, soil productivity is considered to be lost in the long term. 

By definition, NFTS roads and trails and other areas not dedicated to growing vegetation are 

not considered activity areas to which the Regional soil standards should be applied. 

Therefore, any route or area brought into the NFTS by any alternative considered in this plan 

is not subject to standards of soil productivity.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

226 Klamath National Forest

Data Sources 

Route-specific data collected by Forest staff in the field; all routes included in action 

alternatives were field reviewed. The Humbug area received special consideration due to the 

proposal for numerous motorized trails in an area of granitic soils and high EHRs. 

GIS layers of unauthorized routes, transportation system, and soil resource inventory (which 

include attributes of ERH and parent geology). 

Indicators

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

(action alternatives) in each of the R5 EHR ratings.

Acres that will recover passively through implementation of the alternative (restoration of 

soil productivity in the long term).

All indicators were used for all actions.

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: 30 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis of route and EHR layers. 

2. Direct and Indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. 

Long-term timeframe: 30 years.

Spatial boundary: Forest.

Methodology: GIS analysis of route and EHR layers.

3. Changes to the existing NFTS

Changes in type of vehicle use on existing roads are not considered to have any impact on the soil 

resource. This action will not be addressed further in this section.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 227

4. Cumulative Effects

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term time frame.

Long-term timeframe: 30 years

Spatial boundary: Forest. 

Methodology: Utilize observations and understanding of short-term effects to soil productivity to 

estimate long-term expected cumulative effects on soil productivity. 

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are considered part of the 

existing conditions and are discussed in the Affected Environment section.

The ongoing and foreseeable projects that could affect soil conditions include vegetation 

management projects utilizing heavy equipment (such as loaders or chippers) that can compact 

soils, or road construction/decommissioning. Compliance with soil quality standards for these 

types of activities is assessed on a unit-by-unit basis; each unit must meet the 15% disturbance 

threshold. Cumulative effects would involve analysis of each management unit that includes an 

unauthorized route. At this time, there are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects that 

include unauthorized routes within management unit boundaries, so there would be no additive 

effects between those activities and this project. 

Effects to soils from road construction or decommissioning projects would be similar to the 

types of effects analyzed in this project. Therefore, cumulative effects for the soils resource are 

considered to be the combined long term effects on soil productivity from addition of routes to, 

and deletion of routes from, the NFTS.

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

The soils on the Forest are variable due to differences in parent material, climate, topography, 

biology and age. Soils on the west side of the Forest have developed in colluvium and residuum 

from granitic and metasedimentary rock. These soils are moderately deep to deep (24-60+ 

inches). Soils on the east side of the Forest have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited 

over lava flows. Soils are generally moderately deep to very deep (24-60+ inches). Surface soil 

textures are gravelly coarse sandy loams overlying gravelly, cobbly or very cobbly sandy loam 

subsoil.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

228 Klamath National Forest

Parent rocks of concern are plutonic (granitics), ultramafics (peridotite and serpentinite) and 

Condrey Mountain Schist (CMS). Soils derived from granitics are mostly non-cohesive and are 

easily eroded by rilling and gulling when runoff water is concentrated. These soil textures are 

primarily sandy loams with three to eight percent clay. The CMS soils are sandy loam to silt loam 

textures, non-cohesive, and easily eroded. Ultramafic soils have higher clay content than the 

others, which make them prone to deformation or rutting when wet. Other soil types, such as 

those formed from metasediments or volcanic ash, are not considered as a concern due to greater 

soil cohesion and higher rock fragment content, which make them more stable as a travel surface. 

Most (1.2 million acres) of the Klamath National Forest is open to off-highway vehicle use. 

About 508,000 acres are lands less than 35 percent slope where use of off-road vehicles is 

practicable. Off-road vehicle use can result in soil displacement and compaction on any of these 

acres. Most use is currently concentrated on the 497 miles of user-created routes, which are 

compacted and mostly bare of vegetation. Outside the Humbug area, the routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS are mainly on slopes of less than 35%, have compacted surfaces, have been 

in place for many years, and are self-maintaining (i.e. running surfaces do not require 

maintenance). 

Slope gradient, along with ground cover, are the most important factors determining the 

potential for soil erosion. The west side of the Forest has much steeper terrain than the east side, 

leading to more miles of routes with higher Erosion Hazard Ratings. About 20% of the Forest is 

classified with an EHR of very high, 45% as high, 28% as moderate, and 7% as low. Of the 497 

miles of unauthorized routes on the Forest, around 32% are in high and 14% are in very high 

EHR categories (Table SR-4). Approximately 7% (37 miles) of the unauthorized routes fall into 

areas that do not have soil map coverage; therefore, the total number of miles for each alternative 

does not match the number listed in the alternative description.

Table SR-4. Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or routes proposed for designation to the 

NFTS (action alternatives) in each EHR. All values are miles. Some miles do not have soil map 

coverage and therefore no assigned EHR.

Alternative

Erosion Hazard Rating

Totals Low Moderate High Very 

High

No map 

coverage

1 20.4 211.6 160.3 68.0 36.7 497

2 2.8 48.7 18.0 17.8 4.7 92

3 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0.0 6.2 0.8 0.0 0 7

5 3.7 29.5 17.1 17.5 1.2 69

6 3.1 28.3 15.7 8.5 3.4 59

7 16.5 27.2 16.7 12.6 1.0 74

Drainage is not a problem on the coarse, porous volcanic soils on the east side of the Forest.

On the west side, soils most sensitive to water erosion are loose sandy and silty soils without 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 229

ground cover. Erosion is greatest where runoff is concentrated and runoff dispersion features are 

lacking. Most erosion problems observed were on the steeper portions of routes (generally over 

35% slope). Roads that have been closed due to natural events showed very little erosion, due 

mainly to high levels of soil cover from needle cast. OHV trails on ridges have a high occurrence 

of rills and gullies; intensity of gullying was highest for those long ridges that had no water 

dispersion features, and higher levels of motorized use. Most unauthorized routes in areas with 

High and Very High EHRs would not be expected to recover within 30 years; in a few cases, 

where a route is on a steep slope and soil loss is significant, the process of recovery may take 

many decades to centuries. However, it is assumed that the recovery process may begin once 

vehicle use is removed.

The Humbug drainage has soils derived primarily from granitic bedrock, which are highly 

erodible. Most of the unauthorized routes in High or Very High EHRs are in this drainage. 

Humbug has a high route density due to its long history of occupation and resource extraction. 

The area has been mined off and on since the mid-1800s, and many of the unauthorized routes 

originally accessed mine adits, shafts, or living sites. Many more routes were constructed for 

reforestation or restoration efforts after the Haystack Fire of 1955. Some routes were built using 

machinery, and show evidence of cutbanks or ditches. OHV riders using these routes tend to 

avoid the small gullies, leading to widening of the routes, resulting in additional soil compaction

and displacement. Because of the soil type, and because most of the routes being considered are 

in High or Very High EHRs, routes in the Humbug drainage were field reviewed by both a 

hydrologist and soil scientist. 

During the alternative development phase, most routes on steep slopes, or those with erosion 

concerns, were dropped from consideration in an alternative (see Chapter 2). Most of the routes 

considered in this analysis are not engineered roads; that is, they have not been designed but have 

been created through repeated vehicle travel on relatively gentle slopes. Site visits have 

confirmed that most have been hardened through use, and running surfaces are generally stable 

and self-maintaining. Much of the mileage proposed for addition to the NFTS consists of 

relatively short, rough-surfaced routes that access dispersed recreation sites. Routes proposed for 

designation as ML2 roads that cross perennial streams will require rocking (Table SR-2). None of 

the other routes proposed as ML2 roads will require improvement work to meet Road 

Management Objectives.

Some routes proposed for addition as motorized trails will require improvement work prior to 

being available for public use. With one exception (a crossing in Long John Creek), these routes 

are all located in the Humbug drainage. These routes were included in the action alternatives to 

provide a diversity of motorized experience (such as motorcycle trails). Approximately 15 miles 

of routes will require some type of improvement or maintenance work prior to being open for 

public use (Table SR-2). Work will include rocking of a crossing, soil compaction, construction 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

230 Klamath National Forest

of rolling dips, and stabilization of tread. All work will be completed within the currently 

disturbed soil prism, except for route #46083502. This route contains some steep segments with 

erosional features. To accommodate safety concerns, switchbacks will be constructed on 2 short 

segments, and drainage will be established on the abandoned portions to address ongoing erosion 

and reduce the potential for future erosion from these areas. 

Improvement and maintenance work is expected to be conducted within a 3-week period in 

the spring when soils are moist, so that compaction is effective. Effects from this work include 

disturbance and movement of soils on the road surface. In the long term, constructed drainage 

features will slow and divert of water from running surfaces into natural channels, reducing 

sediment generated from the routes. 

The proposed Humbug open riding area (about 5 acres) is located in granitic soils. The site 

consists of a large flat with numerous OHV trails on the slopes above. The Juniper Flat open 

riding area is located on dry, relatively non-cohesive soils, and is largely unvegetated. Wheel 

rutting is the prevalent disturbance. No improvement work is proposed for either of these areas.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres of National Forest 

System Lands. There are 497 miles of unauthorized roads and trails that would continue to be 

used by vehicles, at least 228 miles with High or Very High EHRs. There is no way to quantify 

how many additional motorized routes may be created in soils with High or Very High EHRs in 

the future by continued motorized use.

In both the short and long term, soils on 994 acres would remain compacted and unvegetated. 

In addition, there would be ongoing impacts to soil productivity from the creation of new routes. 

It is impossible to estimate the additional number of acres that would be subject to compaction 

and soil displacement on the 1.2 million acres where off-road travel is allowed. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

Under this alternative there would be no additions to the NFTS. 

Cumulative effects

Soil productivity will be foregone in the long term on all 497 miles (994 acres) of unauthorized 

routes that continue to be used, and on roads added to the NFTS through ongoing and foreseeable 

road-related actions. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 231

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of ML1 and ML2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). In the long term, soil 

productivity will be foregone on approximately 1,072 acres, and improved on 96 acres. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

405 miles (810 acres) of unauthorized routes. This action will eliminate the potential for creation 

of additional unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils. Over time, affected soils 

would gradually recover through revegetation, and a gradual decompaction of remnant soil. Most 

unauthorized routes in areas with High and Very High EHRs would not be expected to recover 

within 30 years; in a few cases, where a route is on a steep slope and soil loss is significant, the 

process of recovery may take many decades to centuries. Soil productivity would be expected to 

eventually return on a total of 810 acres. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

This alternative proposes to add 92 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS. Thirty-six 

miles of these routes, all within the Humbug drainage, have High or Very High EHRs. Fifteen 

miles of routes with drainage concerns will be brought up to standard using mechanized 

equipment within the current disturbed footprint. Two stream crossings will be rocked. Erosion

control features, such as rolling dips, will be installed to manage runoff, minimize offsite 

movement of soil, and prevent degradation of the running surface. These types of measures have 

been used for drainage control on roads and skid trails on the KNF for many years, and have been 

shown to be effective in controlling water and reducing sediment (USDA Forest Service 2000-

2008). Site-specific road and trail maintenance mitigations are displayed in Table SR-2. In both 

the short and long term, routes added to the NFTS will remain compacted and unvegetated, 

affecting 184 acres. 

Sixty-five acres of open riding area (60 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres at Humbug Creek 

area) would be available for off-road motorized use. Currently both areas are in a highly degraded 

state, largely unvegetated. In both the short and long term, this condition would persist. A high 

degree of compaction prevails at Humbug Creek area, and some rutting on slopes. In both areas, 

soil productivity will be foregone in both the short and long terms. 

Cumulative effects 

Soil productivity will be adversely affected on all routes and facilities that are added to the NFTS 

through this project or through ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions. Soil condition 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

232 Klamath National Forest

should improve with eventual natural loosening of the compacted soil and revegetation of 

unauthorized routes that are no longer used, and on decommissioned roads.

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of 

ML1 and ML2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). Alternative 2 

adds 92 miles of roads and trails (184 acres) and 65 acres of open riding areas to the NFTS. A 

total of 405 miles of unauthorized roads (810 acres) should recover in the long term. Soil 

productivity will be foregone on approximately 327 acres of roads, trails and open riding areas, 

and productivity should improve or be restored on 906 acres. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

497 miles of unauthorized routes. In the short term, there will be no change from the current 

condition. In the long term, these routes will slowly recover and revegetate; 994 acres of soils 

will return to a productive state. This action will eliminate the potential for creation of additional 

unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils.

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

Under this alternative there would be no additions to the NFTS. 

Cumulative effects

With the prohibition on cross-country travel, soils on all 497 unauthorized routes (994 acres) will 

naturally loosen, reducing compaction, and revegetate over time. Ongoing and foreseeable roadrelated activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of roads (ML1 and ML2) to the NFTS, and 

decommission 48 miles (96 acres) of road. Decommissioning activities will encourage soil 

decompaction and revegetation; 100 acres will recover soil productivity in the long term. Soil 

productivity will be foregone on 78 acres of new roads, and productivity should improve or be 

restored on 1,090 acres. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

490 miles (980 acres) of unauthorized routes. In the short term, there will be no change from the 

current condition. In the long term, these routes will slowly recover and revegetate; 980 acres of 

soils will return to a productive state. This action will eliminate the potential for creation of 

additional unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 233

Direct and indirect effects of adding new routes to NFTS 

This alternative proposes to add 7 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, none with 

High or Very High EHRs. In both the short and long term, routes added to the NFTS will remain 

compacted and unvegetated, affecting 14 acres. Site-specific road and trail mitigations are 

displayed in Table SR-2.

Cumulative effects 

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of ML1 and ML2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). Alternative 4 adds 7 miles of 

roads and trails (14 acres) to the NFTS. A total of 490 miles of unauthorized roads (980 acres) 

should recover in the long term. Soil productivity will be foregone on approximately 92 acres of 

roads and trails, and productivity should improve or be restored on 1,076 acres. 

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

428 miles (856 acres) of unauthorized routes. In the short term, there will be no change from the 

current condition. In the long term, these routes will slowly recover and revegetate; 856 acres of 

soils will return to a productive state. This action will eliminate the potential for creation of 

additional unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils.

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

This alternative proposes to add 69 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, 36 miles in 

high or very high EHRs. In both the short and long term, these routes will remain compacted and 

unvegetated. Routes with drainage concerns will be brought up to standard using mechanized 

equipment within the current disturbed footprint. Erosion control features, such as rolling dips, 

will be installed to manage runoff, minimize offsite movement of soil, and prevent degradation of 

the running surface. These types of measures have been used for drainage control on roads and 

skid trails on the KNF for many years, and have been shown to be effective in controlling water 

and reducing sediment (USDA Forest Service 2000-2008). Road and trail maintenance standards 

are included in the project file. In both the short and long term, routes added to the NFTS will 

remain compacted and unvegetated, affecting soil productivity on 138 acres. Site-specific road 

and trail mitigations are displayed in Table SR-2.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres at Humbug Creek 

area) would be available for off-road motorized use. Currently both areas are in a highly degraded 

state, largely unvegetated. In both the short and long term, this condition would persist. A high 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

234 Klamath National Forest

degree of compaction prevails at Humbug Creek area, and some rutting on slopes. In both areas, 

soil productivity will be foregone in both the short and long terms.

Cumulative effects 

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of ML1 and ML2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). Alternative 5 adds 69 miles of 

roads and trails (138 acres) and 53 acres of open riding areas to the NFTS. A total of 428 miles of 

unauthorized roads (856 acres) should recover in the long term. Soil productivity will be 

foregone on approximately 269 acres of roads, trails and open riding areas, and productivity 

should improve or be restored on 952 acres. 

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

438 miles (876 acres) of unauthorized routes. In the short term, there will be no change from the 

current condition. In the long term, these routes will slowly recover and revegetate; 876 acres of 

soils will return to a productive state. This action will eliminate the potential for creation of 

additional unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils.

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

This alternative proposes to add 59 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, 36 miles in 

high or very high EHRs. In both the short and long term, these routes will remain compacted and 

unvegetated. Routes with drainage concerns will be brought up to standard using mechanized 

equipment within the current disturbed footprint. Erosion control features, such as cross ditches 

or rolling dips, will be installed to manage runoff, minimize offsite movement of soil, and prevent 

degradation of the running surface. These types of measures have been used for drainage control 

on roads and skid trails on the KNF for many years, and have been shown to be effective in 

controlling water and reducing sediment (USDA Forest Service 2000-2008). Site-specific road 

and trail mitigations are displayed in Table SR-2.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres at Humbug Creek 

area) would be available for off-road motorized use. Currently both areas are in a highly degraded 

state, largely unvegetated. In both the short and long term, this condition would persist. A high 

degree of compaction prevails at Humbug Creek area, and some rutting on slopes. In both areas, 

soil productivity will be foregone in both the short and long terms. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 235

Cumulative effects 

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of ML1 and ML2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). Alternative 6 adds 59 miles of 

roads and trails (118 acres) and 53 acres of open riding areas to the NFTS. A total of 438 miles of 

unauthorized roads (876 acres) should recover in the long term. Soil productivity will be 

foregone on approximately 249 acres of roads, trails and open riding areas, and productivity 

should improve or be restored on 972 acres. 

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would prohibit vehicle use on 1.2 million acres, including 

423 miles (846 acres) of unauthorized routes. In the short term, there will be no change from the 

current condition. In the long term, these routes will slowly recover and revegetate; 846 acres of 

soils will return to a productive state. This action will eliminate the potential for creation of 

additional unauthorized routes, and the associated impacts to soils.

Direct and indirect effects of adding new facilities to NFTS 

This alternative proposes to add 74 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, 30 miles in 

high or very high EHRs. In both the short and long term, these routes will remain compacted and 

unvegetated. Routes with drainage concerns will be brought up to standard using mechanized 

equipment within the current disturbed footprint. Erosion control features, such as cross ditches 

or rolling dips, will be installed to manage runoff, minimize offsite movement of soil, and prevent 

degradation of the running surface. These types of measures have been used for drainage control 

on roads and skid trails on the KNF for many years, and have been shown to be effective in 

controlling water and reducing sediment (USDA Forest Service 2000-2008). Site-specific road 

and trail mitigations are displayed in Table SR-2.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres at Humbug Creek 

area) would be available for off-road motorized use. Currently both areas are in a highly degraded 

state, largely unvegetated. In both the short and long term, this condition would persist. A high 

degree of compaction prevails at Humbug Creek area, and some rutting on slopes. In both areas, 

soil productivity will be foregone in both the short and long terms.

Cumulative effects 

Ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will add 39 miles (78 acres) of ML1 and ML2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommission 48 miles of road (96 acres). Alternative 7 adds 74 miles of 

roads and trails (148 acres) and 53 acres of open riding areas to the NFTS. A total of 423 miles of

unauthorized roads (846 acres) should recover in the long term. Soil productivity will be 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

236 Klamath National Forest

foregone on approximately 279 acres of roads, trails and open riding areas, and productivity 

should improve or be restored on 932 acres. 

Site-Specific Mitigations for Soils

Table SR-2. Mitigation for unauthorized routes proposed for addition to NFTS.

Route ID Improvement Work Required Alternative Mileage

7H002.2 Rock crossing and approaches; Middle Humbug Creek 2,5,6,7

51-02 Rock crossing and approaches; Long John Creek 2,5,6

7H002.4 Rock crossing and approaches;Middle Humbug Creek 4,5,6

45N53.3 Outslope/improve drainage 2,5,6,7 0.11

7H002.3 Outslope/improve drainage 2

0.43

45N88.2 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 3.00

46N24.5 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.77

46N30.9 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.18

7H002.4 Improve drainage/establish tread 4,5,6 0.29

7J001.11 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.29

7J001.9 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.84

7J031.5 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.05

8J002.3* Improve drainage/establish tread 5 0.75 

8J002.3* Improve drainage/establish tread 6,7 0.25

8J002.3A Improve drainage/establish tread 5 0.14

8J002.3C Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.14

45080101 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.45

45080104 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.23

45080201 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6 0.14

45080202 Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6 0.10

45080205 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.74

45080207 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.65

45080209 Improve drainage/establish tread 2 0.18

45080301 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.43

45081003 Improve drainage/establish tread 2 0.24

45081203 Improve drainage/establish tread 2 0.27

46083401 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 2.43

46083501* Improve drainage/establish tread 2 0.78

46083501* Improve drainage/establish tread 5,6,7 0.57

46083502

Improve drainage/establish tread/develop switchbacks 

on steep portions 2,5,6,7 0.94

46083503 Improve drainage/establish tread 2,5,6,7 0.38

*Route has different mileage depending on alternative
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 237

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Improvements to soil resources should occur under every action alternative due to the beneficial 

effects of the prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 3 would have the greatest benefits 

because it does not propose addition of routes to the NFTS; there would be no impacts to longterm soil productivity from this alternative. Alternative 1 would have the greatest impacts to 

soils, because soil displacement and compaction could occur on any of the 1.2 million acres 

where off-highway travel is allowed.

Table SR-3. Comparison of soil resource indicators

Indicators Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of unauthorized 

routes/routes proposed for 

addition to NFTS

497 92 0 7 69 59 74

Acres (of routes) that will 

recover soil productivity in the 

long term

0 810 994 980 856 876 846

Miles of 

unauthorized 

routes (Alt 1) or 

routes proposed 

for addition to the 

NFTS in Erosion 

Hazard Ratings*

Low 20 3 0 0 4 3 16

Moderate 212 49 0 6 30 28 27

High 160 18 0 1 17 16 17

Very High 68 18 0 0 18 9 13

*Numbers are rounded off – miles without soil map coverage are not included.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 allows creation of additional unauthorized routes where soil productivity could be 

compromised in the long term. This is inconsistent with LRMP direction to maintain or enhance 

soil resources. 

Under any action alternative, substantial gains in soil productivity will be realized in the long 

term due to the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, which is consistent with LRMP 

direction. By definition NFTS roads and trails and other areas not dedicated to growing 

vegetation are not considered activity areas to which Soil Quality Standards are applied. 

Therefore, any route or area already within the NFTS or brought into the NFTS by any alternative 

considered in this plan is not subject to the regional or national standards of soil productivity. 

However, all action alternatives address the need to protect and improve soil resources, and (with 

the exception of Alternative 3) include mitigation measures to minimize off-site soil movement. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil Resources

238 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 239

Hydrology

Introduction

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 System (NFS) lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions 

of forest watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of stream flow. The use of roads, 

trails, and other areas on national forests for public operation of motor vehicles has the potential 

to affect these hydrologic functions through compaction of soils and detachment of sediment

(e.g., Foltz, 2006). Management decisions to eliminate cross-county motor vehicle travel, add 

routes and areas to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and make changes to the 

existing NFTS must consider effects on watershed functions.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects water resources includes:

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as federal policy the 

control of point and non-point pollution and assigns the States the primary responsibility for 

control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by national forests in California 

is achieved under state law. 

Water quality objectives are outlined in the California North Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board‘s Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, as adopted by the 

NCRWQCB on December 9, 1993, Including Amendments Through 2004 (North Coast 

Region Water Quality Control Board 2001) (Basin Plan). The primary purpose for maintaining 

water quality is to assure that the beneficial uses of water are not adversely affected. The Basin 

Plan for the Klamath River contains water quality objectives, implementation plans for meeting 

those objectives, and other policies of the State Water Quality Control Board and the Federal 

Government. 

Non-point source pollution on national forests is managed through the Regional Water 

Quality Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000), which 

relies on implementation of prescribed Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Water Quality 

Management Plan includes one BMP for OHV use (4-7) and 28 BMPs related to road 

construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28) (project file:Klamath_Travel_BMPs.doc). All NFS 

roads and trails open to OHV use are required to comply with these BMPs. 

Of particular relevance for motor vehicle travel management, BMP 4-7 requires each 

National Forest to: (1) identify areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

240 Klamath National Forest

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 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) has developed Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Scott, Shasta, and Salmon Rivers, and a draft TMDL 

for the Klamath River. Together, these four TMDLs cover every stream on the Klamath National 

Forest. The TMDLs are amendments to the Basin Plan and are part of the California Water Code. 

The Water Board has determined that compliance with the TMDLs should attain and maintain the 

water quality objectives for sediment and temperature, and restore and protect beneficial uses. 

Each TMDL has an Action Plan that describes specific implementation actions that the Forest 

Service shall take to achieve the TMDLs and attain water quality standards. One of the required 

implementation actions is control of road-related sediment sources. 

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.

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA Forest 

Service 1995) outlines the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for water resources. These are 

augmented by standards and guidelines for each management area. The LRMP incorporated the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives and standards and guidelines from the 

Northwest Forest Plan. The ACS was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of 

watersheds on public lands, and the aquatic ecosystems contained within them. Two important 

parts of the ACS are Riparian Reserves (RRs) and Key Watersheds. Standards applicable to this 

project are listed here.

6-32 In fish-bearing streams, design new road crossings to maintain a natural 

stream bottom. Existing low water crossings should be evaluated for 

impacts on aquatic resources and reconfigured as appropriate. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 241

MA10-3 As a general rule, standards and guidelines for RRs prohibit or regulate 

activities in RRs that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

The hydrologic analysis was conducted in two phases. First, the GIS layer of unauthorized routes 

was queried to identify routes to be analyzed for possible addition to the NFTS. Screening 

criteria sources were the Klamath National Forest LRMP, the Clean Water Act, Best Management 

Practices, the Endangered Species Act, and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Board Basin 

Plan, as well as professional judgment on whether or not resource concerns could be mitigated if 

routes were added to the NFTS. Routes that presented serious resource concerns that could not be 

mitigated, or that did not meet the purpose and need for the project, were eliminated from 

consideration in the project.

The second phase of the analysis focused on field reviews of all unauthorized routes that 

passed the first screening and were included in one or more of the action alternatives. Field 

review identified soil erosion features and the relative risk of sediment delivery to stream 

channels. More miles of unauthorized routes were removed from analysis after field 

investigation, primarily because of proximity to streams.

The existing condition, which includes the effects of past actions, was assessed using the 

Forest Service equivalent roaded area (ERA) model (USFS 1988). ERA is an index of grounddisturbing activities that weights different management activities relative to the effects of a road 

in terms of altering runoff. The ERA values are then compared against a Threshold of Concern 

(TOC), beyond which there is risk of adverse effects to instream beneficial uses. The ERA model 

was used to assess the current condition within watersheds.

Assumptions Specific to the Hydrology Analysis

The principal effect of cross-country motor vehicle travel is increased erosion, resulting in

fine sediment that is transported by runoff from running surfaces (Bilby et al, 1989, Forsyth 

et al, 2006, Sheridan et al, 2006).

Motorized vehicle use is the predominant cause of sediment production from use of nativesurface routes. 

All vehicle types generate the same level of effects on road surfaces. 

Roads located in riparian reserves (as defined in the LRMP) have the greatest risk of 

delivering sediment to stream channels, or impacting stream temperature through removal of 

riparian vegetation. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

242 Klamath National Forest

The effects of roads on soil erosion and stream shade will generally persist for about 30 years 

following prohibition of public motor vehicle use.

In 7th field watersheds with one mile or less of unauthorized routes, effects of route 

designation will not be discernable. 

Spatial boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis is the affected 7th field watersheds 

within the forest boundary. 

Spatial boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is the forest boundary.

Data Sources

Field inventories of unauthorized routes and associated tabular data sets.

GIS analyses of route miles within riparian reserves.

Klamath National Forest Forest-wide Roads Analysis.

Air and ground photos and anecdotal information documenting the time required for passive 

restoration of routes closed to motor vehicle traffic (recovery time may vary based on 

precipitation, elevation, aspect, and other factors).

Indicators

Miles of unauthorized routes/routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in riparian reserves 

and key watersheds.

Miles of unauthorized routes/routes proposed for addition to the NFTS with documented

surface erosion in riparian reserves. 

Road density within 7th field watersheds that have routes proposed for addition to the NFTS.

(Road density includes all open state, county, private, and NFTS roads plus publicly 

identified unauthorized routes including short spurs to dispersed recreation areas.)

Water 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: > 30 years, based on observation of recovery of routes in the Forest by 

resource staff (Laurent, 2009, personal communication). 

Spatial boundary: Forest 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 243

Indicator: Miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves and key watersheds.

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes/routes located within riparian 

reserves and key watersheds. Field reviews for soil erosion and proximity to streams were 

conducted on all miles of unauthorized routes being considered for inclusion in the NFTS.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: > 30 years. 

Spatial boundary: Forest (7th field watersheds where additions to the NFTS or open riding 

areas are proposed)

Indicators: (1) miles of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in riparian reserves and key 

watersheds; (2) miles of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS with documented surface 

erosion.

Methodology: Query of GIS database of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

in the watersheds affected by additions to NFTS.

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS.

No measurable changes in volume of traffic are anticipated. Changes in the type of vehicles 

using roads and distribution of vehicle use may change over the KNF, but this should not affect 

hydrologic resources or create effects on water quality. This action will not be addressed further 

in this section.

4. Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the combined direct and indirect effects of this project and those from 

ongoing or foreseeable management projects. Management activities that can affect hydrologic

conditions include vegetation management projects and road management activities (such as 

construction or decommissioning). These projects have separate environmental analyses that 

include mitigation measures to ensure impacts to hydrologic resources are minimized. However, 

of all management activities, road-related projects have the greatest potential to affect hydrologic 

resources, as they can lead to long term changes in runoff or road densities. Therefore, this 

cumulative effects analysis focuses on ongoing and foreseeable road-related projects (listed in 

Appendix B). 

Long-term timeframe: > 30 years. 

Spatial boundary: Klamath National Forest boundary 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

244 Klamath National Forest

Indicator: Open route density by 7th field watershed. Route density represents the cumulative 

effects of the NFTS and unauthorized routes (Alternative 1), or the NFTS and routes added to the 

NFTS (action alternatives.

Methodology: GIS database query.

Affected Environment

There are four hundred and nine 7th field watersheds on the KNF. Cross-country travel currently 

is allowed in parts or all of 364 of these watersheds. Unauthorized routes exist in one hundred 

and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds. On the east side of the KNF (Goosenest Ranger District) 

there are seventy-nine 7

th field watersheds, 74 of which include unauthorized routes. On the west 

side of the KNF, 114 of the three hundred and thirty 7

th field watersheds include unauthorized 

routes. The effects of this project would be most discernable in watersheds that include at least 1 

mile of unauthorized route proposed for addition to the NFTS. Effects on watersheds that have 

less than 1 mile of unauthorized route proposed for addition to the NFTS in any action alternative 

are included in the project record, available at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA. 

Nine watersheds on the west side of the KNF include more than 1 mile of proposed additions 

to the NFTS in one or more action alternative; 2 additional watersheds are analyzed because they 

are important for fisheries. All are tributaries to the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers. The 

west side watersheds are all considered coldwater sources for anadromous fish. 

Seventeen analyzed watersheds located on the east side of the Forest are considered to be 

tributaries to the Klamath River even though they drain interiory and do not connect directly to 

the river. The east side watersheds are characterized by relatively flat terrain and porous volcanic 

soils; most of these watersheds do not have surface water or riparian reserves. Where surface 

water is present, beneficial uses for cold water habitat are limited to resident fisheries (see further 

discussion in the Fisheries section of this chapter). 

All of the watersheds affected by this project are listed as water quality impaired under 

section 303(d) for temperature and are considered tributaries of the Klamath River. The Water 

Board has concluded that road-related sediment is a contributing factor for increased steam 

temperatures because it contributes to wider and shallower steam channels. Watersheds in the 

Scott River are listed as impaired for sediment, with roads in general being targeted as sediment 

source. None of these watersheds include more than 1 mile of unauthorized route proposed for 

addition to the NFTS in any action alternative. 

There are one hundred and thirty-three 7th field key watersheds on the KNF; unauthorized 

routes exist in 33 of them. Kanaka-Olsen and East Fork South Fork Salmon Headwaters are the 

only 7th field key watersheds for which the mileage proposed for addition to the NFTS in any 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 245

action alternative exceeds 1 mile. For both watersheds, the proposed additions of 1 to 1.3 miles 

of routes are short spurs to a number of dispersed recreation sites.

The current condition of each watershed analyzed for this project was assessed using the 

equivalent roaded area (ERA) analysis. All watersheds are under the threshold of concern and 

appear to have a low risk of adverse watershed impacts being expressed on the landscape (Tables 

H-1 and H-2). 

Current road densities (including unauthorized routes and NFTS, state, county and private 

roads) exceed 4 miles/mi2for the Buckhorn, Cougar-Malone, Middle Fork Humbug and Upper 

Humbug 7

th field watersheds on the west side of the KNF, and Haight Mountain, Lower First 

Creek, Tennant-Antelope, Upper First Creek and Van Bremmer Well on the east side (Table H-3). 

Due to porous soils, generally gentle slopes, and the absence of surface water, road density has 

minimal, if any, effects on hydrologic resources on the east side.

Most of the unauthorized routes considered in this analysis are not engineered; that is, they 

have not been designed but have been created through repeated vehicle travel on relatively gentle 

slopes. Most have been hardened through use, and surfaces are generally stable and selfmaintaining. Much of the mileage proposed for addition to the NFTS consists of relatively short, 

rough-surfaced routes that access dispersed recreation sites. About 67 miles of these routes lie 

within riparian reserves, although few actually affect riparian vegetation (see Wildlife and 

Fisheries sections of this chapter for a more complete discussion of impacts to riparian resources). 

Documented soil erosion occurs on about 15 miles of unauthorized routes, all in the Humbug 

drainage; approximately 2.5 miles are in riparian reserves. Conditions in the Humbug drainage 

differ from other areas of the Forest. The Humbug drainage includes three 7th field watersheds 

(Upper Humbug, Middle Fork Humbug, and Lower Humbug Creek). The drainage has erodible 

granitic soils and is close to the town of Yreka, so public use is relatively high. Humbug has a 

long history of mining, logging, and human manipulation. At one time, a community of 6,000 

people lived in the bottom of the canyon. Extensive modification of hillside hydrology occurred 

with creation of terraces for reforestation after the 1955 Haystack Fire. Humbug supports a large 

system of constructed routes built for mining or logging using heavy equipment; none have 

culverts, but some have berms, ditches or cutbanks. Some segments route surface flow into dry 

channels. While there is some evidence of sediment movement in these channels, most do not 

show evidence of annual scour so sediment delivery to Humbug Creek proper does not appear to 

be an annual event. Extensive field review of the unauthorized routes in Humbug was conducted 

to validate current route conditions, stability, and suitability for inclusion in the NFTS. An area of 

approximately 5 acres of concentrated off-road use is located in the Humbug drainage.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

246 Klamath National Forest

Table H- 5. West side watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS showing current CWE

calculations

7th Field Watershed Acres Current % ERA TOC in %ERA

Big Ferry-Swanson 7,637 5.8 9.0

Buckhorn Creek 9,153 6.2 7.0

Clear 2,775 3.6 10.5

Cole-Clauson 9,268 2.1 7.5

EF SF Salmon 

Headwaters 6,779 1.2 9.0

Kanaka/Olsen 8,288 2.7 10.0

Little Humbug Cr.11 6,044 1.8 9.5

Louie-Schutts 6,695 3.5 9.0

Lower Humbug Cr.12 12,962 1.7 10.5

Middle Fork Humbug 4,998 2.1 10.0

Upper Humbug 7,994 2.5 9.5

Table H-6. East side watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS, showing current CWE

calculations

 

11 Watershed included because of importance to fisheries.

12 Watershed included because of importance to fisheries.

7th Field 

Watershed Acres Current% ERA

TOC in

%ERA

Antelope Sink 9,798 5.0 11.0

Bray/Butte 9,088 1. 11.0

Garner Mtn. 11,961 4.5 13.0

Haight Mtn. 8,457 4.9 11.0

Hill 22 3,709 4.0 16.5

Lower First C. 3,597 5.2 11.0

Meiss Lake 72,184 1.0 12.5

Mud Lake 7,858 2.8 13.0

Pollic Flat 11,847 3.7 12.5

Shafter/Butte C. 11,394 1.7 12.0

Sharp Mtn. 4,535 1.0 13.0

Tamarack Flat 10,600 2.2 16.5

TennantAntelope 8,175 5.4 11.5

Up. First C. 7,039 5.3 12.0

Up. Shovel C. 6,856 2.1 10.5

Van Bremmer 

Well 5,390 4.2 13.5

W. Red Rock 

Valley 3,930 0.8 13.0
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 247

Environmental Consequences

The primary hydrologic effect of forest routes is to alter hill slope drainage by intercepting 

precipitation either directly, as it falls on impervious surfaces, or indirectly, as groundwater flow 

emerging at the road cut face. Depending on the engineered drainage of a route, intercepted water 

may be transported to streams much faster than would occur naturally, augmenting peak flows 

and altering their timing (Jones and Grant, 1996; Wemple and Jones, 2003). 

Water flowing off surfaces of routes will readily detach and transport sediment less than 

0.5mm in diameter. This class of sediment can be particularly injurious in fish-bearing steams 

(see Fisheries section). Where drainage runs directly as surface flow, either at crossings or rutted 

relief drains, research has shown that roads can add large amounts of fine sediment to a natural 

system (Bilby, 1989). Fines created by traffic duing the dry season are washed away with the first 

storm events of each wet season (Luce and Black, 1999). Sediment production from routes used 

by OHVs is variable, both seasonally and from year to year; determining the amount of sediment 

generated by any specific segment, and whether than sediment is delivered to a stream, is 

uncertain. 

Routes can indirectly increase stream temperatures as a result of stream crossing or fill slope 

failures. Debris flows triggered by clogged culverts or stream diversions can scour stream 

channels, remove riparian vegetation, and reduce stream shade. However, this process is unlikely 

to occur as a result of this project because the majority of the routes analyzed were created by 

repeated vehicle traffic and do not have ditches, cut slopes or fills. With a few exceptions, they 

are on relatively gentle slopes with very little risk of landslides (see Geology section).

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country travel. About 1.2 million acres of the KNF would 

remain open to unrestricted OHV use including 497 miles of existing unauthorized routes in 188 

7

th field watersheds (67 miles within riparian reserves). The current level of traffic-generated 

sediment would be expected to continue, and new routes that represent threats to water quality 

could be created. Vegetation would not recover on the new or existing routes, and effects would 

persist through the short and long term.

Unauthorized routes that cross at least 14 streams would continue to be used and could have 

some effect on stream temperatures. Documented soil erosion would continue on about 15 miles 

of unauthorized routes in the Humbug drainage.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

248 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

There would be no routes added to the NFTS; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect 

effects.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the additive effects of this project and those of ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions (listed in Appendix B). Road-related projects would add 13 miles 

of ML 1 road, 26 miles of ML 2 roads, remove 50 miles from the NFTS (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). All but 1 mile of new open 

road (ML 2) are on the Goosenest Ranger District where routes have minimal effects on water

resources. Hydrologic conditions would be slightly improved by ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable road-related projects. Cumulative watershed effects displayed in Tables H-1 and H-2

represent the current condition. There would be a reduction in road density in several watersheds

due to road removal from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; of the watersheds analyzed 

in this project, approximately 1.5 miles of NFTS road would be decommissioned in the Buckhorn 

watershed (Table H-5). Cumulative reductions in road density would be entirely due to the 

effects of these ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions since there would be no reduction due 

to the actions in this alternative; road density would stay the same as current except for a decrease 

of less than 10% in Buckhorn. Proliferation of unauthorized routes in this alternative could 

increase road density in all watersheds other than in wilderness in the future.

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

This prohibition would remove vehicle use from 1.2 million acres, including 405 miles of 

unauthorized routes. In the short term, substantial benefits would be expected in reduction of fine 

sediment (mostly < 0.5 mm in diameter) that is transported off running surfaces of 44 miles of 

routes in riparian reserves (Reid and Dunne, 1984). 

Routes where motorized use is prohibited may still intercept and concentrate surface flows 

for some time. In the long term, soils in many undesignated routes would decompact and the 

routes would revegetate, increasing infiltration capacity of running surfaces and reducing roaddirected runoff. Routes in areas of High and Very High Soil Erosion Hazard (primarily in the 

Humbug drainage) would not recover in the long term (see the Soils section of this chapter). 

Determining benefits from the prohibition of vehicle use on unauthorized routes would be 

difficult to assess because the response to runoff and sediment yield is variable and uncertain

(Foltz, 2006). Cessation of use should create almost immediate reductions in fine sediment yield.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 249

This alternative would add 92 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, 23 miles 

within riparian reserves and 7 miles in key watersheds, all of the latter in short spurs to dispersed 

recreation sites. Evidence of surface erosion was found on about 9 miles of routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS, 1.6 miles of which were in riparian reserves and none in key watersheds. 

Routes added to the NFTS would not recover in the short or long term. These routes would 

continue to intercept and concentrate precipitation and groundwater flow into surface runoff. 

However, 9 miles of routes in Humbug would receive improvement and maintenance (surface 

compaction, creation of drainage features, etc.) which should reduce the potential for trafficrelated sediment. Vehicle traffic would continue displace soils and contribute to some level of

erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Two routes with perennial stream crossings would be 

added to the NFTS. Mitigations to reduce or eliminate erosion, including treatment of stream 

crossings, are displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Route densities would decrease more than 10% in 14 of the 17 watersheds on the east side of 

the KNF and in 5 of 11 watersheds on the west side. The most dramatic decreases on the west 

side are in the Upper Humbug, Middle Humbug, Little Humbug, Lower Humbug, and Clear 

Creek watersheds, in that order. In the rest of the west side watersheds, there are few 

unauthorized routes and most of them are short spurs to dispersed recreation sites.

Sixty-five acres of open riding area (60 acres in Juniper Flat and 5 acres in Humbug) would 

be available for use. Neither area poses a risk to water quality because they lack connection to 

perennial streams. There are no hydrologic issues associated with Juniper Flat. In Humbug, it is 

likely that present conditions would persist in both the short and long term, as many of the 

existing routes are in erodible soils and recovery may take many years. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the additive effects of prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel on 1.2 million acres, adding 92 miles of unauthorized route to the NFTS, and 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will 

add 13 miles of ML 1 road, 26 miles of ML 2 road, and remove 50 miles of road from the NFTS 

(48 through decommissioning and 2 through conversion to a hiking trail). All but 1 mile of new 

open road (ML 2) are on the Goosenest Ranger District where hydrologic resources are of 

minimal concern. All the road removal will occur on the west side of the KNF. Cumulative 

effects for this alternative would result in a reduction in open route density by 10% or more in 19 

of the 28 analyzed watersheds. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions would 

not reduce open road mileage by more than 10% in the one analyzed watershed on the west side 

that includes road removal. Increases in road density would occur in 8 east side watersheds due to 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions but the cumulative decrease in road density from the 

alternative and foreseeable actions would still be more than 10% in 6 of the 8 watersheds. There 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

250 Klamath National Forest

should be a decrease in fine sediment delivered to streams in all these watersheds. Positive 

hydrologic trends would be expected. Cumulative effects are summarized in Table H-5. Overall, 

effects are considered to be beneficial to water resources.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2, except they would apply to all 497 miles of unauthorized routes. 

Sixty-seven miles of routes within riparian reserves would be allowed to recover in the long term.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

No current unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS; therefore, there would be no direct 

or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects

The prohibition of cross country motorized travel combined with addition of 13 miles of ML1 

road, 26 miles of ML 2 road, and removal of 50 miles of NFTS road will result in a reduction in 

open route density of 10% or more in 19 analyzed 7th field watersheds. Ongoing and foreseeable 

road-related actions will reduce open road density by more than 10% in one analyzed watershed 

on the west side of the KNF. On the east side, road densities would decrease by 10% in 7 of the 8 

analyzed watersheds that include road-related ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Positive hydrologic trends (including a reduction in route-related sediment) would be expected in 

these watersheds. Cumulative effects are summarized in Table H-5. Effects are considered to be 

completely beneficial to water resources.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2, except they would apply to 490 miles of unauthorized routes. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative adds about 7 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in analyzed 7th field 

watersheds. Only about 0.4 mile is within a riparian reserve and none are in key watersheds. 

Documented soil erosion was found on 0.3 mile of route proposed for addition to the NFTS. One 

route with a perennial stream crossing is proposed for addition to the NFTS. This stream crossing 

would be rocked according to the mitigations displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of 

this chapter. No open riding areas are proposed in this alternative. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 251

The added routes would not recover in the long term and would continue to intercept and 

concentrate precipitation and groundwater flow into surface runoff contributing to erosion and 

sediment delivery to streams. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are similar to those discussed under Alternative 3. Overall, effects are 

considered to be beneficial to water resources.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

The direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2, except they would apply to 428 miles of unauthorized routes (46 

miles within riparian reserves). 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative would add 69 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in analyzed 7th 

field watersheds, 21 miles within riparian reserves and 7.6 in key watersheds, all of the latter in 

short spurts to dispersed recreation sites. Evidence of soil erosion was found on almost 14 miles 

of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, 2.3 of which were in riparian reserves 

and none in key watersheds.

Routes added to the NFTS would not recover in the short or long term. These routes would 

continue to intercept and concentrate precipitation and groundwater flow into surface runoff. 

However, almost 14 miles of routes in Humbug would receive improvement and maintenance 

(surface compaction, creation of drainage features, etc.) which should reduce the potential for 

traffic-related sediment. Vehicle traffic would continue displace soils and contribute to some 

level of erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Two routes with perennial stream crossings 

would be added to the NFTS. Mitigations to reduce or eliminate erosion, including treatment of 

stream crossings, are displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Route densities would decrease more than 10% in 14 of the 17 watersheds on the east side of 

the KNF, and in 5 of 11 watersheds on the west side. The most dramatic decreases on the west 

side are in the Upper Humbug, Middle Humbug, Little Humbug, Lower Humbug, and Clear 

Creek watersheds, in that order. In the rest of the west side watersheds, there are few 

unauthorized routes and most of them are short spurs to dispersed recreation sites.

Five acres in Humbug would remain open to cross-country motorized travel in the Humbug 

open riding area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat open riding area. Effects would be the same as 

described under Alternative 2.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

252 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the additive effects of prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel on 1.2 million acres, adding 69 miles of unauthorized route to the NFTS, and 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will 

add 13 miles of ML 1 road, 26 miles of ML 2 road, and remove 50 miles of road from the NFTS 

(48 through decommissioning and 2 through conversion to a hiking trail). All but 1 mile of new 

open road (ML 2) are on the Goosenest Ranger District where hydrologic resources are of 

minimal concern. All the road removal will occur on the west side of the KNF. Cumulative

effects for this alternative would result in a reduction in open route density by 10% or more in 19 

of the 28 analyzed watersheds. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions would 

reduce open road mileage by more than 10% in the one analyzed watershed on the west side that 

includes road removal. Increases in road density would occur in 8 east side watersheds due to 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions but the cumulative decrease in road density from the 

alternative and foreseeable actions would still be more than 10% in 6 of the 8 watersheds. There 

should be a decrease in fine sediment delivered to streams in all these watersheds. Positive 

hydrologic trends would be expected. Cumulative effects are summarized in Table H-5. Overall, 

effects are considered to be beneficial to water resources.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2, except they would apply to 438 miles of unauthorized routes (49 

miles within riparian reserves). 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative would add 59 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in analyzed 7th

field watersheds, 18 miles within riparian reserves and 6.2 miles in key watersheds, the latter in 

short spurs to dispersed recreation sites. Evidence of surface erosion was found on almost 13 

miles of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, 2.2 miles of which were in riparian reserves 

and none in key watersheds. Three routes with perennial stream crossings are proposed for 

addition to the NFTS.

Routes added to the NFTS would not recover in the short or long term. These routes would 

continue to intercept and concentrate precipitation and groundwater flow into surface runoff. 

However, almost 13 miles of routes in Humbug would receive improvement and maintenance 

(surface compaction, creation of drainage features, etc.) which should reduce the potential for 

traffic-related sediment. Vehicle traffic would continue displace soils and contribute to some 

level of erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Mitigations to reduce or eliminate erosion, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 253

including treatment of stream crossings, are displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this 

chapter.

Route densities would decrease more than 10% in 14 of the 17 watersheds on the east side of 

the KNF, and in 5 of 11 watersheds on the west side. The most dramatic decreases on the west 

side are in the Upper Humbug, Middle Humbug, Little Humbug, Lower Humbug and Clear Creek 

watersheds in that order. In the rest of the west side watersheds, there are few unauthorized routes 

and most of them are short spurs to dispersed recreation sites.

Five acres in Humbug would remain open to cross-country motorized travel in the Humbug 

open riding area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat open riding area. Effects would be the same as 

described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the additive effects of prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel on 1.2 million acres, adding 59 miles of unauthorized route to the NFTS, and 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will 

add 13 miles of ML 1 road, 26 miles of ML 2 road, and remove 50 miles of road from the NFTS 

(48 through decommissioning and 2 through conversion to a hiking trail). All but 1 mile of new 

open road (ML 2) are on the Goosenest Ranger District where hydrologic resources are of 

minimal concern. All the road removal will occur on the west side of the KNF. Cumulative 

effects for this alternative would result in a reduction in open route density by 10% or more in 19 

of the 28 analyzed watersheds. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions would 

reduce open road mileage by more than 10% in the one analyzed watershed on the west side. 

Increases in road density would occur in 8 east side watersheds due to ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, but the cumulative decrease in road density from the alternative and 

foreseeable actions would still be more than 10% in 6 of the 8 watersheds. There should be a 

decrease in fine sediment delivered to streams in all these watersheds. Positive hydrologic trends 

would be expected. Cumulative effects are summarized in Table H-5. Overall, effects are 

considered to be beneficial to water resources.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

The direct and indirect effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2, except they would apply to 423 miles of unauthorized routes (47 

miles within riparian reserves). 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

254 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative would add 74 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in analyzed 7th

field watersheds, 20 miles within riparian reserves and 6.7 miles in key watersheds, the latter in 

short spurs to dispersed recreation sites. Almost 13 miles of the added routes are in the Butte 

Valley National Grassland on the east side of the Forest, and thus will not affect hydrologic 

resources. Evidence of surface erosion was found on about 12 miles of routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS, 2.1 miles of which were in riparian reserves and none in key watersheds. 

One route with a perennial stream crossing is proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Routes added to the NFTS would not recover in the short or long term. These routes would 

continue to intercept and concentrate precipitation and groundwater flow into surface runoff. 

However, about 12 miles of routes in Humbug would receive improvement and maintenance 

(surface compaction, creation of drainage features, etc.) which should reduce the potential for 

traffic-related sediment. Vehicle traffic would continue displace soils and contribute to some 

level of erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Mitigations to reduce or eliminate erosion, 

including treatment of stream crossings, are displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this 

chapter.

Route densities would decrease more than 10% in 13 of the 17 watersheds on the east side of 

the KNF, and in 5 of 11 watersheds on the west side. The most dramatic decreases on the west 

side are in the Upper Humbug, Middle Humbug, Little Humbug, Lower Humbug and Clear Creek 

watersheds in that order. In the rest of the west side watersheds, there are few unauthorized routes 

and most of them are short spurs to dispersed recreation sites.

Five acres in Humbug would remain open to cross-country motorized travel in the Humbug 

open riding area and 48 acres in the Juniper Flat open riding areas. Effects would be the same as 

described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the additive effects of prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel on 1.2 million acres, adding 74 miles of unauthorized route to the NFTS, and 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will 

add 13 miles of ML 1 road, 26 miles of ML 2 road, and remove 50 miles of road from the NFTS 

(48 through decommissioning and 2 through conversion to a hiking trail). All but 1 mile of new 

open road (ML 2) are on the Goosenest Ranger District where hydrologic resources are of 

minimal concern. All the road removal will occur on the west side of the KNF. Cumulative 

effects for this alternative would result in a reduction in open route density by 10% or more in 18

of the 28 analyzed watersheds. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions would 

reduce open road mileage by more than 10% in the one analyzed watershed on the west side that 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 255

includes road removal. Increases in road density would occur in 8 east side watersheds due to 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions but the cumulative decrease in road density from the 

alternative and foreseeable actions would still be more than 10% in 6 of the 8 watersheds. There 

should be a decrease in fine sediment delivered to streams in all these watersheds. Positive 

hydrologic trends would be expected. Cumulative effects are summarized in Table H-5. Overall, 

effects are considered to be beneficial to water resources.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Each of the action alternatives would significantly reduce the overall effects of vehicle use on

established unauthorized routes due to the prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 3 has 

the greatest positive effect for water resources by prohibiting cross-country motorized travel and 

disallowing travel on at least 497 miles of unclassified routes. 

Differences in indicators between action alternatives, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are slight (Table H-4).

Alternative 4, however, proposes very few additional routes, and has impacts comparable to 

Alternative 3. Based on measurements of route miles added to the system, and the mileage of 

these routes within riparian reserves and key watersheds, the merits of the remaining alternatives 

with regards to water resources vary according to the indicator used. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

256 Klamath National Forest

Table H-3. Route density for watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS (densities include state, 

county, private, NFTS and open unauthorized routes)

7

th Field Watershed

Current 

Route 

Density 

(Alt. 1)

Route Density (miles/mile2)

2 3 4 5 6 7

Antelope Sink 3.48 1.94 1.86 1.86 2.06 2.06 2.06

Big Ferry-Swanson 2.37 2.37 2.28 2.28 2.37 2.37 2.37

Bray-Butte Creek 2.79 2.51 2.23 2.23 2.36 2.36 2.36

Buckhorn Creek 4.68 4.35 4.26 4.26 4.30 4.29 4.30

Clear Creek 2.57 1.84 1.41 1.41 1.44 1.44 1.44

Cole-Clauson 2.68 2.68 2.58 2.58 2.68 2.68 2.68

EF SF Salmon 

Headwaters

1.65 1.65 1.55 1.55 1.65 1.65 1.65

Garner Mountain 3.85 3.00 2.82 2.82 2.86 2.84 2.86

Haight Mountain 4.20 4.13 3.94 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08

Hill 22 3.40 2.99 2.52 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87

Kanaka-Olsen 1.61 1.61 1.51 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.61

Little Humbug Creek 3.52 2.51 2.50 2.59 2.59 2.51 2.59

Lower First Creek 4.92 2.84 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47

Lower Humbug 

Creek

2.59 1.99 1.99 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

Meiss Lake 2.17 1.91 1.87 1.88 1.88 1.88 2.00

M.F. Humbug Creek 4.59 3.12 2.21 2.42 2.83 2.83 2.80

Mud Lake 3.42 3.23 3.13 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18

Pollic Flat 3.09 2.74 2.68 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74

Shafter-Butte Creek 2.42 1.50 1.38 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Sharp Mountain 2.78 2.09 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69

Tamarack Flat 3.16 2.41 2.15 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23

Tennant-Antelope 

Cr.

4.31 3.77 3.53 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.85

Up. First Creek 4.96 4.38 4.32 4.32 4.33 4.33 4.33

Up. Humbug Creek 5.58 3.63 2.65 2.65 4.02 3.81 3.90

Up. Shovel Creek 3.57 2.89 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87

Van Bremmer Well 4.62 3.00 2.77 2.77 2.99 2.99 2.99

W. Red Rock Valley 1.74 1.71 1.61 1.61 1.71 1.71 1.71
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 257

Table H-4. Comparison of the alternatives on indicators

Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of routes in 

riparian reserves 67 23 0 0.3 21 18 20

Miles of routes in 

key watersheds 8.6 7.0 0 0 7.6 6.2 6.7

Miles of routes 

with existing 

surface erosion

in RRs 

2.5 1.6 0 0.3 2.3 2.2 2.1

Road density 

within 7th field 

watersheds

No Change 

or possible 

increase

Decreases 

in most

watersheds

Decreases

 in all 

watersheds

Decreases 

in most

watersheds

Decreases 

in most

watersheds

Decreases 

in most

watersheds

Decreases in most

watersheds

Table H-5. Changes in route density for analysis watersheds that have ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable road actions (changes due to travel management project plus ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions)

7

th Field 

Watershed

Ongoing RoadRelated Actions Resulting Road Density by Alternative

Additions 

to NFTS 

(Miles of 

open 

road)

Deletions 

from 

NFTS 

(Miles)

2 3 4 5 6 7

Antelope Sink 10.26 0 2.61 2.53 2.53 2.73 2.73 2.73

Buckhorn Creek 0.22 1.47 4.35 4.26 4.26 4.30 4.29 4.30

Garner Mountain 0.63 0 3.03 2.86 2.86 2.89 2.87 2.89

Lower First Cr. 0.07 0 2.85 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49

Pollic Flat 2.49 0 2.88 2.81 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88

Shafter-Butte Cr. 0.27 0 1.51 1.40 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43

TennantAntelope 3.06 0 4.01 3.77 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.85

Upper First Cr. 0.56 0 4.43 4.37 4.37 4.38 4.38 4.38

Van Bremmer 

Well 1.80 0 3.21 2.99 2.99 3.20 3.20 3.20

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

1. Clean Water Act

Compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act is achieved 

through implementation of the action plans for the Scott, Salmon, and draft Klamath River Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). All action alternatives in the Klamath Travel Management 

project would help to achieve TMDL requirements by reducing road density, reducing vehiclegenerated sediment, and reducing the potential for sediment delivery to streams by subjecting 

designated routes to improvement and maintenance of running surfaces. This project constitutes 

a control of sediment waste discharge as required under the Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S Forest Service. 

Clean Water Act compliance is also achieved by implementing the 1981 management agency 

agreement with the Water Board and the State of California. The agreement requires the Forest 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

258 Klamath National Forest

Service to institute a water quality management program to meet applicable water quality 

objectives and protect beneficial uses. Under the agreement, implementation of State-approved 

and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-certified Best Management Practices is considered 

sufficient to protect water quality. Applicable BMPs are identified in the document Klamath 

Travel BMPs located in the project files.

Activities on the Klamath National Forest are monitored regularly to confirm implementation 

and effectiveness of BMPs. Annual BMPEP monitoring reports are located in the project files and 

on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/index.shtml.

2. Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The LRMP contains the components, objectives and standards and guidelines for the ACS. Of 

the nine ACS objectives on pages 4-6 and 4-7 of the LRMP, the following are applicable to the 

travel management project:

Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, 

populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

The project would facilitate improvement of watershed and landscape-scale conditions by 

prohibiting travel on 80 percent or more of identified unauthorized roads and trails forest-wide. 

Those roads and trails brought into the system would receive systematic maintenance.

Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity between watersheds.

None of the alternatives change aquatic access between watersheds as there is not a significant 

change in flow, nor are barriers created. Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel may prevent 

some further impacts to spatial and temporal connectivity caused by unauthorized travel through 

wetted stream channels. 

Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland ecosystems.

This project is consistent with riparian reserve guidelines, which prohibit and regulate activities in 

the riparian reserves that may prevent or retard attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

Water quality is expected to improve from pre-project conditions, both forest-wide and by 

individual watershed. Maintenance of water quality would be achieved by minimizing sediment

delivery to stream courses through road improvement actions and prohibiting cross country 

travel. Wetlands would be avoided.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hydrology Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 259

Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the regime include the timing, volume, rate and character of sediment input, 

storage, and transport.

With cross-country travel prohibited in general and specific effects on up to 497 miles of 

unauthorized roads, some Forest-wide reduction in the load of fine sediments reaching streams is 

expected. 

Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland habitats, and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be 

protected.

In many 7th field watersheds, reduction of route density may also result in detectable changes in 

peak flow timing and volume with concomitant reductions in sediment for reasons stated in the 

body of the report. 

Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows. 

Any changes in peak flow and timing would be most probably occur on small peaks associated 

with early season (fall) storm events that are not typically of sufficient volume and duration to 

affect floodplains.

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities 

in riparian areas.

Species composition of plant communities in riparian areas would be maintained since 

construction of new roads is not proposed. Prohibiting cross country travel may prevent further 

impacts to plant communities. 

Maintain and restore habitat to support well distributed populations of native plant and 

invertebrate riparian dependent species.

The action alternatives would prohibit cross-country motorized travel and would not construct 

new roads; therefore, populations of native plant and invertebrate riparian-dependent species 

would be protected from crushing and loss of habitat due to unmanaged vehicle use. Action 

alternatives would result in long-term benefits from habitat recovery on routes that are not 

designated.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hydrology

260 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 261

Fisheries

Introduction

Management of aquatic dependent species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 

1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability of Forest Service sensitive species. Management decisions related to motor vehicle 

travel can affect aquatic species by increasing human-caused mortality, causing changes in 

behavior, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest 

Service 2000).. The following analysis relates only to fish species and habitat; aquatic species 

other than fish are discussed in the Terrestrial Wildlife section of this chapter

It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, 

and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for public motor vehicle use 

on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to motor vehicle 

travel on NFS lands must consider effects to fish and their habitat. For purposes of this 

discussion, the term ―fish‖ is used to include species as well as habitat. Habitat is considered to 

include both the stream environment and the associated riparian habitat.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) states that each Federal agency 

shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the 

responsible federal agency to consult the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning 

threatened or endangered fish species under their jurisdiction. There are three fish species 

that are listed under the Endangered Species Act on the KNF: Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coastal (SONCC) Coho Salmon, Short Nose Sucker, and the Lost River Sucker. In 

October 2006, Region 5 developed route designation project design criteria for threatened 

and endangered species and critical habitat to achieve ―no effect‖ or ―may affect not 

likely to adversely affect‖ determinations on a programmatic level. The Klamath National 

Forest was included in the programmatic consultation completed with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on December 27, 2006, whereby the Service concurred that by following 

the criteria described, route designation activities would have no adverse affects. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

262 Klamath National Forest

Forest Service Manual 2670 provides direction regarding Forest Service sensitive species 

(FSS), which have been identified by the Regional Forester as species 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. The FSS species on the KNF are Upper Klamath -Trinity 

Rivers (UKT) Chinook salmon and Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead trout. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to FSS species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented 

in the project‘s Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (Fish BA/BE) and is 

summarized and referenced in this section and available in the project record located at the KNF 

Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA.

The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identified the following 

relevant management standards and guidelines for fisheries resources:

6-32 In fish-bearing streams, design new road crossings to maintain a 

natural stream bottom. Existing low water crossings should be 

evaluated for impacts on aquatic resources and re-configured as 

appropriate.

MA10-19 Manage for high quality anadromous fish habitat to meet the 

following conditions: less than 15% of the stream bottom is 

composed of fine sediment and less than 20% of stream riffles are 

embedded (3rd to 5th order streams).

MA10-20 Avoid activities at critical periods that would prevent attainment of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. Of particular concern are critical low flow 

periods; when warm water temperatures may result in adverse effects to fish; and 

during periods of migration, spawning or egg incubation. Discourage activities that 

may result in disturbance by managing road and trail access through cooperative 

measures with CDFG [California Department of Fish and Game] and sharing 

information with the public.

MA10-22 New recreational facilities within RRs, including trails and dispersed sites, should be 

designed to not prevent meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. 

Construction of these facilities should not prevent future attainment of these 

objectives. For existing recreation facilities within RRs, evaluate and mitigate 

impact to ensure that these do not prevent and, to the extent practicable, contribute to 

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 263

MA10-23 Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment 

of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Where adjustment measures such as 

education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation 

of facilities and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or 

occupancy.

MA10-45 Minimize sediment delivery to streams from roads. Road design measures may 

include minimum impact location, appropriate road surfacing, armoring of ditchlines, controlled compaction of fills, outsloping of roads, mechanical and vegetative 

slope protection, wet weather traffic control, annual maintenance and inspection. 

Outsloping of the road surface is preferred, except in cases where outsloping would 

increase sediment delivery to streams or where outsloping is unfeasible or unsafe. 

Route road drainage away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hillslopes.

MA10-46 Provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fishbearing streams. Construct stream crossings to not divert streamflow out of the 

channel and down the road alignment. 

LRMP standards and guidelines related to water quality are displayed in the Hydrology 

section of this chapter.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Streams and rivers on the Klamath National Forest support habitat for one threatened or 

endangered species of fish: SONCC coho salmon; two sensitive species: UKT Chinook salmon 

and KMP steelhead trout (also a management indicator species); and one additional management 

indicator species of fish: rainbow trout. The KNF is within the range of two other federally 

endangered species (shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker) but does not provide habitat for 

either species, and the travel management project area is outside the range of both species. Project 

design criteria for both sucker species from the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) 

Programmatic BA/BE for Travel Management were applied and documentation is filed in the 

project record located at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA. The project will have no 

effect to either sucker species or their habitat; therefore these two species are not addressed 

further in this document. On January 16, 2010, National Marine Fisheries Service agreed that a 

preliminary “may affect not likely to adversely affect” (MANLAA) effects determination is 

warranted for the proposed action and preferred alternative for SONCC Coho Salmon.

Riparian Reserves, used for assessing potential effects to fish, are portions of watersheds 

where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and 

guidelines apply. Standards and guidelines prohibit and regulate activities in RRs that retard or 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

264 Klamath National Forest

prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Riparian reserves are 

important because they include the habitat fish need and use, in whole or in part. 

Stream crossings that were included in action alternatives were initially identified through 

GIS mapping, validated through aerial photography, and those that were associated with 

Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were field reviewed to verify (1) whether the route actually crossed 

the channel, (2) whether the channel carried water on a perennial or intermittent basis or was an 

ephemeral stream, and (3) whether the stream crossing had the potential to affect aquatic habitat. 

Assumptions Specific to the Fisheries Analysis

All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect on aquatic dependent 

species.

Habitat is being affected to some degree by the cross-country motorized travel. Where 

motorized use is prohibited, riparian habitats will improve over the long term due to passive 

restoration and revegetation.

The density of routes at the watershed scale will not be substantially changed in the short 

term as a result of any of the action alternatives because of the time required for passive 

restoration (self-decommissioning) of routes. 

The effect of roads on fish habitat is related to the amount of sediment movement from road 

surfaces to water resources, and is highly variable within and among surface types. Sediment 

movement is related to levels of maintenance, road drainage, and amount of use of the road.

Routes without hydrologic connectivity to streams will not influence sedimentation rates and 

will have no effect on water quality and, therefore, no effect on fisheries.

Routes outside of riparian reserves will not influence the aquatic environment, or will not 

have negative impacts on fish or their habitat.

Motor vehicle use on the Klamath National Forest is very low. It is unlikely that effects of 

road use will be measurable or discernable from the multiple natural and human-induced 

changes that occur over the landscape on the KNF. 

Data Sources

GIS layers of the following information: routes; anadromous and resident fish habitat; and 

RRs.

Site-specific surveys/assessment of any localized sensitive aquatic habitats with routes 

proposed to be added to the NFTS (e.g., wet meadows, stream crossings, and RRs).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 265

Indicators

Road density by 7th field watershed.

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

within RRs (action alternatives). 

Acres of RRs with unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or with proposed additions to the 

NFTS (action alternatives).

Miles of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS within known or historically occupied 

habitats of threatened, endangered, sensitive (TES) or management indicator species (MIS). 

Habitat Indicators for fish habitat are:

Risk of Sediment Delivery – measured by in-channel embeddedness

Stream Temperature

Migration barriers

Fisheries Resource 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: Seventh field watersheds with TES and MIS fish habitat that include 

unauthorized routes. 

Indicators: All but one of the indicators were used (miles of routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS within known or historically occupied habitats of TES or MIS fish species does not make 

sense for this action).

Methodology: GIS analysis and field assessment of unauthorized routes in relation to fish habitat 

and RRs were used to evaluate all project elements and effects of project elements to the 

indicators.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

266 Klamath National Forest

Spatial boundary: Seventh field watersheds with TES and MIS fish habitat that include 

unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

Indicators: All indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis and field assessment of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to 

the NFTS in relation to fish habitat and RRs were used to evaluate all project elements and effects 

of project elements to the indicators.

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS 

Changes in the type of vehicles using roads will not affect fisheries resources; therefore, this 

action will not be addressed further in this section.

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: Seventh field watersheds with TES and MIS fish habitat.

Indicators: All indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of ongoing and foreseeable actions added to the effects of each 

alternative.

A number of different management activities have the potential to affect fish habitat. However, 

road-related activities (construction or decommissioning) generate impacts to soils and riparian 

areas that could result in changes to sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable road-related actions that may affect the three TES anadromous fish 

species and the MIS are addressed in the cumulative effects section of this analysis. 

Affected Environment

One Threatened species of fish (SONCC coho salmon), two FSS species (UKT Chinook salmon 

and KMP Steelhead trout), and both management indicator species (MIS) will be addressed here. 

The SONCC coho salmon, UKT Chinook salmon, and KMP Steelhead trout and their habitats on 

the KNF are described in detail in the Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation (Fish 

BA/BE). Rainbow trout are discussed in the KNF Motorized Travel Management MIS Report. 

Both are hereby incorporated by reference and can be found in the project record located in the 

Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 267

The ranges of fish species overlap with one another. Therefore, the miles of fish habitat (and 

miles of unauthorized routes within habitat) shown for each species can include the ranges (and 

miles) of other fish species. The range for the rainbow trout is the most extensive because trout 

occupy habitat above barriers (such as waterfalls and some culverts) that prevent the movement 

of anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead). The miles of fish habitat, and routes within this 

habitat, cannot be added to one another as one is a subset of another. Anadromous fish species 

exist only on the west side of the KNF while rainbow trout species and habitat exist on both the 

east and west sides of the Forest. Table F-1 displays the miles of unauthorized routes within the 

known or historically occupied habitat on the KNF.

Table F-1. KNF threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species of fish

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Miles of unauthorized 

routes within known or 

historically-occupied 

fish habitat

SONCC Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Federally Threatened 14.6

UKT Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha Forest Sensitive 10.4

KMP Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Forest Sensitive, MIS 14.7

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss MIS 38.1

(14.7 east, 23.4 west)

The Klamath National Forest covers an area of 1.7 million acres located in Siskiyou County, 

Northern California and Jackson County, Oregon. Effects from dam construction, catastrophic 

floods, natural landslides and fires, over-harvest of fish, and human activities on the landscape 

including timber harvest, off-road travel, flow management, mining, and domestic livestock 

grazing have affected habitat quality and population levels of fish. Because 1.2 million acres of 

the KNF are currently open for off-road use, unmanaged motorized vehicle use has resulted in 

unplanned, unauthorized routes throughout the Forest, most located on the flatter terrain of the 

east side of the Forest. There are a total of four hundred nine 7th field watersheds on the KNF, 

330 on the west side and 79 of the east side. All of the east side watersheds and 285 of the 7th

field watersheds on the west side include unauthorized routes. Because of the importance of 

anadromous fish and associated habitat, most emphasis in the following discussion is on the west 

side. Rainbow trout habitat will be discussed separately for the east side of the KNF (Goosenest 

Ranger District). 

Key watersheds identified by the KNF LRMP exist only on the west side and include the 

following 5th field watersheds: Clear Creek, Elk Creek, Dillon Creek, Grider Creek, Wooley 

Creek, Main Salmon, North Fork Salmon River, Lower South Fork Salmon River, and Upper 

South Fork Salmon River (USDA Forest Service 1995). Within these 5

th field Key Watersheds 

are one hundred thirty three 7th field watersheds. Relatively few miles of unauthorized routes 

exist in these watersheds; 4 of the 9 key watersheds are partially or wholly within wilderness. 

There are no miles of unauthorized routes within the known or historically occupied fish habitat 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

268 Klamath National Forest

for threatened, endangered or sensitive fish species in these key watersheds. Some alternatives 

propose to add a small number of miles of unauthorized routes to dispersed recreation sites to the 

NFTS, especially in the Kanaka-Olsen and East Fork South Fork Salmon Headwaters 7th field 

watersheds, but not within known or historically occupied fish habitat for TES or MIS fish, so 

Key watersheds are not addressed further in this document.

About 60 miles of unauthorized routes are located within RRs on the west side of the KNF, 

and 7 miles on the east side. While these routes are within RRs, most are not immediately 

adjacent to the stream channel. Other than at crossings, riparian vegetation separates the route 

from the stream, providing a buffer to movement of sediment into the channel. The DEIS 

identified 29 stream channel crossings associated with unauthorized routes based on GIS data. 

Photographic and field-based review of the crossings on routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

found that less than 1⁄2 of them actually were stream crossings. Field-verified numbers of 

crossings are used in the FEIS analysis.

Some alternatives propose to add an access route that leads to a dispersed recreation site in 

the Long John Creek 7

th field watershed, which supports anadromous fish habitat. The route

proposed to be added is very short (0.06 miles), is located in the upper elevations of the 

watershed away from perennial streams, and does not affect riparian vegetation, TES fish, MIS 

fish or their habitat. This watershed is not addressed further in this document. 

There are five 7th field watersheds on the west side of the KNF where the proposed action or 

alternatives may affect TES or MIS fish and their habitat. Upper Humbug, Middle Fork Humbug, 

and Lower Humbug have anadromous fish habitat located adjacent to or immediately downstream 

(0.0 to 0.3 miles) of unauthorized routes being proposed for addition to the NFTS in one or more 

action alternatives. Little Humbug Creek and Buckhorn Creek have anadromous fish habitat 

located 0.75 miles downstream from unauthorized routes being proposed for addition to the 

NFTS in one or more action alternatives. The routes proposed to be added In Little Humbug and 

Buckhorn are very short, are located in the upper elevations of the watershed away from perennial 

streams, and do not affect riparian vegetation, anadromous fish or their habitat.

 These watersheds all exhibit varying amounts of checkerboard ownership, with interspersed 

federal and private land. Past disturbances include wildfire, timber harvest (with associated 

roads), mining, and grazing. The watersheds in the Humbug area in particular have sustained a 

great deal of human modification, and have granitic soils that have high erosion ratings (see 

discussion in the Soils section). Effects from past activities are reflected in the current condition 

descriptions. Most stream channels are stable or in the process of stabilizing. The upper portions 

of these watersheds are primarily in public ownership and generally exhibit low to moderate 

levels of disturbance. The lower portions exhibit a high level of disturbance due to vegetation 

management activities conducted on large parcels of private lands. The watersheds are used for a 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 269

variety of recreation activities, primarily sightseeing and camping. Motorized access to sites for 

these activities is important and the watersheds also get some use by off-highway vehicles

(OHVs). Most OHV use on the west side is limited by topography to NFTS roads. 

 Stream temperatures and riparian reserves are considered to be ―At Risk‖ in the lower 

elevations of the five watersheds due to reduced amounts of riparian vegetation along the stream 

channels located on private land. The fine silt and sand found in many of the lower stream 

reaches indicates that suspended sediment has been high in recent years. Some embeddedness is 

evident but it is not severe. The analysis area tributaries undergo a few days of turbidity after 

thunderstorms. Watershed-specific conditions are provided below.

Upper Humbug Creek: Embeddedness is high and above the maximum desired level of 20 

percent as defined in the Forest Plan. The high levels of embeddedness are likely due to the large 

amounts of silt and sand present in the upper portions of this watershed. The mainstem channel 

banks are generally stable and well vegetated. The riparian reserves are considered properly 

functioning. Stream temperature is considered properly functioning. 

Middle Fork Humbug Creek: Embeddedness is moderate and above the maximum desired 

level of 20 percent as defined in the Forest Plan. The mainstem channel banks are generally stable 

and well vegetated. The riparian reserves are considered properly functioning. Stream 

temperature is considered properly functioning. 

Lower Humbug Creek: Embeddedness is moderate and above the maximum desired level 

of 20 percent as defined in the Forest Plan. The moderate levels of embeddedness are likely due 

to the large amounts of silt and sand present in the upper portions of this watershed. The 

mainstem channel banks are generally stable and well vegetated. The riparian reserves are 

considered properly functioning on federal land and at risk on private land. Stream temperature is 

considered properly functioning. Concerns regarding current soil conditions, drainage issues, and 

effects from past activities in this watershed are outlined in the Geologic and Soil Resources 

sections. 

Little Humbug Creek: The riparian reserves are considered at risk primarily due to 

vegetation impacts from past fire and mining activities. No stream temperature data or stream 

survey data are available. 

Buckhorn Creek: The reaches vary in stability due to some unstable slopes adjacent to the 

channel. There are less fines in tributaries further upstream, reflecting a smaller number of 

upstream road crossings higher in the drainage, however fine sediment is still evident. 

Embeddedness is moderate but above the maximum desired level of 20 percent as defined in the 

LRMP. Riparian reserves are considered to be properly functioning on federal land at risk on 

private land.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

270 Klamath National Forest

Table F-2 displays current conditions in the 5 watersheds by indicator. 

Table F-2. Fisheries Indicators for all alternatives – current situation

7

th Field 

Watershed

Indicator

Road Densitymi/sq mi

Sediment 

(Measured by 

Embeddedness)

Stream 

Temperature

(in Celsius)

Man-made 

Barriers to 

Anadromous 

fish migration

NFTS, state,

county, and 

private roads

All open 

roads and 

routes 

(includes 

unauthorized 

routes)

Upper Humbug 

Creek 2.65 5.58 48% 16.0 None

Lower Humbug 

Creek 1.99 2.59 32% 17.9

Possibly on 

private land 

(SONCC coho 

salmon).

Little 

Humbug Creek 2.50 3.52 No data No data None

Buckhorn Creek 4.34 4.68 38% 16.2 None

Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek 2.21 4.59 27% 16.9 None

Environmental Consequences

Direct effects for this project could occur where vehicles drive through a stream crossing that is 

occupied by TES or MIS fish species. Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to 

habitat can affect aquatic species through mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification (Moyle 

and Randall 1996; Trombulek and Frissell 2000; USDA Forest Service 2000). Susceptibility to 

direct effects is dependent on the life history stage of the fish species present. For example, eggs 

of resident and anadromous fish species in redds are more susceptible to direct effects because 

they cannot move, whereas the juvenile and adult stages of resident and anadromous fish species 

can move. 

Indirect effects for this project include changes in fish habitat over time as evaluated by the 

indicators. The primary impact to stream systems, and consequentially the species that inhabit 

them, is from sediment moving into the water from native-surfaced roads. While many routes are 

hardened and self-maintaining, some are located in highly erodible soils or are subject to drainage 

problems. This can lead to increased amounts of water being captured and, if there is hydrologic 

connectivity, diverted into streams. Turbidity resulting from sediment movement into streams can 

negatively affect fisheries resources, including invertebrates and fish (Sigler et al., 1984). The use 

of unauthorized routes in and near watercourses can alter hydrologic function and contribute to 

increased sedimentation in streams. If motor vehicles are in direct contact with waterways (such 

as at stream crossings) impacts of use may include breaking down and erosion from stream banks 

and, therefore, increased sediment delivery to watercourses. Increased sedimentation and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 271

turbidity may increase the metabolic rate, respiration, and oxygen demands of fish and 

amphibians (Jennings 1996). 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

Direct effects may be occurring to the young life stages of anadromous fish and resident rainbow 

trout from vehicle movement through stream channels. These effects could increase if the 

number of stream crossings increases due to the creation of new unauthorized routes. The actual 

extent to which fish could be affected in the long term under the no action alternative cannot be 

quantitatively assessed because of the unknown potential for expansion of the unauthorized route 

system. 

Road density

Road densities will remain at current levels in the short term, but could or increase if new 

unauthorized routes are created.

Riparian Reserves

Vehicles operating within RRs can directly affect the riparian vegetation by damaging plants (if 

vehicles are off a designated route) or disturbing or removing soil, thereby inhibiting plant

growth. Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within 

riparian reserves would continue and could increase due to new routes being created in riparian 

reserves. The effects of this action would be similar for all alternatives, but the intensity would 

be different depending on the extent of the impact, related to the density of routes within a 

defined area. Impacts include loss or reduction of habitat for terrestrial insects that fish eat, loss or 

reduction of stream shade, and reduction in thermal buffering in the riparian area. 

The 67 miles (134 acres) of existing unauthorized routes within riparian reserves will 

continue to receive use and would not be expected to recover in the short or long term. Miles of 

unauthorized routes in RRs and affected acres could increase due to new routes being created 

from cross-country motor travel.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

At least 14.6 miles of open unauthorized routes will continue to affect habitat for SONCC coho 

salmon, 10.4 miles for UKT Chinook salmon, and 14.7 miles for KMP steelhead. Habitat for 

rainbow trout on the west side would continue to be affected by vehicle use on 23.4 miles of 

unauthorized routes on the west side of the KNF and 14.7 miles on the east side.

Sediment
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

272 Klamath National Forest

Fine grained sediments from road crossings and dust particles from nearby roads can settle in a 

stream and lodge in interstitial spaces between larger substrate, filling in the areas inhabited by 

stream dwelling insects, and thereby reducing the available food for trout and other fish. The 

plugging of these spaces also inhibits the flow of water through the substrate, inhibiting the 

oxygenating and cleansing properties of flowing water that enables fish eggs and alevin to 

develop. This condition would reduce the amount of habitat available to fish for reproduction, and 

could reduce the number of fish in the stream.

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian 

vegetation. Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish for 

this project have been determined to be properly functioning, and act as buffers to any sediment

generated by vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 

4 fish species. However, unmanaged off-road travel on routes located in highly erodible soils that

have drainage problems have a high likelihood of contributing sediment to stream channels. New 

routes and stream crossings could be created that would also deliver sediment stream channels. 

None of the new or existing routes, or the 14 stream crossings on those routes, would recover 

vegetatively, and sediment delivery to stream channels from these routes would continue. 

Embeddedness would remain at existing levels, or possibly increase if new routes and crossings 

are created.

There are no sedimentation issues for routes on the east side of the Forest, so there would be 

no sediment impacts to resident trout on the Goosenest District. 

Stream Temperature

Removal of riparian vegetation could negatively affect stream shading. Most of the unauthorized 

routes are not immediately adjacent to streams, and do not currently affect shading. Effects to

stream temperature from any newly-created routes would be expected to be minimal due to the 

low-growing nature of vegetation that could be affected by vehicles. 

Barriers 

New barriers to fish migration could result due to new unauthorized routes being established in 

stream channels. As channels are widened, streamflow is spread out andwater depths could 

become insufficient for fish passage. This could adversely affect the three anadromous fish 

species and MIS fish species.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Alternative 1 does not add roads, trails, or open riding areas to the NFTS. There are no direct or 

indirect effects to the four fish species from this action.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 273

Cumulative Effects

For this alternative, cumulative effects are the effects of cross-country motorized travel and use of 

497 miles of unauthorized routes, added to the effects from ongoing and foreseeable actions listed 

in Appendix B. Construction of 1 mile of new ML 2 road and 1.8 miles of ML 1 road, and 

removal of 50 miles of road from the NFTS (48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles 

through conversion to a hiking trail) are proposed for the west side of the Forest, where 

anadromous fish and most rainbow trout habitat occurs, for a net reduction of 49 miles of ML 2 

road. The effects of these projects to water quality are analyzed in the environmental analysis and 

disclosure for each project. In the long term, there will be some benefit from decommissioning 48

miles of road; however, the beneficial effects of these ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would be counterbalanced by the potentially adverse effects of continued use of unauthorized 

routes, and continued cross-country travel by motorized vehicles. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.

Road density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes 

exist, including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish. 

Riparian reserves

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged offroad vehicle use would be reduced on 44 miles of unauthorized routes where cross-country motor 

travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 88 acres in riparian reserves will slowly 

decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would be removed from 7.4 miles of unauthorized routes within SONCC coho 

salmon habitat, 4 miles in UKT Chinook salmon habitat, 5.9 miles in KMP steelhead trout 

habitat, and 11.7 miles in rainbow trout habitat. There would be no new unauthorized routes 

created, and the unauthorized routes within anadromous fish and rainbow trout habitat should 

slowly recover in the long term through passive restoration once motorized vehicle use ceases.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

274 Klamath National Forest

Sediment

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from 44 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves 

will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 12 stream crossings. Sediment delivery 

from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream crossings would 

be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as sediment input 

declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on 44 miles (88 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these routes are 

not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on stream 

shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers

No new barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Direct effects would involve crushing of fish or eggs at stream crossings accessible by vehicles, 

although most fish can evade tires at crossings. This alternative proposes two crossings in Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, which are upstream of coho salmon habitat but within habitat for steelhead 

and rainbow trout. No spawning habitat is present at either crossing so no direct effects to 

anadromous fish or resident rainbow trout redds or eggs are expected. Effects are considered to 

be insignificant for fish. These sites have been evaluated by fisheries biologists for both the 

Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and effects are addressed in the BA/BE.

Sediment

Effects to sediment are expected to be insignificant in the short term and beneficial in the long 

term for the following reasons:

Two perennial stream crossings (one in the Humbug drainage and one in Long John 

Creek) would be rocked to reduce the potential for sedimentation.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 275

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian 

vegetation. Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous 

fish have been determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any 

sediment generated by vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically 

occupied habitat the 4 fish species.

The contribution to sediment loading from these routes is considered insignificant, and is 

immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Routes within riparian reserves that are added to the NFTS will receive maintenance as 

needed to ensure that they do not contribute sediment to adjacent streams.

Field review of the Humbug area has resulted in site-specific mitigations that will be 

completed prior to the area being open for public use. About 9 miles of routes in Humbug would 

be improved, and mitigations include construction of drainage features, surface blading, and 

signing to encourage riders to remain on the established trails. These measures will reduce the 

amount of sedimentation from these routes over the long term. Mitigation measures are displayed 

in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Sixty-five acres of open riding area (60 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres in the Humbug open 

riding area), in which cross-country motorized travel would not be prohibited, would be available 

for use. The watersheds on which Juniper Flat is situated do not have perennial water and do not 

drain into fish-bearing streams; there will be no impact on fish or fish habitat from this open 

riding area. The Humbug open riding area is adjacent to an NFTS road, and consists of hills that 

drain into a large flat that lies below the level of the road. There is no riparian vegetation within 

the riding area. Although this area is within a riparian reserve, it is not hydrologically connected 

to a stream. Continued use of this area by OHVs should not affect anadromous fish, resident 

rainbow trout or their habitat. 

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would continue on 7.2 miles of existing routes within SONCC habitat, 6.4 miles in 

UKT habitat, 8.8 miles in steelhead habitat, and 11.7 miles in rainbow trout habitat. The effects 

on fish habitat of continued motorized use of these routes is considered to be insignificant. The 

routes are distributed over numerous watersheds; their cumulative contribution to sediment

loading would be immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Riparian reserves/Stream temperature

This alternative designates 23 miles of roads (46 acres) within riparian reserves, most of which 

are not immediately adjacent to the stream channel. They are primarily short, rough-graded spurs 

from which vegetation has already been removed. Regrowth of vegetation on these routes would 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

276 Klamath National Forest

not provide a significant contribution to stream shading, so there will be a neutral effect to stream 

temperature and an insignificant effect to riparian reserves.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created. The two existing stream crossings in the Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek drainage are not currently barriers to fish migration, and the rocking work 

will be done so that fish passage is not hindered. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres and 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, added to the effects from the ongoing and 

foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). 

This project would add 92 miles of routes to the NFTS; ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions would add 13 miles of ML 1 roads and 26 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails to the

NFTS, and remove 50 miles of road (48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through 

conversion to a hiking trail). ML 1 roads will be closed to motorized vehicle traffic and, thus, 

should not produce effects on fish habitat. These activities would result in a net increase of about 

68 miles of open road forest-wide. However, most of the increase will occur on the east side of 

the Forest. On the west side of the Forest, where anadromous fish habitat occurs, the 

combination of this alternative and ongoing and foreseeable projects results in the addition of 

about 40 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails, and removal of 50 miles of roads from the 

NFTS, a net decrease of about 10 miles. Effects will be dispersed across 86 watersheds on the 

west side and 48 on the east side; effects will not be measurable at the watershed scale. There will 

be a substantial benefit from removing vehicle use from 1.2 million acres of lands. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.

Road density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes exist 

(including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish (Table F-4). 

Riparian reserves
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 277

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged 

off-road vehicle use would be reduced on 67 miles of unauthorized routes where cross-country 

motor travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 134 acres in riparian reserves will 

slowly decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian 

conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would be removed from 14.6 miles of unauthorized routes within SONCC coho 

salmon habitat, 10.4 miles in UKT Chinook salmon habitat, 14.7 miles in KMP steelhead trout 

habitat, and 23.4 miles in rainbow trout habitat. There would be no new unauthorized routes 

created, and the unauthorized routes within anadromous fish and rainbow trout habitat should 

slowly recover in the long term through passive restoration once motorized vehicle use ceases.

Sediment

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from 67 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves 

will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 14 stream crossings. Sediment delivery 

from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream crossings would 

be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as sediment input 

declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on 67 miles (134 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these routes 

are not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on stream 

shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No facilities would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

278 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

This alternative does not add mileage to the NFTS; therefore, cumulative effects of this project 

are the added effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres and the 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions. Effects of the prohibition are described above.

On the west side of the Forest, where anadromous fish habitat occurs, ongoing and 

foreseeable projects include construction of 1 mile of ML 2 road and 1.8 miles of ML 1 road, and 

removal of 50 miles of road from the NFTS, a net reduction of 49 miles of ML 2 road. ML 1 

roads will be closed to motorized vehicle traffic and, thus, should not produce effects on fish 

habitat. The effects from the ongoing and foreseeable road-related projects will be beneficial to 

anadromous fish, resident rainbow trout and their habitat. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.

Road density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes 

exist, including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish (Table F-4). 

Riparian Reserves

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged offroad vehicle use would be reduced on almost 67 miles of unauthorized routes where crosscountry motor travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 133 acres in riparian reserves 

will slowly decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian 

conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would be removed from 14.6 miles of unauthorized routes within SONCC coho 

salmon habitat, 10.4 miles in UKT Chinook salmon habitat, 14.5 miles in KMP steelhead trout 

habitat, and 23.2 miles in rainbow trout habitat. There would be no new unauthorized routes 

created, and the unauthorized routes within anadromous fish and rainbow trout habitat should 

slowly recover in the long term through passive restoration once motorized vehicle use ceases.

Sediment
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 279

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from almost 67 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian 

reserves will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 13 stream crossings. Sediment 

delivery from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream 

crossings would be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as 

sediment input declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on almost 67 miles (133 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these 

routes are not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on 

stream shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers 

No new barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Direct effects would involve crushing of fish or eggs at stream crossings accessible by vehicles, 

although most fish can evade tires at crossings. This alternative proposes one crossing in Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, upstream of coho salmon habitat but within habitat for steelhead and 

rainbow trout. No spawning habitat is present at the crossing so no direct effects to anadromous 

fish or resident rainbow trout redds or eggs are expected. The site has been evaluated by fisheries 

biologists for both the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and effects are 

addressed in the BA/BE. Effects are considered to be insignificant for fish. 

Sediment

Effects to sediment are expected to be insignificant in the short term and beneficial in the long 

term for the following reasons:

One perennial stream crossing in the Humbug drainage would be rocked to reduce the 

potential for sedimentation.

Two proposed routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by 

riparian vegetation, which will serve as a buffer to any sediment generated by vehicle travel.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

280 Klamath National Forest

The contribution to sediment loading from these routes is considered insignificant, and is 

immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Routes within riparian reserves that are added to the NFTS will receive maintenance as 

needed to ensure that they do not contribute sediment to adjacent streams.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat 

Only 0.2 mile of unauthorized routes within KMP steelhead trout habitat would still be available 

for motorized use. The effects of this small amount of use would not be measurable at the 

watershed scale.

Riparian Reserves/Stream Temperature 

This alternative includes the addition of 2 routes (0.4 mile, <1 acre) to the NFTS within riparian 

reserves. One is a river access point on the Klamath River, the other is a short route with a stream 

crossing on Middle Fork Humbug Creek upstream from coho salmon habitat but within resident 

rainbow trout and steelhead habitat. This site has been evaluated by fisheries biologists for both 

the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and effects are addressed in the 

BA/BE. Regrowth of vegetation on these routes would not provide a significant contribution to 

stream shading, so there will be a neutral effect to stream temperature and an insignificant effect 

to riparian reserves.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created. The existing stream crossing in the Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek drainage is not a barrier to fish migration, and the rocking work will be done so 

that fish passage is not hindered. 

Cumulative effects

Less than one mile of route on the west side of the KNF (where anadromous fish habitat occurs) 

would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. In combination with the 1 mile of ML 2 road 

and 1.8 miles of ML 1 road added by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, and the 50 

miles of NFTS road removed by such actions, the cumulative effects of this alternative would be 

beneficial to fish. The differences between Alternative 4 and Alternative 3 are miniscule and 

cumulative effects are considered to be essentially the same as those described for Alternative 3. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 281

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.

Road Density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes 

exist, including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish (Table F-4). 

Riparian Reserves

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged offroad vehicle use would be reduced on 46 miles of unauthorized routes where cross-country motor 

travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 92 acres in riparian reserves will slowly 

decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

This alternative would eliminate motorized use on 11.0 miles of unauthorized routes within 

SONCC habitat, 9.1 miles of unauthorized routes within UKT habitat, 12.4 miles of unauthorized 

routes within KMP steelhead habitat, and 14.2 miles of unauthorized routes within rainbow trout 

habitat. There would be no new unauthorized routes created, and the unauthorized routes within 

anadromous fish and rainbow trout habitat should slowly recover in the long term through passive 

restoration once motorized vehicle use ceases.

Sediment

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from 46 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves 

will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 11 stream crossings. Sediment delivery 

from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream crossings would 

be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as sediment input 

declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

282 Klamath National Forest

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on 46 miles (92 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these routes are 

not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on stream 

shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers

No new barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Direct effects would involve crushing of fish or eggs at stream crossings accessible by vehicles, 

although most fish can evade tires at crossings. This alternative proposes two crossings in Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, which are upstream of coho salmon habitat but within habitat for steelhead 

and rainbow trout. No spawning habitat is present at either crossing so no direct effects to 

anadromous fish or resident rainbow trout redds or eggs are expected. Effects are considered to 

be insignificant for fish. These sites have been evaluated by fisheries biologists for both the 

Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and effects are addressed in the BA/BE.

Sediment

Effects to sediment are expected to be insignificant in the short term and beneficial in the long 

term for the following reasons:

The three perennial stream crossings (two in the Humbug drainage and one in Long John 

Creek) would be rocked to reduce the potential for sedimentation.

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian 

vegetation. Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous 

fish have been determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment

generated by vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat the 

4 fish species.

The contribution to sediment loading from these routes is considered insignificant, and is 

immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Routes within riparian reserves that are added to the NFTS will receive maintenance as 

needed to ensure that they do not contribute sediment to adjacent streams.

Field review of the Humbug area has resulted in site-specific mitigations that will be 

completed prior to the area being open for public use. About 14 miles of routes in Humbug 

would be improved, and mitigations include construction of drainage features, surface blading, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 283

and signing to encourage riders to remain on the established trails. These measures will reduce 

the amount of sedimentation from these routes over the long term. Mitigation measures are

displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 acres at Juniper Flat and 5 acres in the Humbug open 

riding area), in which cross-country motorized travel would not be prohibited, would be available 

for use. The watersheds on which Juniper Flat is situated do not have perennial water and do not 

drain into fish-bearing streams; there will be no impact on fish or fish habitat from this open 

riding area. The Humbug open riding area is adjacent to an NFTS road, and consists of hills that 

drain into a large flat that lies below the level of the road. There is no riparian vegetation within 

the riding area. Although this area is within a riparian reserve, it is not hydrologically connected 

to a stream. Continued use of this area by OHVs should not affect anadromous fish, resident 

rainbow trout or their habitat. 

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would continue on 3.6 miles of existing routes within SONCC habitat, 1.3 miles in 

UKT habitat, 2.3 miles in steelhead habitat, and 9.2 miles in rainbow trout habitat on the west 

side of the KNF. The effects on fish habitat of continued motorized use of these routes are

considered to be insignificant. The routes are distributed over numerous watersheds; their 

cumulative contribution to sediment loading would be immeasurable at the 7th field watershed 

scale.

Riparian Reserves/Stream Temperature

This alternative designates 21 miles of roads (42 acres) within riparian reserves, most of which 

are not immediately adjacent to the stream channel. They are primarily short, rough-graded spurs 

from which vegetation has already been removed. Regrowth of vegetation on these routes would 

not provide a significant contribution to stream shading, so there will be a neutral effect to stream 

temperature and an insignificant effect to riparian reserves.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created. The existing stream crossing in the Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek drainage is not a barrier to fish migration, and the rocking work will be done so 

that fish passage is not hindered. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres and 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, added to the effects from the ongoing and 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

284 Klamath National Forest

foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). There will be substantial benefits from removing 

vehicle use from 1.2 million acres of KNF lands.

This alternative would add 69 miles of unauthorized route as open road and motorized trail to 

the KNF. Ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions would add 13 miles of ML 1 roads and 26

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles of road from the NFTS (48 miles through 

decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking trail). ML 1 roads will be closed to 

motorized vehicle traffic and, thus, should not produce effects on fish habitat. These activities 

would result in a net increase in 42 miles of open road and motorized trail forest-wide. However, 

most of the road construction will occur on the east side of the Forest. On the west side of the 

Forest, where anadromous habitat occurs, this alternative added to ongoing and foreseeable 

projects results in the addition of about 42 miles of ML2 road and motorized trail to the NFTS, 

and removal of 50 miles of road from the NFTS, a net decrease of about 8 miles of ML 2 road or 

motorized trail. Effects will be dispersed across 88 watersheds on the west side and 44 on the 

east side; effects will not be measurable at the watershed scale. 

There will be a substantial benefit from removing vehicle use from 1.2 million acres of 

lands. 

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.

Road density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes 

exist, including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish (Table F-4). 

Riparian Reserves

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged offroad vehicle use would be eliminated from 49 miles of unauthorized routes where cross-country 

motor travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 98 acres in riparian reserves will 

slowly decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian 

conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 285

Motorized use would be removed from 4.2 miles of unauthorized routes within SONCC habitat, 

1.3 miles of unauthorized routes within UKT habitat, 2.8 miles of unauthorized routes within 

KMP steelhead habitat, and 10 miles of unauthorized routes within rainbow trout habitat. There 

would be no new unauthorized routes created, and the unauthorized routes within anadromous 

fish and rainbow trout habitat should slowly recover in the long term through passive restoration 

once motorized vehicle use ceases.

Sediment

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from 49 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves 

will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 11 stream crossings. Sediment delivery 

from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream crossings would 

be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as sediment input 

declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on 49 miles (98 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these routes are 

not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on stream 

shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers

No new barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Direct effects would involve crushing of fish or eggs at stream crossings accessible by vehicles, 

although most fish can evade tires at crossings. This alternative proposes two crossings in Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, which are upstream of coho salmon habitat but within habitat for steelhead 

and rainbow trout. No spawning habitat is present at either crossing so no direct effects to 

anadromous fish or resident rainbow trout redds or eggs are expected. These sites have been 

evaluated by fisheries biologists for both the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and effects are addressed in the BA/BE. Effects are considered to be insignificant for 

fish. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

286 Klamath National Forest

Sediment

Effects to sediment are expected to be insignificant in the short term and beneficial in the long 

term for the following reasons:

The three perennial stream crossings (two in the Humbug drainage and one in Long John 

Creek) would be rocked to reduce the potential for sedimentation.

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian 

vegetation. Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous 

fish have been determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment

generated by vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat the 

4 fish species.

The contribution to sediment loading from these routes is considered insignificant, and is 

immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Routes within riparian reserves that are added to the NFTS will receive maintenance as 

needed to ensure that they do not contribute sediment to adjacent streams.

Field review of the Humbug area has resulted in site-specific mitigations that will be 

completed prior to the area being open for public use. About 13 miles of routes in Humbug 

would be improved, and mitigations include construction of drainage features, surface blading, 

and signing to encourage riders to remain on the established trails. These measures will reduce 

the amount of sedimentation from these routes over the long term. Mitigation measures are

displayed in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 at Juniper Flat and 5 acres in the Humbug open 

riding area), in which cross-country motorized travel would not be prohibited, would be available 

for use. The watersheds on which Juniper Flat is situated do not have perennial water and do not 

drain into fish-bearing streams; there will be no impact on fish or fish habitat from this open 

riding area. The Humbug open riding area is adjacent to an NFTS road, and consists of hills that 

drain into a large flat that lies below the level of the road. There is no riparian vegetation within 

the riding area. Although this area is within a riparian reserve, it is not hydrologically connected 

to a stream. Continued use of this area by OHVs should not affect anadromous fish, resident 

rainbow trout or their habitat. 

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would continue on 10.4 miles of existing routes within SONCC habitat, 9.1 miles 

in UKT habitat, 11.9 miles in steelhead habitat, and 13.4 miles in rainbow trout habitat. Effects on 

fish habitat of continued motorized use of these routes are considered to be insignificant. The 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 287

routes are distributed over numerous watersheds; their cumulative contribution to sediment

loading would be immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Riparian Reserves/Stream Temperature

This alternative designates 18 miles of roads (36 acres) within riparian reserves, most of which 

are not immediately adjacent to the stream channel. They are primarily short, rough-graded spurs 

from which vegetation has already been removed. Regrowth of vegetation on these routes would 

not provide a significant contribution to stream shading, so there will be a neutral effect to stream 

temperature and an insignificant effect to riparian reserves.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created. The existing stream crossing in the Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek drainage is not a barrier to fish migration, and the rocking work will be done so 

that fish passage is not hindered. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres and 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, added to the effects from the ongoing and 

foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). There will be substantial benefits from removing 

vehicle use from 1.2 million acres of the KNF.

This project would add 59 miles of routes to the NFTS; ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions would add 13 miles of ML 1 roads and 26 miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and remove 

50 miles of road (48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a hiking 

trail). ML 1 roads will be closed to motorized vehicle traffic and, thus, should not produce effects 

on fish habitat. These activities would result in a net increase of about 35 miles of open road 

forest-wide. However, most of the increase will occur on the east side of the Forest. On the west 

side of the Forest, this alternative added to ongoing and foreseeable projects results in the 

addition of about 37 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road from the 

NFTS, a net decrease of about 13 miles of ML 2 road or motorized trail. Effects will be dispersed 

across 69 watersheds on the west side and 36 on the east side; effects will not be measurable at 

the watershed scale. 

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

No direct effects to the young life stages of the four fish species will occur from vehicle 

movement through stream channels. No new unauthorized routes would be created, which will 

eliminate the potential for direct effects occurring in the future.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

288 Klamath National Forest

Road density

Unmanaged off-road travel would be eliminated from 1.2 million acres, reducing open road 

density in all one hundred and eighty-eight 7th field watersheds in which unauthorized routes 

exist, including the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish (Table F-4). 

Riparian Reserves

In both the short term and long term, soil disturbance in riparian reserves from unmanaged offroad vehicle use would be eliminated from 47 miles of unauthorized routes where cross-country 

motor travel would be prohibited. In the long term, soils on 94 acres in riparian reserves will 

slowly decompact, and the routes will revegetate, resulting in beneficial effects to riparian 

conditions.

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would be removed from 3.6 miles of unauthorized routes within SONCC habitat, 

1.3 miles of unauthorized routes within UKT habitat, 2.3 miles of unauthorized routes within 

KMP steelhead habitat, and 9.2 miles of unauthorized routes within rainbow trout habitat. There 

would be no new unauthorized routes created, and the unauthorized routes within anadromous 

fish and rainbow trout habitat should slowly recover in the long term through passive restoration 

once motorized vehicle use ceases.

Sediment

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian vegetation. 

Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous fish have been 

determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment generated by 

vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat for the 4 fish 

species. However, removing vehicle use from 47 miles of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves 

will eliminate soil displacement on those routes and at 13 stream crossings. Sediment delivery 

from these routes to stream channels should decrease. No new routes or stream crossings would 

be created. Embeddedness will not increase, and may decrease over time as sediment input 

declines, which would be a long term benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Stream temperature

Damage to riparian vegetation from unmanaged off-road travel on roads located within riparian 

reserves would be reduced on 47 miles (94 acres) of unauthorized routes. Most of these routes are 

not immediately adjacent to streams, so that revegetation will have minimal effects on stream 

shading. There will be a neutral effect to stream temperature.

Barriers
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 289

No new barriers to fish migration would be created since no new unauthorized routes would be 

created. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Direct effects would involve crushing of fish or eggs at stream crossings accessible by vehicles, 

although most fish can evade tires at crossings. This alternative proposes one stream crossing in 

Middle Fork Humbug Creek, upstream of coho salmon habitat but within habitat for steelhead 

and rainbow trout. No spawning habitat is present at this crossing so no direct effects to 

anadromous fish or resident rainbow trout redds or eggs are expected. This site has been 

evaluated by fisheries biologists for both the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and effects are addressed in the BA/BE. Effects are considered to be insignificant for 

fish.

Sediment

Effects to sediment are expected to be insignificant in the short term and beneficial in the long 

term for the following reasons:

One perennial stream crossing in the Humbug drainage would be rocked to reduce the 

potential for sedimentation.

Most routes within riparian reserves are separated from the stream channel by riparian 

vegetation. Riparian reserves in 4 of the 5 watersheds analyzed for effects on anadromous 

fish have been determined to be properly functioning, and will act as buffers to any sediment

generated by vehicle travel on roads located within known or historically occupied habitat the 

4 fish species.

The contribution to sediment loading from these routes is considered insignificant, and is 

immeasurable at the 7th field watershed scale.

Routes within riparian reserves that are added to the NFTS will receive maintenance as 

needed to ensure that they do not contribute sediment to adjacent streams.

Field review of the Humbug area has resulted in site-specific mitigations that will be 

completed prior to the area being open for public use. About 12.5 miles of routes in Humbug 

would be improved; mitigations include construction of drainage features, surface blading, and 

signing to encourage riders to remain on the established trails. These measures will reduce the 

amount of sedimentation from these routes over the long term. Mitigation measures are displayed 

in the Soils and Recreation sections of this chapter.

Fifty-three acres of open riding area (48 at Juniper Flat and 5 acres in the Humbug open 

riding area), in which cross-country motorized travel would not be prohibited, would be available 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

290 Klamath National Forest

for use. The watersheds on which Juniper Flat is situated do not have perennial water and do not 

drain into fish-bearing streams; there will be no impact on fish or fish habitat from this open 

riding area. The Humbug open riding area is adjacent to an NFTS road, and consists of hills that 

drain into a large flat that lies below the level of the road. There is no riparian vegetation within 

the riding area. Although this area is within a riparian reserve, it is not hydrologically connected 

to a stream. Continued use of this area by OHVs should not affect anadromous fish, resident 

rainbow trout or their habitat. 

Routes existing/proposed within known or historically occupied habitat

Motorized use would continue on 10.4 miles of existing routes within SONCC habitat, 9.1 miles 

in UKT habitat, 11.9 miles in steelhead habitat, and 13.4 miles in rainbow trout habitat on the 

west side of the KNF. Effects on fish habitat of continued motorized use of these routes are

considered to be insignificant. The routes are distributed over numerous watersheds; their 

cumulative contribution to sediment loading would be immeasurable at the 7th field watershed 

scale.

Riparian Reserves/Stream Temperature

This alternative designates 20 miles of roads (40 acres) within riparian reserves, most of which 

are not immediately adjacent to the stream channel. They are primarily short, rough-graded spurs 

from which vegetation has already been removed. Regrowth of vegetation on these routes would 

not provide a significant contribution to stream shading, so there will be a neutral effect to stream 

temperature and an insignificant effect to riparian reserves.

Barriers 

No barriers to fish migration would be created. The existing stream crossing in the Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek drainage is not a barrier to fish migration, and the rocking work will be done so 

that fish passage is not hindered. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel on 1.2 million acres and 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, added to the effects from the ongoing and 

foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). There will be substantial benefits from removing 

vehicle use from 1.2 million acres of the KNF.

This project would add 74 miles of routes to the NFTS; ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions would add 13 miles of ML 1 roads and 26 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails to the 

NFTS, and remove 50 miles of road (48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through 

conversion to a hiking trail). ML 1 roads will be closed to motorized vehicle traffic and, thus, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 291

should not produce effects on fish habitat. These activities would result in a net increase of about 

50 miles of open road forest-wide. However, most of the increase will occur on the east side of 

the Forest. On the west side of the Forest, this alternative added to ongoing and foreseeable 

projects results in the addition of about 37 miles of ML2 road to the NFTS, and removal of 50 

miles of road, a net decrease of about 13 miles. Effects will be dispersed across 71 watersheds on 

the west side and 36 on the east side; effects will not be measurable at the watershed scale. 

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Of all proposed actions, the prohibition of cross-country travel in all action alternatives has the 

greatest beneficial effect on fish. While the alternatives differ from each other in the level of 

effects on fisheries, for all action alternatives it is unlikely that the effects of addition of some 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS will be measurable or discernable from the multiple natural and 

human-induced changes that occur over the landscape on the KNF. Effects from floods, natural 

landslides, wildfires, and myriad human activities (flow management, residential development, 

agricultural runoff, vegetation management on federal and private lands) continue to affect fish 

habitat quality and population levels. Many watersheds analyzed have more than 50% private 

land, and the ability of the KNF to effect change at the watershed scale is limited. Effects of 

vehicle-generated sediment from unauthorized routes into the main stem of the Klamath River are 

not measurable and insignificant compared with that generated by the current road system, 

management activities, flooding, and wildfire.

The action alternatives that include mitigations in the Humbug drainage (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 

6, and 7) all provide an opportunity to improve embeddedness of Upper Humbug Creek, Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, and Lower Humbug Creek by reducing potential sedimentation in streams. 

Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7 would also improve a stream crossing on Middle Fork Humbug Creek 

(on route 7H002.2). This stream approach is on relatively level ground and the road length 

draining into the stream channel crossing is short. In Alternative 7 only this one unauthorized 

route crossing Middle Fork Humbug Creek is proposed for addition to the NFTS; in Alternatives 

2, 4, 5, and 6 there is another unauthorized route being proposed for addition to the NFTS that 

crosses this stream and includes a steeper approach.

Table 3 compares the alternatives by indicator.

Table F-3. Fisheries indicators values for all action alternatives

Alternatives

Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of unauthorized 

routes/routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS within or 

adjacent to Riparian Reserves

67 23 0 0.4 21 18 20

Acres of Riparian Reserves 

affected by unauthorized 

routes/routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS

134 46 0 1 42 36 40
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

292 Klamath National Forest

Miles of routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS within 

known or historically occupied 

TES and MIS habitats:

 SONCC

 UKT

 Steelhead

 Rainbow trout (west side)

 Rainbow trout (east side)

14.6

10.4

14.7

23.4

14.7

7.2

6.4

8.8

11.7

4.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.2

0.2

0.0

11.0

9.1

12.4

14.2

4.4

10.4

9.1

11.9

13.4

3.8

10.4

9.1

11.9

13.4

4.4

Sediment delivery -

embeddedness

No 

change Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve

Stream Temperature No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

Migration Barriers

New 

barriers 

could be 

created

No new 

barriers

No new 

barriers

No new 

barriers

No new 

barriers

No new 

barriers

No new 

barriers

Table F-4. Route density for watersheds with proposed additions to NFTS that are occupied by the 

three TES anadromous fish species and the MIS fish species

7

th Field Watershed

Current 

Route 

Density 

(Alt. 1)

Route Density (miles/mile2)*

2 3 4 5 6 7

Little Humbug Creek 3.52 2.51 2.50 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59

Lower Humbug Creek 2.59 1.99 1.99 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

M.F. Humbug Creek 4.59 3.12 2.21 2.42 2.83 2.83 2.83

Upper Humbug Creek 5.58 3.63 2.65 2.65 4.02 3.81 3.90

Buckhorn Creek 4.68 4.43 4.34 4.34 4.38 4.37 4.38

*Route densities include state, county, private, NFTS and open unauthorized routes

Consultation

The SONCC Coho Salmon was listed as Threatened on May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588). This status 

was reaffirmed in a Final Rule published on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). In accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for 

the Klamath National Forest Motorized Travel Management Project. The BA/BE is incorporated 

by reference and may be found in the project files. 

Determinations for Special Status Species

The draft BA/BE for Fish sent to National Marine Fisheries Service on January 11, 2010, 

concluded that the implementation of any of the action alternatives may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect SONCC coho salmon. The BA/BE also concluded that there would not be 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fisheries Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 293

adverse effects to UKT Chinook salmon and KMP steelhead trout, and the project is not likely to 

lead toward a loss in population viability. 

The ―not likely to trend towards federal listing or loss of viability‖ determination is made 

because: (1) the scope of adding the proposed unauthorized routes is limited in area when 

compared to a fish species‘ distribution; (2) the species‘ presence in site-specific areas where 

routes would be added is highly unlikely; (3) there are no direct effects to habitat from the action; 

(4) the prohibition of cross-country vehicle travel results in beneficial effect for all species; (5) 

cumulative effects from other projects are beneficial to fish; and (6) there is opportunity for 

improvement to fish habitat under all action alternatives (compared to no action) given the 

likelihood that miles of unauthorized routes would recover and revegetate over the long term. 

Any effects from continuation of travel on existing routes would be offset by the benefits of 

prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on 1.2 million acres of lands, over 41,150 acres of 

which are in analyzed watersheds that support fish. 

A Biological Assessment for terrestrial wildlife was completed for this project. That BA 

documented that the Project Design Criteria were addressed for the Lost River sucker and short 

nose sucker, and included a No Effect determination for these two species. 

There would be no effect to any fish species or habitat under Alternatives 3 or 4. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Fisheries

294 Klamath National Forest

Beneficial Uses

The determinations listed above indicate that there will be no significant impacts to the beneficial 

use of fish habitat under any of the action alternatives. The May Affect determination was made 

based on a potential for effects on individuals. Implementation of any of the action alternatives 

will comply with the Clean Water Act (see Hydrology section).

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

All alternatives comply with the Endangered Species Act. None of the alternatives, if 

implemented, would 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.

All alternatives comply with standards and guidelines in the KNF LRMP.

Table F-5. Determination for TES fish species under Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, & 7

Common Name Scientific Name 

Status Status Determination

Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers 

(UKT) Chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha Forest Sensitive

May affect individuals or habitat, 

but is not likely to trend towards 

federal listing or a loss of viability 

to the population

Klamath Mountains Province( 

KMP) Steelhead trout

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss Forest Sensitive

May affect individuals or habitat, 

but is not likely to trend towards 

federal listing or a loss of viability 

to the population

Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts (SONCC)

Coho Salmon

Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

Federally 

Threatened

May affect individuals or habitat, 

but is not likely to adversely affect

Short Nose Sucker Chasmistes 

brevirostris

Federally 

Endangered No effect

Lost River Sucker Catostomus luxatus Federally 

Endangered No effect
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 295

Terrestrial Wildlife

Introduction

Management of terrestrial wildlife and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service. 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 species, or lead to a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive species. Management decisions related to motor 

vehicle travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing 

behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, minimize harassment to 

wildlife, and minimize significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motor vehicle 

use on NFS lands. Therefore, management decisions related to motor vehicle travel on NFS lands 

must consider effects to wildlife and their habitat.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects terrestrial wildlife includes:

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) states that each Federal agency shall, in 

consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

threatened or endangered (TE) species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat of such species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal 

agency to consult the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning threatened or endangered 

wildlife species under their jurisdiction. In October 2006, Region 5 developed route 

designation project design criteria for threatened and endangered species and critical 

habitat to achieve ―no effect‖ or ―may affect not likely to adversely affect‖ 

determinations on a programmatic level. The Klamath National Forest was included in 

the programmatic consultation completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

December 27, 2006, whereby the Service concurred that by following the criteria 

described, route designation activities would have no adverse affects. Only one 

terrestrial wildlife species (bald eagle) was included for the KNF in the project design 

criteria.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides direction on selection of 

management indicator species (MIS), which represent larger groups of species filling similar 

ecological niches or occupying similar habitats. These species and their habitats have been 

aggregated and described in the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). During 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

296 Klamath National Forest

the NEPA process, the project-level MIS effects to these aggregations are analyzed and disclosed. 

The intent is that the Forest will manage for the needs of representative species or for an 

assemblage of species using the same habitat. 

Forest Service Manual 2670 provides direction regarding Forest Service sensitive species, 

which have been identified by the Regional Forester as species 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. 

Forest Service Manual 2353.03(2) provides direction to minimize damage to vegetation, 

minimize harassment to wildlife, and minimize significant disruption of wildlife habitat while 

providing for motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands.

The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies the 

following standards and guidelines applicable to motor vehicle travel management and terrestrial 

wildlife, which are applied to all alternatives and will be considered during the analysis process. 

8-37 Restrict activities within 1/4-mile of active Swainson's hawk nests during the 

nesting season (April 15 to August 15).

8-44 Manage "open" road densities to reduce the level of human interaction with bears 

during critical times of the year.

8-50 Close roads when necessary to limit activities that inhibit deer use of quality 

foraging, fawning/rearing or wintering areas. Maintain or establish roadside 

screening along open roads in areas important for migration, fawning/rearing or 

concentrated seasonal use.

8-54 When appropriate, close roads to limit activities that inhibit elk use of quality 

foraging, fawning/rearing or wintering areas.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 297

Bald Eagle

MA5-43 Establish nest/roost protection areas and primary protection areas around eagle 

roost and nest site. Management activities within this zone shall be directed toward 

providing for the biological and physical integrity of the nest/roost site and to 

minimize human disturbance during periods of use. 

MA5-49 Direct dispersed recreational activities away from nesting and roosting habitat. 

Managed Wildlife Area (late-successional habitat)

MA 6-8 Restrict open road densities to 1/2 to 2 miles of open road per square mile to 

minimize human disturbance. 

MA 7-7 Restrict OHV use. Winter Range (Mule deer and pronghorn)

MA14-9 Access may be limited in order to affect the quality of the habitat. Forage (Mule 

deer)

MA16-9 Access may be limited in order to affect the quality of the habitat.

The Klamath National Forest Forest-Wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment 

identifies the management strategy for Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) on the KNF, including 

criteria for developing appropriate treatments.

The Klamath National Forest Elk Management Strategy (Allison et al. 2007), developed 

in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, California Department of Fish and 

Game, and the Six Rivers National Forest, identifies the objectives and priorities for managing 

elk on the KNF.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Each alternative contains a subset of the identified unauthorized roads. The roads included for 

analysis were determined to be those with the fewest resource issues or conflicts for a variety of 

resources. A biologist screened all the public-identified routes prior to their inclusion in an 

alternative. Routes where resource concerns could not be resolved efficiently and cost-effectively, 

even with application of design standards, were eliminated from further consideration in this 

project. For additional information on alternative development, see Chapter 2.

Literature describing the effects of motorized roads and trails on wildlife has grouped or 

categorized species in various ways to describe effects (Knight and Gutzwiller, ed. 1995, in 

Gaines et al. 2003, Wisdom et al 2000). Gaines et al. (2003) categorized species into the 

following groups or assemblages based upon a combination of their biology and interactions with 

road- and motorized trail-associated factors: (1) late-successional forest (interior forest) 

associated species; (2) wide-ranging carnivores; (3) ungulates; (4) riparian/meadow-dependent; 

(5) grassland/shrub-steppe, (6) snag/cavity dependent species; (7) and hardwood/hardwoodmixed conifer dependent. These associations reflect the majority of habitat types on the KNF and 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

298 Klamath National Forest

are used for this project. Focal species were selected that represent the range of habitats within 

the habitat associations (Table TW-1). With the exception of federally threatened and Forest 

Service sensitive species, potential effects to the focal species of each association (not all 

individual species) will be addressed in this document. 

Table TW-1. Forest terrestrial wildlife TES, MIS, and habitat associations

Grouping Species Status

Late-Successional

Northern Spotted Owl 

Marbled Murrelet

Northern Goshawk

Great Grey Owl

Pacific Fisher

American Marten

California Wolverine

Tehama Chaparral Snail

Blue-Grey Tail Dropper

T

T

S

S

S/C

S

S

S

S

Wide-Ranging Carnivores Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Black Bear

S

Emph

Ungulates Black Tailed Deer

Roosevelt Elk

Emph

Emph

Riparian Dependent (This group combines 

the Marsh/Lake/Pond and River/Stream 

and Meadow/Riparian Associations)

Bald Eagle

Willow Flycatcher

Western Pond Turtle

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

Greater Sandhill Crane

Cascade Frog

Southern Torrent Salamander

American Dipper

Northern Red-Legged Frog

Tailed Frog

Northern Water Shrew

Long-Tailed Vole

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

MIS

MIS

MIS

MIS

MIS

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe

Pronghorn

Swainson’s Hawk

Burrowing Owl

MIS

S

MIS

Cavity-Dependent

Black-backed Woodpecker

Downy Woodpecker

Hairy Woodpecker

Red Breasted Sapsucker

Vaux’s Swift

Pallid Bat

White-headed Woodpecker

Pileated Woodpecker

MIS

MIS

MIS

MIS

MIS

S

MIS

MIS

Hardwood / Hardwood-Mixed Conifer Acorn Woodpecker

Western Grey Squirrel

MIS

MIS

Key: T – Federally Threatened E – Federally Endangered S – FS Sensitive 

 MIS – Management Indicator Species C-Candidate for Federal Listing Emph – Forest Emphasis
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 299

The alternatives contain three discrete actions:

(1) The prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel 

(2) The addition of unauthorized roads, trails, and open riding areas to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS); and 

(3) Changes to the existing NFTS that include changing the vehicle class, prohibiting nonhighway-legal vehicle use, or opening previously-closed road segments. 

The first two actions were analyzed for each alternative for the focal species in the identified 

habitat associations (see Methodology by Action for reasons that changes to the NFTS were not 

addressed in detail). Effects to individual species and/or their habitats vary depending on time of 

year, duration, and intensity of use. 

Relying on a review of available literature, Gaines et al. (2003) summarized road and trailassociated factors and their effects upon groups of wildlife species. Primary effects from this 

project are considered to be habitat-based (loss or destruction of habitat) or physiological in 

nature (displacement, avoidance, effects on reproductive activities). Both types of effects are 

addressed in this analysis where applicable.

Analysis Specific to Late-Successional Habitat Species Group

The species in this group all share an affinity for late-successional forests. For this analysis, the 

vegetation description that characterizes Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat is used as a 

surrogate for Pacific fisher, American marten, goshawks, and marbled murrelet. Murrelet habitat 

is only considered within Zone 2, as defined by USFWS. The subset of suitable NSO habitat 

occurring in elevations greater than 4,500 feet is considered to be marten habitat. 

Current information regarding disturbance from vehicles (local decibel levels, type of noise, 

and especially duration of disturbance) is unknown. Many of the routes analyzed are in close 

proximity to roads that are part of the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), so that 

vehicle noise will continue to occur in many areas whether or not unauthorized routes are closed. 

Given the inability to precisely determine locations, timing, and the duration of vehicle traffic 

associated with this action, this analysis takes a conservative approach and assumes that animals 

in suitable habitat within 0.25 mile (approximately 400 m) of unauthorized routes could be 

affected by vehicle noise. In Endangered Species Act consultation with the USFWS, the agencies 

agreed that the 0.25-mile ―disturbance buffer‖ reflects the area that would be exposed to vehicular 

noise. Effects to late-successional species are evaluated by the amount of suitable habitat

currently open to off-road vehicle travel.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

300 Klamath National Forest

Analysis Specific to Ungulate Group

For this project, ungulates are elk and deer (pronghorn are analyzed in the grassland/shrub steppe 

group). The effects of roads on elk habitat suitability have been well documented (Rowland et. al. 

2004). Current modeling approaches can predict habitat effectiveness (Wisdom et al. 1986 in 

Allison et al. 2007), habitat capability (Benkobi et al. 2004), and habitat suitability (Juntti and 

Rumble 2006, in Allison et al. 2007) using a number of habitat inputs. To quantify potential 

impacts, buffered areas can be applied to roads and trails based on use level and type of habitat. 

The Klamath National Forest Elk Management Strategy (Allison et al. 2007) was developed in 

cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, California Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Six Rivers National Forest. Suitable elk habitat was modeled for Klamath elk herds using 

frameworks from existing models that involve the interactions of road densities along with 

amount and spacing of cover and forage areas. The Klamath model also evaluated juxtaposition 

of habitat components in relation to each other as well as road density and road use. Buffer 

distances (a proxy for potential disturbance) are consistent with the methodology of evaluating 

habitat suitability, but are not used for this project. Unauthorized routes added to the NFTS 

would be managed as Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2) roads or motorized trails (designated as 

―primitive‖ in the Management Strategy). Such low use ―primitive‖ roads were considered to 

have no effect on elk use of adjacent forage and/or cover habitats. Instead, road densities are used 

as a proxy for disturbance. The elk habitat capability model does not suggest any specific road 

density, but habitat effectiveness is inversely proportional to open road density. 

Road densities are an important variable in habitat capability models. For black-tailed deer, 

the LRMP describes desired road densities to achieve certain levels of habitat capability. Less 

than 1.5 miles of road per square mile is considered to provide high capability, and 1.5– 3 miles 

of road per square mile is considered to provide moderate capability. Anything over 3 miles of 

road per square mile is low or marginal capability. Primary (open) road densities per square mile 

are compared against habitat capability models (KNF LRMP 1995). Motorized routes may not be 

distributed evenly; therefore, the cumulative route density was assessed by 7th field watershed 

where appropriate for the ungulate group (expressed as miles of open routes or roads per square 

mile). As ungulate numbers and health are tied to conditions on identified seasonal use ranges, 

effects of this project on those ranges were analyzed. This analysis looked at 7th field watersheds 

with open road densities exceeding 3 miles per square mile within deer and elk seasonal ranges. 

Analysis Specific to Riparian Group

Approximately 2,500 miles of perennial and intermittent streams bounded by riparian reserves 

occur on the KNF. The riparian reserves contain approximately 9,270 acres of riparian habitats. 

There is a difference in acres and effects between riparian habitats and riparian reserves. Riparian 

reserves are a land allocation in the LRMP, with fixed widths (150-340‘) along a stream channel. 

They may or may not contain riparian vegetation (riparian reserves along ephemeral or 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 301

intermittent stream channels often do not). Where possible, this analysis concentrated on acres of 

riparian habitats affected as a more precise measure of effects; data are presented both by miles of 

routes within riparian habitats, and by miles of routes within riparian reserves. Where a species is 

specifically associated with stream habitat (tailed frog, long-tailed vole), miles of routes (and 

their equivalent acres) in riparian reserves is used as a proxy to denote effects. Effects based on 

miles of routes within riparian reserves may be over-estimated due to variability in occurrence of 

riparian vegetation. 

It is difficult for an analysis at this scale to precisely quantify effects to suitable habitat for 

these species because of the microsite conditions found within these areas. GIS habitat query 

results may under-represent actual conditions because remote sensing and the vegetation 

classification models may not have captured the attributes of the small-scale riparian habitats 

potentially used by this focal group, or they may classify polygons based on overstory cover 

rather than the riparian cover (Creasy, personal communication 2009; Torpin, personal 

communication 2009). 

Riparian-associated species primarily use the linear riparian zones, but some species such as 

western pond turtles, red-legged frogs, and willow flycatchers utilize upland areas as well for 

feeding, breeding, or dispersing. Most of this area is within the boundaries of identified riparian 

reserves. 

Assumptions Specific to the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis

No surveys were conducted specifically for this project. Past surveys and data were used to 

determine breeding locations and occupancy of habitat. Where data are lacking, suitable 

habitat is assumed to be occupied.

All routes provide the same level of disturbance, unless local data or knowledge indicate 

otherwise. 

All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect to wildlife. 

Effects to known sites are evaluated using existing data. Where occupancy is not confirmed, 

suitable habitat is assumed to be occupied. 

In the long-term, habitat on unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS will improve 

to some degree due to passive vegetation restoration. 

There is no road decommissioning planned or considered at this time under any alternative.

The spatial boundaries of the analysis area encompass the entire forest. Effects to wilderness, 

private lands, other State or Federal non-NFS lands or large perennial water bodies are not 

expected to occur as a result of this action.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

302 Klamath National Forest

Winter activities using snowmobiles or other over-snow vehicles are outside the scope of this 

project analysis. The effects of cross-country use by snowmobiles were not analyzed.

The proposed mileage and dispersed nature of the changes in open road density make the 

effects of changes in road density immeasurable at the watershed and Forest scales; this 

indicator is not used for any group except ungulates.

The area open to cross-country use (0-65 acres) in the action alternatives is so small in 

relation to the amount of suitable habitat for each evaluated species that this indicator does 

not provide a meaningful comparison of effects and is not discussed in detail.

―Equivalent Acres‖ were calculated using an estimate of one linear mile of road/trail = 2 

acres. This is a generous estimate for impacts to habitat and therefore effects may be 

overestimated.

Buffers for noise disturbance were considered to be 0.25 mile on either side of a route. The 

size of the area affected by noise disturbance was calculated using 320 acres/mile of open 

route.

ML2 roads, especially those with low levels of use such as occurs on the KNF, do not affect 

elk use of habitat.

ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use year-round and therefore do not contribute to open road 

densities. They should not affect deer or elk behavior.

Mapped acres of riparian habitat within riparian reserves are assumed to contain riparian 

vegetation or microhabitats suitable for all riparian focal species. 

Acres open and available to off-road motorized vehicle travel are considered to be those 

outside of wilderness or other areas administratively closed to vehicle use, and on slopes 

<35%. 

Data Sources

Forest-level GIS habitat layers produced from 2004 remote sensing imagery and processed in 

2007 using the CALVEG classification system. 

Forest GIS layers comparing proposed routes with specific habitats and  ̳designated‘ or 

important wildlife areas. 

1992 and 2008 NSO Suitable Habitat layers. (The 2008 NSO Suitable Habitat layer was used 

in the DEIS).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 303

Site-specific personal knowledge of agency biologists was used where Forest-level data were 

not current or not available. 

GIS layers for deer winter range and key elk habitats provided by California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service online list of Listed/Proposed Threatened, and Endangered 

Species for the Klamath National Forest, Document Number: 630980437-103625, October 

20, 2008. No changes to listing status or no new species have been added since this date. 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships program (CWHR version 8.0; California 

Department of Fish and Game, 2002). 

Indicators

Each species group utilized a different set of indicators as noted below. 

Late-successional species:

Acres available for motor vehicle use within identified late-successional habitats

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or miles of routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS (action alternatives) in late-successional habitats

Number of sensitive sites (location or site center for the most recent pair or territorial single) 

for TES species within 1⁄4 mile of an added route or area 

Percent of Forest-wide habitat affected 

Ungulates:

Acres open to motor vehicle use within seasonal habitats; % of total habitat

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or miles of routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS (action alternatives) in seasonal habitats 

Number of 7th field watersheds in seasonal ranges with open road density > 3 miles/mi2 . 

Open road density includes NFTS roads + all routes open to vehicle traffic. For Alternative 

1, all unauthorized routes are considered to be open roads. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

304 Klamath National Forest

Riparian species/Cavity dependent group/Hardwood group/Grassland & shrub-steppe 

group/Wide-ranging carnivores:

Acres of habitat open to motor vehicle use 

Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or miles of routes proposed for addition to the 

NFTS (action alternatives) in identified habitats

Equivalent acres of riparian habitat affected by routes

Percent of Forest-wide habitat affected

Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: Klamath National Forest.

Indicators: See above. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to habitat. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Klamath National Forest. 

Indicators: See above

Methodology: GIS analyses of added routes, trails, and use areas in relation to habitat and 

important/sensitive terrestrial wildlife areas. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS

This action is not addressed for wildlife because: 

Effects of changing allowed vehicle class and maintenance level are assumed to have no 

measurable effect on wildlife species; no direct or indirect effects are expected from adding 

mixed use (non-highway legal vehicles) on NFTS roads. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 305

Two routes (41N01 and 40N51) totaling about 10 miles were proposed to be changed from 

Maintenance Level 1 to Maintenance Level 2 in the Proposed Action. 40N51 was determined 

to already be an ML 2 road. It was constructed for the Olsen fire salvage sale, and closed by 

Forest Order in 2000 due to safety concerns. It is located in a remote area with fairly high 

road densities, and was reconstructed and re-opened for fire access and survey purposes. It 

has been open for several years and constitutes part of the current condition. 41N01 (the Doe 

Peak road) was constructed prior to the land coming into the National Forest System.. It was 

listed as closed (ML1) in INFRA and was gated, but was never closed under Forest Order. 

The gate has been ineffective for many years, and the road has been open to all vehicle types. 

It was analyzed for potential use under the Mt. Ashland EIS; the analysis indicated no 

sediment concerns because there is no connectivity to a stream, but no decision was made 

about appropriate maintenance level. This change would bring 40N01 into compliance with 

its operational maintenance level. Both of these actions are considered to be administrative 

changes that would not affect wildlife habitat or species.

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: Klamath National Forest.

Indicators: (1) Miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) or miles of routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS (action alternatives) in identified habitats; (2) Number of 7th field 

watersheds with open road density > 3 miles/mi

2

(ungulates only).

Methodology: GIS analysis of current, added, and future routes in relation to habitat and 

important/sensitive terrestrial areas and in context of other ongoing and foreseeable management 

actions with similar effects on terrestrial habitat. 

General Wildlife

The Klamath National Forest is situated in one of the most remote and biologically diverse 

areas in the Pacific Northwest, providing habitat for over 370 species of wildlife, including 92 

mammals, 237 birds, 20 amphibians, and 23 reptiles. Two federally listed species and 20 

sensitive species are known or highly suspected to occur on the KNF. 

The composition and structure of forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems has resulted in a 

mosaic of vegetative patterns containing a mixture of seral stages for forests and rangeland. The 

majority of the KNF (about 80 percent) lies west of Interstate 5, within the Klamath Mountains 

Geographic Province. This area contains complex vegetation patterns dominated by Douglas fir, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

306 Klamath National Forest

ponderosa pine, true fir and mixed conifer-hardwoods. Distribution of vegetation across the 

landscape is dictated by elevation, aspect, soil type, and climatic influences. The east side of the 

Forest (Goosenest Ranger District) lies in the more open, gentler terrain of the Cascades 

Province, encompassing portions of the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau. The dominant 

forested vegetation type is east side ponderosa pine, often mixed with true fir, mixed conifer and 

lodge pole pine, with lower elevations on the district dominated by pine/juniper/sage/bitterbrush 

vegetation types. The Butte Valley National Grassland contains grassland habitats. 

Natural openings occurring throughout the forest include rock outcrops, open rocky ridges, 

lakes, and meadow systems. Human created openings include roads, landings, mining sites, and 

harvested units (mostly replanted with conifers). Riparian and riparian-shrub habitats can be 

found throughout the landscape near lakes and ponds, along perennial streams, and along some 

intermittent streams. Important elements of riparian habitats include: predominance of deciduous 

woody plant communities, presence of surface water and soil moisture, diverse structural features 

(such as live and dead vegetation, water bodies, non-vegetated substrates), extensive edge 

providing structurally heterogeneous wildlife habitats, and distribution of aquatic habitat (i.e., 

streams and associated vegetation) in long corridors that provide protective pathways for wildlife 

migrations and movements between habitat blocks. 

Wildlife habitat on the KNF is influenced by natural and human-caused forces. Fire is the 

dominant form of disturbance on the Klamath National Forest. Much of the KNF has been 

affected by wildfire, and some of those burned areas have been subsequently harvested and 

planted. Areas outside of wilderness have been altered by past timber harvest and road 

construction, particularly in areas with mixed public/private ownership (Scott River and Oak 

Knoll Districts) where private lands have been intensively managed for timber. This leads to a 

continuum of wildlife habitats subject to continual changes, many of which are difficult to 

accurately assess. Fire data from Region 5 between 2000 and 2008 suggest that approximately 68 

percent of burned forested stands retained a ―forested condition‖ after wildfire, where the stands 

as a whole remain intact (USDA 2009). In these areas, fires have burned at low and moderate 

severities such that residual forest structure is retained. Fire intensities and their effects vary 

based on a complex combination of factors including weather, fuels, and topography. In 2008, 

approximately 174,700 acres burned on the Klamath, much in wilderness, LSRs, and Riparian 

Reserves. Fourteen percent of the fire area was considered to have burned at high severity, and 

nine percent was considered moderate severity (based on RAVG fire severity mapping, D.Torpin, 

personal communication 2009). Moderate severity burns can be highly variable, displaying a mix 

of lethally burned patches intermixed with live vegetation. These types of burns contribute to a 

diversity of vegetative types, habitats, and forest patch sizes and age classes across the landscape. 

They also result in extremely high snag densities across the landscape.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 307

Approximately 1.2 million acres of the KNF are open to motorized use, although, due to 

topography or legal restriction, large areas (primarily on the west side) are inaccessible or not 

available for off-road vehicle travel.

Management Indicator Species 

Per the requirements in 36 CFR 219 (the 1982 Planning Rule), the KNF LRMP identified 

management indicator species (MIS) to be used in Forest level planning. These species were 

selected because their population changes were believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities on fish and wildlife populations. Six individual species and six multi-species 

associations were selected. The individual species (Northern spotted owl, American marten, 

fisher, black bear, Northern goshawk, and black-tailed deer) are either Threatened, Sensitive, or 

Forest Emphasis species, and are analyzed as such. The MIS associations are included in the 

focal species/associations analyzed in this document (Table TW-1), with the exception of the 

Mature Pine association (see Species not considered in detail, below). For more information on 

MIS, refer to the Klamath National Forest Travel Management MIS Report, which is included in 

the project files located in the Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California. 

Species not considered in detail 

Several species were not considered in detail in this document:

Western yellow-billed cuckoo: There is no habitat for this species on the Klamath National 

Forest, and no sightings have been documented.

The Sierra Nevada red fox’s range includes the KNF but no confirmed locations in the 

Klamath Province have been recorded since the early 1900s. All recent locations have been in the 

Lassen Peak vicinity (Figura, personal communication 2009). Additional information can be 

found in the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species, located in the project record.

Bald eagles are common during migration and in winter along major river systems such as 

the Klamath and Scott Rivers, in agricultural areas such as Scott Valley, and near water bodies on 

the Goosenest District. Nine nest sites and four roost sites occur on the KNF. The Region 5 route 

designation project design criteria for threatened and endangered species requires that staging 

areas and routes within 1⁄2 mile of occupied bald eagle nests be closed during the nesting 

season (January 1 to August 31 or 3 weeks after chicks are known to have fledged), and 

staging areas and routes within 1⁄4 mile of known winter roosts be closed from November 15 

to March 15. No currently unauthorized routes or routes proposed for addition to the NFTS occur 

within winter roost protection areas or sites. There are two short routes to dispersed recreation 

sites located within 1⁄2 mile of identified eagle nest areas on the Goosenest District. One route is 

almost 1⁄2 mile away, and is on the other side of State Highway 97. The second route is separated 

from the nest area by a County road and railroad tracks that receive regular use. The Goosenest 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

308 Klamath National Forest

District biologist confirmed that irregular use on the unauthorized routes would not create 

measurable effects on eagle behavior due to the more frequent disturbances caused by vehicle and 

train traffic closer to the nests. Therefore, no seasonal restrictions are required (Cheyne, personal 

communication, 2009). No effects to bald eagles are expected to occur from adding these routes 

to the NFTS. 

While some effects could occur if cross-country motor vehicle travel continues, there is no 

indication that this activity is currently affecting bald eagles in any way. Therefore, there will be 

no further analysis of effects to bald eagles in this document. Refer to the Biological Evaluation

located in the project record for further details.

Great grey owls are dependent on meadows for foraging, and on old growth red fir, mixed 

conifer, or lodgepole pine for nesting (CDFG 1990). Most commonly associated with wet 

meadows of the Sierra Nevada, they have also been occasionally documented in northwestern 

California in winter and in the Warner Mountains in summer (McCaskie, et al. 1988); in more 

mesic sites within the Applegate River drainage to the north of the KNF, and within 20 miles to 

the northeast on the Dead Indian Plateau of southern Oregon (Godwin pers. comm. 2005, cited in 

USDA 2008). Intermittent surveys for great grey owls have been completed on the Forest, but 

there have been no observations of pairs or individuals. Suitable habitat is considered to be 

mature and late-successional conifer stands (included in NSO nesting/roosting) with the addition 

of eastside pine and lodgepole pine that occur within 250 meters of meadows above 5,000 feet. 

This habitat is highly congruent with marten habitat. Potential effects to great grey owl habitat 

are represented in the late-successional species group and are not described in detail in this 

document. Refer to the project Biological Evaluation located in the project record for further 

information.

Wolverine sightings range from Del Norte and Trinity Counties east through Siskiyou and 

Shasta Counties, and south through Tulare County. Habitat distribution in California is poorly 

known for the North Coast and northern Sierra Nevada. Camera stations and track plate surveys 

have been conducted on the KNF, but did not find wolverine. There are 10 reliable detections of 

wolverine on the Klamath National Forest within the last 20 years (USDA 1995) but no den sites 

are known. Potential effects to wolverine are represented in the late-successional species group, 

and are not described in detail in this document. Refer to the project Biological Evaluation

located in the project record for further information.

Tehama chaparral snail, blue-grey tail dropper, Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar 

salamander: These species are found beneath the surface for the majority of the year (Weasma 

1999) and are unlikely to be disturbed by noise or vehicle traffic. Off-road use typically does not 

occur on talus-dominated sites associated with the salamanders. Due to the limited occurrence 

and/or the subterranean life history of these species, it is possible but highly unlikely that they are 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 309

affected by current off-road use, or would be affected in future by vehicle use of routes added to 

the NFTS. There would be no effect to habitat or individuals under any alternative; these species 

are not addressed further in this document. Refer to the project Biological Evaluation located in 

the project record for further information.

The tailed frog is found in remote areas with clear, fast-flowing streams and rivers in 

montane regions throughout the project area. It is specifically associated with conifer-dominated 

habitats and montane hardwood-conifer habitats, more commonly in mature or late-successional 

stands than in younger stands. Suitable habitats most likely occur in areas not accessible by 

OHVs. Due to its restricted habitats, it is possible but highly unlikely this species could be 

affected by off-road travel under Alternative 1. No routes proposed for addition to the NFTS 

would affect habitat for this species. There would be no effect to habitat or individuals under any 

alternative; this species is not addressed further. Refer to the project Biological Evaluation

located in the project record for further information.

American dipper, northern water shrews, and Cascade frogs are associated with habitats 

similar to those utilized by the northern red-legged frog and western pond turtles, which have 

been selected as focal species for the riparian dependent species group. Potential effects of all 

alternatives to these species are represented in the riparian dependent species group. Refer to the 

project MIS report located in the project record for further information.

Flammulated owl and pinyon jay are MIS representing the mature east-side pine 

association. This is a very restricted habitat type; extant mature east-side pines are those that 

escaped railroad logging early in the century due to their location on steep, inaccessible slopes. 

Mature pine do not occur on lands accessible to off-highway vehicles, and there are no 

unauthorized routes that enter or pass within 1⁄4 mile of these stands. There would be no effect to 

habitat or individuals under any alternative; these species are not addressed further. Refer to the 

project MIS report located in the project record for further information.

Loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, and montane vole are associated with grassland and 

shrub/steppe habitats. Effects from all alternatives to their habitats are described in the grassland 

shrub/steppe group, with emphasis placed on the three species that represent the range of habitats 

and natural histories within that group (pronghorn, burrowing owl and Swainson‘s hawk). These 

species are not addressed further. Refer to the project MIS report located in the project record for 

further information.

Southern torrent salamander has a limited distribution in northwestern California and is 

strongly associated with cold mountain streams, springs, and seepages in headwaters and low 

order tributaries. These are found in steep areas on the west side of the KNF that are generally 

inaccessible to vehicles, so no effects would be expected from cross country motorized travel. 

None of the action alternatives include routes in this habitat type; there will be no effect on the 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

310 Klamath National Forest

southern torrent salamander under any action alternative. Refer to the project Biological 

Evaluation located in the project record for further information.

Downy, hairy, and white-headed woodpeckers, and Vaux’s swifts are widely distributed 

throughout the Forest. Effects from all alternatives to potential habitats for these species are 

described in the cavity dependent species group, with emphasis placed on the three species that 

represent the range of habitats and natural histories within that group (pileated woodpecker, redbreasted sapsucker, and pallid bat). Refer to the project MIS report located in the project record 

for further information.

The black-backed woodpecker is strongly associated with recently burned areas. 

Population numbers are highly influenced by the availability of snags following wildfires. 

Vehicle use of the KNF would not affect this species or its habitat; it is not addressed further. 

Refer to the project MIS report located in the project record for further information.

Townsend’s big-eared bat is strongly associated with cave systems and large rock 

outcroppings. Most of the cave systems are located in remote areas of the KNF or in wilderness 

and are inaccessible to OHVs, with the exception of the cave system occurring about 0.7 mile 

from the proposed Juniper Flat use area. That area has been closed to off-road travel for several 

years under a Forest Order; even if Alternative 1 was selected, the Order would remain in effect. 

There should be no effects to this species under any alternative. Refer to the project Biological 

Evaluation located in the project record for further information.

Affected Environment 

Late-Successional Forest Associated Species (Focal species: northern spotted owl, 

marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, American marten)

This species group is associated with mature to old forests that contain late-successional 

characteristics. These characteristics include large trees for a given growing site, relatively high 

canopy closure, elevated amounts of decadence in the form of snags (standing dead trees), down 

logs, in-tree decay and deformity. Brief descriptions of suitable habitats and distribution across 

the Forest is discussed below but further detail can be found in the Klamath National Travel 

Management Biological Assessment for Proposed, Listed, and Candidate Species or the 

Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species. Most, but not all, of the late-successional habitat is 

contained in the designated Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) on the KNF. Management 

objectives within LSRs are designed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and 

old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for the focal species addressed in this 

analysis. Eighteen large LSRs were mapped as part of the Northwest Forest Plan in addition to 

eighty-seven 100-acre LSRs located around known spotted owl activity sites. Dispersal habitat 

and connectivity outside of reserves is provided throughout the landscape by remaining patches 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 311

of late-successional habitat, riparian reserves, and undeveloped lands in backcountry, roadless and 

wilderness areas. The KNF supports about 475,000 acres of late-successional habitat. 

The Managed Wildlife Area near Happy Camp provides habitat for species dependent on 

structural features common to late-successional habitats. This 6,600-acre management area is to 

be managed for habitat attributes to provide moderate to high quality habitat conditions per the 

Fisher Habitat Capability Model. No unauthorized routes within this management area are 

proposed in any action alternative, although one route to a dispersed recreation site (52-10) lies 

just to the west of the management area boundary.

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) is managed in accordance with the direction found 

within the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995) which 

incorporated direction from the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan (USDI 1992). Within large LSRs, 

316,780 acres of critical habitat for northern spotted owls has been designated. A small 

proportion of critical habitat occurs within regulated lands (lands open for vegetative 

management). Locally defined suitable nesting and roosting habitat for NSO is defined as: mixed 

conifer stands below 6,000 feet in elevation with an overstory of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 

sugar pine, incense cedar, white fir and/or red fir averaging at or above 18 inches dbh; an 

understory composed of these same conifers plus hardwoods; a total canopy cover of 60-100 

percent; a minimum of two to five snags (average dbh 18 inches) and two to five down logs 

(average diameter at large end, 18 inches) per acre; the presence of deformed trees (mistletoe, 

heart rot, etc.); and sufficient open spaces below the canopy for owls to fly (USDA Forest 

Service, 2003). Most nests on the KNF are found in mistletoe clumps in large diameter Douglasfir trees, with a small percentage occurring in snags. A large portion of the KNF has been 

surveyed to protocol at least once in the last 10 years through timber sale surveys, other project 

surveys, and administrative studies. Survey efforts have identified 290 NSO activity centers on 

the Forest. NSO suitable habitat is considered to be equivalent to identified LS habitat (about 

475,000 acres), of which about 69,000 acres are available for cross-country motorized travel.

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a forest hawk with similar habitat needs as the 

spotted owl; however, territories on the Goosenest District can also be found in mature ponderosa 

pine/mixed conifer, and higher elevation mature red fir stands. Foraging habitat is variable and 

includes mid- and late-successional forest, natural and man-made openings, and forest edges. 

Approximately 69 goshawk activity centers are mapped on the west side of the Forest and 41 on 

the Goosenest Ranger District. For this analysis, suitable habitat for goshawks is considered to 

be equivalent to identified LS habitat. Additional details of species life history and habitat 

associations is provided in the Travel Management BA/BE. 

Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are generally associated with large trees 

that have large lateral branches, extensive mistletoe infection, witches brooms, and a mature 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

312 Klamath National Forest

understory that extends into the canopy. These elements provide nesting substrate. Such 

characteristics usually do not develop until trees are 150 to 175 years of age. For the purposes of 

this document, suitable murrelet habitat is considered to equivalent to suitable spotted owl 

nesting/roosting habitat. The Forest Ecosystem Management Team report (USDA et al. 1993) 

identified two zones based on observed use and expected occupancy. Zone 1 is close to the 

marine environment and is associated with most known murrelet activity (USDA and USDI, 

1994). This zone extends approximately 25 to 35 miles inland and includes the western-most 

portion of the Happy Camp District. There are 63,940 acres of marbled murrelet critical habitat 

within mapped LSRs in Zone 1 (Runaway LSR, and a portion of Seiad LSR). There are no 

unauthorized routes within Zone 1 or identified critical habitat proposed for addition in any action 

alternative, so effects on this area are confined to Alternative 1 and are not discussed in the action 

alternatives. Zone 2 occurs from approximately 35 to 45 miles inland and is less likely to support 

murrelets. An estimated 71,300 acres of suitable habitat exist on the KNF in Zone 2. Due to the 

steep slopes on which much of this habitat occurs, only about 12,000 acres are available for crosscountry motorized travel.

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) (Forest Service sensitive species; also a candidate for 

Federal listing) are scarce residents in California. Fisher habitat distribution occurs from Del 

Norte and Trinity counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, and south through the 

Sierra Nevada to Tulare County (CDFG 1990). Surveys over the past decade have detected fisher 

at many locations on the west side of the KNF, most commonly in mid-to late-seral mixed conifer 

habitats between 3,000 and 6,000 feet (Farber and Criss unpublished data 2006, Farber and 

Franklin, unpublished data 2005, Finley, personal communication 2009). Incidental sightings of 

fisher have also occurred in several locations, for the most part along major roads and highways 

associated with rivers or large creeks, but no den sites have been located. No confirmed sightings 

occur on the Goosenest District. In a study on Hoopa Tribal Lands and on the Shasta Trinity 

National Forest, fishers selected sites made up of stands with large diameter trees, and dense 

canopy cover generally situated in drainage-bottoms (Yaeger 2005). They also used black oak 

more than expected (S. Yeager, pers. comm. 2005). Habitat capability models indicate that habitat 

characteristics meeting moderate to high capability for NSO also meet requirements for high 

capability habitat for fisher (USDA Forest Service 1995). Therefore, for this project, suitable 

denning/resting/foraging habitat for fisher was considered to be equivalent to NSO habitat. 

American marten (Martes americana). Optimal habitats for marten are various mixed 

evergreen forests with more than 40 percent crown closure, with large trees and snags. Important 

habitats include red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, and 

eastside pine (Grinnell et al. 1937, Schempf and White 1977, Clark et al. 1987, as cited in CDFG 

1990). On the Klamath, marten have been observed in higher elevations on the forest, typically 

within true fir, lodgepole pine, and subalpine conifer stands. For the purposes of this analysis, 

NSO habitat above 4500 feet is considered suitable habitat for marten. Standards and guidelines 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 313

for both species provide require retaining canopy cover and include retention of large down logs 

and snags. An estimated 144,500 acres of marten habitat occurs on the KNF. Due to the high 

elevation and steep slopes on which much of this habitat occurs, only about 25,700 acres are 

available for cross-country motorized travel.

Ungulates (Focal species within the group: elk and black-tailed deer) 

Elk and black-tailed deer are not associated with any one type of habitat, but with a wide variety 

of rangeland, forest, and brushfield habitats. 

Elk is a special emphasis species. The Klamath NF is located within the historic ranges of 

both Rocky Mountain elk and Roosevelt elk. Reintroduction efforts between 1985 and 1996 

brought 232 animals from locations in California and Oregon to four locations on the western 

side of the Forest. Biologists categorize the elk into 2 populations comprised of 10 distinct herds: 

the Marble Mountains population (8 herds) on the west side of the Forest, and the Goosenest 

population (2 herds) in the Southern Cascades on the east side (Allison et al. 2007). 

The eight distinct herds of the western population vary their elevational range and utilize a 

variety of habitats, mostly on public lands. Summer range is predominately in the high mountain 

meadows of the Marble Mountain Wilderness, and parts of the Trinity Alps and Russian 

Wildernesses. Transition range is a broad elevation band between the summer and winter range, 

comprised of Douglas-fir and mixed evergreen types at lower elevations grading into white fir 

types at higher elevations. Within this conifer matrix, there are occasional brush fields associated 

with ridge tops, avalanche chutes and ecological disturbances. Winter range is typically below 

2500 feet elevation and is within the Douglas-fir/tan oak and mixed conifer zone. Steep rocky 

slopes of southerly aspects commonly have canyon live oak as the major hardwood. Remnant 

deciduous oak woodlands provide valuable grass and forb forage. The greatest forage utilization 

in the winter range occurs along the river bars and terraces of the Klamath River, Elk Creek, and 

Salmon River. Oak woodlands, younger conifer plantations, small meadows, and grassy road 

rights-of-way and openings, often on private property, are utilized during the winter season. 

The two distinct herds of the Goosenest population have characteristics of both Rocky 

Mountain and Roosevelt elk. These animals are not a result of planned reintroductions, but rather 

a result of natural population expansions from Oregon herds. They range from the eastern 

foothills of Shasta Valley north to the Klamath River, and south and east to Deer Mountain, 

spending most of the winter on private ranches in the Shasta Valley. The gentle slopes from Eagle 

Rock to the Klamath River above Copco Lake offer many patches of oak woodlands and 

grasslands. In the spring the elk move south and east to transition and summer ranges around 

Grass Lake, Bull Meadows and Deer Mountain. The second herd‘s primary winter range is valley 

lands, including Pleasant Valley, west of Highway 97, Butte Valley National Grasslands, Butte 

Valley Wildlife Area and private ranches. The majority of the high quality winter range is located 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

314 Klamath National Forest

in the uplands immediately adjacent to the valley floor along the southern boundary. The 

Goosenest winter range contains the highest percentage of high quality forage. In the summer, elk 

range throughout the mountains to the west and north of Butte Valley and are assumed to go into 

Oregon. Much of this habitat is drier and typical of eastside pine or juniper woodland habitats 

interspersed with small glades associated with riparian areas (Allison et al. 2007).

Elk utilize the entire KNF. For the purposes of this analysis, summer range (770,000 acres) is 

combined with transition range (697,000); the combination is addressed as seasonal ranges. There 

are about 463 miles of unauthorized routes within these seasonal ranges. Winter range comprises 

about 223,000 acres, and contains about 34 miles of unauthorized routes. The number and 

mileage of unauthorized routes in most 7th field watersheds within seasonal ranges are low; these 

routes do not significantly affect open road density. Watersheds where road densities may be of 

concern are those with a substantial number of unauthorized routes and open road densities 

exceeding 3 miles per square mile. There are 37 such watersheds on the KNF.

Black Tailed Deer (management indicator species) are widely distributed on the Forest. This 

species utilizes a variety of habitats during different times of year, with high-quality winter range 

being the most important. California Department of Fish and Game has identified 509,000 acres 

of deer winter range in Siskiyou County, with 220,000 acres of this range located on National 

Forest System Lands. Winter ranges in Siskiyou County contain some of the highest known 

densities of black tailed deer in California (Siskiyou County Deer Management Technical 

Working Group 2009). Critical winter ranges are unique and essential habitats located within the 

general winter ranges of deer, and are required during the harshest winters when deer are forced 

to the lowest elevations. Critical winter ranges are utilized by deer annually, but the intensity of 

use can vary greatly depending on the severity of the winter. Land conversion and development, 

particularly in winter ranges, has been identified by California Department of Fish and Game as a 

threat to sustainable deer populations in the state. The KNF has identified specific management 

areas for deer management including 108,000 acres of summer/fawning habitat.

In the 1990s, CDFG established deer assessment units (DAUs) for monitoring deer in 

California. DAUs are based on groups of deer that live in similar yet distinct habitat and 

environmental settings (CDFG 2006 cited in Siskiyou County Deer Management Technical 

Working Group 2009). Each DAU consists of multiple zones that can encompass many herds or 

populations over large geographic areas or ecological provinces. Overall, countywide data 

(including KNF lands) suggest population declines, imbalanced population structures, and poor 

herd productivity. Limited presence of male deer and areas lacking high quality habitat are noted 

as primary causes of declines (Longhurst 1952; Dasmann 1971; Schaefer et al. 2002; CDFG 2006 

cited in Siskiyou County Deer Management Technical Working Group 2009).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 315

The Habitat Capability Model used in the KNF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1995) indicates 

that open road densities of <1.5 mile per square mile are required for high habitat capability for 

deer. Densities over 3 miles per square mile are low capability. Unauthorized routes contribute to 

open road densities. About 180 miles of unauthorized routes occur in seasonal deer ranges, with 

112 miles identified within winter ranges. There are currently thirty-eight 7th field watersheds in 

seasonal elk ranges with open road densities exceeding 3 miles per square mile; 19 of these are in 

identified deer winter range, and 32 are within deer summer range (there is some overlap between 

ranges - Table TW-2). These watersheds have low capability for ungulate habitat. 

Table TW-2. Watersheds with Low Habitat Capability for ungulates (open road densities exceeding 3 

miles/mi2). 

Watershed Open road density in 

miles/mile2 Deer seasonal range

Antelope Sink 3.48 winter/summer

Antelope Well 3.00 winter/summer

Beaver-Grouse* 3.54

Benjamin-Wingate 3.07 winter/summer

Buckhorn 4.68 winter/summer

Butte Ck Headwaters 3.02 summer

Collins-Lime 4.06 winter

Deadwood 5.66 winter/summer

Deer-Beaver 5.58 summer

Dock Well 3.59 summer

Doggett 5.96 winter/summer

East Fork Horse 3.40 summer

Garner Mtn 3.85 winter/summer

Grass Lake NE 3.09 summer

Grouse Hill 3.34 summer

Haight Mtn 4.20 summer

Hill 22 3.40 winter/summer

Hoop & Devil 3.11 winter/summer

Jaynes Canyon 4.92 summer

Little Humbug 3.52 winter

Long John 4.13

Lower First 4.92 summer

Lower Horse 3.50 winter/summer

Main Horsethief 3.08 winter/summer

Middle Fork Humbug 4.59 winter/summer
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

316 Klamath National Forest

Watershed Open road density in 

miles/mile2 Deer seasonal range

Mud Lake 3.42 winter/summer

Muskgrave 3.28 winter/summer

Negro-Hotelling 3.28 winter

Pollic Flat 3.09 summer

Tamarack Flat 3.16 summer

Tennant-Antelope Ck 4.31 summer

Trapper Ck 3.88 summer

Upper Antelope 3.09 summer

Upper First 4.96 summer

Upper Fish-Browns 3.07 summer

Upper Humbug 5.58 winter

Upper Shovel 3.57 summer

Van Bremmer Well 4.62 winter/summer

*Watersheds not shown in deer seasonal ranges are within elk seasonal ranges

Riparian Dependent Group (Focal species: willow flycatcher, northwestern pond turtle, 

northern red-legged frog, tailed frog, and long-tailed vole) 

This group represents the diverse assemblage of riparian habitats found on the Klamath NF. 

Willow flycatcher (Epidonax trailii) is listed as both FS sensitive and MIS on the Klamath. 

These are neotropical migrants found in riparian habitats of various types and sizes, ranging from 

small willow surrounded lakes or ponds with a fringe of meadow, to grasslands, to willow lined 

streams or boggy areas. Very little historical information on the Klamath Mountains exists, but 

since 1994, the Klamath has been conducting systematic mist net surveys to determine local 

distribution of willow flycatchers on the Oak Knoll and Goosenest Ranger Districts. Seasonal 

fluctuations throughout the breeding season are reflected by the high numbers caught in the early 

and late summer. Data suggest breeding does take place nearby, possibly in the Marble 

Mountains, or in suitable habitat within the Horse Creek Watershed or along the Klamath River. 

Approximately 3,234 acres of potential habitat for willow flycatchers exists in riparian deciduous 

shrub habitat along streams on the Forest. 

Northwestern pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata; FS Sensitive), and northern red-legged 

frogs (Rana aurora; MIS) are commonly found in or adjacent to quiet pools of rivers, streams, 

marshes, and occasionally ponds. Turtles require upland terrestrial habitats for nesting. Nest sites 

generally occur within 1⁄4 mile of water sources, and are usually characterized as open areas 

dominated by grasses and herbaceous annuals with a southern exposure. Western pond turtles and 

red-legged frogs have been observed in the habitats described above, most frequently in the 

Klamath River system and in montane ponds. Aquatic and riparian habitats are protected by 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 317

standards and guidelines for riparian reserves (USDA 1995). Long-tailed vole (Microtus 

longicaudus; MIS) is a small riparian-dependent mammal found in herbaceous understories of 

many forest habitats; abundant in montane riparian, as well as fresh emergent wetland, cropland, 

aspen, grassland, and wet meadow habitats. Approximately 9,270 acres of riparian vegetation and 

2,500 miles of perennial rivers, streams, and creeks (KLRMP (1994) occur on the KNF. 

Distribution of these three species is unknown. 

Greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis; FS Sensitive) breed in wetlands and feed in 

meadows, irrigated pastures, grain fields, bogs, fens, marshes, and nearby fields. Cranes roost at 

night in open expanses of shallow water. Greater sandhill cranes summer in a broad belt across 

North America from the Great Lakes to the west coast, north to British Columbia, Alaska and 

eastern Siberia. Sandhill cranes nest in montane meadows in California from central and eastern 

Siskiyou County, east and south to Modoc, Lassen, and northern Plumas counties. Large 

populations of wintering birds can be found in the central valley from Shasta County south to 

Fresno County. Declines in the number of breeding sandhills in portions of their range and 

breeding habitat losses in both Oregon and California resulted in the population being classified 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, as a sensitive species in 1982 and a California 

threatened species in 1983. California also listed the crane as a fully protected species (CDFG 

2008). Three pairs of greater sandhill cranes have been observed on the Goosenest Ranger 

District, but no nest sites or breeding areas have been documented on the KNF. Cranes may use 

open water and meadow habitats at Orr Lake, Bull Meadows and First Spring, but there is no 

delineated suitable habitat for this species on the KNF. Three sightings of cranes have occurred 

on the KNF, none within 1 mile of any unauthorized route. Cranes may be affected by impacts to 

riparian habitats, but the level of effect is difficult to quantify. For this analysis, impacts to 

potential habitat for cranes is considered to be congruent with that of other riparian-dependent 

species and is displayed along with effects for western pond turtle.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii; FS sensitive) is a moderate sized frog typically 

light and dark mottled grey, olive, or brown, often with variable amounts of brick red. Historic 

distributions ranged through most Pacific drainages west of the Sierra/Cascade Crest from the 

Santiam River, Oregon to the San Gabriel Drainage in southern California (Jennings and Hayes 

1988, in CDFG 1990). They are typically found at elevations below 1800 feet (Corkran and 

Thoms, 1996). Current distribution and abundance of this species has been reduced drastically in 

the southern portion of its range, but they still occur in significant numbers in some coastal 

drainages. Listed as a California species of special concern, the foothill yellow-legged frog is at 

risk due to various anthropogenic and environmental threats throughout its range. In some of the 

larger rivers in California, predation by introduced bullfrogs has been implicated as a cause of 

their decline. Increased sediment loads in breeding streams may reduce survival of eggs. 

Breeding occurs in the spring, where adults congregate in habitats consisting of shallow, slow 

flowing water with pebble and cobble substrate, preferably with shaded riffles and pools (Fuller 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

318 Klamath National Forest

and Lind, 1992). This species is also known to utilize moderately vegetated backwaters, isolated 

pools, and slow moving rivers with mud substrates. No formal surveys have been conducted on 

the KNF but suitable habitat can be found in streams throughout the Forest.

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe (Focal species: Swainson’s hawk, pronghorn, burrowing owl)

The grassland/shrub-steppe group is found on the Butte Valley Natural Grasslands (BVNG) on 

the Goosenest district. Farming, grazing, and flood control projects in the early part of this 

century dramatically altered the historical perennial grasslands, seasonal wetlands, and open 

sagebrush-steppe vegetation. However, some restoration of these habitats has occurred over the 

last twenty years through habitat management projects in some areas of the BVNG and the 

adjacent state-owned Butte Valley Wildlife Area. The KNF supports about 10,600 acres of 

grassland-shrub/steppe habitats. 

The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a raptor that breeds in the plains and grasslands 

of the western United States and portions of Canada and Mexico. In North America, this species 

is associated with grasslands, shrub-steppe and agricultural habitats. In many areas, Swainson‘s 

hawks have adapted to farmed habitats, particularly alfalfa fields, nesting in windbreaks and 

farmstead trees. Nests may also be built in riparian forests, shrubs or on the ground in areas where 

trees are lacking. Nest tree selection is dependent on proximity to foraging habitats that are 

entirely different from the vegetation selected for nest sites (Woodbridge 1998). The hawks prefer 

semi-open and open habitats that facilitate aerial foraging. Over the last few decades a rapid loss

and modification of habitat for Swainson‘s hawks has been occurring throughout its range, 

especially in the California Central Valley (Anderson et al. 2007). In the fall, the hawks migrate 

south to the pampas of Argentina, where they roost and forage in large groups, feeding primarily 

on grasshoppers found in pastures, alfalfa, and sunflower fields. Significant effects of pesticide 

use on Swainson's hawks wintering in the pampas of Argentina were reported by Woodbridge et 

al. (1995) and Goldstein et al. (1997, as cited in Woodbridge 1998). Farmer education programs 

and restrictions on use of highly toxic organophosphate pesticides implemented by government 

and industry appear to have dramatically reduced the impacts of these compounds on wintering 

Swainson's hawks (Woodbridge 1998).

Surveys in 2005 and 2006 estimated 2,081 breeding pairs in California, with about 95 percent 

occurring in the Central Valley (Anderson et al. 2007). Swainson‘s hawks use most or all of the 

10,600 acres of grassland habitats on the KNF, with some use occurring in the 14,000 acres of 

juniper habitats that occur adjacent to the grasslands. Fifteen nests occur in the Butte Valley 

National Grassland (BVNG), all located within 1⁄4 mile of unauthorized routes. The routes were 

built in the 1930s when BVNG was a Land Use Allotment, and have been used by range 

managers, special use permittees, and the public (one is a birding route) since that time. The 

hawk nests have a history of reproductive success, indicating that the birds are well habituated to 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 319

human disturbance and vehicle noise. Additional territories are known to occur on private lands 

in Butte Valley (Cheyne, personal communication, 2009). Swainson‘s hawk pairs in Butte Valley 

frequently select different nest trees each year; nests commonly occur adjacent to farm roads or 

county roads (Woodbridge, personal communication, 2009). 

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) occur on the Goosenest Ranger District, inhabiting the 

low rolling topography of agricultural areas, sagebrush, bitter brush, grassland, and alkali desert 

scrub habitats found in the Butte Valley National Grassland. This species forages on forbs and 

several brush species including sagebrush. Pronghorn prefer habitat with low vegetation and 5-20 

percent shrub cover (USDA Forest Service 1995). Kidding habitat includes sagebrush, alfalfa 

fields, and tall grass. There are 2,750 acres of pronghorn kidding habitat identified on the KNF.

Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) are yearlong residents of open, dry grassland and 

desert habitats; and in grass, forb and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine 

habitats. The conversion of grassland to agriculture, the invasion of non-native plants, and 

poisoning of ground squirrels have contributed to the reduction in numbers in recent decades 

(CDFG 1990). Burrowing owls have been known to occur at 6 locations on the Butte Valley 

National Grasslands, but intermittent surveys have not located colonies since 1996. Feathers and 

other sign of presence were observed in 2007 at one site (Cheyne, personal communication, 

2008). 

Snag/Cavity Dependent Group (Focal species: white headed woodpecker, red-breasted 

sapsucker, pileated woodpecker, and pallid bat)

This species group is associated with cavities in trees, and trees with large dead branches and 

broken tops. A variety of cavity-dependent species occur on the KNF. All species represented 

here are MIS, except for the pallid bat, a Forest Service sensitive species. Snags are generated by 

fires, drought, and insect or disease outbreaks, all of which have occurred on the Forest within the 

last 25 years. The fire ecology of the KNF creates a regular supply of snags distributed irregularly 

over the landscape. The relative numbers of hard and soft snags in various size classes vary. 

LRMP management guidelines focus on providing moderate capability habitat (snag numbers 

ranging from 2 to 5 per acre across the landscape), although snag numbers are much higher in 

areas subjected to wildfire during the past 50 years. 

Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pilieatus) require large snags for nesting and roosting. 

They are found in mature mixed conifer, Douglas-fir and true fir types containing large snags, 

stumps, and logs for foraging and cover. These large woodpeckers are uncommon, yearlong 

residents of mature, montane conifer habitats in the North Coast, Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra 

Nevada Ranges (CDFG 1990), and have been often observed throughout the KNF (Johnson, 

personal observation). 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

320 Klamath National Forest

White-headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus) are common, yearlong residents of 

montane coniferous forests and lodgepole pine and red fir forests in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, 

Klamath, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges, and Warner Mountains. They are occasionally 

found at lower elevations along North Coast and in interior areas (McCaskie et al. 1988, in CDFG 

1990). These woodpeckers excavate nests in broken-topped snags that are completely dead, and 

in stumps. The nest is generally close to the ground in moderately to extensively decayed wood 

(Raphael and White 1984, Milne and Hejl 1989, cited in Hillis et al., undated). 

Red-breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus rubus) are uncommon to fairly common yearlong or 

summer residents in openly wooded, mountainous parts of California. They occur from 

northwestern British Columbia, along the coasts and both the eastern and western slopes of the 

Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada south to Kern County; and from Del Norte County east into 

Modoc County (CDFG 1990). Nesting habitats include montane riparian, aspen, montane 

hardwood-conifer, mixed conifer, and red fir; especially near meadows, clearings, lakes, and 

slow-moving streams. In northwest California, Raphael and White (1984) found the majority of 

nests in snags or dead portions of live trees. Some populations of the sub-species occurring in 

California are migratory, wintering in foothills or lower elevation areas from where they breed 

(Walters et al. 2002). This species is frequently found along oak and mixed conifer woodlands on 

the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers, and is commonly associated with old homesteads 

containing old fruit trees (Johnson, personal observation). 

The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is usually found below 6000 feet (Philpott 1997). 

Populations have declined in California within desert areas, in areas of urban expansion, and 

where oak woodlands have been lost (Brown 1996). This species, like many other bats, is 

extremely sensitive to disturbance at roosting and nesting sites. A variety of habitats are used, 

including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and coniferous forests (Philpott 1997). Pallid bats 

are most common in open, dry habitats that contain rocky areas for roosting. They are a yearlong 

resident in most of their range and hibernate in winter near their summer roost (CDFG 1990). 

Pallid bats are unusual in that most of their food consists of large insects captured on the ground 

(Verts and Carraway 1998). Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices and 

tree hollows; and have been documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of redwoods 

and giant sequoias, and bole cavities in oaks (Sherwin 1998). Cavities in broken branches of 

black oak are very important and there is a strong association with black oak for roosting (Pierson 

1996). The large diameter snags found throughout the Forest provide suitable habitat for the 

pallid bat, although their distribution is unknown.

Hardwood / Hardwood Mixed Conifer (Focal species: acorn woodpecker and western grey 

squirrel) 

California black oak and Oregon white oaks are important vegetation types and habitat 

components for this group because they provide an abundant and high quality food resource. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 321

Mature oaks are also an important source of cavities that provide nesting and roosting habitat. 

Vegetation management projects leave hardwoods as leave trees whenever possible. Pure stands 

of hardwoods are not intended to be managed as part of the timber component. Approximately 

63,100 acres of hardwood habitats are estimated to occur on the KNF. 

Acorn woodpeckers (Melanerepes formicivorus) are a common yearlong resident in 

hardwood and hardwood-conifer habitats, requiring open-canopied stands with large oaks and 

snags. Range extends through the western Sierra Nevada foothills, Coast Ranges, Klamath Range, 

and locally on the eastern Sierra Nevada slope from Modoc County to Nevada County (CDFG 

1990). On the KNF, the woodpecker is commonly found in the hardwood stands along the 

Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers.

The western grey squirrel (Sciurus griseus) is fairly common locally in mature stands of 

most conifer, hardwood, and mixed hardwood-conifer habitats in the Klamath, Cascade, 

Transverse, Peninsular, and Sierra Nevada Ranges (Ingles 1965, in CDFG 1990). This squirrel is 

commonly found in lower elevation mixed-conifer and mixed-conifer hardwood stands on the 

KNF. 

Wide-Ranging Carnivores (Focal species: black bear)

Carnivores are important indicators of ecosystem integrity in that they influence the structure and 

reflect the vigor of the prey species upon which they depend. Many large and mid-size carnivores 

are unique in their response to human-caused habitat changes due to their large spatial 

requirements and their sensitivity to the effects of landscape patterns, including such factors as 

road and edge density (Buskirk and Zielinski 2003). While some mammalian carnivores, such as 

coyotes, have adapted to the presence of humans, others are documented or suspected to be 

adversely impacted by disturbance. Black bears occur throughout the KNF and utilize a variety of 

habitats and seral stages. Black bear was selected as a MIS due to its habitat associations with 

both early and late seral habitats and its need for large down logs for foraging and denning. While 

bears are known to utilize a range of habitats, they are most strongly associated with mature 

mixed conifer, mature dense mixed conifer, and early seral habitats; approximately 907,500 acres 

of these vegetation types are found on the Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Species Groups

Motor vehicle use of roads and trails affects wildlife, directly and indirectly, in a variety of ways 

that can generally be placed into three categories: effects resulting from human-caused injury or 

mortality; effects resulting from changes in behavior (disturbance-based); and effects resulting 

from habitat modification or loss. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

322 Klamath National Forest

Speeds of vehicles traveling off established roads, and on ML2 roads are generally low. The 

potential for human-caused injury or mortality from this type of vehicle use is limited. It is 

addressed for those species groups where it may have an effect. 

Effects to a species may occur as a result of noise disturbance when vehicle activity occurs 

within suitable habitat or adjacent to known sites. Effects are virtually impossible to measure in 

uncontrolled settings (1.2 million acres on the KNF are available for off-road travel). Effects due 

to noise disturbance are not expected in areas where noise levels generated by the project do not 

exceed ambient levels. Many unauthorized routes (especially short routes leading to dispersed 

recreation sites) are associated with designated ML2 or ML3 roads which receive regular 

motorized use, and individuals using habitat within 400 meters of these roads are expected to be 

habituated to vehicle noise. In addition, all unauthorized routes have received some level of 

repeated motorized use for years. Noise associated with motorized use of these routes is 

considered ―ambient‖.

If no action to manage off-road travel is taken, additional unauthorized routes can develop 

over time and there is high potential for repeated use as drivers notice previous routes taken by 

others. This use compacts and displaces soils and kills or injures vegetation, which results in 

habitat degredation and loss. While these effects are generally limited to the narrow route itself, 

habitat loss is a long-term effect.

Late-Successional Forest Associated Species

Not all areas of late-successional habitat are available for off-road travel. Such travel in LS 

habitats would be limited by legal restrictions (wilderness) or the heavy vegetation, steep terrain, 

and concentrations of downed wood common in these areas. Effects to late-successional species 

are evaluated by the amount of suitable habitat currently open to off-road vehicle travel. Of the 

475,000 acres of late-successional habitats on the KNF, approximately 69,000 are available for 

motor vehicle use.

Direct effects due to disturbance include causing individuals to move or alter behavior. Latesuccessional species could be disturbed during the breeding or nesting season by cross-country 

travel. Disturbance could lead to reduced time on the den or nest, thereby threatening eggs, or 

young, with exposure. Disruption of foraging activities of nocturnal species is considered to be 

unlikely, since most vehicle use occurs during daylight hours. Use of routes near occupied owl 

and goshawk sites could affect reproductive functions. 

A recent review and synthesis of the scientific information regarding noise disturbance and 

avian species completed by the USFWS indicates that the likelihood of noise-generating activities 

adversely affecting NSOs and marbled murrelets is a function of activity-generated noise levels 

relative to pre-project noise levels (USDI 2006). When project-generated noise levels reach or 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 323

exceed a threshold noise level above ambient noise level, an individual may respond with an 

adverse behavioral responses, physiological responses, or both. Research indicates that spotted 

owls may flush in response to noise generated within 200 feet, but almost never flush at longer 

distances (Delaney et al. 1997). Data also suggest that continued presentation of noise disturbance 

might cause birds to habituate to some types of noise. Research indicates that stress hormones 

increased in male northern spotted owls when they were located less than 0.25 mile from major 

logging roads (Wasser et al. 1997). Long-term effects from elevated stress hormones are 

unknown, but physical condition or reproductive success may be compromised (Marra and 

Holberton 1998, in Gaines et al. 2003). Delaney et al. (1999) corroborates the USFWSrecommended 400 meter zone around spotted owl nest sites as a reasonable distance for 

evaluating significant effects for noise disturbance activities. There are few data available to 

indicate how, or to what degree, other late-successional forest species are affected by noise

disturbance, although anecdotal information suggests they are fairly tolerant of chronic (ongoing 

or ambient) noise and less tolerant of acute (sudden or unexpected) noise. Zielinski et. al (2007) 

found that OHV use does not affect marten distribution or habitat occupancy. There are no data 

on effects of vehicle noise on fisher (Zielinski, personal communication, 2010). Due to lack of 

data on other species, the 400 meter effects zone for noise disturbance used for NSO will be 

utilized for this group as a whole.

Marten and fisher could be affected by indirect impacts to prey populations (specifically 

squirrels). Squirrels could be affected by disturbance (resulting in lowered energy reserves 

available for the production of young), or changes in location or amount of food supplies due to 

soil compaction from vehicle use. However, no such effects have been reported to date, and the 

potential for this effect is considered to be limited by the generally low road density and by the 

small home range size of squirrels.

Indirect effects of unmanaged motorized use are associated with road and trail networks that 

could develop through time, removing or fragmenting habitat, isolating and decreasing the size of 

habitat patches, and increasing edge. This in turn could 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). Species in this 

group could also be affected by loss of or changes in habitat conditions due to creation of new 

unauthorized routes, or displacement or avoidance due to continued physical disturbance or 

intrusion.

Cumulative effects are the combined direct and indirect effects of this project and those from 

ongoing or foreseeable projects that involve management of late-successional vegetation. The 

KNF LRMP was heavily influenced by the Northwest Forest Plan, which directed that 

management activities should protect and enhance late-successional habitats. The Forest-Wide 

LSR Assessment requires that activities such as timber harvest and fuels reduction be designed to 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

324 Klamath National Forest

maintain late-successional habitat characteristics such as large trees and a canopy cover of 60% or

more. Projects in late-successional habitats are therefore designed to have neutral or positive 

impacts on those habitats. Project design standards for activities that might affect NSOs and 

other late-successional species include a limited operating period; this is considered adequate to 

reduce or eliminate effects from noise and physical presence. Actual disturbance from noise or 

human presence in management units is generally very short term in nature (5-10 days during a 

single summer). Effects from foreseeable projects overlap with Travel Management through 

changes to habitat (caused by road construction or decommissioning) or continued disturbance

from newly constructed roads, both of which can be long term in nature. This analysis focuses on 

the cumulative effects of this project and any roads or trails proposed in ongoing or foreseeable 

management projects (Appendix B).

NSO Critical Habitat

Critical Habitat (CH) for northern spotted owls was designated in 1992 and was modified in 

September 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a). The distribution and total acres of the 

2008 subunits differ somewhat from the 1992 NSO critical habitat designation, and the 2008 

maps are still being finalized. Therefore, the analysis of potential effects to CH considered both 

versions. The Biological Assessment determined that there would be no loss or degradation of 

critical habitat from this project, and therefore No Effect on critical habitat. Consultation with 

Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed this determination; critical habitat is not addressed further in 

this document. See the BA in the project files for more information on the determination for 

critical habitat. 

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

Critical Habitat (CH) for marbled murrelets was designated in 1996 and was proposed for 

modification in July 2008. The Biological Assessment determined that there would be no loss or 

degradation of critical habitat from this project, and therefore No Effect on critical habitat. 

Consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed this determination; critical habitat is not 

addressed further in this document. See the BA in the project files for more information on the 

determination for critical habitat. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel. Included in cross-country 

travel are the effects from continuation of use on unauthorized routes. Disturbance from motor 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 325

vehicles can lead to physiological responses such as increased stress hormones (Wasser et al. 

1997 as reported in Gaines et al. 2003).

Effects to late-successional habitats could occur on any of the 69,000 acres of LS habitats 

currently available for off-road travel. This acreage represents 14% of total suitable NSO habitat 

on the KNF, 18% (25,700 acres) of marten habitat, and 17% (12,000 acres) of murrelet habitat. 

Direct effects would include habitat degradation through crushing or killing of plants, and noise 

disturbance, which could occur on any of the acres available to cross country travel. 

The primary direct effect to individuals would be disturbance from human noise or intrusion. 

Existing routes indicate repeated vehicle use so there is a higher expectation that vehicle noise 

would occur along the 156 miles of unauthorized routes currently within or adjacent to latesuccessional habitats. Two miles occur within 0.25 mile of six known NSO sites, and 9 miles are 

within 0.25 mile of 9 known goshawk sites (Table TW-3). These sites have a higher potential to 

be negatively affected by noise and physical intrusion of motorized vehicles. 

Indirect effects include long-term loss of habitat through compaction of soil and changes to or 

loss of vegetation. Over 300 acres of late-successional habitat would remain disturbed and the 

opportunity for recovery would be foregone in the long term.

Table TW-3. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known sites 

Late-successional Species 

Miles of unauthorized 

routes within or within 

0.25 mile of LS habitat

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added route

NSO/Fisher/Goshawk 156 6/NA*/9

Marten Habitat 16 N/A*

Marbled Murrelet Habitat 5 0

*There are no known fisher or marten denning sites identified on the KNF.

Vehicle use low and dispersed across the KNF. Most vehicle traffic occurs in the late spring 

through the fall; use from about November through April is often limited by snow and wet 

conditions, especially at the higher elevations where marten habitat occurs. Routes closest to 

established sensitive sites would have the highest potential for disturbing reproductive activities, 

although any site accessible to off-road travel could be affected. About 14% of LS habitats could 

be subjected to noise associated with unauthorized routes. With these limitations, some impacts 

to LS species and habitats may occur but effects are not expected to be substantial. For the LS 

group, the use of unauthorized routes is unlikely to contribute to direct mortality or generate 

sufficient disturbance to affect population parameters such as fecundity or mortality rates. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No additions to the NFTS are proposed. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

326 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the impacts from continued cross-country travel and vehicle use on 

156 miles of unauthorized routes in LS habitats added to the effects from ongoing and foreseeable 

road-related activities (Appendix B). The Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve Habitat 

Restoration Project will add three miles along six road segments in LS habitats. The project 

analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species and determined that there would be a short-term 

adverse impact to some species, but long-term benefits to late-successional habitats. There will 

be long-term benefits from decommissioning 16 miles of NFTS roads on the west side of the 

Forest in LS habitats; vehicle disturbance will be removed from these routes, and they will slowly 

revegetate.

Alternative 1, together with the ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities has the 

potential for habitat removal or degradation from route proliferation on over 69,000 acres of LS 

habitats. Vehicle disturbance on open areas and routes would continue; however, foreseeable 

road-related actions would provide some long-term benefits. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would reduce or eliminate noise and disruption 

from vehicles on 69,000 acres of late-successional habitats on the KNF. No additional routes 

would be created, eliminating the potential for degradation or loss of LS habitats. In the longterm, LS habitat within unauthorized routes that are not added to the NFTS would be expected to 

recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by motorized use, although return of LS habitat 

characteristics would take more than 100 years. In both the short and long terms, focal species 

would not be affected by noise or physical disturbance on areas in or adjacent to LS habitats. This 

alternative is considered to be beneficial to both LS focal species and their habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 92 miles of roads and trails proposed in this alternative, about 30% (48 miles) lie within or 

adjacent to late-successional habitats (Table TW-4). Approximately 15,360 acres of LS habitat

occur within 0.25 mile of these routes (about 3% of the LS habitat on the KNF). Less than 1 mile 

of routes lies within 0.25 mile of three NSO activity centers, and 2 miles lie within 0.25 mile of 3 

goshawk sites. Approximately 15,360 acres of LS habitat occur within 0.25 mile of these routes 

(about 3% of the LS habitat on the KNF). No additional habitat will be removed, but designated 

routes (about 96 acres) will not revegetate and the potential for these acres to return to a latesuccessional condition will be foregone in the long term. Routes in marten and murrelet habitat 

(less than 1⁄2 mile) would not affect any known sites. Noise and physical disturbance will continue 

to occur along these routes. All routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are associated with 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 327

existing NFTS roads that generate vehicle noise, and the area of overlapping noise influence is 

substantial. Because unauthorized routes have been in place and used for many years, some level 

of vehicle noise is included in the ambient situation. Effects from vehicle noise are not expected 

to have a measurable impact on long-term population parameters.

This alternative proposes 65 acres in two open riding areas where cross-country travel would 

not be prohibited. These areas are not located in or adjacent to LS habitats. 

Table TW-4. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known sites 

Late-Successional Species

Miles of routes 

within or within 0.25 

mile of LS habitat

Number of sensitive sites 

within 0.25 mile of added 

route

NSO/Fisher/Goshawk 48 3/NA*/3

Marten 0.4 NA*

Marbled Murrelet Zone 2 0.1 0

*There are no known fisher or marten denning sites identified on the KNF.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects from the prohibition on cross-country travel, the 

addition of 48 miles of routes in LS habitat, and the effects of ongoing and foreseeable roadrelated actions (Appendix B). Effects from the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, 

which will remove vehicle use from 69,000 acres and 108 miles of routes in LS habitats, are 

considered to be entirely beneficial due to cessation of human disturbance, and the elimination of 

potential for new, user-created routes that could remove or degrade LS habitat. Ongoing and 

foreseeable actions will result in decommissioning of about 16 miles of NFTS roads in LS 

habitats, and the addition of 3 miles along 6 routes in the Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve 

Habitat Restoration Project. The Goosenest project analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species; 

there will be a short-term adverse impact, but long-term benefits to late-successional habitat. 

Overall, there will be a total of about 51 miles of roads in LS habitats added to the NFTS, 16 

miles decommissioned, and 108 miles where vehicle use will be eliminated, resulting in a net 

reduction of 73 miles of roads and routes in LS habitats. There will be long-term benefits from 

decommissioning roads and removing vehicle disturbance from these roads and routes, which 

will slowly revegetate over time. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

The effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel are described under Alternative 2. 

Over time, vegetation would be expected to recover on 156 miles of routes in LS habitats. Noise 

and disturbance presently occurring on 69,000 acres of LS habitats, and within 0.25 mile of 3 

NSO and 9 goshawk sites, would be eliminated.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

328 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects from the prohibition on cross-country travel and 

the effects of ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). Effects from the 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, which will remove vehicle use from 69,000 acres 

and 156 miles of routes in LS habitats, are considered to be entirely beneficial due to cessation of 

human disturbance, and the elimination of potential for new, user-created routes that could 

remove or degrade LS habitat. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will result in decommissioning 

of about 16 miles of NFTS roads in LS habitats, and the addition of 3 miles along 6 routes in the 

Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project. The Goosenest project 

analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species; there will be a short-term adverse impact, but longterm benefits to late-successional habitat. 

Overall, there will be a total of 3 miles of roads in LS habitats added to the NFTS, and 168 

miles removed through decommissioning or the prohibition of cross-country travel. There will be 

long term benefits from decommissioning roads and removing vehicle disturbance from 165 

miles of routes in LS habitats. These roads and routes will slowly revegetate over time. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are described under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds 0.4 mile of road within or adjacent to LS habitats to the NFTS. 

Approximately 128 acres of suitable habitat occur within 0.25 mile of these routes (an 

insignificant percentage of the total LS habitat on the KNF). There are no routes within 0.25 mile 

of known NSO sites, but there is 0.1 mile proposed within 0.25 mile of one known goshawk site 

(Table TW-5). No additional habitat will be impacted or removed; less than 1acre of LS habitat 

will not revegetate in the long term. The impacts from this alternative would be undetectable at 

the Forest scale.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 329

Table TW-5. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known sites

Late-Successional Species

Miles of routes within 

or within 0.25 mile of 

LS habitat

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile of 

added route

NSO/Fisher/Goshawk 0.4 0/NA*/1

Marten 0.2 NA*

Marbled Murrelet Zone 2 0 0

*There are no known fisher or marten denning sites on the KNF

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects from the prohibition on cross-country travel and 

the effects of ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions (Appendix B). Effects from the 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, which will remove vehicle use from 69,000 acres 

and 156 miles of routes in LS habitats, are considered to be entirely beneficial due to cessation of 

human disturbance, and the elimination of potential for new, user-created routes that could 

remove or degrade LS habitat. Ongoing and foreseeable actions will result in decommissioning

of about 16 miles of NFTS roads in LS habitats, and the addition of 3 miles along 6 routes in the 

Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project. The Goosenest project 

analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species; there will be a short-term adverse impact, but longterm benefits to late-successional habitat. 

There will be a total of 3.4 miles of roads in LS habitats added to the NFTS, and about 167.6 

miles removed through decommissioning or the prohibition of cross-country travel. There will be 

long term benefits from decommissioning roads and removing vehicle disturbance from 164 

miles of routes in LS habitats. These roads and routes will slowly revegetate over time. 

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are described under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 69 miles of roads and trails proposed in this alternative, 38 miles lie within or adjacent to 

late-successional habitats (Table TW-6). Approximately 12,160 acres of LS habitat occur within 

0.25 mile of these routes (about 2.6% of the LS habitat on the KNF). Less than 1 mile lies within 

0.25 mile of three NSO activity centers, and 2 miles lie within 0.25 mile of 3 goshawk sites. 

About 0.1 mile lies within marbled murrelet (Zone 2) habitat. No additional habitat will be 

removed, but designated routes (comprising about 81 acres) will not revegetate in the long term. 

Noise and physical disturbance will continue to occur along routes added to the NFTS. All 

routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are associated with existing NFTS roads that generate 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

330 Klamath National Forest

vehicle noise, and the area of overlapping noise influence is substantial. Effects from vehicle 

noise are not expected to have a measurable impact on long-term population parameters.

This alternative proposes 53 acres in two open riding areas where cross-country travel would 

not be prohibited. These areas are not located in or adjacent to LS habitats. 

Table TW-6. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known sites 

Late-Successional Species

Miles of routes within or 

within 0.25 mile of LS 

habitat

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added route

NSO/Fisher/Goshawk 38 3/NA*/3

Marten 15 0

Marbled Murrelet Zone 2 0.1 NA*

*There are no known fisher or marten denning sites identified on the KNF.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects from the prohibition on cross-country travel, the 

addition of 38 miles of routes in LS habitat, and the effects of ongoing and foreseeable roadrelated actions. Effects from the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, which will 

remove vehicle use from 69,000 acres and 118 miles of routes in LS habitats, are considered to be 

entirely beneficial due to cessation of human disturbance, and the elimination of potential for 

new, user-created routes that could remove or degrade LS habitat. Ongoing and foreseeable 

actions will result in decommissioning of about 16 miles of NFTS roads in LS habitats, and the 

addition of 3 miles along 6 routes in the Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve Habitat 

Restoration Project. The Goosenest project analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species; there 

will be a short-term adverse impact, but long-term benefits to late-successional habitat. 

There will be a total of about 41 miles of roads in LS habitats added to the NFTS, 16 miles 

decommissioned, and 118 miles where vehicle use will be eliminated resulting in a net reduction 

of 93 miles of routes in LS habitats. There will be long-term benefits from decommissioning 

roads and removing vehicle disturbance from these routes and roads, which will slowly revegetate 

over time. 

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel 

The effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel are described under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Of the 59 miles of roads and trails proposed in this alternative, 32 miles lie within or adjacent to 

late-successional habitats (Table TW-7). Approximately 10,240 acres of LS habitat occur within 

0.25 mile of these routes (about 2% of the LS habitat on the KNF). Approximately 0.6 mile of 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 331

proposed routes occurs within 0.25 mile of three NSO activity centers, and 2 miles lie within 0.25 

mile of 3 goshawk sites. About 0.04 mile lies within marbled murrelet (Zone 2) habitat. No 

additional habitat will be removed, but designated routes (comprising about 69 acres) will not 

revegetate in the long term. 

Noise and physical disturbance will continue to occur along routes added to the NFTS. All 

routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are associated with existing NFTS roads that generate 

vehicle noise, and the area of overlapping noise influence is substantial. Because unauthorized 

routes have been in place and used for many years, some level of vehicle noise is included in the 

ambient situation. Effects from vehicle noise are not expected to have a measurable impact on 

long-term population parameters.

This alternative proposes to add two designated open riding areas (53 acres total) where 

cross-country travel would not be prohibited. These areas are not located in or adjacent to latesuccessional habitat; therefore, no effects are expected. 

Table TW-7. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat or known sites

Late-Successional Species

Miles of routes 

within or within 0.25 

mile of LS habitat

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added route

NSO/Fisher/Goshawk 32 3/NA*/3

Marten 12 0

Marbled Murrelet Zone 2 0.04 0

*There are no known fisher denning sites identified on the KNF.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects from the prohibition on cross-country travel, the 

addition of 32 miles of routes in LS habitat, and the effects of ongoing and foreseeable roadrelated actions. Effects from the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, which will 

remove vehicle use from 69,000 acres and 124 miles of routes in LS habitats, are considered to be 

entirely beneficial due to cessation of human disturbance, and the elimination of potential for 

creation of new unauthorized routes that could remove or degrade LS habitat. Ongoing and 

foreseeable actions will result in decommissioning of about 16 miles of NFTS roads in LS 

habitats, and the addition of 3 miles along 6 routes in the Goosenest Late-Successional Reserve 

Habitat Restoration Project. The Goosenest project analyzed impacts to LS habitats and species; 

there will be a short-term adverse impact, but long-term benefits to late-successional habitat. 

There will be about 35 miles of roads in LS habitats added to the NFTS, 16 miles 

decommissioned, and 124 miles where vehicle use will be eliminated, resulting in a net reduction 

of 105 miles of routes in LS habitats. There will be long-term benefits from decommissioning 

roads and removing vehicle disturbance from these routes and roads, which will slowly revegetate 

over time. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

332 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 7

This alternative is identical to Alternative 5 for routes within late-successional habitats. Direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects under this alternative are identical to those discussed for 

Alternative 5. 

Comparison of Effects on Late-Successional Species by Alternative 

Alternative 1 would have the greatest effects on late-successional species, and Alternative 3 the 

least (Table TW-8). There is very little difference in effects between the other action alternatives; 

effects from Alternatives 5 and 7 are identical. The most significant effects are generated by the 

prohibition of off-road motorized travel; the benefits of this action overwhelm the effects of 

continued use of a small number of miles of unauthorized routes. 

Table TW-8. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for late-successional focal 

species (alternatives 5 and 7 are combined)

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5/7 Alt 6

NSO/ fisher / 

goshawk

475,000 acres of

habitat

Acres of habitat 

available for crosscountry travel /% of 

habitat

69,000 

14% 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes in 

habitat or within 0.25 

mile of habitat

156 48 0 0.4 38 32

Acres of habitat within 

0.25 mi of proposed 

routes /

% of KNF LS habitat

49,920

10.5%

15,360

3% 0 896 insig.

12,160

2.6%

10,240

2%

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added routes

6/NA*/9 3/NA*/0 0/0/0 0/NA*/1 3/NA*/0 3/NA*/0

American Marten

Modeled habitat 

144,500 acres

Acres of habitat 

available for crosscountry travel/% of 

habitat

25,700

18% 0 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes in 

habitat or within 0.25 

mile of habitat

16 0.4 0 0.2 15 12

Acres of habitat within 

0.25 mi of proposed 

routes / % of KNF LS 

habitats

5,120

3.5%

128

<1%

0

0%

0.4 

<1%

4,800

3%

3,840

2.6%

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added routes

NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA*
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 333

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5/7 Alt 6

Marbled Murrelet

Modeled habitat 

71,300 acres

Acres of habitat 

available for crosscountry travel / % of 

habitat

12,000

17% 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes in 

habitat or within 0.25 

mile of habitat 

5 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.04

Acres of habitat within 

0.25 mi of proposed 

routes / % of KNF LS 

habitat

1,600

2.2% 0 0 0

32

insig.

13

insig.

Number of sensitive 

sites within 0.25 mile 

of added routes

0 0 0 0 0 0

*There are no known fisher or marten denning sites identified on the KNF.

Ungulate Group

Direct effects to animals such as injury or mortality may occur from collisions with vehicles on 

roads as well as direct and indirect effects to habitat. However, collisions with vehicles operating 

off road are rare and have not been reported to occur within the Forest. Collisions along NFTS 

roads have been documented on ML3, 4 and 5 roads where vehicle speeds are higher; no 

collisions on ML2 roads have been reported. This type of effect is considered to be highly 

unlikely. 

Direct effects to habitat occur when vehicles crush browse plants and displace or compact 

soil, affecting soil productivity and thereby degrading habitat quality. Crushing could also 

indirectly lead to other changes in vegetation such as a reduction in development and growth of 

hiding cover for juveniles or adults, and the introduction of invasive species. This effect is 

expected to occur only under Alternative 1, as new routes could be created on the area open and 

available to cross-country travel. 

The most likely impacts to ungulates, both in the short-term and the long term, would be the 

disturbance from vehicles or noise that would cause individuals to move or alter behavior. The 

most commonly described behavioral response to roads in the ungulate group includes 

displacement and avoidance where animals were reported as altering their use of feeding, 

breeding, or wintering habitats in response to motorized trails or trail networks. Many studies 

have documented increased use at greater distances from roads. 

Unauthorized routes contribute to open road density (which serves as a proxy for disturbance 

effects). Densities of 3 miles per square mile or higher correlate with low habitat capability for 

deer (USDA 1995). Elk response to roads is not as linear; the amount of impact depends on 

traffic rates (use), proximity of cover adjacent to roads, and type of road. Overall, higher road 

densities contribute to lower elk habitat effectiveness (Rowland et al. 2005). 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

334 Klamath National Forest

Human activities may be more significant to this group when occurring near areas where 

young are reared or on winter ranges (Canfield et al 1999, as cited in Gaines 2003; Phillips and 

Alldredge 2000 as reported in Gaines et al. 2003). Winter range is traditionally considered the 

limiting factor of environment; deer survive primarily by supplementing energy reserves 

accumulated prior to winter with energy intake from submaintenance winter diets (Mackie 1998). 

This requires behavior that emphasizes energy conservation; repeated movements away from 

roads or human-generated activities can deplete energy reserves that are already low. All routes 

considered for addition to the NFTS would be added as ML2 roads or motorized trails, which 

equate to a ―primitive‖ rating; both Gaines and Benkobi (2004) suggest that primitive roads do 

not elicit a strong response from elk. This avoidance response is more pronounced in deer than 

elk. 

The KNF supports about 220,000 acres of deer winter range identified by the California 

Department of Fish and Game. Unmanaged motor vehicle use is potentially a factor in the 

declining habitat conditions described by the Draft Siskiyou County Deer Management Plan 

(Siskiyou County Deer Working Group 2009); as routes proliferate, more habitat is available for 

vehicle use at all times of the year. The availability of seasonal ranges for year-round crosscountry motorized travel is likely contributing to the state-wide declines in black-tailed deer

population size, habitat and distribution (Schaefer, personal communication 2009). California 

Department of Fish and Game cites high road density as one factor contributing to declining 

conditions found in critical deer winter range. 

The Humbug drainage is included in identified deer winter range and is an area of special 

concern because it supports an extensive road system, has a concentration of unauthorized routes, 

and receives higher motorized use than other parts of the KNF due to its proximity to Yreka and 

Interstate 5. It is also at a relatively low elevation and is accessible by vehicles for much of the 

winter and early spring. Due to these factors, the action alternatives all include a season of use 

(May 1 through October 31) on routes in the Humbug area proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

This will eliminate vehicle disturbance and noise from these routes during a critical time of the 

year for deer.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel. About 340,500 acres of 

seasonal elk habitats are available to cross-country travel (23%), and 160,000 acres of seasonal 

deer range are open (about 50%). All 497 miles of unauthorized routes occur in some type of 

seasonal ungulate range. Two areas of concentrated off-road use currently exist (Juniper Flat and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 335

Humbug) that total about 60 acres. Juniper Flat is outside of key ranges; Humbug is located 

within deer winter range as identified by California Department of Fish and Game. Many of the 

disturbed sites in the Humbug concentrated use area will not recover in the short or long term 

regardless of whether they continue to receive vehicle use due to soil type and erosion hazard (see 

discussion under Soils section). Under this alternative, other concentrated use areas could develop 

in key elk or deer ranges without advance planning or mitigations.

Table TW-9 displays the number of acres of seasonal elk and deer habitats potentially 

available for cross-country vehicle travel under this alternative. About 45 percent of all elk 

seasonal habitat is exposed to off-road travel. About 50% of identified deer seasonal ranges are 

open to off-road use under this alternative. Vehicles could access any of these acres and disturb 

elk or deer.

Table TW-9. Alternative 1: Seasonal ungulate ranges that could be impacted by cross-country 

motorized travel 

Species 

Total acres of 

winter habitat 

on the KNF

Acres of winter 

habitat on KNF 

accessible to crosscountry travel 

(% of total)

Total acres of 

summer 

fawning/calving 

habitat

Acres of summer 

habitat on KNF 

accessible to crosscountry travel 

(% of total)

Elk 223,000 48,250 (22%) 1,467,000 340,570 (23%)

Deer 220,000 107,000 (47%) 108,400 59,900 (55%)

Unauthorized routes will continue to be used, and so will not have the opportunity to 

revegetate. There are 423 miles13 of unauthorized routes in some type of ungulate seasonal range 

(Table TW-10), resulting in 846 acres of habitat that will not revegetate and are foregone in the 

short and long terms. No seasonal restrictions are in place for either the acres open to crosscountry travel or the unauthorized routes, so the potential for disturbance to deer and elk during 

critical seasonal periods could be high.

Table TW-10. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the ungulate group 

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 20 403

Black-Tailed Deer 112 66

Thirty-eight 7th field watersheds in elk seasonal ranges, 19 watersheds in deer winter range 

and 32 in deer summer range will continue to support road densities greater than 3 miles per 

square mile. Additional unauthorized routes could be created by off-road travel, which could 

increase open road densities in other watersheds that currently have open road densities 

supporting moderate or high habitat capability.

 

13 Due to overlap of seasonal ranges, the total shown for elk includes the mileage within deer seasonal ranges.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

336 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not propose additions to the NFTS.

Cumulative effects

Over the past decade, timber harvest on the KNF has declined sharply. Clearcut harvest strategies 

have been replaced by thinning and patch cuts, so that very little early successional habitat has 

been created. There has been some focus on shrub management on the Goosenest District, but 

this work has focused on enhancing existing habitats rather than creating new shrub-dominated 

sites. Fuels reduction activities (especially broadcast burning) could produce early seral 

conditions in some areas (including sprouting of browse species), which would be a positive 

impact on ungulate habitat. However, the LRMP directs that most sites be managed for latesuccessional habitats that may provide hiding and thermal cover, but provide limited forage.

Foreseeable management activities could create disturbances that would affect ungulates in 

seasonal ranges. Human intrusion and noise from heavy equipment is expected to occur in 

management units. This type of disturbance would occur over days or weeks in a single season, 

but would not be constant or long term in nature. 

California Department of Fish and Game cites high road density as one factor contributing to 

declining conditions found in deer winter range. Road construction or decommissioning projects 

associated with management actions are considered to be the primary actions that overlap with

effects from the Travel Management project. 

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

423 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in all 10 watersheds will remain above 3 miles/mi2due to NFTS, 

county, state and private roads. These 10 watersheds will continue to provide low habitat 

capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 337

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 339 miles (678 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in all but three7th field watersheds (Table TW-11), resulting in 

some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for deer will improve from low 

to moderate in 14 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the changes in open road density 

are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to ungulates.

Table TW-11. Open road densities (miles/mi2) in 7th field watersheds within ungulate seasonal 

ranges.

Watershed Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Antelope Sink 3.48 1.94 1.86 1.86 2.06 2.06 2.06

Antelope Well 3.00 2.89 1.96 1.96 1.97 1.97 1.97

Beaver-Grouse 3.54 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32

Benjamin-Wingate 3.07 3.07 3.01 3.01 3.07 3.03 3.03

Buckhorn 4.68 4.43 4.34 4.34 4.38 4.37 4.38

Butte Ck Headwaters 3.02 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96

Collins-Lime 4.06 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.06 4.06 4.06

Deadwood 5.66 5.63 5.60 5.60 5.63 5.60 5.61

Deer-Beaver 5.58 4.94 4.93 4.93 4.98 4.94 4.98

Dock Well 3.59 3.13 3.06 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08

Doggett 5.96 5.83 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.83 5.83

East Fork Horse 3.40 3.40 3.36 3.36 3.40 3.36 3.36

Garner Mtn 3.85 3.00 2.82 2.82 2.86 2.84 2.86

Grass Lake NE 3.09 2.79 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76

Grouse Hill 3.34 2.98 2.93 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98

Haight Mtn 4.20 4.13 3.94 3.94 4.08 4.08 4.08

Hill 22 3.40 2.99 2.52 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87

Hoop & Devil 3.11 3.11 3.08 3.08 3.11 3.11 3.11

Jaynes Canyon 4.92 4.87 4.84 4.84 4.88 4.87 4.88

Little Humbug 3.52 2.51 2.50 2.59 2.59 2.51 2.59
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

338 Klamath National Forest

Watershed Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Long John 4.13 4.05 4.04 4.04 4.05 4.05 4.05

Lower First 4.92 2.84 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47

Lower Horse 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50

Main Horsethief 3.08 2.85 2.83 2.84 2.84 2.84 2.84

Middle Fork Humbug 4.59 3.12 2.21 2.42 2.83 2.83 2.80

Mud Lake 3.42 3.23 3.13 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18

Muskgrave 3.28 2.70 2.65 2.65 2.70 2.70 2.70

Negro-Hotelling 3.28 3.28 3.27 3.27 3.28 3.28 3.28

Pollic Flat 3.09 2.74 2.68 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74

Tamarack Flat 3.16 2.41 2.15 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23

Tennant-Antelope Ck 4.31 3.77 3.53 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.85

Trapper Ck 3.88 3.64 3.60 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64

Upper Antelope 3.09 3.06 3.01 3.01 3.07 3.06 3.07

Upper First 4.96 4.38 4.32 4.32 4.33 4.33 4.33

Upper Fish-Browns 3.07 3.00 2.99 2.99 3.07 3.00 3.07

Upper Humbug 5.58 3.63 2.65 2.65 4.02 3.81 3.90

Upper Shovel 3.57 2.89 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87

Van Bremmer Well 4.62 3.00 2.77 2.77 2.99 2.99 2.99

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 92 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS. All 92 miles 

are within elk seasonal ranges and 31 miles are in deer seasonal ranges (Table TW-12). About 

184 acres habitat will not revegetate and is foregone in the short and long terms. Proposed routes 

are distributed across all six districts of the KNF, with the highest concentration of routes, and a 

5-acre open riding area, proposed in the Humbug drainage in habitat designated by the California 

Department of Fish and Game as deer winter range. These routes are proposed as motorized 

trails, and along with the open riding area would have an annual season of use from May 1 to 

October 31. This season of use will keep vehicles out of the Rider, Kennebeck and Jakes Gulch 

drainages during the winter, which should eliminate disruption to wintering deer in these areas.

The Juniper Flat open riding area is not within seasonal ungulate range. 

Table TW-12. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate group

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 8 84

Black-Tailed Deer 21 10
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 339

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

331 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Garner Mountain, Tennant-Antelope, 

Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi2. Antelope Well, Grass Lake 

NE, Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide 

moderate habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are 

included in the Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest 

Supervisors Office in Yreka, California. 

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 423 miles (846 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in all but one 7th field watershed (Table TW-11), resulting in 

some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for deer will improve from low 

to moderate in 18 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the changes in open road density 

are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to ungulates.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No facilities would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

340 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

423 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Tennant-Antelope, Upper First, and Van 

Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi

2

. Antelope Well, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, 

Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide moderate 

habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 416 miles (832 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in all but three7th field watersheds (Table TW-11), resulting in 

some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for deer will improve from low 

to moderate in 18 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the changes in open road density 

are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to ungulates.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative adds approximately 7 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, all of 

which are located within elk summer and transition ranges (Table TW-13). Less than one mile 

would be added as a motorized trail within deer winter range; that route would have a season of 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 341

use from May 1-October 31. This would prevent disturbance to wintering deer using the area. 

Changes in road densities in ungulate habitats are insignificant under this alternative.

Table TW-13. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate group

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 0 7

Black-Tailed Deer 0.7 0

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

416 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Tennant-Antelope, Upper First, and Van 

Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi2. Antelope Well, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, 

Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide moderate 

habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 365 miles (730 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in thirty 7th field watersheds and remain the same in 7 (Table 

TW-11), resulting in some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for deer 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

342 Klamath National Forest

will improve from low to moderate in 16 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the 

changes in open road density are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to 

ungulates.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 69 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS. About 58 

miles are within elk seasonal ranges and 28 miles are in deer seasonal ranges (Table TW-14). 

About 116 acres habitat will not revegetate and are foregone in the short and long terms. 

Proposed routes are distributed across all six districts of the KNF, with the highest concentration 

of routes, and a 5-acre open riding area, proposed in the Humbug drainage in habitat designated 

by the California Department of Fish and Game as deer winter range. These routes are proposed 

as motorized trails, and along with the open riding area would have an annual season of use from 

May 1 to October 31. This season of use will keep vehicles out of the Rider, Kennebeck and 

Jakes Gulch drainages during the winter, which should eliminate disruption to wintering deer in 

these areas.

The Juniper Flat open riding area is not within seasonal ungulate range. 

Table TW-14. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within seasonal habitats for the ungulate group 

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 10 48

Black-Tailed Deer 21 7

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

423 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Tennant-Antelope, Upper First, and Van 

Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi2. Antelope Well, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, 

Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide moderate 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 343

habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 364 miles (728 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in thirty-three 7th field watersheds and remain the same in 4 

(Table TW-15), resulting in some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for 

deer will improve from low to moderate in 16 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the 

changes in open road density are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to 

ungulates.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 59 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, all of which 

59 are within elk seasonal ranges; 24 miles are within deer seasonal ranges (Table TW-XX). 

About 118 acres habitat will not revegetate and are foregone in the short and long terms. 

Proposed routes are distributed across all six districts of the KNF, with the highest concentration 

of routes, and a 5-acre open riding area, proposed in the Humbug drainage in habitat designated 

by the California Department of Fish and Game as deer winter range. These routes are proposed 

as motorized trails, and along with the open riding area would have an annual season of use from 

May 1 to October 31. This season of use will keep vehicles out of the Rider, Kennebeck and 

Jakes Gulch drainages during the winter, which should eliminate disruption to wintering deer in 

these areas.

The Juniper Flat open riding area is not within seasonal ungulate range. 

Table TW-15. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate group

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 8 51

Black-Tailed Deer 19 5
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

344 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

423 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Tennant-Antelope, Upper First, and Van 

Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi2. Antelope Well, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, 

Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide moderate 

habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel

This alternative prohibits cross-country motorized travel on 388,820 acres of seasonal elk range 

and 166,900 acres of seasonal deer range. Disturbance to animals, and disruption of 

fawning/calving activities would be eliminated on this acreage. The potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes would be eliminated, so there would be no further loss or degradation of 

habitat beyond what has already occurred. About 423 miles (846 acres) of unauthorized routes in 

ungulate seasonal ranges that are not added to the NFTS will revegetate in the long term, 

although some routes in High and Very High EHRs in Humbug may take much longer to recover. 

Open road densities will decrease in thirty-two 7th field watersheds and remain the same in 5 

(Table TW-11), resulting in some improvement to habitat capability for elk. Habitat capability for 

deer will improve from low to moderate in 16 watersheds within seasonal ranges. Some of the 

changes in open road density are very small and would probably have only localized benefits to 

ungulates.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 74 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS. Fifty-eight

miles are within elk seasonal ranges and 24 miles are within deer seasonal ranges (Table TW-16). 

About 116 acres of habitat will not revegetate and is foregone in the short and long terms. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 345

Proposed routes are distributed across all six districts of the KNF, with the highest concentration 

of routes, and a 5-acre open riding area, proposed in the Humbug drainage in habitat designated 

by the California Department of Fish and Game as deer winter range. These routes are proposed 

as motorized trails, and along with the open riding area would have an annual season of use from 

May 1 to October 31. This season of use will keep vehicles out of the Rider, Kennebeck and 

Jakes Gulch drainages during the winter, which should eliminate disruption to wintering deer in 

these areas.

The Juniper Flat open riding area is not within seasonal ungulate range. 

Table TW-16. Alternative 7: Miles of routes within potential key habitats for the ungulate group

Species

Miles of Routes 

within Winter 

Range

Miles of Routes within 

Summer/Fawning 

Range

Elk 8 50

Black-Tailed Deer 19 5

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of the continued cross-country travel and vehicle use of 

423 miles of unauthorized routes within ungulate seasonal ranges added to the effects from 

ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. Within ungulate seasonal ranges, these activities 

include addition of 7.85 miles of ML 1 road and 7.72 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 2.5 miles of ML 2 road by decommissioning. The ML1 roads are closed to vehicle use 

year-round and do not contribute to open road densities. 

Road-related management activities will occur in 10 watersheds with high open road 

densities: Antelope Well, Buckhorn, Doggett, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, Muskgrave, 

Pollic Flat, Tennant-Antelope Creek, Upper First, and Van Bremmer Well. Decommissioning 

activities in Buckhorn and Doggett will contribute toward a reduction in open road mileage; 

however, open road densities in these watersheds, and in Tennant-Antelope, Upper First, and Van 

Bremmer Well, will remain above 3 miles/mi2. Antelope Well, Garner Mountain, Grass Lake NE, 

Muskgrave, and Pollic Flat will have open road densities below 3 miles/mi2and provide moderate 

habitat capability for deer. Complete details of the cumulative effects analysis are included in the 

Ungulate Process Paper, included in the project files located in the Forest Supervisors Office in 

Yreka, California. 

Summary of All Alternatives

Alternative 1 would have the greatest negative effects on ungulate species, due to unrestricted 

off-road travel in seasonal ranges, and Alternative 3 would show the greatest benefits. There are 

significant beneficial effects to the ungulate group from the prohibition of off-road travel, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

346 Klamath National Forest

including elimination of noise and vehicle disturbance from important winter range and 

fawning/calving areas. Road densities in all but one watershed with low habitat capability will 

decrease under all action alternatives. Seventeen watersheds in deer winter range will move from 

low to moderate habitat capability in Alternative 4, and 16 will move from low to moderate under 

alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7. Reductions in open road mileage will reduce the potential for 

disturbance to animals on seasonal ranges and provide long term benefits for the ungulate group.

Table TW-17. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for ungulate focal 

species

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

 Elk

1,690,000 

acres 

seasonal 

habitat

Acres of 

habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel 

(% of habitat)

388,820 

(23%)

5

(insig.)

0 0 5

(insig.)

5

(insig.)

5

(insig.)

Miles of routes 

in seasonal 

habitats

423 92 0 7 58 59 58

 Deer

328,000 

acres 

seasonal 

habitat

Acres of 

habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel 

(% of habitat)

215,400

(50%)

5

(insig.) 0 0

5

(insig.)

5

(insig.)

5

(insig.)

Miles of routes 

in seasonal 

habitats

178 31 0 0.7 28 24 24

Ungulates

# of watersheds 

with road density

 > 3 miles/mi2

37 13 17 17 16 16 16

Riparian Group 

Direct effects to riparian-dependent species could include impacts to individuals, negative 

behavioral responses, and loss in reproductive success from OHV noise and activities (Anthony et 

al. 1995, Buehler et al. 1991, Hamann et al. 1999, McGarigal et al. 1991, Watson 1993, in Gaines 

et al. 2007). Direct and indirect effects to riparian habitats include crushing or compaction of 

vegetation from vehicle use, or loss of vegetation from long term use of routes or through the 

introduction of invasive species. Breeding sites for the species addressed in this group are 

generally not known and use is often highly temporal and transitory; thus, potential effects are 

measured in terms of effects to habitat. 

Off-road travel in meadow systems can have long-lasting effects. In a literature review, 

Ouren et al. 2007 describe the long-term effects of soil compaction before normal ecological

processes can recover the soil‘s texture, even after a single vehicle pass. Use of wet meadows on 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 347

the KNF by OHVs can result in resource damage, and is therefore prohibited. However, cases of 

off-road use in meadows have been observed (Cheyne, Brown, personal communication, 2008).

Environmental Consequences

Approximately 67 miles of unauthorized routes occur within riparian reserves. Riparian areas are 

particularly vulnerable to motorized vehicle use because wet soils are more susceptible to 

compaction, and these habitats often attract high levels of human use (Gaines et al. 2003). 

Therefore, the likelihood of impacts is high where OHV use occurs in riparian zones. Ouren et al. 

(2007) notes that mortality rates among riparian-dependent species vary widely according to the 

habitat and route characteristics. Traffic density, speed, and availability of escape cover can all 

influence the occurrence and intensity of impacts from vehicle use. 

Riparian-associated species primarily use the linear riparian zones, but some species utilize 

upland areas also. Western pond turtles, red-legged frogs, and willow flycatchers will use upland 

slopes or areas away from the water for feeding, breeding, or dispersing. It is difficult for an 

analysis at this scale to precisely quantify effects to suitable habitat for these species because of 

the microsite conditions found in occupied habitat. 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel. Under this alternative, 67 miles 

of unauthorized routes occur within riparian reserves, representing about three percent of total 

miles of stream habitat available Forestwide. Fourteen motorized stream crossings would 

continue to be used, and other low-water crossings could be created. The extent to which the 

riparian group could be affected in the long term cannot be quantitatively assessed because of the 

unknown potential for expansion of the user-created route system and the unknown distribution 

of these species on the KNF. Under the current management scenario, vehicle travel off 

designated NFS roads and the utilization of user-created routes would continue and routes likely 

would proliferate, leading to more habitat disturbance and loss. Currently disturbed areas would 

be subjected to continued use and would not recover. Table TW-18 displays the miles of routes 

within potential habitats for the riparian group. 

About 0.15 mile of unauthorized routes occur within riparian habitats suitable for willow 

flycatchers. This low number is probably due to the difficulty of moving a vehicle through 

established willow stands. There is no documentation of willow flycatcher habitat loss due to offhighway vehicle use on the KNF. Should routes proliferate into these areas, vehicle use could 

directly influence reproductive success through displacement of adults or nest abandonment. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

348 Klamath National Forest

While there is no evidence of its occurrence to date, vehicle-induced changes to soil water levels 

could affect willow establishment and growth. 

Riparian-dependent species such as the western pond turtle, northern red-legged frog, 

tailed frog, and long-tailed vole are small and not highly mobile, and are therefore more 

vulnerable to effects of OHV use in riparian vegetation or along streams. Home ranges for these 

species are small, so small areas of disturbance can have profound effects on individuals or their 

home ranges. Tailed frog and long-tailed vole are highly restricted to the zone immediately 

adjacent to the water and are highly vulnerable to the effects of vehicle use in riparian areas. The 

potential for effects from ongoing and future vehicle use in riparian areas is likely greater with 

these species than with any other wildlife group discussed in this document. About 9,270 acres of 

riparian habitats could be affected by cross country motorized travel. Approximately three miles 

of unauthorized routes occur in western pond turtle and northern red-legged frog habitat (less than 

1 percent of the total habitat). Sandhill cranes, because of their mobility, would be less 

susceptible to small, localized impacts. The large-scale changes in wetland acreage and 

conditions that could affect cranes are unlikely to occur as a result of continued cross-country

motorized travel on the KNF.

Implementation of this alternative could result in negative impacts to riparian areas through 

the short and long term. In the long term, 6 acres of riparian habitat and 134 acres of riparian 

reserves would continue to be impacted by vehicle use and would not recover. Noise and physical 

disturbance would continue to occur on 9,270 acres of riparian reserves. Intermittent stream 

channels are usually dry during summer months and are not likely to be occupied; crossing them 

with a motor vehicle at those times would not directly impact riparian habitats or species. 

Table TW-18. Alternative 1: Miles of routes within potential habitat for the riparian group 

Species Habitat Forestwidea 

Miles of Routes within 

Riparian Habitats /

Miles within Riparian 

Reserves

Equivalent Acres of 

Routes within 

Riparian Reserves /

% of Total RR Areab

Willow Flycatcher 3,236 ac 0.15 / 67 0.3 / insignificant

Western Pond Turtle 9,270 ac 3 / 67 6 / 0.2%

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog/Sandhill crane 9,270 ac 3 / 67 6 / 0.2%

Tailed Frog /LT Vole 2,500 milesc3 / 67 6 / 0.2%

a - Habitat estimated by miles of perennial and intermittent streams. 

b - Equivalent acres of miles in riparian reserves divided by Forestwide habitat. 

C - All potential stream habitat is considered to be available habitat for these species.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 349

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the impacts from continued cross-country travel and vehicle use on 67 

miles of unauthorized routes in RRs added to the effects from ongoing and foreseeable 

management activities. Fuel reduction is the primary management activity taking place in 

riparian reserves. These projects generally include back burning or broadcast burning (little if 

any mechanical work is involved). While prescribed burning may take place in riparian reserves, 

it rarely affects riparian habitats since these habitats are generally moist and do not support fire. 

Fires may be allowed to back into riparian reserves, but they are extinguished if fire behavior 

increases and riparian vegetation is threatened. In addition, effects from fire are dissimilar to 

those occurring through establishment of unauthorized routes. Fire is a natural process that does 

not compact soil, and encourages resprouting of vegetation. No ongoing or foreseeable road 

construction projects are proposed within riparian reserves. Cumulative effects for this 

alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects. 

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on 23 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian reserves. 

These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species on 9,270 

acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that result in 

reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, 

passive restoration would occur on 23 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and 4.4 acres of 

riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by 

unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the establishment 

and maintenance of riparian habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative proposes adding 92 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, of which 23 

miles are within riparian reserves. Of this total, about 0.8 mile (1.6 acre) is within mapped 

riparian vegetation. This alternative proposes to add 0.4 miles of routes within willow flycatcher

habitat and 0.8 mile within red-legged frog, western pond turtle and sandhill crane habitat. No 

additional impacts to riparian habitats or species are expected to occur from adding these routes 

to the NFTS. Twenty-three miles (46 acres) of unauthorized routes in riparian reserves will 

continue to be used by vehicles and will not recover in the short or long term. This represents 

less than one percent of habitat on the KNF for tailed frog and long-tailed vole, pond turtle, redlegged frog, willow flycatcher, and sandhill crane habitat (Table TW-19).
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

350 Klamath National Forest

Table TW-19. Alternative 2: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian group 

Alternative 2

Miles of routes 

proposed within 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Equivalent Acres in 

Riparian Habitats/ 

Riparian Reserves

Percent of Acres in 

Riparian Habitats / 

RRs Affected

Willow Flycatcher 0.05 / 0 .4 0.10 / 0.8 insignificant/ < 1%

Western Pond Turtle/ 

Sandhill crane 0.8 / 23 1.6 / 46 insignificant/ < 1%

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog 0.8 / 23 1.6 / 46 insignificant/ < 1%

Tailed Frog/LT Vole 23a 46b1.2 % / < 1%

a - Total miles within riparian reserves proposed for addition to NFTS

b - Equivalent acres for miles of routes within riparian reserves

Alternative 2 also proposes 65 acres within two designated open riding areas where crosscountry travel would not be prohibited. Juniper Flat open riding area is not located within a 

riparian reserve. The Humbug open riding area is partially within the boundaries of a riparian 

reserve, but does not support riparian vegetation. Vehicle use in these areas will not affect 

riparian habitats. 

Cumulative Effects 

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on 67 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian reserves. 

These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species on 9,270 

acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that result in 

reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, 

passive restoration would occur on 67 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and 6 acres of 

riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by 

unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the focal species 

within this group and to the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS. 

Cumulative effects

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 351

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on 67 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian reserves. 

These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species on 9,270 

acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that result in 

reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, 

passive restoration would occur on 67 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and 6 acres of 

riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by 

unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the focal species 

within this group and to the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitats. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Proposed routes do not occur in mapped riparian habitats, but 3 routes of routes (0.4 mile total) 

are proposed within riparian reserves. This equates to about 0.8 acre; effects to riparian species 

and habitats are not measurable and are discountable under this alternative. Table TW-20 displays 

the miles of proposed routes within potential habitat for the riparian group. 

Table TW-20. Alternative 4: Miles of routes within potential habitat for the riparian group 

Species

Miles of routes 

proposed within 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Equivalent Acres 

in riparian 

habitats/ Riparian 

reserves

Percent of acres in 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Willow Flycatcher 0 / 0 0.6 / 0.4 insignificant

Western Pond Turtle/ 

Sandhill Crane 0 / 0 0.6 / 0.4 insignificant

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog 0 / 0 0.6 / 0.4 insignificant

Tailed Frog / LT Vole 0 / 0 0.6 / 0.4 insignificant

Cumulative effects

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel 

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on 46 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian reserves. 

These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species on 9,270 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

352 Klamath National Forest

acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that result in 

reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, 

passive restoration would occur on 46 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and about 4 acres 

of riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by 

unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the focal species 

within this group and to the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitats. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add about 21 miles of routes within riparian reserves to the NFTS; 

less than one mile (2 acres) is within mapped riparian vegetation. This alternative proposes to add 

0.4 mile of routes within willow flycatcher habitat and 0.8 mile of routes within red-legged frog 

and western pond turtle habitat, and 23 miles of routes within riparian reserves where tailed frogs 

and long-tailed voles could occur. No additional loss or degradation of habitat would be expected 

to occur.

Two acres of riparian habitat and 42 acres within riparian reserves will continue to be 

impacted by vehicle use, and will not recover in the long term (Table TW-21). This represents 

less than 1% of riparian reserve acres on the KNF and is considered to be an insignificant 

percentage of habitat for willow flycatcher, tailed frog, long-tailed vole, pond turtle, red-legged 

frog, and sandhill crane. No additional loss of habitat is expected under this alternative for any 

species in the riparian group. 

Alternative 5 also proposes 53 acres within two designated open riding areas where crosscountry travel would not be prohibited. Juniper Flat open riding area is not located within a 

riparian reserve. The Humbug open riding area is partially within the boundaries of a riparian 

reserve, but does not support riparian vegetation; vehicle use will not affect riparian habitats. 

Table TW-21. Alternative 5: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian group 

Species

Miles of routes 

proposed within 

riparian habitats 

/ Riparian 

reserves

Equivalent Acres 

in riparian 

habitats/ Riparian 

reserves

Percent of acres in 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Willow Flycatcher 0.05 / 21 0.10 / 42 Insignificant / < 1%

Western Pond Turtle/ 

Sandhill Crane 0.8 / 21 1.6 / 42 Insignificant / < 1%

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog 0.8 / 21 1.6 / 42 Insignificant / < 1%

Tailed Frog / LT Vole 21 42 0.25% / 0.5%

Cumulative Effects

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 353

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on about 49 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian 

reserves. These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species 

on 9,270 acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that 

result in reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the longterm, passive restoration would occur on 49 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and about 

4.6 acres of riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts 

caused by unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the focal 

species within this group and to the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 59 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, 18 miles 

within riparian reserves. About 0.7 mile is within mapped riparian vegetation. This alternative 

proposes to add 0.03 mile within willow flycatcher habitat, 0.7 mile within red-legged frog and 

western pond turtle habitat, and 21 miles within riparian reserves in potential habitats for tailed 

frogs and long-tailed voles. No additional loss or degradation of habitat would be expected to 

occur.

About 1.4 acres of riparian habitat and 42 acres within riparian reserves will continue to be 

impacted by vehicle use, and will not recover in the long term (Table TW-22). This represents 

less than 1% of riparian reserve acres on the KNF and is considered an insignificant percentage of 

habitat for willow flycatcher, tailed frog, long-tailed vole, pond turtle, red-legged frog, and 

sandhill crane. No additional loss of habitat is expected under this alternative for any species in 

the riparian group.

Alternative 6 also proposes 53 acres within two designated open riding areas where crosscountry travel would not be prohibited. Juniper Flat open riding area is not located within a 

riparian reserve. The Humbug open riding area is partially within the boundaries of a riparian 

reserve, but does not support riparian vegetation. Vehicle use in these areas will not affect 

riparian habitats. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

354 Klamath National Forest

Table TW-22. Alternative 6: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian group 

Species

Miles of routes 

proposed within 

riparian habitats 

/ Riparian 

reserves

Equivalent Acres in 

riparian habitats/ 

Riparian reserves

Percent of acres in 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Willow Flycatcher 0.05 / 26 0.10 / 26 Insignificant / < 1%

Western Pond Turtle/ 

Sandhill Crane 0.7 / 26 1.4 / 26 Insignificant / < 1%

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog 0.7 / 26 1.4 / 26 Insignificant / < 1%

Tailed Frog / LT Vole 26a 52b0.25% / 0.5%

a - Total miles within riparian reserves proposed for addition to NFTS

b - Equivalent acres for miles of routes within riparian reserves

Cumulative effects

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The prohibition of cross-country travel would eliminate the potential for vehicle traffic on 9,270 

acres within riparian habitats and on 47 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian reserves. 

These sites would recover and revegetate in the long term. Riparian-dependent species on 9,270 

acres would not be disturbed by the presence or noise of vehicles. Any changes that result in 

reduced motorized access could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, 

passive restoration would occur on 44.4 miles of routes within riparian reserves, and about 5 

acres of riparian habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by 

unmanaged motorized travel. This alternative is considered to be beneficial to the focal species 

within this group and to the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 74 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, about 20 

miles of which are within riparian reserves. Less than 0.5 mile (1 acre) is within mapped riparian 

vegetation. This alternative proposes to add 0.2 mile within willow flycatcher habitat and 0.6 mile 

within red-legged frog and western pond turtle habitat, and 20 miles within riparian reserves 

where tailed frogs and long-tailed voles could occur. No additional loss or degradation of habitat 

would be expected to occur.

One acre of riparian habitat and 40 acres within riparian reserves will continue to be impacted 

by vehicle use, and will not recover in the long term (Table TW-23). This represents less than 1% 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 355

of riparian reserve acres on the KNF, and is considered an insignificant percentage of habitat for 

willow flycatcher, tailed frog, long-tailed vole, pond turtle, red-legged frog, and sandhill crane. 

No additional loss of habitat is expected under this alternative for any species in the riparian 

group. 

Alternative 7 also proposes 53 acres within two designated open riding areas where crosscountry travel would not be prohibited. Juniper Flat open riding area is not located within a 

riparian reserve. The Humbug open riding area is partially within the boundaries of a riparian 

reserve, but does not support riparian vegetation; vehicle use will not affect riparian habitats.

Table TW-23. Alternative 7: Miles of routes within potential key habitat for the riparian group 

Species

Miles of routes 

proposed within 

riparian habitats 

/ Riparian 

reserves

Equivalent Acres 

in riparian 

habitats/ Riparian 

reserves

Percent of acres in 

riparian habitats / 

Riparian reserves

Willow Flycatcher 0.2 / 20.2 0.4 / 40 Insignificant / < 1%

Western Pond Turtle/ 

Sandhill Crane 0.6 / 20.2 1.2 / 40 Insignificant / < 1%

Northern Red-Legged 

Frog 0.6 / 20.2 1.2 / 40 Insignificant / < 1%

Tailed Frog / LT Vole 20.2 40 0.25% / 0.5%

Cumulative effects

No ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities affect riparian habitats. Cumulative effects for 

this alternative are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects.

Comparison of Effects on Riparian Species, by Alternative

Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for negative effects to riparian habitats. Under 

this alternative, 9,270 acres of riparian habitats will continue to be at risk of impacts from crosscountry vehicle travel, and additional habitat degradation and loss can occur (Table TW-24). The 

prohibition of cross-country travel included in all the action alternatives will eliminate these 

potential effects, providing substantial beneficial effects to riparian species. Alternative 3 would 

have the least effect and the greatest benefits. The small differences of expected effects between 

Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 are essentially undetectable. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

356 Klamath National Forest

Table TW-24. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for riparian focal 

species.

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of proposed 

routes within 

riparian reserves

67 23 0 0.4 21 18 20

Equivalent acres 

of routes in RRs 134 ac 46 ac 0 0.8 42 ac 36 ac 40 ac 

Miles of proposed 

routes within 

riparian habitats

N/A 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.7 0.6

Willow 

Flycatcher 

Habitat

3,236 acres

Riparian habitat 

available open to 

cross-country 

motorized travel

3,236 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes in 

mapped habitat / 

Acres

0.15

0.30

0.05

0.10

0

0

0

0

0.05

0.10

0.05

0.10

0.05

0.10

% of habitat Insig. Insig. 0% 0% Insig. Insig. Insig.

Northern 

Red-Legged 

Frog,

Western 

Pond Turtle 

and Sandhill 

Crane 

Habitat 

9,270 acres

Habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

9,270 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes in 

mapped habitat / 

Acres

3 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.7 0.6

% of habitat Insig. Insig. 0% 0% Insig. Insig. Insig.

Potential 

Tailed Frog

and Long 

Tailed Vole 

Habitat

(perennial 

and 

intermittent 

streams)

Habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

1,800 mi 

of 

streams

0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of 

unauthorized 

routes or 

proposed routes 

in habitat

67 23 0 0.4 21 18 20

Percent of KNF 

potential habitat 7% 1% 0% Insig. 1% 1% 1%

*Insignificant = less than 0.001%

Cavity Dependent Species

Species in this group could be affected by a variety of road and trail-associated factors, although 

direct effects to animals such as collisions are considered highly unlikely. This analysis focuses 

on loss or degradation of habitat, and indirect effects such as avoidance or displacement due to 

disturbance from motor vehicles or noise. 

Snag numbers increase as a result of wildfire, drought and insect infestation. There has been 

extensive wildfire activity on the KNF in the last decade, with over 200,000 acres burned in 2008 

alone. Drought in the early 1990s and 2000s killed numerous trees (especially smaller size trees), 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 357

and continues to play a role in distribution of woody vegetation across the KNF. Insect activity is 

increasing across the KNF (Blessing, personal communication 2009); a large area in the Shovel 

Creek Meadow area of the Goosenest Ranger District has suffered significant tree mortality, and 

the number of snags at higher elevations on that district is increasing dramatically. Snag numbers 

across the KNF are high in portions or all of most 7th field watersheds, and in many areas they are 

significantly in excess of the number required in the LRMP. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel. About 1.2 million acres, 

containing 630,000 acres considered habitat for cavity-dependent species, are available for 

motorized cross-country travel. About 24 percent of this habitat is open and available for crosscountry motorized travel. Cross-country travel in this habitat type includes the use of 27 miles of 

unauthorized routes (54 acres), which is the equivalent of .008% of Forest habitat.

The most likely direct effect on cavity-dependent species is disturbance from vehicle noise or 

physical intrusion that would cause individuals to move or alter behavior, particularly during 

foraging activities. Vehicle proximity may cause birds to flush from feeding locations. 

Disturbance could also impact food deliveries to cavities, pair-bonding, and cavity construction. 

Breeding-related impacts are less likely to occur, as early breeding activities begin when snow 

impedes or prevents most cross-country travel. Pileated woodpeckers often forage near or on the 

ground (Bull and Jackson 1995) where they would be more susceptible to vehicle disturbance, but 

this species is more widespread on the west side of the KNF in steeper terrain that does not 

accommodate off-road use. Red-breasted sapsuckers are generalists commonly found in the 

widely distributed mid-mature mixed conifer stands found across the KNF, and would potentially 

be less susceptible due to their ability to use a variety of habitats. The pallid bat is sensitive to 

disturbance at roosting and breeding sites. It may be less vulnerable than others in this group to 

disturbance because it is not active during the day, when most vehicle traffic occurs. 

Firewood cutters often take vehicles off roads to access down trees and snags. Currently, 

woodcutters can drive almost anywhere on the KNF, although woodcutting activity centers on 

NFTS roads and some unauthorized routes. Snags are highly targeted as a source of firewood, and 

can be cut under permit in some areas on the Forest. Continued off-road travel could result in the 

creation of new unauthorized routes that would expose more area to firewood harvest, potentially 

reducing the number of snags available for cavity-dependent species and affecting the number of 

future breeding and roosting sites. The highest potential for snag losses occurs on the Goosenest 

District where much of the land is accessible to off-road use because of the gentle terrain. White-
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

358 Klamath National Forest

headed woodpeckers are common in the high elevation lodgepole and red fir communities, and 

are probably the species in this group most likely to be subjected to habitat modification due to 

preferential removal of lodgepole snags by woodcutters (Blessing, personal communication, 

2008). Pallid bats are associated with large snags that are also targeted by woodcutters, so direct 

impacts to roost trees could occur. However, due to wildfire and insect activity that has occurred 

across the KNF over the last decade, snag levels are currently very high in many areas and will 

remain high for at least the next 20 years. Loss of snags to woodcutting along established routes 

will probably not represent a substantial loss of habitat for this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects include the impacts from continued cross-country travel and vehicle use on 27 

miles of unauthorized routes added to the effects from ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

activities within snag habitat. There would be beneficial impacts from closure of 150,000 acres of 

snag habitat to human intrusion and disturbance. Road-related activities will add 13 miles of ML 

1 and 26 miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 50 miles of roads, all considered to 

be within habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. ML1 roads are not open to public use and 

there should be no affect to snag numbers from woodcutting or hazard tree removal in the short or 

long term. Decommissioning roads would have positive long term beneficial effects as it 

eliminates the need to remove hazard trees from roadsides, and eliminates motorized access for 

woodcutters, so snags and dying trees would be left onsite. Removal of snags by woodcutters 

along an additional 20 miles of roads is not considered to be a significant impact to cavitydependent species habitat due to the high numbers of snags that currently exist on the KNF due to 

recent wildfires, insect kills and drought.

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative would eliminate the potential for creation of new unauthorized routes, along with 

vehicle and noise disturbance to cavity-dependent species, on 151,000 acres. Removing vehicle 

access on 405 miles of existing unauthorized routes would eliminate cutting of snags along these 

routes for firewood. While current levels of snags are high in many areas on the KNF, this could 

be a long term benefit to cavity-dependent focal species in those areas where snag numbers are 

limited, either due to vegetative type or the lack of recent wildfire or insect activity. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 359

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add 9 miles of roads and trails to the NFTS that occur in habitats used 

by the cavity-dependent group, which would affect 18 acres of habitat (an insignificant 

percentage of Forest habitat). NFTS roads are evaluated for hazard trees on a regular basis, and 

those that meet KNF hazard tree standards are removed. This could lead to a reduction in the 

number of snags or trees along these routes that could develop into snags. It is very likely that 

some woodcutting has already occurred on these routes, and that activity would likely continue. 

Through time, trees available for snag recruitment along these routes would decrease. However, 

the effects of adding these miles to the NFTS are considered to be insignificant given the quantity 

of habitat for cavity-dependent species Forestwide and the number of trees recently affected by 

insects and wildfire that will become snags in the next decade. Vehicle traffic on these routes has 

been occurring for some time and effects from noise or disturbance to any of the focal species in 

this group is considered to be minor.

Two open riding areas totaling 65 acres are proposed to be added to the NFTS; they do not 

contain habitat for cavity-dependent species.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects are the additive effects of this project and ongoing and foreseeable 

management activities. Vegetative management activities include project design features that 

retain snags consistent with LRMP standards. Road construction activities have the same type of 

impacts as this project (adding roads to the NFTS that will require removal of hazard trees and 

provide access to woodcutters). Therefore, road-related activities are included in this analysis.

Cumulative effects include the impacts from the prohibition of cross-country travel and 

vehicle use on 9 miles of unauthorized routes added to the effects from road-related activities 

within snag habitat. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 miles of ML 2 roads 

to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads within habitat suitable for cavity-dependent 

species. ML1 roads are not open to public use and there should be no affect to snag numbers from 

woodcutting or hazard tree removal in the short or long term. Decommissioning roads would 

have positive long term beneficial effects as it eliminates the need to remove hazard trees from 

roadsides, and eliminates motorized access for woodcutters, so snags and dying trees would be 

left onsite. These activities will result in a net decrease of 1 mile of road in habitat suitable for 

cavity-dependent species. Snag numbers would potentially be affected within 30‘ of added roads. 

These effects would be offset by the reduction in access for firewood cutters from 151,000 acres 

and 18 miles of unauthorized routes in snag habitat.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

360 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are described under 

Alternative 2, except vehicle access would be removed from 497 miles of existing unauthorized 

routes. This alternative would be entirely beneficial for the focal species within this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects are the combination of the prohibition of cross-country travel with ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related activities. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads within habitat used by 

cavity-dependent species. Maintenance level 1 roads will not be open to the public and snag 

numbers should not be affected. These activities will result in a decrease of 10 miles of open road 

in habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. In addition, access for firewood cutters will be 

eliminated from 151,000 acres and 27 miles of unauthorized routes in snag habitat.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are described under 

Alternative 2, except vehicle access would be removed from 490 miles of existing unauthorized 

routes. This action would be entirely beneficial for the focal species within this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Alternative 4 would add about 0.2 mile to the NFTS within snag habitat, affecting less than 1 

acre. The percentage of Forest habitat affected is insignificant and effects would not be 

measurable at any scale.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects are the combination of the prohibition of cross-country travel with ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related activities. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads within habitat used by 

cavity-dependent species. Maintenance level 1 roads will not be open to the public and snag 

numbers should not be affected. These activities will result in a net decrease of 10 miles of open 

road in habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. In addition, access for firewood cutters will 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 361

be eliminated from 151,000 acres and 27 miles of unauthorized routes in snag habitat. Effects to 

cavity-dependent species are considered to be beneficial.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are described under 

Alternative 2, except vehicle access would be removed from 428 miles of existing unauthorized 

routes. This action would be entirely beneficial for the focal species within this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add about 8.5 miles of routes within cavity-dependent species habitat, 

which would affect 17 acres of habitat (an insignificant percentage of Forest habitat). Effects are 

similar to those described in Alternative 2. 

Two areas totaling 53 acres where cross-country travel would continue to occur are proposed 

to be added to the NFTS. Cavity-dependent species habitats do not occur in these sites.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects are the combination of the prohibition of cross-country travel with ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related activities. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads. Maintenance level 1 

roads will not be open to the public and snag numbers should not be affected. These activities will 

result in a net decrease of 1.5 miles of open road in habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. 

In addition, access for firewood cutters will be eliminated on 151,000 acres and 18.5 miles of 

unauthorized routes in snag habitat. Effects to cavity-dependent species are considered to be 

beneficial.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are described under 

Alternative 2, except vehicle access would be removed from 438 miles of existing unauthorized 

routes. This action would be entirely beneficial for the focal species within this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative would add 12 miles of roads and trails to the NFS that are in habitat for cavitydependent species, which would affect 24 acres of habitat (an insignificant percentage of Forest 

habitat). Effects are similar to those described in Alternative 2.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

362 Klamath National Forest

Two areas totaling 53 acres where cross-country travel would continue to occur are proposed 

to be added to the NFTS. Cavity-dependent species habitats do not occur in these sites.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the combination of the prohibition of cross-country travel with ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related activities. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads. Maintenance level 1 

roads will not be open to the public and snag numbers should not be affected. These activities will 

result in a net increase of 2 miles of road in habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. In 

addition, access for firewood cutters will be eliminated from 151,000 acres and 15 miles of 

unauthorized routes in snag habitat. Effects to cavity-dependent species are considered to be 

beneficial.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are described under 

Alternative 2, except vehicle access would be removed from 423 miles of existing unauthorized 

routes. This action would be entirely beneficial for the focal species within this group.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative proposes to add about 8.5 miles of routes within cavity-dependent species‘ 

habitat, which would affect 17 acres of habitat (an insignificant percentage of Forest habitat). 

Effects are similar to those described in Alternative 2.

Two areas totaling 53 acres where cross-country travel would continue to occur are proposed 

to be added to the NFTS. Cavity-dependent species habitats do not occur in these sites.

Cumulative effects 

Cumulative effects are the combination of the prohibition of cross-country travel with ongoing 

and foreseeable road-related activities. Road-related activities will add 10 miles of ML 1 and 20 

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 30 miles of roads. Maintenance level 1 

roads will not be open to the public and snag numbers should not be affected. These activities will 

result in a net decrease of 1.5 miles of open road in habitat suitable for cavity-dependent species. 

In addition, access for firewood cutters will be eliminated on 151,000 acres and 18.5 miles of 

unauthorized routes in snag habitat. Effects to cavity-dependent species are considered to be 

beneficial.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 363

Comparison of Effects on Cavity-Dependent Species, by Alternative 

The changes in mileages among action alternatives result in undetectable changes to habitats, and 

effects to snag-dependent species are not measurable. Overall, the effects from added routes are 

insignificant when taken in context of the 151,000 acres of habitat on the Forest.

Alternative 1 has the highest potential for negative effects, but these effects are limited in 

scope and intensity in comparison to other actions occurring on the landscape. The aggregate 

effects adding mileage to the road system are dispersed across the Forest and do not represent a 

significant proportion of Forestwide habitat. Other large-scale events (such as wildfire) have a 

much higher potential for effects on this habitat type. Beneficial effects to cavity-dependent 

species would occur on 69,000 acres (14 percent of Forestwide habitat) by prohibiting off-road 

use. All action alternatives would result in significant reductions in the number of acres 

accessible to woodcutters. Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to cavity-dependent species and 

Alternative 3 the least.

Table TW-25. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for cavity-dependent 

focal species 

Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Miles of Unauthorized 

Routes/Routes 

Proposed for Addition 

in Snag Habitats

27 9 0 0.2 8.5 12 8.5

Equivalent Acres 

Affected 45 18 0 0.4 17 24 17

Percentage of 

Forestwide Habitat 0.01 0.01 N/A Insig. Insig. Insig. Insig.

Hardwood and Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Groups

The discussion of potential effects to these two focal groups is combined because both habitat 

types are similarly affected by cross-country travel. The discussion of effects is combined for 

alternatives 2-6 because the magnitude of change among the alternatives was small and the 

expected effects were similar among the action alternatives. Alternative 7 is addressed separately 

for the grassland habitat type because it includes 14 miles of roads in grasslands and effects differ 

from the other alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and indirect effects to grassland/shrub-steppe and hardwood habitats include soil 

compaction from vehicle use, edge effects from route proliferation, and disturbance to 

individuals. Additional habitat degradation and loss can occur under Alternative 1. Impacts to 

individuals include direct mortality, displacement or avoidance, and disturbance from noise or 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

364 Klamath National Forest

vehicle intrusion. Motorized use of unauthorized routes during the breeding season could result in 

decreased reproductive success such as nest abandonment or injury to young. 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country travel.

Hardwoods: This alternative presents the highest route mileage and amount of habitat 

exposed to cross-country travel. Vehicle-caused mortality of western grey squirrels and acorn 

woodpeckers is not uncommon along highways, but is unlikely to occur from slower moving offroad vehicles. The vast majority of hardwood stands occur on the west side of the Forest where 

steep slopes limit cross-country travel, so direct impact to individuals in this group is likely very

low. Disturbance to hardwood associated species‘ activities could occur along edges of 

unauthorized routes. Vehicle travel may disrupt foraging activities, resulting in increased energy 

expenditures. In the long term, continued cross-country motorized travel could result in route 

proliferation, resulting in less habitat available for foraging and reproduction. Approximately 

9,200 acres, or 15 percent, of the total habitat on the Forest is estimated as accessible to off-road 

travel (Table TW-26). 

Grassland/shrub-steppe: Cross-country vehicle use during the breeding season could result 

in injury or mortality to individuals, or decreased reproductive success such as nest abandonment 

or injury to young. All 10,600 acres of the grassland/shrub-steppe habitat is available to crosscountry travel because of the gentle terrain, including 2,750 acres designated as pronghorn

kidding area. Fourteen known Swainson‘s hawk nest sites and two of the historic burrowing owl

colonies occur within 0.25 mile of unauthorized routes. LRMP standard and guideline 8-37 

requires a restriction of activities within 0.25 mile of active Swainson's hawk nests during the 

breeding season (April 15 to August 15). Because the LRMP does not prohibit cross-country 

travel, there is currently no restriction on use of unauthorized routes on the BVNG, but 

productivity at these nests does not appear to have been affected (Cheyne, personal 

communication, 2009). This is perhaps because the birds have adapted to the regular vehicle use 

associated with these routes. 

The highest risk of habitat degradation and/or disturbance to grassland/shrub-steppe habitat is 

from cross-country travel. Direct impacts to adult Swainson‘s hawks are unlikely to occur, but 

young in the nest can jump off nests if disturbed, potentially being run over or injured. Burrowing 

owl nest sites are not obvious to most people and are very vulnerable to destruction from vehicles 

traveling off-road. Young pronghorn remain motionless for long periods as part of ungulate 

―hider‖ strategy and can be run over by vehicles traveling cross-country. This is most likely to 

occur on the 2,750 acres of pronghorn kidding habitat. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 365

With no controls or opportunities for mitigations, negative impacts to hardwood and 

grassland habitats would be expected to occur through the short and long term. In the long term, 

passive restoration of about 20 acres of hardwood habitat and 58 acres of grassland habitat would 

not occur due to continued vehicle use. Vehicle travel off designated NFS roads and on usercreated routes would continue and routes would likely proliferate. Disturbance to individuals 

would continue to occur on 9,280 acres of hardwood habitat and 10,600 acres of grasslands. The 

actual extent to which these groups are affected as a result of implementing this alternative cannot 

be quantitatively assessed because of the unknown potential for expansion of the user created 

route system, and the timing and duration of the activities. With no controls or opportunities for 

mitigations, negative impacts to this group could continue to occur through the short and long 

term. 

Table TW-26. Alternative 1: Miles and acres of routes within hardwood and grassland/shrub-steppe 

habitats.

Alternative 1 Total Habitat 

Forestwide

Acres of 

Habitat

Open to 

Motorized 

Travel

Miles of 

Routes 

within 

Habitats

Equivalent 

Acres

Percent of 

Total 

Habitata

Hardwoods 63,100 9,280 10 20 0.3%

Grassland/

shrub-steppe 10,600 10,600 29 58 0.5%

a - Percent of total habitat contained within identified unauthorized routes. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS.

Cumulative effects

There are no management activities scheduled to occur in any grassland or hardwood habitats. 

Cumulative effects are identical to direct and indirect effects.

Alternatives 2 - 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

The action alternatives would significantly benefit the focal species within these groups and their 

habitat in the short and long term by eliminating the impacts caused by cross-country travel and 

use of unauthorized routes on the acres as described in Alternative 1. The focal species would not 

be affected by vehicular disturbance or noise from cross-country vehicle travel on the 

approximately 10,000 acres of these habitats currently available. No additional habitat would be 

impacted through creation of new unauthorized routes. Changes that reduce the potential for 

disturbance could be viewed as beneficial for these species. In the long-term, unauthorized routes 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

366 Klamath National Forest

not added to the NFTS would be expected to passively recover from soil and vegetation impacts 

caused by motorized travel. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

These alternatives propose adding 0-6 miles of roads to the NFTS in the grassland and hardwood 

habitat types. This would affect at most the equivalent of 8 acres of hardwood habitat, and 12 

acres of grassland habitat. 

One proposed route (8Q002.3) is within 100 meters of two Swainson‘s hawk nests. This route 

does not provide access to a recreation site, and receives only sporadic use. A seasonal restriction 

(April 15 - August 15) is proposed for this route, which will minimize disturbance to these nests 

during breeding season. All other proposed routes are outside of pronghorn habitats and are 

further than 0.25 mile of historic burrowing owl sites or Swainson‘s hawk nests. The impacts of 

adding roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in the grassland and hardwood habitats are 

considered to be imperceptible, and would not affect current trends in species population size, 

habitat or distribution for species in this group. 

The action alternatives propose adding two designated open riding areas where cross-country 

travel would not be prohibited. These areas are not located within hardwood or grassland/shrubsteppe habitats and will not affect these species. 

Cumulative effects 

No management activities are scheduled to occur in any grassland or hardwood habitats. 

Cumulative effects are identical to direct and indirect effects.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

Effects are the same as those described for Alternatives 2-6 for both grassland and hardwood 

habitats.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative is similar to Alternative 5, but proposes to add an additional 13 miles of roads 

(open to highway legal vehicles only) to the NFTS on the BVNG, which would affect 26 acres of 

grassland habitat. The proposed routes in the Butte Valley National Grassland were probably 

constructed in the 1930s and have been in place and used for many years. Some have gravel 

surfacing. One route is a published birding route and is used by the public for that purpose. These 

routes intersect 2 pronghorn kidding areas; approximately 190 acres of kidding habitat lie within 

0.25 miles of the routes. Ten historic Swainson‘s hawk nest sites occur within 0.25 mile of these 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 367

routes, and three new nests were discovered in 2008. All the nests have repeated documented 

reproductive success (Cheyne, personal communication, 2009). The establishment of new nests 

and reproductive success indicates that hawks are completely habituated to the amount and type 

of vehicle traffic that has been occurring on these routes. Alternative 7 proposes to add these 

routes to the NFTS for highway legal vehicles only; this will mirror the type of vehicle use that 

historically has occurred. This alternative proposes a site-specific Forest Plan amendment that 

would exempt the 3 routes on the BVNG from LRMP standard 8-37 which requires a vehicle 

season of use for Swainson‘s hawk. While vehicle traffic will continue to generate noise, effects 

on nesting Swainson‘s hawks are considered to be minimal.

This alternative proposes the same routes in hardwood habitat as Alternative 5. Effects 

would be the same as for that alternative.

Cumulative effects

There are no management activities scheduled to occur in any grassland or hardwood habitats. 

Cumulative effects are identical to direct and indirect effects.

Comparison of Effects on Hardwood and Grassland Shrub-steppe Species, by Alternative 

Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for negative effects to hardwood and grassland 

habitats. Under this alternative, about 10,000 acres of each habitat type will continue to be at risk 

of impacts from cross-country vehicle travel, and additional habitat degradation and loss can 

occur. The prohibition of cross-country travel included in all the action alternatives will eliminate 

these potential effects, providing substantial beneficial effects to hardwood and grassland species. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the least effect and the greatest benefits. There is little 

difference in effects between alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7 for hardwood habitats. Of the action 

alternatives, Alternative 7 would have the greatest effects on grassland habitats.

Table TW-27. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for hardwood and 

grassland/shrub-steppe focal species

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Hardwood 

Habitats

(63,100 ac)

KNF habitat 

open to crosscountry travela 

Percent of 

Forest habitat 

9,280 

14% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of 

routes in 

habitata 

10 3 0 0 4 3 4

Equivalent 

acres of 

routes in 

habitat 

(% of Forest 

habitat)

20

(0.03%)

6

(0.01%) 0 0

8

(0.01%)

6

(0.01%)

8

(0.01%)
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

368 Klamath National Forest

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Grassland/ 

ShrubSteppe 

Habitats 

(10,600 ac)

KNF habitat 

open to crosscountry travela

 

Percent of 

Forest habitat 

10,600 

100% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of 

routes in 

habitat 

29 4 0 0.4 6 4 19

Equivalent 

acres of 

routes in 

habitat 

(% of Forest 

habitat)

58

(0.5%)

8

(0.07%) 0

0.8

(insig)

12

(0.1%)

8

(insig)

38

(0.3%)

a - Miles of unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 

1); miles of roads and motorized trails added to the NFTS and equivalent acres (all other alternatives) 

Wide Ranging Carnivores 

The black bear is identified as a special emphasis species that occurs throughout the Forest and 

utilizes a variety of habitats and seral stages. Bears den and rest in mature, dense forested sites 

that provide snags, stumps, uprooted trees, or large hollow tree cavities. Early successional 

vegetation communities provide a primary source of food for this omnivorous species. Effects to 

these late-successional habitats are discussed in the late-successional group as well as in the 

cavity-dependent species section. 

The LRMP directs the Forest to manage open road densities to reduce the level of human 

interaction with bears during critical times of the year. The LRMP Black Bear Habitat Capability 

Model indicates that road densities exceeding 1.5 mile per square mile meets ―low‖ capability. 

Most 7th field watersheds on the Forest outside of wilderness currently exceed this density due to 

the NFTS, private inholdings, and state and county roads. This project will not change road 

densities sufficient to affect habitat capability for black bears. 

Cumulative effects are restricted to road-related activities because these typed of activities 

have effects similar to those expected to occur under this project. The discussion of effects is 

combined for alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7, and alternatives 3 and 4 because the magnitude of change 

between the alternatives was small and the expected effects were similar. 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel. 

Direct impacts of vehicles and bears are not common along highways, and are even more 

unlikely to occur as a result of slower moving off-road vehicles. Bears are more common on the 

west side of the Forest where topography is not as amenable to cross-country travel, so the 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 369

probability of direct impacts to bears is very low. Disturbance to foraging activities could occur 

along edges of unauthorized routes in both the short and long term. Cross-country travel could 

impact black bear food sources such as berries and invertebrates by crushing plants, displacing 

soil, or directly disturbing down logs or insect nests. Over time, if routes proliferate, habitat could 

be lost or degraded. Although black bears are known to habituate to sites with human presence 

(like large campgrounds), bears are generally wary and susceptible to noise disturbance on the 

KNF. This may be because of the remote nature of this Forest, and possibly due to hunting 

pressure. 

About 612,000 acres of mature/late-successional habitats occur on the Forest in addition to 

295,500 acres of early successional habitats that may be used by bears. Any of the effects noted 

above could continue to occur on these acres in both the short and long term. 

Approximately 94 miles of routes (188 acres) occur within habitats for black bears; this 

comprises about 0.02 percent of the total available habitat. The area within the unauthorized 

routes has been subjected to soil compaction and loss of vegetation; these acres will not recover 

in the long term due to continued vehicle use. Without a prohibition on cross-country motorized 

travel, proliferation of routes in bear habitat could remove vegetation, leading to additional 

habitat loss or degradation. Due to steep topography, creation of numerous new unauthorized 

routes is not a serious threat. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

This alternative does not add facilities to the NFTS.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects to black bears are the combined effects from the continued use of 94 miles of 

unauthorized routes and continued cross-country travel by motorized vehicles on up to 907,500 

acres of habitat (much of which is inaccessible to vehicles) combined with ongoing and 

foreseeable management activities. Road-related activities will add 13 miles of ML 1 and 26

miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, and decommission 50 miles of roads. ML1 roads are closed to 

the public and not expected to affect bears. With the exception of a short (0.2 mile) spur, all 

ongoing and foreseeable roads are located on the Goosenest Ranger District, which contains 

relatively little bear habitat. Decommissioning 50 miles of road within bear habitats will return 

100 acres to a productive state in the long term, and reduce disturbance associated with vehicle 

use on those roads. A net increase of 44 miles of roads in bear habitats would affect 88 acres.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

370 Klamath National Forest

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

These alternatives would benefit black bear habitat in both the short and long term by eliminating 

the effects of cross-country travel on 907,500 acres of black bear habitat. The potential for 

disturbance of individuals or impacts to food sources would be eliminated. A total of 497 miles 

(994 acres) of unauthorized routes will passively recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused 

by motorized travel. Closure of unauthorized routes would reduce road densities in all but one 

affected watershed on the KNF. While open road densities will decrease, most watersheds will 

remain above the 1.5 mile/mi2 threshold required for moderate habitat capability. This action is 

considered to be entirely beneficial to black bears.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

These alternatives propose adding 0-1 mile of motorized trail to the NFTS in early successional 

habitats (Table TW-28). This would affect at most 2 acres of habitat, an insignificant percentage 

of Forestwide black bear habitat. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects to black bears are the combined effects of the prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel, addition of up to 1 mile of unauthorized routes to the NFTS in bear habitat, and 

the effects of ongoing and foreseeable management actions. Ongoing and foreseeable roadrelated activities include addition of 13 miles of ML 1 and 26 miles of ML 2 roads to the NFTS, 

and decommissioning of 50 miles of roads on the west side of the Forest in habitats suitable for 

bears. With the exception of a short (0.2 mile) spur, new roads are all located on the Goosenest 

Ranger District, which contains relatively little bear habitat. Decommissioning 50 miles of road 

within bear habitats will reduce disturbance associated with vehicle use; this is considered a 

beneficial effect. Effects of adding 1.2 miles to the NFTS are considered to be imperceptible and 

discountable due to the small amount of habitat affected. Any negative impacts that might occur 

under these alternatives are countered by the benefits of prohibiting cross-country motorized 

travel. 

Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 7 

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized travel

These alternatives would benefit black bear habitat in both the short and long term by eliminating 

the effects of cross-country travel on 907,500 acres of black bear habitat. The potential for 

disturbance of individuals or impacts to food sources would be eliminated. About 469-471miles 

(934–938 acres) of unauthorized routes will passively recover from soil and vegetation impacts 

caused by motorized travel. This action is considered to be entirely beneficial to black bears.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 371

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

These alternatives propose adding 25-28 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS in early 

successional habitats (Table TW-28), totaling 50-56 acres of habitat. There is little difference in 

the scope of potential effects among alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. At most, the addition of routes to 

the NFTS would represent less than 0.01 percent of the Forestwide habitat available to black 

bears, an insignificant percentage. The proposed routes are distributed across the Forest, many as 

very short spurs to access dispersed recreation sites. Closure of unauthorized routes would reduce 

road densities in all but one affected watershed on the KNF. While open road densities will 

decrease, most watersheds will remain above the 1.5 mile/mi2 threshold required for moderate 

habitat capability.

Two open riding areas are proposed for addition to the NFTS; neither Humbug nor Juniper 

Flat is identified as key use areas for black bears. Suitable habitat does not occur in the Juniper 

Flat open riding area. Three acres of early successional habitat lie within the Humbug 

concentrated use area, which represents an insignificant proportion of black bear habitat. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects to black bears are the combined effects of the prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel, and the effects of ongoing and foreseeable management actions. Ongoing and 

foreseeable road-related activities include addition of 13 miles of ML 1 and 26 miles of ML 2 

roads to the NFTS, and decommissioning of 50 miles of roads on the west side of the Forest in 

habitats suitable for bears. With the exception of a short (0.2 mile) spur, new roads are all located 

on the Goosenest Ranger District, which contains relatively little bear habitat. Decommissioning 

50 miles of road within bear habitats will reduce disturbance associated with vehicle use; this is 

considered a beneficial effect. The routes in the action alternatives are dispersed across the 

landscape and will not increase road densities in any 7th field watershed. Effects are considered to 

be imperceptible and discountable due to the small amount of habitat affected. Any negative 

impacts that might occur under these alternatives are countered by the benefits of prohibiting 

cross-country motorized travel. 

Comparison of Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivore Species, by Alternative 

Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for negative effects to habitats used by wideranging carnivores. Under this alternative, up to 907,500 acres of habitat would continue to be 

affected by cross-country vehicle travel, and additional habitat degradation and loss could occur 

from the creation of new unauthorized routes. The prohibition of cross-country travel included in 

all the action alternatives will eliminate these potential effects, providing substantial beneficial 

effects to carnivore species. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the least effect and the greatest 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

372 Klamath National Forest

benefits. The effects from Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 are identical, and very similar to those from 

Alternative 2. 

Table TW-28. Comparison of selected habitat change metrics by alternative for wide-ranging 

carnivore focal species (black bear)

Species Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Black 

Bear

Habitat

Acres of habitat 

open to crosscountry travel907,500 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes 

in habitat 94 28 0 1 26 26 25

Equivalent 

acres of routes 

in habitat 

188 56 0 2 52 52 50

% of habitat on 

KNF < 0.01 < 0.01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 does not include mitigations that would protect wildlife species. Habitat could be 

lost in the future due to creation of new unauthorized routes which could kill or remove 

vegetation, or create disturbance that could negatively affect feeding or reproductive activities. 

New routes could lead to higher road densities. 

The action alternatives reduce open road densities in all affected watersheds, and eliminate 

the potential for creation of new routes. Closure of some unauthorized routes and seasonal 

restrictions on other routes in deer winter range will reduce or eliminate vehicle disturbance from 

portions of the Humbug drainage. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 comply with all applicable LRMP 

standards regarding wildlife. Alternative 7 proposes a Forest Plan amendment to allow year-round 

vehicle use of routes near Swainson‘s hawk nests in the Butte Valley National Grassland.

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, a Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) was prepared by the project biologist. The BA/BE is 

incorporated by reference and may be found in the project files. 

Summary of Determinations from the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

The KNF Travel Management Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) included 

determinations for listed, candidate and sensitive wildlife species for alternatives 1-6. An 

Addendum to the BA/BE was prepared for Alternative 7. Determinations for all action 

alternatives were May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (with Beneficial Effects) due to the 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. A separate BA/BE was prepared addressing critical 

habitat for NSO and marbled murrelet; the determination is No Effect. Consultation with U.S. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 373

Fish and Wildlife Service was completed on December 30, 2009. A summary of the consultation 

process is included in the project records. Determinations for threatened, candidate and sensitive 

wildlife species are summarized here:

Northern Spotted Owl: Alternative 1 may affect northern spotted owls but is not likely to 

adversely affect. There will be no effect to critical habitat. Alternatives 2-7 will have no effect on 

northern spotted owls or their critical habitat.

Marbled Murrelet: Alternative 1 may affect marbled murrelets but is not likely to adversely 

affect. Alternatives 2-7 will have no effect on marbled murrelets or their critical habitat.

Tidewater Goby: There will be no effect to Tidewater Goby or its critical habitat from 

alternatives 1-7. 

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp: Alternative 1 may effect but is not likely to adversely affect. 

Alternatives 2-7 will have no effect on vernal pool fairy shrimp. There is no critical habitat for 

vernal pool fairy shrimp on the Forest; the proposed activities will not affect critical habitat. 

Mardon Skipper: Alternative 1 may effect but is not likely to adversely affect; Alternatives 2-7 

will have no effect on Mardon skipper.

American Marten: Alternatives 2-7 would not affect American marten or its habitat. Alternative 

1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability for the American marten. 

Pacific Fisher: Alternative 1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability for the fisher. Alternatives 2-7 would not affect the Pacific 

fisher.

Northern Goshawk: Alternative 1 may affect individual goshawks as cross-country travel could 

contribute disturbance or direct effects to foraging habitat, or breeding and reproductive activities. 

Alternatives 2-7 would not affect goshawks. 

Great Grey Owl: Alternatives 2-7 would not affect the GGO. Alternative 1 may affect 

individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog, Sandhill Crane, Willow Flycatcher, Western Pond Turtle: 

Alternatives 2-7 would not affect the above listed riparian-dependent species. Alternative 1 may 

affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for 

the foothill yellow-legged frog, sandhill crane, willow flycatcher, and western pond turtle.

Swainson’s Hawk: Alternatives 1-7 may affect individuals but are not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

374 Klamath National Forest

Pallid Bat: Alternatives 2-6 would not affect the pallid bat. Alternative 1 may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Management Indicator Species

Northern spotted owl, American marten, Pacific fisher, and Northern goshawk are addressed 

above. 

Black Bear: Alternative 1 could negatively affect individuals through proliferation of routes 

over 907,500 acres of black bear habitat. Alternatives 2-7 would affect less than 0.01% of 

habitat. Eliminating cross-country motorized vehicle travel would have beneficial effects on 

bears.

Black-tailed deer: Alternative 1 could negatively affect individuals through continued crosscountry vehicle travel during critical times of the year, and could remove or degrade habitat 

through proliferation of routes over 215,400 acres of black-tailed deer seasonal ranges. 

Alternatives 2-7 benefit deer by reducing open road densities in 16-17 watersheds (increasing 

habitat effectiveness) and eliminating disturbance associated with cross-country motorized 

vehicle travel. 

Riparian Group: Alternative 1 could negatively affect habitat through proliferation of routes 

over 9,270 acres of riparian habitats and 2,500 miles of streams, continued vehicle use of up to 14

stream crossings, and allowing the creation of more such crossings. Alternatives 2-7 benefit 

species in this group by eliminating 11-14 stream crossings, prohibiting creation of additional 

crossings, and removing vehicle effects from 4.6-6 acres of mapped riparian habitat. 

Cavity Nesting Group (Snag Association): Alternative 1 could negatively impact habitat 

through proliferation of routes that could lead to depletion of snags on 

Hardwood Association: Alternative 1 could negatively affect 9,280 acres of hardwood habitats 

available for vehicle travel through proliferation of routes that could remove or degrade habitat. 

Alternatives 2-7 benefit species in this group by eliminating vehicle noise and disturbance on 12-

14 acres of habitat, and preventing creation of additional routes.

Grassland/shrub-steppe Association: Alternative 1 could negatively affect 10,600 acres of 

hardwood habitats available for vehicle travel through proliferation of routes that could remove or 

degrade habitat. Alternatives 2-7 benefit species in this group by eliminating vehicle noise and 

disturbance on 12-14 acres of habitat, and preventing creation of additional routes.

Mature Pine Association: None of the alternatives would affect species in this association, as 

remaining mature pines are located in areas inaccessible to off-road motorized travel.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 375

Migratory Landbird Conservation on the Klamath 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 Klamath National Forest has conducted an 

assessment of existing unauthorized routes within Forest boundaries. Any new construction, 

reconstruction and maintenance of system roads or trails will be conducted under a separate 

NEPA analysis and decision. Because current travel management efforts are directed at 

identifying which existing unauthorized routes will be formally added to the National Forest 

Transportation System while prohibiting cross-country travel, and because there is no expectation 

of new construction or development, no changes in the distribution or abundance of habitats 

available to migratory birds are anticipated. Changes in authorization are not anticipated to 

contribute to measurable increase in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel is 

expected to result in less use across the landscape. Therefore, habitat functionality is expected to 

remain similar or more than, and levels of disturbance related to use are expected to remain 

similar to or less than, predecisional levels.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Terrestrial Wildlife

376 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 377

Botanical Resources

Introduction

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 are known to occur on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands. This is due to topography, geography, geology and soils, climate, and vegetation, the 

same factors that account for the exceptionally high endemic flora of the State. Over 100 plant 

species are found only on NFS lands and no where else in the world (Powell 2001).

Management of plant, lichen, bryophyte and fungi 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 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 LRMP. Key parts include: 

developing and implementing management practices to ensure that species do not become 

threatened or endangered because of Forest Service (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 to manage.

Management decisions related to motor vehicle travel can affect plant, lichen, bryophyte and 

fungi species, their habitats, and natural communities. Effects include, but are not limited to, 

death or injury to individual plants and habitat modification, including fragmentation, and 

changes in habitat quality, including increased risk of weed introduction and spread, change in 

hydrology, increased erosion, compaction, and sediment, risk to pollinators, loss of vegetation, 

over-collection, or other factors reducing or eliminating plant growth and reproduction 

(Trombulek and Frissell 2000).

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects botanical resources includes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et 

seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

378 Klamath National Forest

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service concerning threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to threatened and endangered species to ensure 

management activities are not be likely to jeopardize theircontinued existence, 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), summarized here and located in 

the process records located in the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA. 

Resource Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976. The 

Management of plant and fungi species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of plant 

communities is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service

Presidential Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999).

This order addresses prevention and control of the introduction and spread of invasive species.

Forest Service Manual 2670 and Forest Service Handbook 2609.25 provide direction 

regarding Forest Service sensitive species, which are identified by the Regional Forester. 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. 

Forest Service Manual 2353.03(2) provides direction to minimize damage to vegetation 

habitat while providing for motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands.

Recovery Plans, Conservation Assessments, and Conservation Agreements (these 

documents address the biology, management, and conservation of species within California):

Recovery Plan for Arabis macdonaldiana var. Eastwood (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1990)

Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum

(USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Conservation Assessment for Buxbaumia viridis (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Conservation Assessment for Ptillidium californicum (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Conservation Assessment for Meesia uliginosa and Meesia triquetra (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). 

Conservation Agreement for Horkelia hendersonii, and Lupinus lepidus var. 

ashlandensis (USDI USFWS 2002). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 379

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Bureau 

of Land Management and Forest Service adopted standards and guidelines for the management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan. The language and direction from 

the Northwest Forest Plan were incorporated into the Klamath LRMP. The LRMP states: 

―Management activities on 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 land and resource 

management plan.‖

The LRMP contains the following management direction applicable to motorized travel 

management and botanical resources:

6-7 Manage for a distribution and abundance of plant and animal populations that contribute to 

healthy, viable populations of all existing native and desirable non-native species. Maintain 

populations throughout their historic range. 

6-8 Sensitive species - survey project areas or assess presence of habitat

6-13 Management activities should be designed to maintain or increase population levels of 

desirable native plant species that currently have low population levels, of desirable plant 

species with limited habitat distribution and of desirable plant species that have problems 

with disease. Examples include Port-Orford cedar, sugar pine, Pacific yew, Brewer spruce, 

etc.

7-1 Enhance sensitive plant species populations and habitat to maintain reproducing, selfsustaining populations. Conduct an assessment to determine which sensitive species are at a 

higher risk. 

7-2 Disturbances to plant populations and occupied habitat should be avoided during critical 

periods of plant growth. Individual projects shall develop project-level mitigations 

measures to avoid adverse impacts to sensitive species.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

380 Klamath National Forest

The following management direction applies to the area designated for management of 

Calochortus persistens.

MA5-77 Prohibit any ground disturbance that would adversely affect the known habitat (by 

introducing weedy species) or physically disturbing existing plants [in the 

Calochortus persistens 100-acre management area]. Disturbed areas near this habitat 

should be managed to exclude nonnative invasive plant species.

MA5-78 Conduct programmed or permitted activities within the management area so as not to 

adversely affect the habitat values for the Calochortus[persistens].

MA5-81 Allow vehicular traffic on established roads. New road construction shall not be 

allowed in this management area. Off-highway traffic shall not be allowed.

The LRMP established Special Interest Areas (SIAs) on the KNF: botanical and geologic 

special areas, and botanical special areas (Table BR-1). These areas support outstanding or 

especially interesting natural or cultural features. The goal is to interpret the surroundings for 

public enjoyment and increased understanding of natural resources while maintaining the values 

for which the SIAs were established. Off-road motorized vehicle use within these SIAs is either 

excluded or discouraged. 

Table BR-1. Botanical Special Interest Areas and Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Areas

Name Ranger 

District Acres Feature/Significance

Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Areas 

Black Lava Butte and Callahan 

Lava Flow GNRD 2,800 Basalt flow with lava tubes, spatter cones. 

China Mountain SSRD 900 Hemlock, whitebark pine, foxtail pine community. 

High elevation. Ultramafic soils. 

Cook and Green Pass HCOK 200 Diversity of crest zone plant species. Peridotite rock 

outcrops. 

Cory Peak HCOK 400 Serpentine crest zone sensitive species. Rock 

glacier. 

Kangaroo Lake SSRD 400 Sensitive plants and species diversity. Glacial 

features. 

Preston Peak HCOK 3,800 Diversity of conifer species. Glacial features. 

Total Acres 4,700

Botanical Special Interest Areas 

Bear Peak HCOK 500 Conifer species found in granite glacial cirque. 

Grey Pine HCOK 400 Northern-most location of this species. 

Duck Lake SSRD 3,600 Diversity of conifers and endemic species. 

Elk Hole UKRD 200 Southern-most population of Alaska yellow cedar. 

Horse Creek HCOK 200 "Old growth" riparian vegetation. 

Indian Creek Brewer Spruce HCOK 100 Vigorous stand of this endemic species. 

Lake Mountain Foxtail Pine HCOK 100 Northern-most location of foxtail pine. 

Little Shasta Meadow SSRD 700 Diverse wet meadow plant community. 

Mount Ashland/Siskiyou Peak HCOK 800 Endemic plants crest zone community. 

Observation Peak HCOK 500 Endemic plants crest zone community. 

Poker Flat HCOK 100 Sensitive plants and species diversity. 

Red Mountain HCOK 400 Serpentine endemic species. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 381

Name Ranger 

District Acres Feature/Significance

Rhododendron Patch (Mill 

Creek) 

HCOK

HCOK 100 Large inland patch of coastal Rhododendron. 

Rock Fence Creek SSRD 100 Serpentine riparian plant community. 

Scott Mountain SSRD 500 Serpentine crest zone endemic plant species. 

Seiad Baker Cypress HCOK 1,000 Large stand of this rare conifer species. 

Sutcliff Creek HCOK 100 Example of Port-Orford cedar. 

White Mountain HCOK 100 Only population of Sausseria americana in 

California. 

Total Acres 9,500

Key: SSRD Salmon River/Scott River Ranger District

 HCOK Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District

 GNRD Goosenest Ranger District

 UKRD Ukonom Ranger District

Management direction for special interest areas for Botanical Resources includes:

MA7-7 Develop recreational use that is compatible with the goals and 

objectives of the SIA. Where there is established recreational use of 

an area, develop the SIA to accommodate that use.

MA7-8 Restrict OHV use.

MA7-10 Manage recreational settings to generally achieve semi-primitive or 

roaded natural ROS conditions.

There are nine Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Klamath National Forest: Antelope 

Creek Lakes, Bridge Creek, Crater Creek, Haypress Meadows, Limestone Bluffs, Marlbe Caves, 

Rock Creek Butte, Stove Spring Canyon, and Sugar Creek. There are no unauthorized routes 

proposed within RNAs; therefore, these areas will not be discussed further in this document.

The LRMP included standards and guidelines for management of survey and manage species 

– rare or uncommon species about which little was known. Through a series of lawsuits and 

agreements, the survey and manage species were given different status. The species that were 

designated USFS sensitive are addressed in the section on sensitive species. Species that were not 

designated sensitive are addressed as other species of interest.

Effects Analysis Methodology

The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a two step process. A map and record review 

identified all listed or proposed rare species that were known or were believed to have potential to 

occur on or near unauthorized routes. Fourteen species were identified. Due to the small number 

of species, they were analyzed individually rather than by habitat groupings, as has been done in 

other Travel Management analyses. These routes were then analyzed for potential impacts to 

TES species.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

382 Klamath National Forest

Assumptions Specific to the Botanical Resources Analysis

Vehicle use on and off established routes has affected or has the potential to affect rare plant 

populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants from motor vehicles, or 

indirectly by altering the habitat through soil disturbance, changes in hydrologic functioning, 

or by the introduction of nonnative, invasive plant species.

Motor vehicle use is unlikely to impact certain rare plant habitats due to the steep or rocky 

nature of the surrounding terrain.

Motor vehicle use is likely to impact rare plant habitats, such as meadows and lava caps, 

which exist on gentle slopes or flat terrain with little or no vegetation or natural barriers to 

motor vehicles.

Without specific prevention and/or control measures, invasive nonnative plants (weeds) will 

continue to spread along and within surfaced and unsurfaced motor vehicle roads, trails and 

areas.

Impacts to rare plant species are assumed to be limited to within 100 feet of the motorized 

routes, with most direct effects occurring within 30 feet and most indirect effects occurring 

within 100 feet.

Volume of traffic on the NFTS (and proposed additions to the NFTS) will remain relatively 

static into the foreseeable future, although the type of use could change. 

Vehicles will remain on designated routes.

All vehicles are assumed ―equal‖. The impacts to sensitive species from a motorcycle are 

assumed equal to those impacts from a four-wheeled vehicle.

No new roads will be constructed under any alternative. All routes included in the action 

alternatives currently exist and are being used by motor vehicles.

Seasonal closures of NFTS roads have no impact to rare plants or their associated habitats.

Data Sources

GIS layers of routes; occurrences of rare plants, and Forest vegetation. 

Route-specific botanical data for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant species, and 

special habitats such as meadows. 

Route-specific botanical survey information. Every route adjacent to a TES or rare plant 

population was field reviewed. See Route Survey Information – Botany Spreadsheet in the 

project file for specific routes and areas surveyed, and evaluation of botanical information.

Forest Service Botanists‘ expert knowledge. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 383

Indicators

The following general indicator measures were used to compare alternatives. These indicator 

measures were selected based on literature review of possible impacts to sensitive plants/fungi 

and plant communities, knowledge of native plant connectivity, and professional judgment, and 

differ somewhat from some of the indicators used in other Travel Management analysis 

documents. The distance for direct effects (30‘) was chosen based on the maximum distance a 

vehicle might travel off a road prism for parking, and thus crush or harm individual plants. The 

distance for indirect effects (0-100‘) is based on the potential for impacts to habitat from soil 

compaction or changes in water flow or infiltration. 

Acres open to cross-country motorized travel.

Miles of roads and motorized trails proposed for addition to the NFTS within 100 feet of rare 

plant sites.

Acres of rare plant sites within 100 feet of roads and trails proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Miles of roads and trails proposed for addition to the NFTS in special management areas with 

sensitive plant species.

Botanical Resource Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Short-term effects include immediate effects from changes in 

travel management that will be evident within the first year of implementation.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: KNF lands within 100 feet of unauthorized or proposed routes in addition to 

the entire area of cross-country travel.

Indicators: All indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and TES plant sites.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: KNF lands within 100 feet of unauthorized or proposed routes.

Indicators: All indicators were used.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

384 Klamath National Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and TES plant sites.

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS

This action involves changing the type of vehicle allowed on existing NFTS roads. The roads are 

in place and have been utilized by a variety of vehicles for many years, including passenger cars, 

street-legal pickup trucks with all-terrain mud and snow tires, logging trucks, and motorcycles. 

Street-legal vehicles with any type of tire will be allowed to continue using these NFTS roads. 

There would be no effects to rare plants from this activity and it is not addressed further in this 

section.

4. Cumulative effects

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term timeframe.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: KNF.

Indicators: All indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and TES plant sites.

Cumulative effects are the combined direct and indirect effects of this project and those from 

ongoing or foreseeable projects that could affect botanical resources, and especially rare plants. 

All management projects on the KNF have separate botanical analyses and Biological 

Assessments/Biological Evaluations that document project effects. Projects include project design 

standards that are considered adequate to reduce or eliminate effects from management activities 

on rare plants. Vegetation management activities such as fuels reduction or timber harvest do not 

change the vegetative type, although they may affect the seral condition of the plant community. 

Projects that kill or remove vegetation and compact the soil produce the types of effects similar to 

an unauthorized route. Effects from foreseeable projects overlap with Travel Management 

through loss of individuals, or loss/degradation of habitat caused by road construction or 

decommissioning; these effects are all generally long term in nature. Therefore, this analysis 

focuses on the cumulative effects of this project and any roads or trails proposed in ongoing or 

foreseeable management projects (Appendix B).

Affected Environment

Cross-country travel is currently allowed on approximately 1.2 million of the 1.7 million acres on 

the KNF. Many of these acres cannot be accessed by motorized vehicles due to terrain and 

vegetation density. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 385

The KNF, located mostly in Siskiyou County, California, with a small portion in Jackson 

County, Oregon, contains more than 2,000 species of plants due to varying elevation and 

precipitation zones that occur within the area. Plant communities include a variety of vegetation 

types arranged in dynamic patterns influenced by geology, climate, and past and recent 

disturbances. Plant communities continually change in response to natural and human created 

disturbances such as wildfires, ecological succession, climate change, wind, drought, insects, and 

management activities.

The geologic history of the area, including floods, volcanic eruptions, landslides and erosion, 

has shaped the landscape of the Forest into a unique combination of landforms and vegetation 

patterns. This unique combination of geology and topography has produced a distinctive pattern 

of steep, heavily timbered slopes on the western portion of the Forest and gently rolling, open 

woodlands on the eastern portion. Ecological habitats ranging from low to high elevation include: 

juniper, sagebrush, grasslands, scrub oak, mixed chaparral, ponderosa pine, montane shrubland, 

bitterbrush, mixed conifer (east and west versions), Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, true fir (east and 

west), montane meadows, and alpine grassland. Riparian areas and wetlands occur throughout. 

Given this combination of physiography and climate, habitats are highly variable and retain a 

legacy of botanical diversity. Structural elements such as size and density of vegetation vary 

greatly within a type depending on the frequency and intensity of fires and other disturbances or 

past management.

Approximately 2,000 vascular plant taxa, which represent approximately 25 percent of the 

California flora (Hickman 1993), are known to occur on the Klamath National Forest. Motorized 

use can directly impact all plants, plant habitat, and plant communities exposed to vehicles; 

however, most plant communities that are accessible to vehicles on the KNF are common and 

well-distributed across the landscape. The exceptions are those plant communities in the Mt. 

Ashland crest zone where the Mt. Ashland lupine, Henderson‘s horkelia, and Howell‘s tauschia 

can be found. Rare plant communities that are not accessible to vehicles include the Special 

Interest Areas on the Scott River District (Duck Lake, Rock Fence Creek, and Scott Mountain) 

that support serpentine endemics and a wide variety of conifer species. 

Rare plant species, as referred to in this analysis, include the following 55 plant species 

known to occur or which may have habitat on the KNF: 4 federally listed species and 1 FWS 

Candidate species, 37 FS Region 5 Sensitive plant species, 7 rare mosses, 6 rare fungi, 1 lichen, 

and 26 other species of interest. 

Federally Listed and FWS Candidate Species

There are currently four federally listed plant species on the KNF: Arabis macdonaldiana, 

Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, and Phlox hirsuta. Astragalus applegatei and 

Fritillaria gentneri have not been found on the KNF. The FWS Route Designation Project Design 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

386 Klamath National Forest

Criteria letter of concurrence was developed for Federally listed species (USFWS 2006). Phlox 

hirsuta and Arabis macdonaldiana are included in the letter. By following the recommended 

design criteria, route designation will meet the ―No Effect‖ or ―Not likely to adversely affect‖ 

determinations. Forests may tier to this consultation with no further consultation. The project 

design criteria were reviewed and applied to this project; documentation is contained in the 

Klamath National Forest Travel Management Project Compliance with Project Design Criteria for 

―No Effect‖ or ―May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect‖ Determination for TE Species, 

located in the project files in the Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California. There are no proposed 

routes within 100 feet of occupied habitat of these four species in any of the action alternatives, 

and none occur on the 1.2 million acres that would be open to off-road travel in Alternative 1. 

Federally listed species and habitat will not be considered further in this analysis.

Calochortus persistens is a FWS Candidate species on the KNF. There is one route within 30 

feet of C. persistens habitat in Alternative 2. Informal consultation was conducted by telephone 

and email with the USFWS on April 10, 2009 and April 16, 2009 (See ―Botanical Consultation –

Calochortus‖ in the project files). The decision was made to drop this route from other action 

alternatives and eliminate it from the preferred and selected alternative, so no additional 

consultation was conducted. The C. persistens special management area is closed to off-road 

travel by a Forest Order. The Order will remain in effect even if Alternative 1 is selected, so there 

will be no impacts to this species from motorized travel under any alternative. Effects to C.

persistens were analyzed for Alternatives 1 and 2; there are no impacts from any other action 

alternative.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 387

Table BR-2. Federally Listed and FWS Candidate Species from the Klamath NF 

Status Species Habitat

Number of 

Populations 

on KNFa

Status / Trend

CA SE

Arabis 

macdonaldiana

McDonalds rock 

cress

Ultramafic soils, 3,900-7,200 ft. 

and granite soils in Jeffrey pine. 

Western Klamath Ranges and 

outer North Coast Ranges. 

2

Generally in 

areas with little 

resource or land

use conflicts. Due 

to rarity, all 

populations need 

protection.

OR 

SE

 +

Astragalus 

applegatei 

Applegate’s 

milkvetch

Alkaline floodplains, around 

4,100 ft. None known

Due to rarity all 

populations need 

protection 

(USFWS recovery 

plan)

OR 

SE

 +

Fritillaria gentneri

Gentner’s fritillary

Grassland and chaparral 

habitats, within or at edges of 

dry, open woodlands, < 4,450 ft.

None known

Due to rarity all 

populations need 

protection 

(USFWS draft 

recovery plan)

CA SE Phlox hirsuta (E)

Yreka phlox

Open, rocky serpentine ridges 

and slopes, 2,400-4,400 ft. 

Extreme eastern Klamath 

Range.

2

Due to rarity all 

populations need 

protection 

(USFWS recovery 

plan 2006b)

Calochortus 

persistens (C)

Siskiyou 

mariposa-lily

Open, rocky ridge tops at 6,000 

ft. Eastern Klamath Range 12

All populations 

need protection. 

(USFWS draft 

Conservation 

Agreement) 

a

 Several populations may make up an occurrence.

Key: 

CA SE California State-listed Endangered

OR SE Oregon State-listed Endangered

+ Suspected to occur, but not currently documented.

Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species

Sensitive species are those vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and fungi species eligible for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act, or whose viability is of concern. Fifty-one sensitive plant 

species are known, or thought likely to occur on Klamath National Forest (USDA 2006), 

including 13 species from the Survey and Manage list that were added in 2004. Forest Service 

sensitive plant species for the KNF are listed in Table BR-3.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

388 Klamath National Forest

Table BR-3. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species for the Klamath National Forest

Status Species Habitat Number of known 

populationsa

Vascular Plant Species

+

Botrychium crenulatum 

Scalloped moonwort

Moist habitats including meadows, seeps, springs, riparian areas. Often on 

edge of creek banks in conifer forests. None

+

Botrychium lunaria 

Common moonwort Moist habitats, meadows, streamsides, seeps, springs. None

+

Botrychium minganense 

Mingan moonwort

Conifer and hardwood forests, riparian areas, meadows, shrublands 

>4,500’ None

+

Botrychium montanum 

Mountain moonwort

Late-successional/old growth conifer forests in wet shady areas with 

saturated soils. >4,500’ None

H

Botrychium pinnatum 

Northwestern moonwort

Along shaded and open streams and meadows in conifer forests, 

moderate to high elevations.

One historic, near 

KNF

+

Botrychium virginianum 

Ratllesnake fern Riparian areas heavily shaded by conifer or conifer/hardwood overstory. None

Calochortus greenei

Greene’s mariposa-lily Dry open areas in woodlands and forest and stand edges, 2,400-6,500’ 2

CA 

SR

FC

Calochortus persistens

Siskiyou mariposa-lily Dry, rocky, exposed ridge tops, around 6,000’ 12

Campanula wilkinsiana 

Wilkin’s harebell

Riparian, rocky, open streamsides in conifer forest to above timberline, 

5,700-8,600 ft. 2

Chaenactis suffrutescens 

Shasta chaenactis

Rocky open slopes and cobbly river terraces on ultramafic soil, 2,600-

6,900’ 2

+

Collomia larsenii 

Talus collomia Volcanic peaks and cinder cones, >7,000’ 0

Cypripedium fasciculatum 

Clustered lady’s slipper Variable, conifer and hardwood forest, 1650-5600’ 106

Cypripedium montanum 

Mountain lady’s slipper

Moist areas, dry slopes, mixed evergreen and coniferous forests, 1,600-

5,900’ 92

Draba carnosula 

Shasta draba Rocky ultramafic or granodiorite slopes and cliffs, >6,000’ 3

Epilobium oreganum 

Oregon fireweed Wet meadows, bogs, streamsides, usually on ultramafic soils, 1,500-7,400’ 3

CA 

SE

Eriogonum alpinum 

Trinity buckwheat Loose ultramafic gravel, open subalpine forest, 6,700-9,000’ 2

Eriogonum hirtellum 

Klamath mountain buckwheat Bald serpentine outcrops or gravelly slopes and ridges, 200-5,500’ 42
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 389

Status Species Habitat Number of known 

populationsa

Eriogonum ursinum 

Blushing wild buckwheat

North facing rocky ridge tops, openings in montane shrublands, 5,300-

6,200’ 6

+

Erythronium citrinum var. roderickii

Roderick’s fawnlily

Granitic or weathered ultramafic soils in mid-montane mixed conifer 

forests with somewhat open canopy None

+

Eucephalis vialis

Wayside aster Conifer forests, dry upland sites, in canopy gaps and forest edges None

+

Frasera umpquaensis 

Clustered green-gentian Mtn meadows, moist openings in red fir forests, 550-6,500’ None

Horkelia hendersonii 

Mt. Ashland horkelia

Dry, open, gravelly slopes and ridges, openings in red fir forest, 6700-

7500’ 7

Ivesia pickeringii 

Pickering’s ivesia

Conifer forest, seasonally wet spots or dry edges of wet meadows, 

ultramafic or gabbro soils, 2,700-4,900’ 8

Lupinus lepidus var. ashlandensis 

Mt. Ashland lupine Open, rocky ridge tops on Sandy soils, > 6,000’ 1

H

Mimulus evanescens 

Ephemeral monkeyflower Seasonal wetlands, 400-5,500 ft. One historic

+

Minuartia stolonifera 

Scott Mtn. sandwort Rocky slopes on ultramafic soils, mixed conifer forests, 4,100-5,300 ft. 5

Parnassia cirrata var. intermedia

Fringed grass of Parnassus Hillside seeps and fens in montane mixed conifer forest. None

Pedicularis howellii 

Howell’s lousewort Edges of openings, shad in conifer forest.4,000-6,500’ 28

Phacelia cookei 

Cooke’s phacelia

Loose sandy-ash soils on old mud flow, disturbed or open sites with 

sparse vegetation. 1

Phacelia greenei 

Scott Valley phacelia Bare ultramafic ridges and openings in Jeffrey pine and red fir, 5000-7000’ 16

Phacelia inundata 

Playa phacelia Alkaline flats, dry lake margins, 500-6,600’ 1

+

Polemonium chartaceum 

Mason’s sky pilot 

Serpentinite, granitic, and volcanic substrates, rock and talus, 5900-

13,000’ None

Raillardella pringlei 

Showy raillardella Perennial springs, seeps, fens, or streams on ultramafic soils, 400-7500’ 5

Rorippa columbiae 

Columbian yellow cress

Seasonally inundated areas along rivers, playas, snowmelt streams, lakes, 

wet meadows, and drying lakebed, 4,200-5,600’ 2

Smilax jamesii 

English Peak greenbriar

Riparian areas and draw, usually in mixed conifer or red fir forest or 

montane chaparral, 1900-6000’ 17

Tauschia howellii Openings in subalpine and upper montane conifer forest, on decomposing 9
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

390 Klamath National Forest

Status Species Habitat Number of known 

populationsa

Howell’s tauschia granitic soils on ridge tops and upper slopes, 5,500-8,300’

Thermopsis robusta 

Robust false lupine

Openings, along ridge lines, lower montane forest, roadsides, openings in 

Douglas-fir and mixed evergreen forest, < 4,500’ 13

Fungi Species

Boletus pulcherrimus Coastally influenced forest, Douglas-fir with hardwoods, moist sites. 1

Cudonia monticola Mature, moist conifer forest 2

Dendrocollybia racemosa Mixed forest with coast live oak, tanoak and Douglas-fir, along streams 2

Phaeocollybia olivacea Conifer and hardwood forest where it can grow in the humus layer, midseral forest, incl. partial cut units. 5

Sowerbyella rhenana Mature conifer forest. 5

Tricholomopsis fulvescens Old growth conifer forest, >3,300’ 2

Bryophyte Species

+

Buxbaumia viridis

Green bug moss

Logs or stumps in late stages of decay, on humus or mineral soil, cool 

moist spots at mid elevations None

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius 

Brook pocket moss

Wet soil, humus, rock along narrow streams and near small waterfalls, in 

damp or wet crevices of cliffs, <6,300’ 1

Helodium blandowii

Blandow’s bog moss Wet meadows and seeps in subalpine conifer forest and alpine lakes. 3

Meesia triquetra 

Three-ranked humpmoss Montane fens, 4,300-9,700’ 3

Meesia uliginosa 

Broadnerved humpmoss Montane fens, 5,900-9,200’ 5

Mielichhoferia elongata 

Elongate copper moss

Metamorphic, sedimentary, limestone, granite and serpentine rock 

outcrops, seasonally moist to moist soils, < 3,550’ 1

Ptilidium californicum 

Pacific fuzzwort

Epiphytic on tree trunks, logs and stumps, mid-elevation Douglas-fir and 

true fir forest on moist north-facing slpes or near riparian areas. 101

Lichen species

+

Hydrothyria venosa

Veined water lichen In shallow streams fed by cold water streams None

a

Several populations may make up an occurrence.

Key: 

CA SE California State-listed Endangered

CA SR California State-listed Rare 

OR SE Oregon State-listed Endangered

FC Federally listed Candidate species

+ Suspected to occur, but not currently documented.

H Historic occurrence, not currently documented
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 391

Other Species of Interest

Twenty-six other species of interest (formerly survey and manage) occur on the KNF. Review of 

existing information determined that the KNF is not within the range of 18 species and has no 

habitat for one species; four other species have never been found on the Forest. The remaining 

three species do not occur within 100 feet of any mapped unauthorized route. These other species 

of interest are not considered further in this analysis. 

Port-Orford-Cedar

Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) is an ecologically, economically, and socially 

important tree species with a limited natural range of northwestern California and southwestern 

Oregon. It is addressed in a separate section of this document.

Noxious Weed Infestations 

Regional biodiversity is at increased risk due to alterations in human uses, fire regimes, climatic 

change, and changes brought about by weed invasion (D‘Antonio et al. 2004). Noxious weeds, 

especially when abundant, directly compete with native plants and can cause displacement of 

natives on a local scale. Potential impacts include: alteration of disturbance regimes (including 

wildfire); changes in the food base for wildlife species; soil erosion and loss of soil carbon 

storage; and decreases in range or forest productivity and altered hydrology. A thorough 

discussion of noxious weeds is included in the Non-Native Invasive Species section.

Environmental Consequences

All federally listed/candidate species and Region 5 sensitive species were considered in this 

analysis; however, none of the federally listed species will be affected by any alternative, so they 

are not considered further in this section. The one candidate for listing (Calochortus persistens) 

is found in a small management area that is currently protected from off-road vehicle use by a 

Forest Order. The KNF botanist has determined that this species is not currently affected by 

motorized use, and informal consultation with the USFWS (conducted by telephone and email on 

April 10, 2009 and April 16, 2009) supported this determination. The Forest Order would remain 

in place even if Alternative 1 was selected, so there would be no effect from off-road vehicle 

travel to this species under any alternative. It is not considered further in this section. Sensitive 

species located on slopes less than 35% (Alternative 1), or within 100 feet of routes proposed for 

addition to the NFTS (action alternatives), were analyzed for effects. 

Management decisions related to motor vehicle travel can affect plant and fungi species, their 

habitats, and natural communities. Effects include, but are not limited to: death or injury to plants 

and habitat modification, habitat fragmentation, decrease in habitat quality, including increased 

risk of weed introduction and spread, change in hydrology, increased erosion, compaction, and 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

392 Klamath National Forest

sediment, risk to pollinators, loss of vegetation, overcollection, or other factors reducing or 

eliminating plant growth and reproduction (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 

Direct effects occur when individual plants are broken or crushed by vehicles. Cross-country 

travel by merely one vehicle has the potential to crush plants. Kellomaki and Saastmoinen (1975, 

in Yorks et al. 1997) noted that the initial use of a trail creates the greatest deterioration; even as 

few as 1 to 20 passes have been shown to reduce plant cover by stunting plants (Adams et al. 

1982, in Ouren et al. 2007). Root exposure and/or direct root damage may occur due to vehicle 

passes over vegetation, particularly in loose soils, or in wet soils susceptible to rutting. These 

actions lead to a suite of effects such as altered growth, plant vigor, reduced seed set, or death 

(Wilshire et al. 1978; Cole and Bayfield 1993). Direct effects are dependent upon the intensity 

and timing of disturbance. The extent of effects is also dependent upon the number of plants at a 

specific location.

Indirect effects are caused by the action but are expressed later in time, or further removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects are generally related to habitat 

disturbance or alteration as a result of soil erosion or compaction, or displacement of native 

species by nonnative or invasive species. Soil compaction, erosion, and modification of soil 

properties can affect the distribution, abundance, growth rate, reproduction, and size of plants 

(Ouren et al. 2007). Wilshire and Nakata (1976) report that initial use by OHVs results in a loss 

of cohesion and lateral displacement of soils, while repeated use leads to compaction. 

Compaction can result in reduced seed germination, seedling survival, soil water infiltration 

(Wilshire et al. 1978), and reduced plant and root growth. Vehicles traveling cross-country may 

destroy the biological soil crust that holds the soil surface in place. The effects of soil erosion on 

plants can include undercutting of root systems as routes are enlarged by erosion, creation of new 

erosion channels in areas not used by vehicles, wind erosion of adjacent destabilized areas, burial 

of plants by debris eroded from areas of use, and reduction of the biological capability of the soil 

by physical modification and stripping of fertile layers (Wilshire et al. 1978). Soil compaction

and the subsequent decrease in infiltration and distribution of water through the soil profile can 

lead to decreased moisture available for plant growth. Vehicles traveling through mud easily alter 

surface hydrology, potentially blocking water from sensitive plant habitat, or conversely, 

potentially flooding it. Vehicle impacts to soils can also contribute to roadside invasions of 

exotic plant species by reducing native plant vigor and creating areas of competition-free space 

that are open to invasion (Ouren et al. 2007; Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Wilshire et al. 1978). 

Any of these changes in soil properties can create conditions unsuitable for seedling development 

such that the sustainability or expansion of plant populations could be affected. This would be 

especially problematic with rare plant populations that are, by definition, limited in size or 

distribution. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 393

Dust from motor vehicle use has also been shown to decrease native plant cover and vigor by 

reducing rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration (Spellerberg and Morrison 1998, in

Ouren et al. 2007), and in some cases to alter community structure (Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). 

Habitat fragmentation resulting from increased density of roads may create ―islands‖ of 

otherwise suitable habitat that are too small to allow for maintenance of populations of certain 

plants. Fragmentation also results in a greater amount of edge area relative to the amount of 

interior habitat area. Newly created edges experience changes in microclimate conditions which 

may alter plant communities (Collinge 1996). Numerous studies have addressed the results of 

habitat fragmentation to plant populations and the pollinators upon which they depend (Young et 

al. 1996; Jules 1998; Harrison and Bruna 1999). No habitat fragmentation studies have been 

conducted for the sensitive plant species analyzed in this report; their responses to habitat 

fragmentation are not known. However, the routes being considered for addition to the NFTS are 

existing and being used, so it is assumed that any habitat fragmentation effects have already 

occurred.

Wetlands and associated plants may be indirectly affected by cross-country travel. Sediments 

and chemicals washing into wetlands from road or cross-country travel may compromise water 

quality. Vehicle travel in or adjacent to wetlands may create ruts that do not heal by themselves, 

and allow water to flow out of the wetland; over time the wetland may dry to the extent that it no 

longer supports wetland vegetation or provides wetland functions. 

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are considered part of 

the existing conditions and are discussed within the Affected Environment section above.

The ongoing and foreseeable projects that could impact rare plants include vegetation 

management projects (timber harvest, fuel reduction), ground-disturbing special use permits, 

livestock grazing, and road construction or reconstruction. Vegetation treatments are anticipated 

to be the primary activity that will alter forest vegetation and could impact sensitive plants and 

habitat. These types of activities will likely occur on at least 3,000 acres per year in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. The effects of these projects on TES plants are, or will be analyzed 

in each project environmental analysis. Permitted grazing has occurred on the KNF for over 100 

years; animal numbers and the number of allotments have been significantly reduced over that 

timespan. Monitoring has indicated that LRMP standards have been applied to areas with rare 

plants, and have successfully protected plant populations (USDA Forest Service 2008, page 6). 

Road construction activities would have the same types of effects on plants as the actions 

proposed in this project; these activities are reviewed in detail for cumulative effects for this 

project and in separate environmental analyses for each road construction project. All proposed 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

394 Klamath National Forest

management projects would be surveyed for the occurrence of rare plants, and mitigation 

measures would be developed for each project to minimize the effects of these activities on TES 

species or Other Species of Interest. Appendix B provides a list and description of ongoing and

reasonably foreseeable projects on the KNF.

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country travel on the Forest, so 1.2 million acres would 

remain open for off-road use. Under this alternative, it is impossible to quantify when and where 

rare plant species and habitats would be impacted by motor vehicles; however, surveys have 

identified 26 species occupying approximately 3,059 acres in areas open to motorized vehicles. 

All plants within these known populations (and others that have not been identified) could be 

subject to crushing or damage in both the short and long term. Indirect effects include adverse 

effects to habitat from soil disturbance or displacement, changes in drainage, or competition with 

non-native plants. It is reasonable to assume that some plants (and perhaps some occurrences) 

would be lost entirely.

Table BR-4. Sensitive species within 100 feet of unauthorized routes under Alternative 1

Route Species Miles

Within 

30 

feet

Within 

100 

feet

Acres

Within

100 feet

Unauthorized route #

40S01.1 Horkelia hendersonii 0.25 X X 1.64

43N16.1 Phacelia cookei 0.48 X X 7.19

46N09.2 Calochortus greenei 0.19 X X 1.41

70.2 Meesia triquetra 0.30 X 0.16

8Q020.2 Rorippa columbiae 0.45 X 1.51

96.17 Calochortus persistens 0.83 X X 5.66

96.17D Calochortus persistens 0.10 X X 1.04

96.17E Calochortus persistens 0.12 X X 0.61

S-97.1 Phacelia cookei 0.49 X X 4.56

S-97.12 Phacelia cookei 0.78 X X 10.22

S-97.12A Phacelia cookei 0.18 X X 5.18

S-97.2A Rorippa columbiae 0.59 X X 8.34

52-06 Thermopsis robusta 0.28 X X 1.34

55-04 Calochortus persistens 0.10 X X 0.39

57-13 Meesia uliginosa 0.12 X X 0.74

Totals 6.23 48.99
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 395

Fifteen occurrences of rare plants are within 100‘ of unauthorized routes, and 13 are within 

30‘, potentially affecting about 49 acres of habitat. Because of the expected continued use of 

these routes, the 13 species within 30‘ could be subject to direct effects of crushing by tires. All 

15 species could be at risk of indirect effects, including loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology, 

accelerated erosion, soil compaction, and competition with noxious weeds. 

Two unauthorized routes (0.16 mile total) enter two SIAs with sensitive plants. KNF 

botanists determined that use of these two routes is not currently adversely impacting the 

sensitive plants because vehicle use has been confined to the disturbed area and there is no 

evidence of off-road use. No direct or indirect effects on sensitive plants have been observed. 

Implementation of this alternative would indirectly impact sensitive species in the long-term 

by increasing the risk of weed introduction and spread, both on established routes and on any that 

may be created in the future.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Alternative 1 does not add motorized routes to the NFTS. There would be no effects to Botanical 

Resources.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures.

Road-related activities would have the same type of effects as the actions proposed under this 

project and are addressed here. These activities would add 15 miles of ML 1 road (closed to 

public vehicle use) and 30 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and remove 50 miles of road (48 

miles of decommissioning and conversion of 2 miles of road to a hiking trail) from the NFTS. 

None of these activities is within 100 feet of a rare plant occurrence, and none are within SIAs. 

Cumulative effects are the same as those described under direct and indirect effects. 

Determination of Effects

Alternative 1 may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or 

a loss of viability for Calochortus greenei, Calochortus persistens, Chaenactis suffrutescens, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

396 Klamath National Forest

Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Draba carnosula, Eriogonum alpinum, 

Eriogonum hirtellum, Helodium blandowii, Horkelia hendersonii, Ivesia pickeringii, Lupinus 

lepidus var. ashlandensis, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Mimulus evanescens, Minuartia 

stolonifera, Pedicularis howellii, Phacelia cookei, Phacelia greenei, Phaeocollybia olivacea, 

Ptilidium californicum, Raillardella pringlei, Rorippa columbiae, Smilax jamesii, Tauschia 

howellii, Horkelia hendersonii, Lupinus lepidus var. ashlandensis, Phacelia cookei and

Thermopsis robusta (see BE for analysis and details).

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of the 

Forest. Sensitive plants would be protected from direct effects of crushing or damage from tires 

in both the short and long term. Indirect effects such as soil disturbance or displacement, changes 

in drainage, or loss of vegetative cover would be eliminated. 

Over the long-term, through loosening of soils and the return of native vegetation, disturbed 

sites could regenerate sufficiently to support native plant communities.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Under Alternative 2, one short route (600 feet) proposed for addition to the NFTS is within 30 

feet of a sensitive species site, affecting about 3⁄4 acre. The species, Meesia uliginosa, occurs in 

montane fens. The proposed route is upslope of the fen and past vehicle use has been confined to 

the route; there has been no disturbance to Meesia habitat. The KNF botanist indicates that the 

Meesia uliginosa occurrence is not threatened by the proposed route (see BE for more 

information).

Alternative 2 proposes two areas (65 acres) where off-road motorized use is not prohibited: 

the Humbug and Juniper Flat open riding areas. There are no sensitive plants within 100 feet of 

either area; sensitive plants would not be affected by motorized use in these areas. 

There are no proposed routes in SIAs under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 397

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF. 

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 15 miles of ML 1 roads 

and 122 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, removal of 50 miles of road, and 

designation of two areas where cross-country travel is allowed (65 acres). None of the ongoing or 

foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of a rare plant site, and none are within SIAs; no negative 

impacts to rare plants and their habitats from ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities are 

expected to occur. Cumulative effects are those described under direct and indirect effects. 

Cumulative effects are considered to be beneficial due to the reduced risk of direct and indirect 

impacts to rare plants from cross-country motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

No sensitive species would be adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from 

the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue off-road vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of 

the Forest; benefits from this prohibition are discussed under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

No new facilities would be added under this alternative. There would be no direct or indirect 

effects.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

398 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 13 miles of ML 1 roads 

and 26 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road. 

None of the ongoing or foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of a rare plant site, and none are 

within SIAs; no negative impacts to rare plants and their habitats from road-related activities are 

expected to occur. Cumulative effects are considered to be beneficial due to the reduced risk of 

direct and indirect impacts to rare plants from cross-country motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

No sensitive species would be adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from 

the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue off-road vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of 

the Forest; benefits from this prohibition are discussed under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

None of the 7 miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS under this 

alternative are within 100 feet of any sensitive species. There would be no direct or indirect 

effects on rare plants or their habitats.

There are no proposed routes in SIAs under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF. 

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 15 miles of ML 1 roads 

and 37 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles of road. 

None of the ongoing or foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of a rare plant site, and none are 

within SIAs; no negative impacts to rare plants and their habitats from road-related activities are 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 399

expected to occur. Cumulative effects are considered to be beneficial due to the reduced risk of 

direct and indirect impacts to rare plants from cross-country motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

No sensitive species would be adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from 

the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue off-road vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of 

the Forest; benefits from this prohibition are discussed under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Two sensitive species occur within 30 and 100 feet of dispersed recreation site access routes, 

totaling 0.4 mile in length. One of the species, Thermopsis robusta, tolerates disturbance well. 

Disturbance affecting about 1.25 acres may actually create habitat or facilitate germination, so 

effects to this species in both the short and long term are considered to be beneficial. One short 

route (600 feet) proposed for addition to the NFTS is within 30 feet of a Meesia uliginosa site, 

affecting about 3⁄4 acre. The proposed route is upslope of the fen and past vehicle use has been 

confined to the route; there has been no disturbance to Meesia habitat. The KNF botanist 

indicates that Meesia uliginosa occurrence is not threatened by the proposed route.

There are no direct or indirect effects on rare plants expected from designation of the two 

areas where off-road motorized use is not prohibited (53 acres total) in the Humbug and Juniper 

Flat open riding areas. 

There are no proposed routes in SIAs under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

400 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 15 miles of ML 1 roads 

and 99 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails, and 53 acres of off-road use areas to the NFTS, 

and removal of 50 miles of road. None of the ongoing or foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of 

a rare plant site, and none are within SIAs; no negative impacts to rare plants and their habitats 

from ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities are expected to occur. Cumulative effects are 

those described under direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects are considered to be 

beneficial due to the reduced risk of direct and indirect impacts to rare plants from cross-country 

motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

No sensitive species would be adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from 

the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue off-road vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of 

the Forest; benefits from this prohibition are discussed under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Two sensitive species occur within 30 and 100 feet of dispersed recreation site access routes, 

totaling 0.4 mile in length. One of the species, Thermopsis robusta, tolerates disturbance well. 

Disturbance affecting about 1.25 acres may actually create habitat or facilitate germination, so 

effects to this species in both the short and long term are considered to be beneficial. One short 

route (600 feet) proposed for addition to the NFTS is within 30 feet of a Meesia uliginosa site, 

affecting about 3⁄4 acre. The proposed route is upslope of the fen and past vehicle use has been 

confined to the route; there has been no disturbance to Meesia habitat. The KNF botanist 

indicates that Meesia uliginosa occurrence is not threatened by the proposed route.

There are no direct or indirect effects on rare plants expected from designation of the two 

areas where off-road use is not prohibited in the Humbug and Juniper Flat open riding areas. 

There are no proposed routes in SIAs under this alternative.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 401

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF. 

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 15 miles of ML 1 roads, 

89 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails, and 53 acres of off-road use areas to the NFTS, and 

removal of 50 miles of road. None of the ongoing or foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of a 

rare plant site, and none are within SIAs; no negative impacts to rare plants and their habitats 

from ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities are expected to occur. Cumulative effects are 

those described under direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects are considered to be 

beneficial due to the reduced risk of direct and indirect impacts to rare plants from cross-country 

motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

No sensitive species would be adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from 

the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Prohibiting cross-country travel would discontinue off-road vehicle use over 1.2 million acres of 

the Forest; benefits from this prohibition are discussed under Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Two sensitive species occur within 30 and 100 feet of dispersed recreation site access routes, 

totaling 0.4 mile in length. One of the species, Thermopsis robusta, tolerates disturbance well. 

Disturbance affecting about 1.25 acres may actually create habitat or facilitate germination, so 

effects to this species in both the short and long term are considered to be beneficial. One short 

route (600 feet) proposed for addition to the NFTS is within 30 feet of a Meesia uliginosa site, 

affecting about 3⁄4 acre. The proposed route is upslope of the fen and past vehicle use has been 

confined to the route; there has been no disturbance to Meesia habitat. The KNF botanist 

indicates that Meesia uliginosa occurrence is not threatened by the proposed route.

There are no direct or indirect effects on rare plants expected from designation of the two 

areas where off-road motorized use is not prohibited (53 acres total) in the Humbug and Juniper 

Flat open riding areas. 

There are no proposed routes in SIAs under this alternative.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

402 Klamath National Forest

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the effects of continued motor vehicle use on 1.2 million acres of the KNF, 

added to the effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable management projects on the KNF. 

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities will all receive pre-project surveys, and mitigation 

measures will be applied to ensure that viability of plant occurrences is not compromised. 

Biological Assessments/ Evaluations will be prepared to document any potential effects on TES 

species. These types of projects have historically had minimal to no effects on TES species and 

Other Species of Interest due to the application of project design standards, conservation 

strategies and mitigation measures. Any effects from vegetation management activities would be 

dwarfed by the beneficial effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on the KNF.

Cumulative effects of road-related activities include the addition of 15 miles of ML 1 roads, 

109 miles of ML 2 roads and motorized trails, and 53 acres of off-road use areas to the NFTS, and 

removal of 50 miles of road. None of the ongoing or foreseeable actions is within 100 feet of a 

rare plant site, and none are within SIAs; no negative impacts to rare plants and their habitats 

from ongoing or foreseeable road-related activities are expected to occur. Cumulative effects are 

those described under direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects are considered to be 

beneficial due to the reduced risk of direct and indirect impacts to rare plants from cross-country 

motorized use. 

Determination of Effects

An addendum to the BE was developed to address Alternative 7. No sensitive species would be 

adversely affected by this alternative and all would benefit from the prohibition of cross-country 

travel.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Impacts to rare plants and their habitats vary across all alternatives (Table BR-5). Alternative 1

could have negative effects on rare species and habitats due to the allowance of cross-country 

travel, which has the potential to affect all but the most inaccessible rare species and habitats. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have completely beneficial effects on rare plants. The other action 

alternatives propose routes within 30 or 100 feet of known sites, but it has been determined that 

no adverse impacts would occur from adding these routes to the NFTS. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial for all species due to the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botanical Resources Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 403

Table BR-5. Comparison of botanical resource indicators

Indicators Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Acres open for crosscountry travel 1.2 million 65 0 0 53 53 53

Miles of unauthorized/ 

proposed routes within 

100 ft of rare plant sites

5.22 0.12 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.4

Acres of rare plant sites 

within 100 ft of 

unauthorized/proposed 

routes

50.55 0.74 0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Miles of unauthorized/ 

proposed routes in SIAs 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table BR-6. Comparison of effects on botanical resources

Alternative 1

This alternative has the highest potential for negative effects to plants 

and their habitats due to continued cross-country motorized travel. Plants 

may be crushed or damaged by tires. Habitat may be degraded or 

removed through creation of new routes and disturbed areas. 

Alternative 2

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. Effects of this prohibition will be 

beneficial to rare plants and their habitats. Designation of 92 miles of 

unauthorized routes and 65 acres of open riding areas will not adversely 

affect any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species or its habitat, 

or any Botanical Special Interest Area.

Alternative 3

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. 

Alternative 4

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. Effects of this prohibition will be 

beneficial to rare plants and their habitats. Designation of 7 miles of 

unauthorized routes will not adversely affect any threatened, endangered 

or sensitive plant species or its habitat, or any Botanical Special Interest 

Area.

Alternative 5

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. Effects of this prohibition will be 

beneficial to rare plants and their habitats. Designation of 69 miles of 

unauthorized routes and 53 acres of open riding areas will not adversely 

affect any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species or its habitat, 

or any Botanical Special Interest Area.

Alternative 6

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. Effects of this prohibition will be 

beneficial to rare plants and their habitats. Designation of 59 miles of 

unauthorized routes and 53 acres of open riding areas will not adversely 

affect any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species or its habitat, 

or any Botanical Special Interest Area.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources

404 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 7

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for direct damage to plants by vehicles. No new routes will be 

created; there will be no loss or degradation of plant habitats due to 

disturbance by motorized vehicles. Effects of this prohibition will be 

beneficial to rare plants and their habitats. Designation of 74 miles of 

unauthorized routes and 53 acres of open riding areas will not adversely 

affect any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species or its habitat, 

or any Botanical Special Interest Area.

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

This project was designed to avoid disturbance to sensitive plant species as much as possible. 

Alternative 1 could adversely affect sensitive plants due to the potential for creation of new 

unauthorized routes without mitigations. All of the action alternatives include monitoring of 

sensitive plant occurrences near routes added to the NFTS, and require that site-specific action be 

taken as needed to maintain viability. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Port-Orford-Cedar Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 405

Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; POC) is an ecologically, economically, and 

socially important tree species with a limited natural range of northwestern California and 

southwestern Oregon. On the KNF the species occurs on the Happy Camp and Ukonom Ranger 

Districts. Approximately 5,277 acres of mapped Port-Orford-cedar occur on the Forest, with 

about 18 million board feet of inventoried volume (USDA/USDI 2003). Phytophthora lateralis

(PL, or Port-Orford-cedar root disease), a disease that infects and kills Port-Orford-cedar, has 

spread throughout much of the tree‘s native range. The disease spreads by the movement of 

spores in water (down slope), in mud transported from infected sites, or by root-to-root contact 

(Roth et al. 1987). Roads represent a primary vector for spread from vehicles driving from 

infested sites into uninfested areas. Management decisions to eliminate cross-county motor 

vehicle travel, add routes or open riding areas to the National Forest Transportation System 

(NFTS), or change vehicle type on NFTS roads could affect opportunities for transport of PL, and 

thus affect POC communities.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects Port-Orford-cedar includes:

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Bureau 

of Land Management and Forest Service adopted standards and guidelines for the management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan. The language and direction from 

the Northwest Forest Plan were incorporated into the Klamath LRMP. The LRMP contains the 

following management direction applicable to motorized travel management and Port-Orfordcedar:

 Maintain a healthy and resilient population of all species, including special interest species 

such as Pacific yew, Brewer spruce, Port-Orford-cedar, Pacific silver fir, Baker cypress and 

whitebark pine throughout their native range.

21-61 Take measures that shall limit the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease, and 

increase populations of Port-Orford-cedar on the Forest. Prevent or reduce the risk of 

introducing the disease into uninfested areas. Strategies for reducing the risk to PortOrford-cedar from infection by the root disease will be integrated into all levels of 

planning...In order to reduce the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease, a risk 

analysis will be completed for all projects in watersheds containing Port-Orfordcedar. Practices identified from experience, research and the Region 5 – Region 6 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Port Orford Cedar

406 Klamath National Forest

Port-Orford-cedar Action Plan will be applied on a site- or drainage specific basis to 

reduce the spread and severity of the disease.

Effects Analysis Methodology

All roads on the KNF NFTS were evaluated in determining the risk of infection of POC. Mapped 

sites with POC occurrence were rated for risk of infection with PL according to the following 

guidelines:

High-risk sites:

Low-lying wet areas with POC (infested or not) that are located 100‘ or less downslope from 

already infested areas, or below likely sites for future introductions, especially roads. They 

include streams, drainage ditches, gullies, swamps, seeps, ponds, lakes, and concave low 

lying areas where water collects during rainy weather. Dry sites less than 50‘ below 

infestations are also considered to be high risk (USDA/USDI 2004).

Low-risk sites: 

Sites with characteristics unfavorable for spread and infection by PL (USDA/USDI 2004).

The incidence of new POC infection is associated with (1) distance to the nearest POC; (2) 

host abundance; and (3) catchment area. Probability figures were based on literature and 

professional judgment of professionals in the field. GIS layers showing POC populations were 

overlaid with the NFTS and unauthorized routes to provide an estimate of acres at risk of 

infestation by PL. Wilderness acres are not included in the analysis figures. Additional 

information is included in the Klamath National Forest Travel Management Port-Orford-Cedar 

Analysis, which is incorporated by reference and included in the project files located in the 

Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California.

Assumptions Specific to the Port-Orford-Cedar Analysis

A primary method of introducing PL into uninfested watersheds is by transfer of PL-infested 

mud on the undercarriage, wheels or mud flaps of motorized vehicles.

POC stands on the KNF located outside of Wilderness may be at risk of becoming infested 

with PL due to motorized vehicle use. 

Probability of pathogen spread below 6.1% is considered low risk. 

POC stands within wilderness are not considered to be affected by this project, although they 

could represent an infection source for lands outside of wilderness.

Cross-country motorized travel off established unauthorized routes (casual use) does not 

affect the spread of PL.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Port-Orford-Cedar Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 407

Data Sources

GIS layers of unauthorized routes and POC occupied habitat.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) on Federal 

Lands (USDA/USDI 2003).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in 

Southwest Oregon (USDA/USDI 2004).

Indicators

Acres of high risk sites outside of wilderness 

Acres of low risk sites outside of wilderness 

Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Short-term effects include immediate effects from changes in 

travel management that will be evident within the first year of implementation.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years. 

Spatial boundary: POC stands on the KNF outside of wilderness.

Indicators: Both indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and POC sites.

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: POC stands on the KNF outside of wilderness.

Indicators: Both indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and TES plant sites.

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS

This action involves changing the type of vehicle allowed on existing NFTS roads. There would 

be no effects to POC from this activity and it is not addressed further in this section.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Port Orford Cedar

408 Klamath National Forest

4. Cumulative effects

Roads are the primary human-related vector for spread of PL. Analysis of cumulative effects for 

the risk of spread of PL focus on ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities. 

Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the 

long-term timeframe.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: KNF.

Indicators: Both indicators were used.

Methodology: GIS analysis of routes and POC plant sites.

Affected Environment

The distribution of POC on the Klamath National Forest is limited primarily to the Dillon, Clear, 

and Indian Creek watersheds on the Happy Camp and Ukonom Ranger Districts. Port-Orfordcedar is often a component in mixed conifer stands, generally representing less than 10% of the 

stand. Stands usually consist of small, isolated pockets or narrow stringers, and are nearly always 

confined to riparian areas. Most acres fall within the Riparian Reserve land allocation. The 

current inventory shows 5,277 acres of POC on the forest, of which approximately 2,916 acres 

are within the Siskiyou Wilderness. Many of the POC stands outside of wilderness are adjacent 

to NFTS roads built through the canyons, but there is limited motorized access off roads due to 

steep topography. 

Many stands of POC on the Klamath NF are greater than 300 years in age, with some 

individuals reaching ages of over 700 years. A stand of old POC is located in the 100-acre 

Sutcliffe Creek Botanical Area in the upper Indian Creek drainage of the Happy Camp Ranger 

District. 

In August, 2006, PL was discovered in cedars along Clear Creek in the Siskiyou Wilderness 

Area. The extent of the infestation is unknown, but it is believed that PL may have been 

originally introduced by vehicles driving into Raspberry Lake along an unimproved trail in the 

1980s, and the pathogen was carried downstream (Betlejewski, personal communication, 2009). 

The KNF undertook management actions (rerouting a hiking trail and removal of POC) to reduce 

the potential for spread of the pathogen outside wilderness. To date Clear Creek is the only 

infested location on the KNF. All 2,361 acres of POC outside of the Siskiyou Wilderness are 

considered to be at some risk of infection from PL which could be brought in from other locations 

off the KNF. About 927 acres in the Clear Creek drainage outside of wilderness are considered to 

be at high risk of long distance spread and establishment of the pathogen.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Port-Orford-Cedar Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 409

Environmental Consequences

Direct effects occur when individual plants are directly impacted by vehicles, such as crushing of 

seedlings. While this is possible for POC, it is highly unlikely due to the steep terrain in which 

this species is found. The primary effect on this species from motorized use of unauthorized 

routes is considered to be the potential for introduction and spread of P. lateralis, resulting in 

infection and eventual death of individual trees. For many years the KNF has implemented wet 

weather haul restrictions, and project mitigations such as washing of vehicles. Since there are no 

road-related PL infestations on the KNF, these mitigations have apparently been effective.

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Roads and trails serve as the primary 

vector for spread of the PL pathogen; however, there are no ongoing or foreseeable projects that 

involve trail construction. Road-related activities would have the same type of effects as the 

actions proposed under this project. Effects of these projects would include transfer of the PL 

pathogen into uninfested areas through road construction and use during wet weather periods. No 

ongoing or foreseeable projects propose road construction in occupied POC habitats. 

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country travel on the Forest, so 2,361 acres of occupied 

POC habitat would remain open for off-road use. While casual off-road travel does not seem to 

affect risk, this alternative would allow creation of new unauthorized routes that could serve as 

vectors and increase risk of introduction and spread of the PL pathogen. One identified 

unauthorized route (52-08) within 100‘ of a streamside POC population, potentially affecting 4 

acres, is currently available for motorized use. Under this alternative, 931 acres of POC habitat 

are considered to be at high risk of infestation by PL. About 1,430 acres are considered to be at 

low risk.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Alternative 1 does not add motorized routes to the NFTS. There would be no effects to POC.

Cumulative effects

There are no ongoing or foreseeable road-related projects proposed within any of the 2,361 acres 

of POC habitat. Cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects described above.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Port Orford Cedar

410 Klamath National Forest

Alternative 2, 5, and 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

These alternatives all prohibit cross-country travel on the Forest, eliminating the potential for 

creation of new routes that could serve as vectors for the PL pathogen. About 931 acres of POC 

habitat are considered to be at high risk of infestation by PL, and 1,430 acres are considered to be 

at low risk.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

These alternatives all propose addition of a single route (52-08) within 100‘ of a streamside POC 

population. This route is about 200‘ long and accesses a camping site in No Mans Creek 

(tributary to Clear Creek) just outside the Siskiyou Wilderness. Changing the location of the route 

is not possible, and removal of currently healthy cedar trees along the route (in order to reduce the 

potential for infection and spread) is not proposed. Without mitigation, four acres along this route 

would remain at high risk of spread and establishment of PL, for a total of 931 acres of POC 

habitat at high risk of infestation by PL.

Cumulative effects

There are no ongoing or foreseeable road-related projects proposed within any of the 2,361 acres 

of POC habitat. Cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects described above.

Alternatives 3, 4 and 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel

These alternatives all prohibit cross-country travel on the Forest. Cross –country motorized travel 

does not appear to affect risk of introduction and spread of PL. A total of 1,434 acres of occupied 

POC habitat would be at low risk for introduction and spread of PL, and 927 acres would remain 

at high risk.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

These alternatives do not propose to add facilities (Alternative 3), or do not propose to add 

facilities within high risk POC habitats (Alternative 4 and 7). There are no direct or indirect 

effects associated with this action. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no ongoing or foreseeable road-related projects proposed within any of the 2,361 acres 

of POC habitat. Cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects described above.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Port-Orford-Cedar Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 411

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for spread of PL due to the potential for creation of 

new unauthorized routes that could serve as vectors for the PL pathogen. Alternatives 2, 5 and 6 

have risk levels similar to Alternative 1. Alternatives 3, 4 and 7 would have the lowest levels of 

risk. 

Table POC-1. Comparison of Port-Orford-cedar indicators

Indicators Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Acres of high risk sites 931 931 927 927 931 931 927

Acres of low risk sites 1,430 1,430 1,434 1,434 1,430 1,430 1,434

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

A risk analysis for POC has been completed. Allowing unmanaged cross-country motorized 

travel that could result in additional unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) is inconsistent with 

LRMP direction to limit the spread of PL. Alternatives 2, 5 and 6 limit spread of PL through the 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, but would allow 4 acres to remain at high risk due 

to a single unauthorized route that would be added to the NFTS without mitigation. Alternatives 

3, 4 and 7 comply with LRMP direction to limit the spread of PL. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Port Orford Cedar

412 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 413

Non-native Invasive Species

Introduction

Noxious weeds and invasive exotic plants are collectively referred to as noxious or invasive 

weeds, plants, or species, or simply as weeds. Forest Service policy defines noxious weeds as: 

―those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible State official.‖ 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 non-native or new to or not common to the United States or 

parts thereof (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Vehicle travel is a major factor/vector in the introduction and spread of invasive plants, so 

this project affects the population and distribution of these species. Additionally, the former chief 

of the Forest Service 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.

All weed species identified on the Forest are of concern with regard to their potential to 

spread and threaten native ecosystems. The KNF has prioritized weed infestations for tracking 

based upon the aggressiveness of the weed species, the degree of regional concern, and feasibility 

of control. Some species are identified as lower priority for control efforts; they are less often 

mapped and are not specifically addressed in this analysis (i.e., cheatgrass). While it remains 

important to prevent the further spread of these species via management activities, control of all 

known infestations of these lower-priority species is not currently feasible, and they are likely to 

persist throughout the life of this project. This analysis focuses on the weed species known to 

occur adjacent to existing and proposed routes relevant to this project.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

Direction that is relevant to the management and prevention of noxious weeds related to 

motorized travel management includes:

FSM 2081.03 requires that a weed risk assessment be conducted when any ground disturbing 

activity is proposed. Projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious 

weeds must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project 

implementation.

Executive Order 13112 of Feb. 3, 1999 (Fed. Reg. 1999) directs federal agencies to: 

prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control such 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

414 Klamath National Forest

species; not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that the agency 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.

Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Non-native Plants and Weeds

MA 5-3 [For Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs)] Nonnative species: In general, nonnative 

species (plant and animal) should not be introduced.

MA 5-77 [For Calochorus persistens Special Habitat] Prohibit any ground disturbance that 

would adversely affect the known habitat (by introducing weedy species) or 

physically disturbing existing plants. Disturbed areas near this habitat should be 

managed to exclude non-native invasive plant species. 

MA 16-19 [For Forage Management Area] Activities that favor the establishment of undesirable 

native and non-native species should be avoided.

Effects Analysis Methodology

This document serves as the weed risk assessment for this project.

The thirty-six species considered in this analysis are listed by the California Department of 

Food and Agriculture (CDFA 2007) as noxious weeds (Table NNIS-1). 

Assumptions Specific to Non-Native Invasive Species Analysis

The following assumptions were used in the analysis of noxious weeds: 

Ground disturbance (soil compaction and displacement, and loss of native vegetation) creates 

conditions conducive to introduction and establishment of non-native invasive plants.

Existing weed infestations will continue to spread from untreated sites through motorized 

vehicle activity. 

Untreated infestations located along routes open to motor vehicle traffic will spread further 

along the route. Motorized vehicles will bring in weed seeds and propagative parts from other 

areas.

All types of vehicles with a variety of tire types (from passenger car tires to heavily lugged, 

off-highway pickup truck tires) are currently using ML2 and ML3 roads. There is no 

evidence that vehicle type affects seed vectoring; therefore, establishing mixed use on some 

ML 3 roads will not affect weed spread. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 415

Seasonal restrictions will have negligible effect on weed dispersal and spread since primary 

use will occur during the growing season.

Weeds can spread up to 100 feet from motorized routes. This value includes the distance that

vehicles are allowed to drive off roads for parking and camping (30‘) and a generous distance 

allowance for seed dispersal.

Weed prevention measures will continue to be implemented for other ground disturbing 

activities. 

Ongoing weed treatment activities on the KNF will continue into the future. Newlydiscovered high risk weed sites will be prioritized for treatment as they are identified.

Increased use has the potential to increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. 

Use of newly designated roads and trails will not increase perceptibly in the future. 

All road construction activities are considered to be high risk for introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds. Because routes are already established, the risk of introduction of noxious 

weeds from designating unauthorized routes will have a lower risk than road construction. 

Weed sites are mapped as polygons. The minimum polygon size is 0.1 acre. 

Not all polygon acres are adjacent to routes; however, due to mapping limitations, exact acres

within 100‘ of routes could not be determined. Therefore, the entire polygon acreage was 

used, which overstates the amount of effect.

Data Sources

GIS layers with routes and locations of noxious weed populations. 

Information from field visits.

Marla Knight, Forest Service botanist (20 years experience working with noxious weeds on 

the KNF), December 2008-May 2009.

Indicators 

Risk of weed spread is related to the proximity of the road (vector) to a weed occurrence, the size 

of that occurrence, whether the occurrence is being actively treated, and the efficacy of the 

treatment. The following indicators were selected to address these factors. The level of risk of 

weed spread (indicator #4) is informed by the treatment history that has occurred on that site. 

Number of unauthorized/proposed routes within 100 ft. of known noxious weed sites

Miles of unauthorized/proposed routes within 100 ft. of known noxious weed sites

Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 ft. of unauthorized or proposed routes 

Number of unauthorized routes assigned ―high risk‖ of noxious weed introduction or spread
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

416 Klamath National Forest

All indicators were used for all actions. 

Methodology by Action

The following methodology was completed for all actions.

GIS layers of weed sites were compared with layers showing locations of unauthorized routes. 

Each route was assigned a risk level indicating the risk for noxious weed spread or introduction 

and the effectiveness of treatment. Risk levels were assigned based on the following factors: 

High: A-rated species (California Department of Agriculture) or high priority ranked species 

(KNF) occurs within 100 feet of unauthorized or proposed routes, and no treatment is 

occurring or treatment is ineffective. 

Medium: Known populations of B- or C-rated species (California Department of Agriculture) 

occur within 100 feet of unauthorized or proposed routes

Low: Noxious weed populations were not present within 100 feet of unauthorized routes, or 

weed species has a low priority ranking on the KNF. 

A full discussion of the weed ratings is documented in the Klamath National Forest Noxious 

Weed List found in the project files located in the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA.

GIS weed polygons were used to calculate the number of acres of weeds within 100‘ of 

unauthorized routes. If a weed occurrence was mapped but did not have a polygon, it was 

assumed to be 0.1 acre in size. 

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel 

Short-term timeframe: There are no short term effects from prohibiting cross-country motorized 

travel. Unauthorized routes exist, and are creating effects on the landscape. Recovery and 

revegetation of unauthorized routes and other vehicle-caused disturbances will take time (20+ 

years). 

Long-term timeframe: 20 years 

Spatial boundary: Listed under each alternative.

Methodology: GIS analysis and risk assessment. 

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS

Short-term timeframe: 1 year. In the short term, there would be virtually no effects from adding 

routes or areas to the NFTS. Unauthorized routes exist on the ground and are currently being 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 417

used, so the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds will not change in the short 

term.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years.

Spatial boundary: Listed under each alternative.

Methodology: GIS analysis and risk assessment. 

3. Direct and indirect effects of changes to the NFTS

This activity includes changing vehicle class on existing NFTS roads. Proposals for mixed use 

were not analyzed for impacts from non-native invasive species because it was assumed that 

adding mixed use mileage to the NFTS would have no effect on seed vectoring. This activity will 

not be addressed further in this section.

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: Listed under each alternative.

Methodology: GIS analysis and risk assessment. 

Introduction and spread of noxious weeds on the Klamath National Forest occurs primarily along 

roads and rivers. Timber harvest, thinning, fuel reduction, and other management activities have 

created disturbed sites, but weed sites have been identified primarily along the access roads, not 

within the management units. Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis for noxious weeds 

considers only the effects of this project added to all ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

actions. 

Affected Environment

Thirty-six invasive plant species are of management concern for the Klamath National Forest 

(Table NNIS-1). These weed species, which are known from about 996 locations, occupy about 

8,675 acres. 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

418 Klamath National Forest

Table NNIS-7. Klamath National Forest noxious weed list

Scientific Name Common Name(s) KNF 

Priority

CDFA 

Rating

Risk Rating

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed H B H

Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven M C L

Bromus tectorum Cheat grass L None L

Cardaria draba Whitetop M B L

Cardaria chalapensis Lens-podded 

whitetop M B L

Carduus nutans L. Musk thistle H A H

Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle H C H

Centaurea diffusa Lam. Diffuse knapweed H A H

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed H A H

Centaurea debeauxii Meadow knapweed H A H

Centaurea solstitialis L. Yellow starthistle

M C

H - treated only in 

high priority areas

Centaurea squarrosa Squarrose 

knapweed H A H

Chondrilla juncea Rush skeleton 

weed H A H

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

M B M

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle L C L

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock L None L

Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue H None H

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom H C H

Euphorbia esula L. Leafy spurge H A H

Genista monspessulana French broom H C H

Hypericum perforatum L. Klamath weed L C L

Isatis tinctoria L. Dyer's woad, 

Marlahan mustard M B H

Lepidium latifolium Perennial 

pepperweed H B H

Linaria dalmatica Dalmation toadflax A H

Lythrum salicaria L. Purple loosestrife H B H

Melilotus spp. White sweetclover L None L

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle H A H

Onopordum tauricum Taurian thistle H A H

Polygonum cuspidatum 

Sieb. & Zucc.

Japanese 

knotweed H B

H - Not found on 

KNF

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil H None H

Rubus discolor Himalayan 

blackberry L None L

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean 

sage H B H

Sonchus arvensis Perennial sowthistle H A H

Spartium junceum Spanish broom H C H

Taenaiatherum 

caputmedusae

Medusahead

L C L

Tribulus terrestris Puncture vine H C H
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 419

The two primary vectors for weed spread are roads and rivers. Most weed infestations on the 

KNF are concentrated along established roads (especially heavily traveled routes such as state 

highways and major connector roads) or river banks and gravel bars. There are more than 4,500 

miles of NFTS road on the KNF, about 3,700 miles of which are open to the public for motorized 

use. Any of these roads can serve as a vector for seed spread. 

Motorized cross-country vehicle travel has been occurring on the KNF for many years. This 

activity has created routes that are repeatedly used, creating de facto ―roads‖ and increasing the 

vulnerability of the landscape to noxious weed invasion and spread. A large portion of the KNF is 

free of noxious weeds, which indicates that casual motorized use off existing roads (i.e. one or 

two vehicle passes) is not a major contributor to weed spread (Knight, personal communication). 

The lower elevations on the Forest and the mid-elevation valleys contain many of the noxious 

weed concentrations. These areas contain a large proportion of privately-owned lands, and major 

state or county roads which are heavily-used entry points or ―seed sources‖ for weeds moving 

into the less-invaded parts of the Forest. 

NFTS roads are checked regularly for weed sites; new sites are identified, mapped, and 

prioritized for treatment. The KNF has supported an active manual weed treatment program for 

10 years. Treatment priorities are based on species, location of infestation, other resources at risk, 

and feasibility of treatment. Treated sites are considered to have a risk of spread ranging from 

zero to moderate (which may differ from the overall risk rating for the species). Treatment

significantly reduces the risk of spread because (1) annual seed production is removed with the 

plants; (2) the seed bank declines each year; and (3) the potential for seeds or seeding plant parts 

to be dispersed by motorized vehicles is reduced. Some widespread species such as cheatgrass or 

star thistle cannot be effectively treated on a large scale, but are treated at high priority locations 

(such as wilderness trailheads) to reduce the risk of spread into protected and weed-free areas. 

Infestations of 14 weed species have been found within 100 feet of 41 unauthorized routes 

(Table NNIS-2). There are 54 identified infestations; some routes support more than one species. 

Twenty-six populations are being treated, or have been treated in the past. Effectiveness of 

treatment (ranging from moderate to 100% success) influences the risk of spread for that 

population. Most treated sites show zero to low risk of spread. 

Risk of spread may also be affected by the weed location. For example, numerous weed 

populations occur on main access routes such as Highway 97, and are within 100‘ of the takeoff 

point of an unauthorized route, but are not located on the route itself. Several infestations are 

located on the opposite side of the main access route, in one case on the other side of a fence 

which prohibits vehicle traffic. Six treated knapweed sites are on river bars where vehicle traffic 

is prohibited, but lie within 100‘ of the end of the proposed route. Hypericum perforatum has a 

biocontrol agent that has been determined to be effective in preventing spread. In all of these 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

420 Klamath National Forest

cases, the risk of spread is considered to be low or moderate. A complete list of routes with 

associated risk ratings and justification for the rating is included in the project record located in 

the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, CA. 

Table NNIS-2. Alternative 1: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

Scientific Name Common 

name

# of 

Routes

KNF 

Priority

Miles 

in 

Routes

*

Acres 

of 

weeds

# Sites with 

High Risk of 

Spread

Acroptilon repens Russian 

knapweed 1 H 7.00 0.32 0

Cardaria chalapensis

Lenspodded 

whitetop

1 M 0.09 0.10 1

Centaurea debeauxii Meadow 

knapweed 2 H 0.13 0.20 0

Centaurea maculosa Spotted 

knapweed 7 H 1.84 2.05 0

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow 

starthistle 12 M 2.81 6.50 8

Centaurea squarrosa Squarrose 

knapweed 4 H 1.54 0.20 0

Cirsium arvense Canada 

thistle 1 M 0.91 6.80 0

Cytisus scoparius Scotch 

broom 4 M 1.92 0.40 0

Hypericum 

perforatum

Klamath 

weed 5 L 3.88 4.25 0

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's 

woad 8 M 1.24 5.80 4

Lepidium latifolium

Perennial 

pepperwee

d 

3 H 2.53 4.25 3

Linaria dalmatica Dalmation 

toadflax 3 H 0.97 11.36 0

Onopordum 

acanthium

Scotch 

thistle 2 H 2.42 0.30 0

Potentilla recta. Sulphur 

cinquefoil 1 H 0.09 0.10 0

Total # of 

unauthorized routes 

with weeds

41** 16

Total miles / Acres 28.76** 42.63

* Total miles in route exposed to weed spread - not all miles of route are within 100’ of weed infestation. 

**Some routes have more than one weed. Number of routes and mileage were only counted once. 

Environmental Consequences

Areas of soil disturbance or displacement are especially vulnerable to weed invasion. Motorized 

vehicles are efficient at both creating soil disturbance, and carrying weed seeds and other 

propagules to new locations (Ouren et al. 2007, Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007). 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 421

Alternative 1

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel. In the long term, noxious 

weed sites along 41 unauthorized routes would continue to be accessible by motorized vehicles, 

although treatment of 26 sites will mitigate risk of spread for those routes. There would continue 

to be a high risk that weeds would spread along 13 routes in both the short and long term (3 

routes have populations of 2 different weeds - Table NNIS-1). In addition, is a risk of 

introduction and spread of weeds remains for the other 409 miles of unauthorized routes that are 

currently uninfested. Motor vehicles could continue to create areas of disturbance that would be 

vulnerable to weed invasion on the 1.2 million acres that are open for off-road travel. Any new 

unauthorized routes would establish new vectors for weed propagules to travel into and across the 

Forest, and whatever weeds were carried into the Forest would find amenable (disturbed) habitat. 

Under this alternative, all but the most inaccessible habitats would be at risk of noxious weed 

invasion and spread from cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

There would be no additions of facilities under this alternative. There will be no direct or indirect 

effects. 

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects are the combined effects of cross-country motor vehicle travel on 1.2 

million acres (497 miles of established routes) and ongoing and foreseeable road-related actions 

(addition of 13 miles of ML 1 road and 26 miles of ML 2 road to the NFTS, and removal of 50 

miles of ML2 road from the NFTS - 48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through 

conversion to a hiking trail). The effects of unmanaged cross-country motor vehicle travel are 

addressed above. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road-related actions will have separate 

noxious weed evaluations, and appropriate mitigations will be applied to minimize noxious weed 

introduction and spread. Mitigations could include such activities as pre-project weed surveys, 

flagging and avoiding noxious weed occurrences, washing vehicles and equipment prior to 

entering the Forest, using weed-free materials, minimizing ground disturbance, and restoring 

disturbed sites with native materials. Implementation of the National Strategy and 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA Forest Service 2004) minimizes 

the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread associated with future road-related actions. 

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread on that road. In the long term, 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

422 Klamath National Forest

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. 

Overall, effects of ongoing and foreseeable activities are overshadowed by the potential for 

introduction and spread of weeds by unmanaged motorized use of the KNF.

Alternative 2

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

In the short term, closure of 1.2 million acres to motorized use would eliminate soil disturbance 

caused by motorized vehicles on any of the acres that are open for cross-country travel. The 

prohibition of motorized vehicles eliminates the potential for creation of new unauthorized routes, 

removing an effective vector for weed spread, which should reduce both the risk of introduction 

of noxious weeds and the rate of spread of weeds on infested unauthorized routes. Removal of 

cross-country travel would result in decompaction of the soil and eventual revegetation with 

native perennial grasses and forbs. This could eventually result in late-seral (late-stage ecological 

succession) native vegetation, which is better able to resist weed invasion (Gelbard and Harrison 

2005). The amount of ground disturbed by motor vehicles would remain static in the short term, 

but no new routes would be created. In the long term, disturbed sites (including 345 miles of 

unauthorized routes) will slowly recover and revegetate, so the amount of disturbed ground 

susceptible to introduction and spread of noxious weeds would decrease. Threats to native 

vegetation and wildlife habitat from establishment of weeds would be reduced or eliminated over 

much of the National Forest. Effects of this action are considered to be wholly beneficial. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

This alternative would allow continued motorized use of 22 routes that are currently located 

within 100‘ of noxious weed sites (about 12.4 acres - Table NNIS-3). All routes except one are 

short spurs that lead to dispersed recreation sites. In the short and long terms, there is a high risk 

of spread from 12 noxious weed populations along 9 of these routes. Most of the threat comes 

from starthistle populations that cannot be effectively treated.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 423

Table NNIS-3. Alternative 2: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total 

Miles of 

Routes*

Total

Acres

# Sites with 

High Risk of 

Spread

Centaurea debeauxii Meadow knapweed 52-12

52-13 0.13 0.20 ModerateModerate

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed

54-07

54-08

54-10

54-11

54-12

54-17

55-18

1.84 1.95

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-04

52-12

54-17

54-46a

54-47

54-48

1.81 6.14

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Centaurea squarrosa

Squarrose 

knapweed 7H002.2 0.16 0.16 Low

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

52-04

55-13

55-14 1.38 2.01

Low

Low

Low

Isatis tinctoria. Dyer's woad

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-12

55-26

55-28

1.14 1.96

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Low

High

Totals 22** 5.29** 12.42

# of Sites with High 

Risk of Spread 12

* Total miles in route exposed to weed spread - not all miles of route are within 100’ of weed infestation. 

**Some routes have more than one weed. Number of routes and mileage were only counted once. 

About 87 miles of proposed routes do not currently support weeds. Once added to the NFTS, 

these routes will be assessed for presence of weeds and need for treatment along with the rest of 

the roads on the transportation system. High risk sites will be prioritized and treated as funding 

and personnel become available. 

Lands within designated open riding areas will be subjected to soil displacement, and much 

of the acreage will be inhospitable to weeds. Loading and parking sites are the areas that have 

highest risk for weed introduction. Those sites will be assessed for weeds and treated as 

appropriate. Juniper Flat is located adjacent to a state highway and the Humbug area is located on 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

424 Klamath National Forest

a heavily used County road. Even if weed infestations are treated, reintroduction of weeds into 

these areas is highly probable. 

Cumulative effects

This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will result in 131

miles of roads and motorized trails added to the NFTS, and 50 miles of road being 

decommissioned. All routes added to the NFTS will have weed assessments and appropriate 

mitigation measures to address noxious weeds (see discussion under Alternative 1). All routes 

added to the NFTS will be assessed for weed presence, and treatment will be conducted as 

appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Effects of all proposed road-related actions are 

overshadowed by the beneficial effects of reducing risk of introduction and spread of weeds by 

eliminating unmanaged motorized use from 405 miles of unauthorized routes and 1.2 million 

acres.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Direct and indirect effects are the same as described for Alternative 2, with the exception that 

motorized use would be removed from 497 miles of unauthorized routes. All weed sites will 

remain in existence, but the potential for creation of unauthorized routes (a major vector for 

spread) will be removed so the risk of spread will be substantially reduced. Treatment will 

continue on sites that are currently part of the KNF treatment program. Effects are considered to 

be beneficial. 

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

There would be no additions of facilities under this alternative. There will be no direct or indirect 

effects. 

Cumulative effects

This alternative does not propose any additions to the NFTS; cumulative effects are limited to the 

direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel added to those of ongoing and 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 425

foreseeable road-related activities. The effects of the prohibition of cross-country travel are 

described under Alternative 2.

This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will result in 

adding 13 miles of ML1 road and 26 miles of ML2 road to the NFTS, and removal of 50 miles 

(48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a non-motorized trail). 

All routes added to the NFTS will have weed assessments and appropriate mitigation measures to 

address noxious weeds (see discussion under Alternative 1). The potential for weed introduction 

and spread along all routes being added to the NFTS is considered to be high. However, these 

roads will be monitored for weed presence, and treatment will be conducted as appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Cumulative effects are considered to be beneficial.

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Direct and indirect effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Alternative 4 proposes to add one route (0.04 mile in length) within 100‘ of one occurrence of a 

dyer‘s woad population (0.4 acres). This occurrence is part of the KNF treatment program. 

Treatment effectiveness has been high, so the risk of spread is considered to be low. 

All but one routee, proposed for addition to the NFTS are weed-free. Once added to the 

NFTS, these routes (about 7 miles) will be assessed for presence of weeds and need for treatment 

along with the rest of the roads in the system. High risk sites will be prioritized and treated as 

funding and personnel become available. 

Cumulative effects

This alternative proposes to add 7 miles of routes to the NFTS, one of which is within 100‘ of a 

noxious weed occurrence. This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related 

activities will result in adding 13 miles of ML1 road and 33 miles of open road to the NFTS, and 

removal of 50 miles (48 miles through decommissioning and 2 miles through conversion to a 

non-motorized trail). All routes added to the NFTS will have weed assessments and appropriate 

mitigation measures to address noxious weeds (see discussion under Alternative 1). All routes 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

426 Klamath National Forest

added to the NFTS will be assessed for weed presence, and treatment will be conducted as 

appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Effects of all proposed road-related actions are 

overshadowed by the beneficial effects of reducing risk of introduction and spread of weeds by 

eliminating unmanaged motorized use from 490 miles of unauthorized routes and 1.2 million 

acres.

Alternative 5

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Direct and indirect effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Alternative 5 would add 27 routes (5.36 miles) that are within 100‘ of 31 noxious weed 

occurrences (12.5 acres - Table NNIS-4). All routes except one are short spurs that lead to 

dispersed recreation sites. In the short and long terms, there is a high risk of spread from 12 

noxious weed populations along 9 of these routes. Most of the threat comes from starthistle 

populations that cannot be effectively treated.

Table NNIS-4. Alternative 5: Unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known weed sites.

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total

Miles of 

Routes*

Total

Acres

Risk of 

Spread

Centaurea debeauxii

Meadow 

knapweed

52-12

52-13 0.13 0.20

Moderate

Moderate

Centaurea maculosa Spotted 

knapweed

54-07

54-08

54-10

54-11

54-12

54-17

55-18

1.84 1.95

None

None

None

None

None

None

None
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 427

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total

Miles of 

Routes*

Total

Acres

Risk of 

Spread

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-04

52-12

54-17

54-46a

54-47

54-48

1.96 6.14

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Centaurea squarrosa

Squarrose 

knapweed 7H002.2 0.16 0.16 Low

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

52-04

52-05a

55-13

55-14

1.92 2.11

Low

Low

Low

Low

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-12

55-26

55-28

1.12 1.96

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Low

High

Totals 27** 5.36** 12.52

# of Sites with High 

Risk of Spread 12

* Total miles in route exposed to weed spread - not all miles of route are within 100’ of weed infestation. 

**Some routes have more than one weed. Number of routes and mileage were only counted once. 

About 64 miles of proposed routes do not currently support weeds. Once added to the NFTS, 

these routes will be assessed for presence of weeds and need for treatment along with the rest of 

the roads in the system. High risk sites will be prioritized and treated as funding and personnel 

become available. 

The effects of adding 2 open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will result in 108

miles of roads and motorized trails added to the NFTS, and 50 miles of road being removed (48 

decommissioned and 2 converted to a non-motorized trail). All routes added to the NFTS will 

have weed assessments and appropriate mitigation measures to address noxious weeds (see 

discussion under Alternative 1). All routes added to the NFTS will be assessed for weed presence, 

and treatment will be conducted as appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

428 Klamath National Forest

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Effects of all proposed road-related actions are 

overshadowed by the beneficial effects of reducing risk of introduction and spread of weeds by 

eliminating unmanaged motorized use from 428 miles of unauthorized routes and 1.2 million 

acres.

Alternative 6

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Direct and indirect effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Alternative 6 would add 24 routes (5.3 miles) that are within 100‘ of noxious weed occurrences 

(12.4 acres - Table NNIS-5). All routes except one are short spurs that lead to dispersed recreation 

sites. In the short and long terms, there is a high risk of spread from 12 noxious weed populations

along 9 of these routes. Most of the threat comes from starthistle populations that cannot be 

effectively treated.

Table NNIS-5. Weeds within 100 feet of proposed routes under Alternative 6

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total 

Miles of 

Routes*

Acres

Risk of 

Spread

Centaurea debeauxii Meadow 

knapweed

52-12

52-13 0.13 0.20

Moderate

Moderate

Centaurea maculosa Spotted 

knapweed

54-07

54-08

54-10

54-11

54-12

54-17

55-18

1.84 1.95

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-04

52-12

54-17

54-46a

54-47

54-48

1.96 6.14

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Centaurea squarrosa Squarrose 

knapweed 7H002.2 0.16 0.16 Low

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

52-04

55-13

55-14

1.38 2.01

Low

Low

Low
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 429

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total 

Miles of 

Routes*

Acres

Risk of 

Spread

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-12

55-26

55-28

1.12 1.96

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Low

High

Totals 24** 5.30** 12.42

# of Sites with High 

Risk of Spread 12

* Total miles in route exposed to weed spread - not all miles of route are within 100’ of weed infestation. 

**Some routes have more than one weed. Number of routes and mileage were only counted once. 

About 54 miles of proposed routes do not currently support weeds. Once added to the NFTS, 

these routes will be assessed for presence of weeds and need for treatment along with the rest of 

the roads in the system. High risk sites will be prioritized and treated as funding and personnel 

become available. 

The effects of adding 2 open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will result in 98

miles of roads and motorized trails added to the NFTS, and 50 miles of road being removed (48 

decommissioned and 2 converted to a non-motorized trail). All routes added to the NFTS will 

have weed assessments and appropriate mitigation measures to address noxious weeds (see 

discussion under Alternative 1). All routes added to the NFTS will be assessed for weed presence, 

and treatment will be conducted as appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Effects of all proposed road-related actions are 

overshadowed by the beneficial effects of reducing risk of introduction and spread of weeds by 

eliminating unmanaged motorized use from 438 miles of unauthorized routes and 1.2 million 

acres.

Alternative 7

Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel

Direct and indirect effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

430 Klamath National Forest

Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 

Alternative 7 would add 24 routes (5.56 miles) that are within 100‘ of noxious weed occurrences 

12.1 acres – Table NNIS-6). All routes except one are short spurs that lead to dispersed recreation

sites. In the short and long terms, there is a high risk of spread from 12 noxious weed populations

along 9 of these routes. Most of the threat comes from starthistle populations that cannot be 

effectively treated.

Table NNIS-6. Weeds within 100 feet of proposed routes under Alternative 7 

Scientific Name Common name Routes

Total 

Miles of 

Routes*

Total

Acres

Risk of 

Spread

Centaurea debeauxii Meadow 

knapweed

52-12

52-13

0.13 0.20 Moderate

Moderate

Centaurea maculosa Spotted 

knapweed

54-08

54-10

54-11

54-12

54-17

55-18

1.40 1.95

None

None

None

None

None

None

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle

51-05

51-25

51-26

51-33

52-04

52-12

54-17

54-46a

54-47

54-48

1.96 6.14

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Centaurea squarrosa

Squarrose 

knapweed 7H002.2 0.16 0.16 Low

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom 52-04

52-05a

55-13

55-14

1.92 2.11

Low

Low

Low

Low

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad

51-05

51-25

51-33

52-12

55-26

55-28

0.92 1.55

High

Moderate

High

High

Low

High

Totals 24** 5.56** 12.11

# of Sites with High 

Risk of Spread 12

* Total miles in route exposed to weed spread - not all miles of route are within 100’ of weed infestation. 

**Some routes have more than one weed. Number of routes and mileage were only counted once. 

About 69 miles of proposed routes do not currently support weeds. Once added to the NFTS, 

these routes will be assessed for presence of weeds and need for treatment along with the rest of 

the roads in the system. High risk sites will be prioritized and treated as funding and personnel 

become available. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 431

The effects of adding 2 open riding areas are described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative combined with ongoing and foreseeable road-related activities will result in 113

miles of roads and motorized trails added to the NFTS, and 50 miles of road being removed (48 

decommissioned and 2 converted to a non-motorized trail). All routes added to the NFTS will 

have weed assessments and appropriate mitigation measures to address noxious weeds (see 

discussion under Alternative 1). All routes added to the NFTS will be assessed for weed presence, 

and treatment will be conducted as appropriate.

In the short term, surface disturbance on 48 miles of decommissioned roads will provide 

opportunity for establishment of noxious weeds; however, prohibition of vehicles will remove a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. Removal of motor vehicles from the 2 miles of road converted into 

a hiking trail will reduce the potential for weed spread down that road. In the long term, 

decommissioned roads should return to native vegetation and the risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread should be minimal. Effects of all proposed road-related actions are 

overshadowed by the beneficial effects of reducing risk of introduction and spread of weeds by 

eliminating unmanaged motorized use from 405 miles of unauthorized routes and 1.2 million 

acres.

Summary of Effects Across All Alternatives

The risk of introduction and spread of noxious weeds is highest for Alternative 1, due to the 

continued availability of 1.2 million acres for cross-country motorized travel and the inevitable 

establishment of new motorized routes which provide for effective seed spread. Alternative 3 

restricts motorized use the most and, therefore, has the least potential for noxious weed 

introduction and spread. There would be a high risk of noxious weed introduction and spread 

along some routes added to the NFTS under Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 7, primarily associated with 

starthistle populations and several populations of dyer‘s woad that are not currently being treated. 

Table NNIS-7. Comparison of alternatives

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt 7

Number of unauthorized/proposed 

routes within 100 ft of known weed 

sites

41 22 0 1 27 24 24

Miles of unauthorized/proposed 

routes within 100 ft of known weed 

sites

28.76 5.29 0 0.04 5.36 5.30 5.56

Acres of weed sites within 100 ft of 

unauthorized/proposed routes 42.63 12.42 0 0.04 12.52 12.42 12.11

Number of weed sites with high risk 

of spread 16 12 0 0 12 12 12
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-native Invasive Species

432 Klamath National Forest

Table NNIS-8. Comparison of effects on non-native invasive species

Alternative 1

This alternative has the highest potential for introduction and spread of 

non-native plant species. While casual cross-country motorized travel 

does not appear to be a significant mechanism for spread, there is high 

potential for establishment of new unauthorized routes that could then 

serve as vectors for seed dispersal; 16 weed-infested sites will remain at 

high risk of spread.

Alternative 2

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants; 92 

miles of unauthorized routes (87 miles of which are weed-free) and 65 

acres of open riding areas will be assessed for weeds and newlydiscovered sites will be treated. 12 weed-infested sites will remain at high 

risk of spread.

Alternative 3 The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants. This 

alternative has the lowest potential for establishment and spread of nonnative plants.

Alternative 4

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants; 7 

miles of unauthorized routes (6.9 miles of which are weed-free) will be 

assessed for weeds and newly-discovered sites will be treated. 1 weedinfested site will remain at high risk of spread.

Alternative 5

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants; 69 

miles of unauthorized routes (64 miles of which are weed-free) and 53 

acres of open riding areas will be assessed for weeds and newlydiscovered sites will be treated. 12 weed-infested sites will remain at high 

risk of spread.

Alternative 6

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants; 59 

miles of unauthorized routes (65 miles of which are weed-free) and 53 

acres of open riding areas will be assessed for weeds and newlydiscovered sites will be treated. 12 weed-infested sites will remain at high 

risk of spread.

Alternative 7

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel will eliminate the 

potential for creation of new vectors for spread of non-native plants; 74

miles of unauthorized routes (69 miles of which are weed-free) and 53 

acres of open riding areas will be assessed for weeds and newlydiscovered sites will be treated. 12 weed-infested sites will remain at high 

risk of spread.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-native Invasive Species Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 433

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 is consistent with the LRMP, which allows cross-country motorized travel that can 

encourage creation and of new unauthorized routes that could serve as vectors for weed 

introduction and spread. It is not in conformance with the Travel Management Rule.

The action alternatives, all of which include an amendment prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel, are consistent with LRMP standards regarding introduction and spread of nonnative plant species. These alternatives are also consistent with the Travel Management Rule, will 

be consistent with the LRMP once it is amended, and are consistent with Executive Order 13112.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

434 Klamath National Forest

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity_________________

The 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 3, 4, 6, 5, 7, and 2 respectively, from most to least, all have the potential to 

improve the long-term productivity by reducing the number and mileage of existing routes on the 

landscape. Routes that are not designated for public motor vehicle use will have the potential to 

revert to vegetated conditions.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects. Although formation of the action alternatives included avoidance of some 

potential adverse effects, other adverse effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. 

The environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these effects.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power-line right-of-way or road.

It is not anticipated that designating, or not designating, some existing NFS land and unauthorized 

routes for public motor vehicle use would cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources.

Energy Requirements

Energy is consumed in the administration of the KNF. The major energy sources that may be 

affected by the travel management alternatives are gasoline and diesel fuel expended to complete 

required mitigations of action alternatives. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 435

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.2(d) directs ―Environmental impact statements shall state how alternatives 

considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements 

of...environmental laws and policies.‖ This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the 

following regulations:

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 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 comment. Section 110 of the Act requires 

federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, and protect National Register of Historic Places 

resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to archaeological, historic, and 

paleontological resources have been evaluated in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. All 

identified properties will be treated as eligible for the National Register until they are evaluated 

and SHPO has provided a letter of concurrence regarding eligibility.

Executive Order 11644 – Off-Road Vehicle Management

Executive Order 11644 – Use of Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) on Public Lands (issued February 8, 

1972) – provides for the establishment of policies and procedures that will ensure that the use of 

ORVs 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 administrative designations of the 

specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of ORVs may be permitted, and areas in 

which the use of ORVs may not be permitted.

Executive Order 11989 – ORV Management

Executive Order 11989 – Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (issued May 24, 1977) –

clarifies agency authority to define zones of use by ORVs on public lands. Agency heads, when 

they determine that the use of ORVs 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 ORV causing such effects, until such time that it is determined 

that such adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to 

prevent further recurrences.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

436 Klamath National Forest

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (issues 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. The preferred alternative does not disproportionately affect minority and lowincome populations.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act, as amended, regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal 

wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act 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 40). No dredging or filling is proposed as part 

of any alternative considered under this project, and no permits are required.

This project complies with the Clean Water Act. None of the action alternatives will

adversely affect beneficial uses of streams. Effects of the action alternatives are in each case a 

decrease in route density in affected watersheds, which equates to a beneficial effect on peak flow 

and timing, and a potential reduction in erosion and sediment delivered to streams.

This project also complies with the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Scott, 

Shasta, and Salmon Rivers, and the draft TMDL for the Klamath River. The TMDLs are 

amendments to the Basin Plan and are part of the California Water Code. This project 

constitutes a control of sediment waste discharge as required under the Memorandum of 

Understanding between the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S Forest Service. 

Clean Air Act of 1970

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for the protection and enhancement of the 

nation‘s air resources. No exceedence of federal or state ambient air quality standards is expected 

to result from any alternative considered in this project.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized 

by a federal agency not 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, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Klamath National Forest 437

the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fish) concerning endangered and 

threatened species under their jurisdiction. Biological assessments and evaluations (BA/BEs) for 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Sensitive species have been prepared for wildlife, fish, 

and plants. Consultation has occurred with USFWS and NMFS with determinations of No Effect

(plants), and May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect with Beneficial Effects (wildlife and 

fish). Further information is available in the Terrestrial Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany sections 

of this chapter. Biological Assessments, Biological Evaluations, and the Biological Opinion are 

available in the project records at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office in Yreka, California.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plans) for the National Forest System. The KNF travel management 

action alternatives are consistent with the NFMA and the KNF Forest Plan (LRMP) as discussed 

in the various resource sections of this chapter.

Travel Management Regulations

The final travel management regulation (36 CFR 212, issued November 9, 2005, Subpart B) and 

subsequent Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH) direction and guidance for 

implementation of 36 CFR 212, Subpart B (FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710, and FSH 7709.55 issued 

December 9, 2008) require designation of roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle 

use on National Forests. 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 KNF travel management action alternatives 

are compliant with this regulation.

Other Pertinent Laws

Compliance with other pertinent laws and regulations is discussed in resource sections of this 

chapter. The travel management action alternatives are compliant with these laws and 

regulations.
Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

438 Klamath National Forest

This page left intentionally blank
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 439

Chapter 4 - Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, 

Glossary, References, and Index

List of Preparers

Cheryl Beck GIS Specialist, TEAMS

Angie Bell Geologist, Klamath National Forest

Margaret Boland NEPA Specialist, Contractor

Amanda Campbell Archaeologist, TEAMS

Kathy Carsey Botanist, TEAMS

Patrick Desmond Writer/Editor, Contractor

Jan Ford Public Services Staff Officer, Klamath National Forest

Wade Graham ID Team Leader, TEAMS

Nicole Hill Landscape Architect and Recreation Specialist, TEAMS

Jan Johnson Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Yreka CA

Desiree Johnston Environmental Coordinator, Klamath National Forest

Don Kreutzer Roads Engineer, Contractor

Eric Moser Hydrologist and Soil Scientist, TEAMS

Anthony Olegario Fisheries Biologist, TEAMS 

Ken Stagg Transportation Engineer, Klamath National Forest

Dick Tatman Traffic Engineer, Contractor

Maple Taylor Writer/Editor, TEAMS

Kristin 

Whisennand

Writer/Editor, TEAMS

Joshua B Wilson Economist, TEAMS

Judy York Writer/Editor, TEAMS
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

440 Klamath National Forest

Consultation

Federal Agencies

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service

State Agencies

State Historic Preservation Offices in

County Agencies

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Siskiyou County Natural Resources Department

 California and Oregon

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This FEIS has been distributed to the following government agencies and to those organizations 

and individuals who specifically requested a copy of the document. 

Other parties on the project mailing list were provided with a summary document or notified 

that the full document is on the Klamath National Forest website.

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, National Headquarters

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries, Eureka Office

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries, Yreka Office

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Southwest Region

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Regions 9 and 10

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region

Federal Highway Administration, Western Region

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Office

U. S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific

State Agencies

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region

State of California Department of Fish and Game

State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE)

State of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 441

Local Government Agencies

Siskiyou County

Organizations and Individuals

George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

Bob Musgrove, Sierra Club

Scott Greacen, EPIC

Rick Svilich, American Forest Resource Council

Kimberly Baker, Klamath Forest Alliance

Richard Nawa, Siskiyou Project

Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild 

Trout Unlimited

Roy Hall Jr., Shasta Tribe, Inc.

Shasta Indian Nation

Jim Bennett, Forks of Salmon Indian Council

Jim Lipke, Siskiyou County Off Road Riders

Stan VanVelsor, The Wilderness Society

Danielle Lindler, KARE

John Lyons, Backcountry Horsemen

Public Libraries

Siskiyou County Library, Yreka 

Siskyou County Library, Mt. Shasta

Siskiyou County Library, Happy Camp

Siskiyou County Library, Etna

Siskiyou County Library, Fort Jones

Federally Recognized Tribes

Karuk Tribe of California

The Klamath Tribes

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Pit River Tribes 

Yurok Tribe

Hoopa Valley Tribe

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

442 Klamath National Forest

Acronyms

4WD 4-Wheel Drive

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

APE Area of Potential Effects

ATV All-terrain Vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

BE Biological Evaluation

BMP Best Management Practices

CARB California Air Resources Board

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

CR Cultural Resources 

CVC California Vehicle Code

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects

CWHR California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

EHR Erosion Hazard Rating

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency

ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FR Federal Register

FRTA National Forest Roads and Trails 

Act

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FSR Forest Service Representative

FSS Forest Service Sensitive

FTS Forest Trail System

FWS U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

HWY Highway

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

LEI Law Enforcement and 

Investigations

LEO Law Enforcement Officer

MI Miles

MIS Management Indicator Species

ML1 Maintenance Level 1 (closed to 

public motorized use)

ML2 Maintenance Level 2

ML3 Maintenance Level 3

ML4 Maintenance Level 4

ML5 Maintenance Level 5

MMU Motorized-Mixed Use

MOI Memorandum of Intent

MTM Motorized Travel Management

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

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

NOI Notice of Intent
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 443

NRHP National Register of Historic 

Places

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

ORV Off-Road Vehicle

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

PA Programmatic Agreement

R5 Region 5

RARE Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation

RD Ranger District

RMO Road Management Objective

RNA Research Natural Area

RO Regional Office

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

RR Riparian Reserve

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIA Special Interest Area

S&G Standard and Guideline

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions

SUV Sports Utility Vehicle

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

T&E Threatened and Endangered

TES Threatened, Endangered and 

Sensitive

TM Travel Management Rule

TMO Trail Management Objective

TOC Threshold of Concern

USC United States Code

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

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

444 Klamath National Forest

Glossary

Administrative Unit - A National Forest or 

National Grassland.

All-Terrain Vehicle - Any motorized, offhighway vehicle 50 inches or less in width, 

having a dry weight of 600 pounds or less 

that travels on three or more low-pressure 

tires with a seat designed to be straddled by 

the operator. Low pressure tires are 6 

inches or more in width and designed for 

use on wheel-rim diameters of 12 inches or 

less using an operating pressure of 10 

pounds per square inch (psi) or less per 

vehicle-manufacturer recommendations.

Area - A separate specifically delineated 

space smaller than a Ranger District.

Deferred Maintenance - Maintenance not 

performed when scheduled and delayed for 

the future.

Designated Road, Trail, or Area - A 

National Forest System road, a National 

Forest System trail, or an area on National 

Forest System lands designated for motor 

vehicle use and displayed on a Motor 

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

Forest Development Road - A forest road 

under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction.

Forest Development Trail - A forest trail 

under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction.

Forest Highway - A forest road under 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public 

authority and open to public travel.

Forest Road or Trail - A road or trail wholly 

or partly within or adjacent to and serving 

the National Forest System that the U.S. 

Forest Service deems necessary for 

protection, administration, and use for the 

National Forest System and the use and 

development of its resources.

Forest Transportation Atlas - A display of 

an administrative system’s roads, trails, and 

airfields.

Forest Transportation Facility - A forest 

road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in 

a forest transportation atlas, including 

bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine 

access facilities, safety devices, and other 

improvements appurtenant to the forest 

transportation system.

Forest Transportation System - The 

system of National Forest System roads, 

National Forest System Trails, and airfields 

on National Forest System lands.

Four-Wheeled Drive Way - A National 

Forest System road included in the Forest 

Transportation Atlas and commonly used by 

four-wheel drive, high clearance vehicles 

with a width greater than 50 inches unless 

designated and managed as a trail.

Jurisdiction - The legal right to control and 

regulate the use of a transportation facility. 

Roads on National Forest System lands are 

under the control of the U.S. Forest Service 

except for public roads established under 

the Act of July 26, 1866; private roads; 

roads for which the U.S. Forest Service has 

granted rights-of-way to private landowners 

or public road agencies; and roads whose 

use and rights pre-date the National Forest.

Maintenance Levels - The level of service 

provided by and maintenance required for a 

specific road, consistent with road 

management objectives and maintenance 

criteria.

Maintenance Level 1 - Assigned to 

intermittent service roads when they are 

closed to vehicular traffic. The closure 

period must exceed one year. Basic 

custodial maintenance is performed to keep 

damage to adjacent resources to an 

acceptable level and to perpetuate the road 

to facilitate future management activities. 

While being maintained at level 1, roads are 

closed to vehicular traffic but may be open 

and suitable for non-motorized uses.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 445

Maintenance Level 2 - Assigned to 

roads open for use by high-clearance 

vehicles. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed 

recreation, or other specialized uses. Log 

haul may occur at this level.)

Maintenance Level 3 - Assigned to 

roads open and maintained for travel by a 

prudent driver in a standard passenger car. 

Roads in this maintenance level are 

typically low speed, single lane with turnouts 

and spot surfacing. Some roads may be 

fully surfaced with either native or 

processed material.

Maintenance Level 4 - Assigned to 

roads that provide a moderate degree of 

user comfort and convenience at moderate 

travel speeds. Most roads are double lane 

and aggregate surfaced. Roads may be 

paved and/or dust abated.

Maintenance Level 5 - Assigned to 

roads that provide a high degree of user 

comfort and convenience. These roads are 

normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some 

may be aggregate surfaced and dust

abated.

Mixed Use - Designation of an NFTS road 

for use by both highway legal and nonhighway legal motor vehicles.

Motor Vehicle - Any self-propelled vehicle 

other than a vehicle operated on rails or any 

wheelchair or mobility device, including 

battery-powered chairs, designed solely for 

use by a mobility-impaired person for 

locomotion and suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area.

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) - A map 

reflecting designated roads, trails, and 

areas on a National Forest System 

administrative unit or Ranger District.

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Procedures - The rules, policies, 

and procedures governing agency 

compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act.

National Forest System - As defined in the 

Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, the “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 use 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 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service or 

are designated for administration through 

the U.S. Forest Service as part of the 

system.

National Forest System Land - All Forest 

Service-administered lands, waters, or 

interests therein.

National Forest System Road - A forest 

road other than a road that has been 

authorized by a legally documented right-ofway held by a state, county, or other local 

public road authority.

National Forest System Trail - A forest trail 

other than a trail that has been authorized 

by a legally documented right-of-way held 

by a state, county, or other local public road 

authority.

National Recreation Trail - A trail that 

provides a variety of outdoor recreation 

uses in, or reasonably accessible to, urban 

areas.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) - Any 

motorized vehicle designed for or capable of 

cross-county travel on or immediately over 

land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swampland, or other natural terrain.

Off-Road Vehicle - Synonymous with offhighway vehicle (OHV).

Over-Snow Vehicle - A motor vehicle 

designed for use over snow that runs on a 

track or tracks and/or a ski or skis while in 

use over snow.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

446 Klamath National Forest

Passenger Cars - Vehicles that are 

passenger cars of all sizes; sport/utility 

vehicles; minivans; vans; and pickup trucks.

Public Road - Any road or street under the 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public 

authority and open to public travel.

Right-of-Way - A privilege or right to cross 

over or use the land of another party for 

egress and ingress such as roads, 

pipelines, irrigation canals, or ditches. The 

right-of-way may be conveyed by an 

easement, permit, license, or other 

instrument.

Road - A motor vehicle route over 50 inches 

wide, unless identified and managed as a 

trail.

Road Construction or Reconstruction -

Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and 

incurrence of all costs incidental to the 

construction or reconstruction of a road.

Road Decommissioning - Activities that 

result in stabilizing and restoring unneeded 

roads to a more natural state.

Road Management Objectives - The 

intended purpose of an individual road 

based on management area direction and 

access management objectives. Road 

management objectives contain design 

criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance 

criteria.

Special Use Authorization - A permit, term 

permit, lease, or easement that allows 

occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of 

National Forest System land.

Temporary Road or Trail - A road or trail 

necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or 

other written authorization that is not a 

forest road or trail and that is not included in 

a Forest Transportation Atlas.

Trail - A route 50 inches or less in width or a 

route over 50 inches wide that is identified 

and managed as a trail.

Trail Vehicle - A vehicle designed for trail 

use, such as bicycles, snowmobiles, trail 

bikes, trail scooters, and all-terrain vehicles.

Travel Management Atlas - An atlas that 

consists of a Forest Transportation Atlas 

and a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) or 

Maps.

Unauthorized Road or Trail - A road or trail 

that is not a forest road or trail or a 

temporary road or trail and is not included in 

a Forest Transportation Atlas.

Wheelchair - A device designated solely for 

use by a mobility impaired person for 

locomotion and suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 447

References Cited

References are sorted by resource area.

Recreation Resources

Martin, Stephen A., Anthony Leung, Patrick Pallini. 2005. California Off-Highway Vehicle 

Noise Study: A Report to the California Legislature as Required by Public Resources 

Code Section 5090.32 (0) Prepared for: State of California Department of Parks and 

Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Wyle Laboratories.

Ouren, Douglas S., Christopher Haas, Cynthia P. Melcher, Susan C. Stewart, Phadrea D. Ponds, 

Natalie R. Sexton, Lucy Burris, Tammy Fancher, and Zachary H. Bowen. 2007. 

Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: 

A Literature Synthesis, Annotated bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies and Internet 

Resources. US Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey.

Turina, Frank, Ericka Pilcher. 2006. Protecting Natural Sounds in National Parks: Soundscape 

Workshop Visitor Experience and Soundscapes Annotated Bibliography March 1-2. 

National Park Service and Colorado State University.

USDA Forest Service. 1982. 1982 ROS Users Guide.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. National Visitor Use Monitoring Data. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

Transportation

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

Society, Culture and the Economy

Byrd, Dennis. 2009. Outdoor Recreation Planner. DOI Bureau of Land Management, Medford 

Field Office. Email correspondence. February 17, 2009.

California Department of Finance. <www.dof.ca.gov> Accessed October 30, 2008.

Cann, Bruce. 2009. Outdoor Recreation Planner. DOI Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Field 

Office. Email correspondence. February 18, 2009.

Code of Federal Regulations Title 7 Section 15e. 1993. Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the United States Department 

of Agriculture. October 26, 1993.

Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Chapter 2 Part 212. 2005. Administration of the Forest 

Transportation System. December 2005.

Cordell, H.K. and C. Overdevest. 2001. Footprints on the Land: An Assessment of Demographic 

Trends and the Future of Natural Lands in the United States. Sagamore Publishing: 2001.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

448 Klamath National Forest

Doak, S.C and J. Kusel. 2009. ―Well-Being Assessment of Communities in the Klamath Region.‖ 

Prepared for the United States Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 

<www.inforain.org/klamath/index> Accessed January 20, 2009.

DOI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Draft Timber Mountain Recreation Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. Medford District Office. 2009.

Federal Register Volume 73 Number 11. 2008. Information Collection; Forest Products Removal 

Permits and Contracts. January 16, 2008.

Federal Register Volume 73 Number 195. 2008. Notice of Intent, Klamath National Forest, CA, 

Klamath National Forest Motorized Travel Management EIS. October 7, 2008.

Federal Register Volume 73 Number 237. 2008. Travel Management; Designated Routes and 

Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. December 9, 2008.

Fischer, G. 2001. Communities of Interest: Learning through the Interaction of Multiple 

Knowledge Systems. Center for Life Long Learning and Design, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, CO 80309. 13 pgs.

Getches, D.H., R.A. Williams and C.F. Wilkinson. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. 

West Publishing Company: 1998.

Headwaters Economics. Economic Profile System (EPS). 2007 Version. 

<www.headwaterseconomics.org> February 9, 2009.

Martinez, Ruben. Personal Interview. July 15, 2008.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2006 IMPLAN Data.

Portland State University. Population Research Center. <www.pdx.edu/prc/> Accessed January 6, 

2009.

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J. Russell. 2004. ―Social Economic Profile Technical Guide.‖ 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute. 2004.

Singleton, Claude. 2009. DOI Bureau of Land Management, Alturas Field Office. Phone 

Interview. February 20, 2009.

Siskiyou County, CA. 2005. ―The Code of the West: the Realities of Rural Living.‖ Office of 

County Administrator. Yreka, CA. 2005. 

Siskiyou County, CA. 1996. ―Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management 

Plan.‖ Siskiyou County. 1996. 

Siskiyou County, CA. 2008. ―Siskiyou County Strategic Plan.‖ Siskiyou County. 2008.

Stynes, D.J. and E.M. White. 2005. ―Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four 

Year Report‖ Joint Venture Agreement Between USDA Forest Service IMI and 

Michigan State University, Joint Venture Agreement # 01-JV-11130149-203. May 2005.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. <www.bls.gov> Accessed October 30, 2008.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

<www.bls.gov/bls/naics > Accessed October 30, 2008.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2006. Accessed via American Fact Finder. 

<factfinder.census.gov> Accessed January 6 2009.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 449

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2005-2007. Accessed via 

American Fact Finder. <factfinder.census.gov> Accessed January 6 2009.

US Census Bureau. Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin 

Data. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/compraceho.html> Accessed 

October 30, 2008.

US Census Bureau. Population Change by County: Oregon <www.census.gov/popest/ 

archives/2000s/vintage_2002/CO-EST2002-02/CO-EST2002-02-41> Accessed January 

6, 2009.

US Census Bureau. US Census 2000. Accessed via American Fact Finder. 

<factfinder.census.gov> Accessed October 23, 2008.

US Census Bureau. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. 

<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/> Accessed December 9, 2008.

US Code Title 29 Section 794. 2007. Nondiscrimination Under Federal Grants and Programs. 

January 3, 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Manual 1900 – Planning (FSM 1900). Amendment 

No. 1900-92-2. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 1992.

USDA Forest Service. Inventory and Monitoring Institute. Travel Management Analysis: 

Economic Contribution Tools and Guidance. 

<http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/Travel%20Management%20Econo

mics_economics.html> Accessed December 10, 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Land Areas of the National Forest System. FS-383. January 2008.

USDA Forest Service. Klamath National Forest. <www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/> Accessed January 

22, 2009.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Klamath National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan. 

1995.

USDA Forest Service. NRIS NVUM-HD 1.2.2.33. Accessed October 23, 2008.

Zaffarano, Sky. 2009. Outdoor Recreation Planner, DOI Bureau of Land Management, Redding 

Field Office. Personal Interview. February 5, 2009.

Cultural Resources

Bright, William. 1978 Karuk. In California, R. F. Heizer, editor. Pp. 180-189. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 8, W. C. Sturdevant, general editor. Washington D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution.

Cressman, Luther S. 1942. Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin. Washington 

D. C.: Carnegie Institution Publication 538.

Fentress, Jeffrey B. 2002. The Archaeology of Butte Valley, Siskiyou County, California. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of Oregon.

Goebel, Ted. 1996. Paleoindians in the Shadow of Mount Shasta: New Research in Butte Valley, 

Northeastern California. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for 

American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

450 Klamath National Forest

Goetz, Jeanne. 2009a. Archaeological Reconnaissance Report # 1709 D. On file at the 

Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka Ca.

Goetz, Jeanne. 2009b.Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Addendum #1709 D. On 

file at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka Ca. 

Jensen, P. M., and A. E. Farber. 1982. Archaeological Data Recovery Program at CA-SIS-342. 

Submitted to California Department of Transportation, Redding, CA.

LaLande, Jeff. 2008. Results of an Archaeological Survey of Roads and Trails on the 

West Side of the Klamath National Forest Identified for Possible Motorized 

Recreation Designation. On file at the Klamath National Forest‘s Supervisor‘s 

Office, Yreka, Ca.

LaLande, Jeff. 2009a. Results of an Archaeological Survey of Proposed Dispersed 

Camping

Areas in the Oregon Portion of the Klamath National Forest Identified for 

Possible Motorized Recreation Use Designation. On file at the Klamath National 

Forest‘s Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, Ca.

LaLande, Jeff. 2009b. Results of an Archaeological Survey of Dispersed Camping Sites 

on the West Side of the Klamath National Forest Identified for Possible 

Motorized Recreation Use Designation. On file at the Klamath National Forest‘s 

Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, Ca.

Mack, Joanne M. 1991. Klamath River Canyon Prehistory and Ethnology. Bureau of Land 

Management Cultural Resources Series 8. 

Mack, Joanne M. Portland.1989. Archaeology of the Upper Klamath River. The Proceedings of 

the 1989 Symposium on the Prehistory of Southwest Oregon. Nan Hannon and Richard 

K. Olmo, editors. Pp. 7-9. Medford.

Mack, Joanne M. 1979. Archaeological Investigations of the Salt Creek Locality: Subsistence 

Uniformity and Cultural Diversity Along the Klamath River, Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, 

Anthropology Department, University of Oregon.

Palmer, Gary B. 1980. Karok World Renewal and Village Sites: A Cultural and Historical 

District. Ms on file, Klamath National Forest.

Ray, Verne F.1963. Primative Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern California. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press.

Silver, S. 1978. Shastan Peoples. In California, R. F. Heizer, editor. Pp. 211-224. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 8, W. C. Sturdevant, general editor. Washington D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution.

Stern, T. 1998. Klamath and Modoc. In Plateau, D. E. Walker, editor. Pp. 446-466. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 12, W. C. Sturdevant, general editor. Washington D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel 

Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. On file, USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo California.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 451

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region‘s HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and 

Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California. On file, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo California.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan, Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

Winthrop, Kathryn R. and Robert H. 1991. Konomihu Studies: Ethnology and Archaeological 

DataRecovery, CA-SIS-1457. Ms on file, Klamath National Forest.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

Visual Resources

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1, 

Visual Management System. Agricultural Handbook 462. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. 

Agriculture Handbook 701.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. National Visitor Use Monitoring Data. Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka California.

Geological Resources

Bell, Angie. 2009. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Sampling and Testing – Travel Management 

Analysis. On file in project records, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Fatality Demographics for 2003-2007. retrieved 

from http://www.msha.gov/sosa/SOSAFatalityStats2003-2007.pdf on 23 February 2009.

Air Quality

Cox, P., Delao, A., Komornicxak, A., Weller, R. 2008. The California Almanac of Emissions and 

Air Quality – 2008 Edition. California Air Resource Board Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac08/almanac08.htm on 4 March 2009.

Soil Resources

Laurent, T. February 2009. Personal communication. Soil scientist, Klamath National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. R5 Amendment 7/16/90, 

Chapter 50, Soil Erosion Hazard Rating.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Soil Management Handbook. WO Amendment 2509.18-91-1.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Soil Management Handbook, R5 Supplement No. 2509.18-95-1.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

452 Klamath National Forest

Hydrological Resources

Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface 

sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science. 35(2) pages 

453-468.

Foltz, R.B. 2006. Erosion from all terrain vehicle (ATV) trails on national forest lands. American 

Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Paper number 068012.

Forsyth, A.R., K.A. Bubb, and M.E. Cox. 2006. Runoff, sediment loss and water quality from 

forest roads in a southeast Queensland coastal plain pinus plantation. Forest Ecology and 

Management 221 pages 194-206.

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and 

large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, 32(4), pages 959-

974.

Laurent, T. personal communication, February, 2009. Soil Scientist, Klamath National Forest.

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. 

Water Resources Research 35(8) pages 2561-2570.

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research. 20(11) pages 1753-1761.

Sheridan, G.J. P.J. Nose, R.K. Whip, and N. Wijesinghe. 2006. The effect of truck traffic and 

road water content on sediment delivery from unpaved forest roads.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land Management and Resource Plan. Klamath National Forest. 

Yreka, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water quality management for forest system lands in California; 

best management practices. Pacific Southwest Region. 137 pages.

Wemple, B.C. and J.A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep mountain 

catchment. Water Resources Research 39(8).

Fisheries

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

79p.http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr586.pdf

Jennings, M.R.1996. Status of Amphibians. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to 

Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis: 

University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Moyle P. B. and P. J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chap 34. Davis: University of California, 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density of 

Steelheads and Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 113: 142-

150
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 453

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1): p. 18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 1995, Land and Resource Management Plan, Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed 

Species and Sensitive Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed 

on 11/13/2000. Unpublished. 90 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Best Management Practices Report. Klamath National Forest. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/forestplan/reports/resourcepl

anreports/2003bmpfinalreport.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Forest Roads: A synthesis of scientific information. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. 103p.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Forestwide Facility Maintenance and Watershed Restoration 

Biological Assessment/Evaluation for the Klamath National Forest. 76 pages.

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA-Fisheries). 2001. Water-Drafting 

Specifications

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Final Rule: Threatened Status 

for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of 

Coho Salmon. FR (62): 24588.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened 

Species: Final Listing Determinations for ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) 

Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. FR (70): 37160.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Allison, Bonnie L.; Creasy, R. Max; Ford, K. Mike; Hacking, Anthony; Shaefer, Robert; West, 

John R.; and Youngblood, Quentin. 2007. Elk Management Strategy, Klamath National 

Forest. 41 pp.

Anderson, Richard L.; Dinsdale, Julie L.; and Schlorff, Ronald. 2007. UC Davis Wildlife Health 

Center. California Department of Fish and Game Resource Assessment Program Final 

Report P0485902. 7 pp. Available http://www.dfg.ca.gov/rap/projects/swainsonhawk 

[2009, April 6].

Anthony, Robert.G.; Knight, R.L.; Allen, G.T.; McClelland, B.R.; and J.I. Hodges, J.I 1982. 

Habitat Use by Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. 

Am. Wildlife Natural Resources Conference. 68pp.

Anthony, Robert G.; Steidl, Robert J.; and McGarigal, Kevin 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in 

the Pacific Northwest. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. Wildlife and recreationists: 

coexistence through management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: 223–241. 

(as cited in Gaines et al. 2003).

Benkobi, Lakhdar; Rumble, Mary A.; Brundige, Gary C.; and Millspaugh, Joshua J. 2004. 

Refinement of the Arc-Habcap model to predict habitat effectiveness for elk. USDA 

Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-RP-51. 18pp.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

454 Klamath National Forest

Blessing, Dan. 2009. Timber Management Officer, Klamath National Forest. Personal 

communication. March 17. Yreka, California.

Branson, B.A. 1980. Collections of gastropods from the Cascade Mountains of Washington. 

The Veliger, 23(2): 171-176.

Brown, Jeff. 2009. Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer, Klamath National Forest. Personal 

communication. March 24. Yreka, California.

Buehler, David A.; Mersmann, Timothy J.; Fraser, James D.; Seegar, J.K.D. 1991. Non-breeding 

bald eagle communal and solitary roosting behavior and roost habitat on the northern 

Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55: 273–281. Abstract.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):335-345

Bull, E.L. R.S. Holthausen, and M.G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers 

in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4): 786-793.

Bull, Evelyn L., and Charles T. Collins. February 2007. Vaux‘s Swift. Birds of North America 

[online]. Cornell Lab of Ornitholgy. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. [2009, March 23].

Burke, T. E.; Duncan, Nancy; and Jeske, N. 2000. Management recommendations for terrestrial 

mollusk species. Regional Interagency Executive Committee Survey and Manage Work 

Group.

Bury, R. B. 1983. Differences in amphibian populations in logged and old-growth redwood 

forest. Northwest. Sci. 57:167-178. (as cited in CDFG 1990)

Bury, R. B., and P. S. Corn. 1988. Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon and Washington Cascades: 

relation of the herpetofauna to stand age and moisture. Pages 11-22 in R. C. Szaro, K. E. 

Severson, and D. R. Patton, tech. coords. Proceedings of the symposium on the 

management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-166. (as cited in CDFG 1990)

Buskirk, Steven W., and Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1994. American marten. In: Ruggiero, Leonard 

F.; Aubry, Kieth. B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack.; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. 

The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and 

wolverine in the western United States. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 7–37. 

Buskirk, Steven W.; and Zeilinski, William. 2003. Mammal Community Dynamics. Zabel, C.J.; 

and Anthony, Robert G., eds. Cambridge University Press. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California's Wildlife. Zeiner, D.C., ed. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx [March 24, 2009]

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game 

Commission supporting information for Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 

stormi). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Sierra Nevada Red Fox Web Site. Interior 

Timberland Planning. Habitat Conservation Program, Northern Region. Redding, 

California. 

https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/Portal/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/SierraNevadaRedFox/tabid/618/Def

ault.aspx [2009 March 16] .
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 455

California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Sandhill Crane Web Site. (Update March 26, 

2009) Interior Timberland Planning, Habitat Conservation Program, Northern Region. 

Redding, California. 

https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/portal/itp/WildlifeSpecies/SandhillCranel/tabid/621/Default.aspx 

[2009, April 13].

California Department of State Parks and Recreation. 2002. Taking the high road: the future of 

California's off-highway vehicle recreation program. California Department of State 

Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. 

Canfield, Jodie E.; Lyon, L.Jack .; Hillis, J.Michael; and Thompson, Michael J. 1999. Ungulates. 

In: Joslin,G.; Youmans, H., coords. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a 

review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana (as cited in Gaines 2003)

Cheyne, Christy. 2009. Wildlife Biologist, Klamath National Forest. Personal communication. 

March 3, 17. Yreka, California

Claar, James J., Anderson, Niel; Boyd, Diane; Conard, Ben; Hickman, Gene; Hompesch, Robin; 

Olson, Gary; Ihsle Pac, Helga; Wittinger, Tom; and Youmans, Heidi. 1999. Carnivores. 

in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain 

Wildlife: a Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp.

Clayton, David. R.; Ollivier, Lisa. M.; and Welsh, Hart H. 1999. Survey protocol for the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) version 3.0.

Clayton. David. R.; Olson, Deanna H.; and Nauman, Richard. S. 2004. Conservation assessment 

for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). U.S.Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA, Forest Service. Unpublished report.

Clayton, David, and Nauman, Richard. 2005. Siskiyou Mountains salamander, in Amphibians of 

the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audobon Society, Seattle, WA.

Clark, T. W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas, and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana. Mammal. 

Species No. 289. 8pp. (As cited in CDFG 1990).

Corkran, C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. 

Lone Pine Publishing. 

Creasy, Max 2009. Forest Service Northern California Province Ecologist. Personal 

communication. April 20. Yreka, California.

Dasmann, W. 1971. Deer habitat management in forests. Pp. 91-101. IN If deer are to survive. 

Wldlf. Mgt. Institute, Washington D.C.

Davis, James. 2009. Klamath National Forest Road Manager. Personal communication. March 

17. Yreka, CA.

Delaney, David K., Grubb, Teryl G.; and Pater, Larry L. 1997. Effects of Helicopter Noise on 

Nesting Mexican Spotted Owls. A Report to U.S. Air Force 49 CES/CEV Holloman Air 

Force Base, Project Order No. CE P. O. 95-4.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

456 Klamath National Forest

Delaney, David. K.; Grubb, Teryl G.; Beier, Paul; Pater, Larry L.; and Reiser, M. Hildegard. 

1999. Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 63(1) 60-76.

Davis, Jim. 2009. [Personal communication]. March 17. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, 

California.

Duncan, Nancy., Burke, Timothy; Dowlan, S. and Hohenlohe, P. 2003. Survey Protocol for 

Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Unpublished report. 70 pp. Transmitted to the field February 21, 2003.

Farber, Stewart., and Franklin, Tom. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for pacific fisher (Martes 

pennanti) in the eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Unpublished 

data. Timber Products Company. 

Farber, Stewart, and Criss, Steven. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and 

west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior northern California. Unpublished data. 

Timber Products and Criss & Company Consultants. 

Feder, M. E. 1983. Integrating the ecology and physiology of Plethodontoid salamanders. 

Herpetologica. 39:219-310.

Figura, Peter. 2009. California Department of Fish and Game Biologist. Email communication. 

March 16. Redding, California. 

Finley, Laura. 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist. Personal communication. May 6. 

Yreka, California.

Fuller, D. D. and A. J. Lind. 1992. Implications of fish habitat improvement structures for other 

stream vertebrates. In R. Harris and D. Erman (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Biodiversity of Northwestern California, pp 96-104. Santa Rosa, California.

Gaines, William L.; Singleton, Peter H., and Ross, Roger C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative 

effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee 

National Forests. GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Goldstein, Michael. I.;Woodbridge, Brian; Zaccagnini, Maria E. and Canavelli, Sonia B. 1997. 

An assessment of mortality of Swainson‘s hawks on wintering grounds in Argentina.J. 

Raptor Res. 30:106-107.

Graham, Elaina. 2009. [Personal communication]. March 16. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, 

California. 

Grinnell, John.; Dixon, J. S.; and Linsdale. J. M. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. 2 

Vols. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 777pp. (as cited in CDFG 1990)

Gucinski, Hermann, Furniss, Michael J., Ziemer, Robert R., and Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest 

roads: A synthesis of scientific information. GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest 

Hamann, Betsy; Johnston, Heather; Gobielle, John; Hillis, Mike; Johnson, Sara; Kelly, Lynn; and 

McClelland, Pat. 1999. Birds. In: Joslin, G.;Youmans, H., coords. Effects of recreation on 

Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 3.1–3.34. (as cited in 

Gaines et al. 2003)
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 457

Hillis, Mike; Pengeroth, Denise, and Leach, Rose. 2003. Potential changes in large diameter snag 

densities, snag recruitment opportunities, and impacts on snag-dependant species in 

Region 1. Unpublished paper. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/cohesive_strategy/integration/wildlife/R1_PIWO_assessment2.ht

m [2009, March 16].

Hillis, Mike; Jacobs, Amy, Wright, Vita. Undated. Black-backed Woodpecker Assessment. 

Undated. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Region One. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/cohesive_strategy/integration/wildlife/bbwp.html. [2009, March 

16].

Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific states. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 506pp. 

(cited in CDFG 1990).

Isbell, Clint. 2009. Klamath National Forest Fire Ecologist. Email communication. March 19. 

Yreka, CA.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ranids in California. 

Pp. 61-72 in Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. Eds. H.P. 

DeLisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B.M.McGurty.

Johnson, Dave. 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist. Personal communication. 

March 19. Yreka, California.

Johnson, Jan. Forest Service Wildlife Biologist. Personal observation. 

Jurek, R.M. 1988. Five-year status report. Bald Eagle. California Dept. Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, California. 15pp.

Juntti, Thomas M.; Rumble, Mark A. 2006. Arc habitat suitability index computer software. 

General Technical Report RMRS GTR 180WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 31 p.

Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 p. (as cited in Gaines et al. 

2003).

Klamath National Forest 2002. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Reference 

Document. Updated in 2007 and 2008.

Lehman, Robert N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 Bald Eagle nests in 

California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Wildl. Manage. Branch Admin. Rep. 79-1, 

Sacramento, CA 23pp.

Longhurst, W.M., A.S. Leopold, and R.F. Dasmann. 1952. A survey of California deer herds, 

their ranges, and management problems. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Game Bulletin No. 6. 136 pp.

Mackie, R. J., D. E. Pac, K. L. Hamlin, and G. L. Dusek. 1998. Ecology and management of mule 

deer and whitetailed deer in Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife 

Division, Helena, Montana. 180pp.

Marra, Peter P. and Holberton, Rebecca.L. 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.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

458 Klamath National Forest

McCaskie, G., P. DeBenedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1988. Birds of Northern California, 

an Annotated List. Second Edition. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Berkeley.

McGarigal, Kevin; Anthony, Robert.G.; Isaacs, Frank B. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald 

eagles on the Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs. 115: 1–47. 

Miller, Scott G.; Knight, Richard L.; and Miller, Clinton K. 1998. Influence of Recreational 

Trails on Breeding Bird Communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1):162-169. 

Milne, Kathy. A. and Hejl, S.J. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):50-55.

Nussbaum, R. A. 1974. The distributional ecology and life history of the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander, Plethodon stormi, in relation to the potential impact of the proposed 

Applegate Reservoir on this species. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific 

Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.

Ollivier, Lisa M.; Welsh Hart H.; and Clayton David C. 2001. Habitat correlates of the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae); with comments on 

the species‘ range. USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Unpublished 

report.

Ouren, Douglas S.; Haas, Christopher; Melcher, Cynthia P.; Stewart, Susan C.; Ponds, Phadrea 

D.; Sexton, Natalie R.; Burris, Lucy; Fancher, Tammy; and Bowen, Zachary H. 2007. 

Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: 

A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and Internet 

Resources. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1353. 

Phillips, G.E.; Alldredge, A.W. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by 

humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(2): 521–530. (as 

cited in Gaines 2003).

Philpot, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. U.S. Department 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger Station. 30pp. 

Unpublished Document.

Pierson, E.D. 1996. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California 

and Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, California.

Raphael, Martin. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra 

Nevada. Wildlife Monographs. No. 84, 66 pp. (as cited in Hillis et al., undated)

Rowland, Mary M., Wisdom, Michael J., Johnson, Bruce K., and Penninger, Mark A. 2004. 

Effects of Roads on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Pages 

42-52 in Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term 

studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, 

Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Rumble, Mark A.; Benkobi, Lakhdar; and Gamo, R. Scott. 2007. A different time and place test 

of ArcHSI: A spacially explicit habitat model for elk in the Black Hills. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. RMRS-RP-64. 16 pp.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 459

Schempf, P. F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of 

northern California. U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest Service, San Francisco, Calif. 

51pp. (as cited in CDFG 1990).

Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the Western Bat Working Group Workshop. Feb. 9-13. Reno, 

Nevada.

Siskiyou County Deer Management Technical Working Group. 2009. An Assessment of Deer 

Management in Siskiyou County: Recommendations for Management and Conservation. 

Talley, Robert. 2009. Klamath National Forest Landscape Architect. Personal communication. 

March 17Yreka, California.

Torpin, Dianne. 2009. Klamath National Forest GIS Specialist. Personal communication. March 

10. Yreka, California

Trombulak, Stephan C.; Frissell, Christopher.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on 

terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14: 18-30. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Or. 163 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine 

Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and National Park Service; and Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. 

Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment, 

Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994. Final environmental impact statement on management of habitat for 

late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Klamath National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1977. Bald Eagle Habitat Management 

Guidelines. Forest Service, Region 5. 60pp 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2003. Klamath 

National Forest Geographic Information System Theme Documentation (local definition 

of NSO habitat).

U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. TRTE Local habitat associations and range 

description. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and 

Fuels Reduction Project Wildlife Report. Klamath National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Pacific Southwest Region. Threat of 

Deforested conditions in California‘s National Forests. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/postfirecondition/. Accessed 16 March, 2009.

U. S. Department of Interior 1992. Recovery plan for the Northern spotted owl. Final Draft. 2 

volumes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

460 Klamath National Forest

U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Western grey squirrel. Frequently 

asked questions. Undated. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/2002/121/faq.pdf [2009,

March 15]

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Informal consultation concurrence 

letter with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 5 on Travel 

Management Project Design Criteria. December 27, 2006. Sacramento, California. 

U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 2006. Estimating the Effects of Auditory 

and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in 

Northwestern California. Guidance provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, 

California. 

U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

[Online] 2008, October 30-last update). Bald eagle species profile. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/baldEagle/b_eagle.html [2009, April 7]

Verts, B. J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. 

Berkeley and Los Angeles. 668 pp. 

Walters, Eric L.; Miller, Edward H.; and Lowther, Peter E. 2002. Red-breasted Sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus ruber), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America [Online]: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna./species/663a [2009, April 8]

Ward, A. Lorin; and Cupal, JerryJ. 1979. Telemetered heart rate of three elk as affected by 

activity and human disturbance. In: Shaw, J., ed. Symposium on dispersed recreation and 

natural resource management. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural 

Resources: 47 56. (as cited in Rumble et al. 2007).

Wasser, Samuel K.; Bevis, Kenneth; King, Gina; and Hanson, Eric. 1997. Noninvasive 

physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation 

Biology 11(4):1019-1022 (as cited in Gaines et al. 2003). 

Watson, James W. 1993. Responses of nesting bald eagles to helicopter surveys. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 21: 171–178. Abstract. 

Weasma, T.R. 1999. Draft Management Recommendations for Trilobopsis tehama, tehama 

Chaparral and Trilobopsis roperi, Shasta Chaparral (Land Snails), Version 2.0 by T.R., 

in Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusks, Version, 

2.0 by T. E. Burke, J.S. Applegarth, T. R. Weasma and N. Duncan, Editor. October 

1999. 

Welsh, J. Hartwell Jr. and Lind, Amy J. 1996. Habitat Correlates of the Southern Torrent 

Salamander, Rhyacotriton variegatus (Caudata: Rhyacotritonidae), inNorthwestern 

California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 385-398, 1996.

Wisdom, Michael .J.; Bright, L.R.; Carey, C.G. [and others]. 1986. A model to evaluate elk

habitat in western Oregon. R6-F&WL-216-1986. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest region. 36 p. (as cited in Allison et al. 

2007).
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 461

Wisdom, Michael J.; Holthausen, Richard S.; Wales, Barbara C.; Hargis, Christina D.; Saab, 

Victoria A.; Lee, Danny C.; Hann, Wendael J.; Rich, Terrell D.; Rowland, Mary M.; 

Murphy, Wally J.; and Eames, Michelle R. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial 

vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 

implications. V. 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

156 pp.

Woodbridge, Brian. 1998. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Riparian Bird 

Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in 

California. California Partners in Flight. Available: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/riparian/swainsons_hawk.htm [April 6, 

2009].

Woodbridge, Brian. 2009. [Personal communication]. April 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Yreka, California.

Woodbridge, Brian; Finley, Karen K.; and Seager Trent S. 1995. An investigation of the 

Swainson‘s hawk in Argentina. J. Raptor Res. 29(3):202-204.

Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. 

MS Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA.

Yeager, J. Scott. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist. Personal communication. 

Yreka, CA.

Zielinski, William J.; Slauson, Keith M.; and Bowles, Ann E. 2007. The effect of off-road motor 

vehicle use in California, USA. Final Report to the USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway 

Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. 30 pp.

Zielinski, William. 2010. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Biologist. January 

14. Yreka, CA.

Botanical Resources

California Native Plant Society 2008. The CNPS Ranking System. 

http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php.

CNPS 2008. California On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available 

online at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi

California Natural Diversity Database 2008. RareFind Version 3.1.0 California Department of 

Fish and Game. Accessed March 2008.

Cole, D.N. and Bayfield, N.G. 1993 Recreational Trampling Of Vegetation: Standard 

Experimental Procedures. Biological Conservation 63: 209-215

Collidge, S. K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for 

landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 36, Issue

1, October 1996, pp. 59-77.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

462 Klamath National Forest

D‘Antonio, C.M., N. E. Jackson, C. C. Horvitz, and R. Hedberg. 2004. Invasive plants in 

wildland ecosystems: merging the study of invasion processes with management needs. 

Frontiers in Ecology anf the Envirionment. Ecological Society of America, Vol. 2, No. 

10, pp. 513-521.

Donaldson, J., I Nanni, C. Zachariades, and J. Kemper. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on 

pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in Renosterveld shrublands of South 

Africa. Journal of Conservation Biology, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp. 1267-1276.

Harrison, S. and E. Bruna. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: What do 

we know for sure? Ecography, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp. 225-232.

Hickman, James C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press.

Jules, E. S. 1998. Habitat fragmentation and demographic change for a common plant: Trillium 

in old growth forest. Ecology, Volume 79, No. 5, pp. 1645-1656, July 1998. 

MacDonald, L. H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and constraints. 

Environmental Management Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 299-315.

Mack R. N., Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM,Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA. 2000. Biotic invasions: 

Causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10: 

689–710.

Tibor D. P. [ed.] 2001. CNPS inventory of rare and endangered plants of California, 6th ed. 

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. No longer in print but 

selected sections available online at: 

http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/6th_edition.php.

National Forest Management Act. 1976. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf.

NatureServe 2008. NatureServe Conservation Status. Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Data last 

updated June 2008. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm#global. Data 

accessed July 2008.

Ouren, D.S., Haas, Christopher, Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, 

Lucy, Fancher, Tammy, and Bowen, Z.H. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway 

vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated 

bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 pages

Resource Planning Act. 1974. Available online at: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/nationalprograms/rpa/. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. 

On file at Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA.

USDA forest Service. 1997. Forest Service Manual. Available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html. Updated November 1997.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 463

USDA Forest Service 2000. Forest Service Habdbook. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsh_1.html.

USDA Forest Service, 2001. Klamath and Shasta-Trinity National Forests. Noxious and Invasive 

Weeds Program Strategy—Northern Province. Anne Yost, and Ken Coop, October 22, 

2001. Available at the KNF Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and 

standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, 

and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. On file at Klamath National 

Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI USFWS. 2002. Conservation Agreement between the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the U. S. Forest Service for Mt. Ashland lupine and 

Henderson‘s horkelia. On file at Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, 

CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and 

Cypripedium montanum. Region 5-USDA Forest Service. T. N. Kaye and J. R. Cramer, 

Institute for Applied Ecology. On file at Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Conservation Assessment for Ptilidium californicum (Aust.) 

Underw. USDA Forest Service, California Region. J. A. Harpel & L. D. Hoover. On 

file at Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service 2006. Sensitive Plant Species List. R5 Regional Forester letter to Forest 

Supervisors. July 27, 2006. Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Klamath National Forest Fiscal Year 2007 Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report. 19 pages. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/forestplan/reports/resourcepl

anreports/monitoring-report07.pdf

USDI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. McDonald's rockcress ( Arabis mcdonaldiana

Eastwood) recovery plan. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 40 pp.

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Conservation Agreement 

between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service for the 

Mt. Ashland lupine and Henderson‘s horkelia. Available at the Klamath National 

Forest Supervisor‘s Office, Yreka, CA.

USDI. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Travel Management Project Design 

Criteria. Letter of Concuurence. Available at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor‘s 

Office, Yreka, CA.

USDI. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. Recovery Plan for Phlox hirsute (Yreka 

Phlox). Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/.

USDI. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species 

List Search Page. Located on-line at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/specieslist/search.asp.

Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as driver 

of plant invasions. Conservation Biology, 21 (4), 986-996.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

464 Klamath National Forest

Wilshire, H.G., Shipley, Susan, and Nakata, J.K. 1978. Impacts of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, v. 43, p. 131–139. 

Yorks, T. P., N. E. West, R. J. Mueller, and S. D. Warren. 1997. Toleration of traffic by 

vegetation: Life form conclusions and summary, extracts from a comprehensive database. 

Environmental Management pp. 121-131.

Young, A., T. Boyle, and T. Brown. 1996. The population genetic consequences of habitat 

fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 11, Issue 10, pp. 

413-418, October 1996.

Port-Orford-Cedar

Betlejewski, Frank. 2009. Forest Service Regional Port-Orford-Cedar Program Manager. 

Personal Communication. November 16. Yreka, CA.

Roth, L.F., Harvey, R.D. Jr., and Kliejunas, J.T. 1987. Port-Orford-Cedar root disease. USDA, 

Forest Service, PNW Region, R6 FPM PR010 91.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Managing for Healthy Port-Orford Cedar in the Pacific Southwest 

Region. Vallejo, California. 19 pp.

USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. A range-wide assessment of 

Port-Orford-Cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) on federal lands. BLM/OR/WA/PL-004-

/004-1792. 182 pages.

USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/foresthealth/poc/01-toc-summary.pdf

Non-native Invasive Species

Brooks, M.L. and B. Lair. 2005. Ecological Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert Ecosystem. 

Report prepared for the United States Geological Survey, Recoverability and 

Vunerabiltyof Desert Ecosystems Program (http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/mojave/rvde)

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2004. ENCYCLOWEEDIA: Notes on 

Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by 

California Law. 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture(CDFA). 2007. Noxious Weed Pest Ratings. 

Accessed at 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/pdfs/noxiousweed_ratings.pdf Last 

updated January 2007.

Cal-IPC. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California 

Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org. 

Christen D.C. and G.R. Matlack. 2008. The habitat and conduit functions of roads in the spread of 

three invasive plant species. Biol Invasions (2009) 11, pages 453–465.

Federal Register. 1999. Executive Order 13112 Invasive species. Vol. 64, No. 25 /Monday, 

February 8, 1999 / Presidential Documents.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 465

Gelbard, J.L. and Harrison, S. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: 

interactions with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications, 13(2), 2003, pages 

404–415.

Mack, M.C., F.S. Chapin, E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. 

Reynolds, D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences 

of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, pages 234-242, 11 May 2000.

Ouren, D.S., Haas, Christopher, Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, 

Lucy, Fancher, Tammy, and Bowen, Z.H. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway 

vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated 

bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 pages.

Trombulaak, S. C. and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1), pages 18-30.

Tyser R.W. and C.A.Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors 

in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jun., 

1992), pages 253-262.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2080. Noxious Weed

Management.

USDA, Forest Service (USFS). July 5, 2001a. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices, 

version1.0. USFS. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species 

Management. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2008. Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List. 

Von Der Lippe M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver 

of plant invasions. Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 4, pages 986–996.
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

466 Klamath National Forest

Index

A

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 19, 

141, 439, 442, 451

Affordability, 85, 86, 92, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 

105

air quality, 215, 218, 219, 220, 451

All Terrain Vehicle, 83, 442, 444, 452

Alternatives

Alternative 1 (no action), iv, 12, 17, 18, 23, 45, 

50, 65, 80, 83, 99, 109, 122, 128, 129, 140, 

161, 169, 175, 184, 193, 204, 213, 214, 

218, 219, 220, 221, 228, 230, 247, 271, 

272, 303, 304, 305, 324, 325, 326, 334, 

335, 347, 348, 357, 363, 364, 365, 368, 

373, 374, 394, 395, 402, 409, 410, 421

Alternative 2 (proposed action), iv, v, 1, 4, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 

32, 34, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 66, 

68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 85, 99, 104, 111, 

112, 134, 135, 137, 141, 144, 153, 155, 

163, 177, 185, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 

211, 215, 231, 234, 239, 240, 248, 252, 

295, 326, 327, 330, 332, 337, 338, 349, 

350, 352, 353, 355, 358, 361, 362, 365, 

370, 377, 396, 400, 404, 405, 422, 443

Alternative 3 (Cross-Country Travel 

Prohibition Only), v, 26, 69, 101, 154, 161, 

186, 206, 213, 232, 237, 250, 276, 327, 

339, 350, 360, 363, 397, 424

Alternative 4 (Maximize Quiet Recreation), v, 

27, 46, 70, 101, 154, 187, 207, 232, 250, 

278, 280, 328, 329, 340, 341, 351, 360, 

398, 425

Alternative 5 (Maximize Motorized 

Recreation), v, 29, 72, 74, 103, 105, 188, 

208, 233, 251, 253, 281, 287, 329, 330, 

341, 342, 351, 352, 355, 361, 399, 400, 

401, 426, 428, 429, 430

Alternative 6 (Refined Proposed Action), v, 29, 

32, 76, 104, 155, 190, 209, 211, 234, 252, 

284, 330, 331, 332, 343, 344, 345, 353, 

354, 361, 362, 400, 428

amphibians, 305, 452, 454, 455, 458

aquatic dependent species, 3, 261, 264

aquatic species, 261, 264

Area of Potential Effects, 142, 144, 146, 148, 

151, 442

Asbestos, 2, 21, 92, 114, 195, 196, 197, 199

B

bat

pallid, 298, 309, 310, 319, 320, 357, 374

 Townsend's big-eared, 310

Biological assessment, 51, 262, 266, 292, 311, 

372, 378, 442

Biological evaluation, 51, 262, 266, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 372, 442, 453

black bear, 298, 321, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372

black-tailed deer, 300, 334, 335

Bureau of Land Management, 129, 130, 447, 

448, 449, 450, 458, 459, 461, 462, 463, 465

C

California Air Resources Board, 195, 215, 220, 

442

California Department of Fish and Game, 297, 

300, 303, 314, 338, 342, 343, 345, 439, 442, 

453, 454, 455, 461

California Natural Diversity Database, 442, 461

California Vehicle Code, 87, 88, 91, 109, 442

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), 

442

chinook salmon, 267, 293, 294

Civil Rights, 2, 124, 439

Clean Air Act, 11, 215

Clean Water Act, 11, 239, 240, 436

comparison of alternatives, 35, 431

consultation, 1, 13, 292, 438

Council on Environmental Quality, 16, 48, 49, 

442

crane

sandhill, 298, 373, 455

critical habitat, 261, 295, 311, 373

cultural resources, 9, 15, 21, 51, 141, 142, 143, 

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152

D

Determination of Effects, 292, 373, 374, 395, 

397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402

Dust, 57, 58, 66, 114, 121, 123, 199, 205, 207, 

208, 209, 211, 214, 216, 219, 393, 445

E

eagle

bald, 298, 453, 457, 459

economics, 448, 449

Effects

adding facilities, 59, 94, 99, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 116, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 167, 

169, 170, 171, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 201, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 

217, 248, 251, 252, 254, 304, 325, 326, 

328, 329, 330, 336, 338, 339, 340, 342, 

343, 344, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 

354, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 365, 366, 

369, 370, 371, 383, 395, 396, 397, 398, 

399, 400, 401, 407, 409, 410, 416

changes to the existing NFTS, 147, 181, 201, 

218, 226, 243, 299

cross-country travel prohibition, 59, 65, 66, 69, 

70, 72, 74, 76, 94, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 

116, 128, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137, 147, 

166, 169, 170, 171, 180, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 201, 204, 205, 206, 
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 467

207, 208, 209, 211, 217, 226, 230, 231, 

232, 233, 234, 235, 242, 250, 251,鲰253, 

265, 271, 273, 304, 324, 326, 327, 328, 

329, 330, 334, 337, 339, 340, 341, 343, 

344, 347, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 357, 

358, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 368, 

370, 383, 394, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 

401, 407, 409, 410, 416, 421, 422, 424, 

425, 426, 428, 429

cumulative, 48, 59, 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 

106, 117, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 

136, 137, 148, 154, 155, 156, 167, 169, 

172, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 

192, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 

211, 218, 221, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 

234, 235, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 

254, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 289, 305, 326, 

327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 336, 339, 340, 

342, 344, 345, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 

358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 365, 366, 369, 

370, 371, 384, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 

400, 402, 408, 409, 410, 417, 421, 424, 

425, 427, 429, 431

elk, 296, 298, 300, 302, 303, 313, 333, 334, 335, 

338, 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, 380, 453, 458, 

460

Employment and Income, 118

endangered species, 377

wildlife, 15

Endangered Species Act, 11, 261, 292, 294, 295, 

299, 372, 377, 442

Environmental Justice, 124, 137, 138, 140

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA), 241, 246, 442

erosion, 3, 96, 203, 224, 228, 231, 233, 234, 235, 

242, 249, 251, 252, 254, 257, 270, 385, 391, 

392, 395, 436, 442, 451, 452

executive order, 11, 53

Executive Order, 53, 124, 142, 378, 413, 464

F

Fire, 5, 87, 88, 89, 91, 95, 123, 305, 306, 391, 

439

fire regime, 391

fisher, 298, 299, 310, 312, 323, 325, 332, 346, 

373, 454, 456, 461

floodplains, 387

forest health, 123

four-wheel-drive, 3, 83, 89, 146, 442, 444

fox, Sierra Nevada red fox, 298, 307, 454

fragmentation, 377

frog

Cascades, 373

foothill yellow-legged frog, 298, 373

northern red-legged frog, 298, 309, 316, 348, 

350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356

tailed, 298, 309, 316, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 

353, 354, 355, 356

G

Geologic Special Interest Area, 200

Geologic Special Interest Area(s), 200

goby, tidewater, 373

goshawk, 298, 310, 311, 325, 327, 328, 373

Grassland/Sage-Steppe, 298, 318

grazing, 95, 123, 150, 267, 268, 318, 465

H

habitat

suitable, 299, 301, 302, 308, 309, 310, 312, 

316, 318, 320, 322, 325, 326, 328, 329, 

330, 347, 357, 365, 371, 393

wildlife, 306

habitat suitability, 300, 457

habitat type, 363, 366

Hardwood / Hardwood Mixed Conifer, 320

I

IMPLAN, 114, 115, 448

INFRA, 5, 6, 93

interdisciplinary team, iv, 12, 14, 17, 297

Interdisciplinary Team, 12, 442

Inventoried Roadless Area, iv, 15, 46, 163, 164, 

165, 167, 442, 451

Inventoried Roadless Areas, iv, 15, 46, 163, 164, 

165, 167, 442, 451

issues, iv, v, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 44, 120, 

121, 122, 123, 125, 195, 199, 203, 461, 462, 

464

M

Management Indicator Species, 267, 295, 307, 

314, 374

marbled murrelet, 298, 299, 310, 311, 322, 327, 

329, 330, 331, 333, 373, 460

marten, 298, 299, 310, 312, 323, 325, 327, 329, 

330, 331, 332, 373, 454

Memorandum of Intent, 3, 4, 442

Mining, 89, 95, 122, 149, 150, 182, 189, 195, 

197, 203, 245, 268, 306

motor vehicle use map, iv, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 50, 

51, 65, 70, 72, 75, 77, 91, 132, 140, 442, 444, 

445, 446

motorized access to dispersed recreation, 8, 57, 

58, 66, 77, 113, 114, 128

motorized mixed-use, 89, 92, 108, 442

N

National Forest Management Act, 11, 53, 55, 

111, 112, 163, 177, 195, 223, 224, 261, 295, 

378, 442, 462

National Forest Roads and Trails Act, 85, 442

National Historic Preservation Act, 11, 19, 113, 

141, 143, 147, 148, 151, 152, 442, 450, 451

National Marine Fisheries Service, 378, 439, 453, 

459

National Visitor Use Monitoring, 57, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 114, 119, 180, 182, 443, 447, 448, 449, 

451

Native American, 13, 60, 118, 120, 123, 124, 143
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

468 Klamath National Forest

Noise, 15, 57, 58, 66, 114, 121, 123, 299, 308, 

322, 323, 346, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 

354, 357, 363, 369, 447, 455, 456

non-native invasive species, 391, 413, 418, 423, 

426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 464, 465

northern spotted owl, 379, 405

Northwest Forest Plan, 310, 456

noxious weeds, 16, 413, 414, 415, 416, 419, 

425

O

owl

burrowing, 298, 318, 319, 364, 366

great grey owl, 298, 308, 373

northern spotted owl, 298, 299, 308, 310, 311, 

312, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 

332, 373, 459, 460

P

Programmatic Agreement, 19, 142, 144, 443, 451

pronghorn, 298, 318, 319, 364, 366

Proposed action, iv, v, 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

17, 24, 30, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 74, 85, 

111, 112, 134, 141, 144, 155, 163, 177, 209, 

211, 215, 239, 240, 295, 377, 404, 405

public involvement, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, 49, 125

Purpose and need, iv, v, 17, 30, 44, 45, 46

Q

quiet use, v, 26, 27

R

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, 55, 56, 57, 64, 

381, 443, 447

riparian, iv, 3, 15, 275, 283, 287, 290, 314, 347, 

348, 385, 389, 390

road density, 120, 296, 297, 300, 305, 323, 341, 

368

road management, 6, 9, 22, 85, 92, 126, 444, 

446

Road Management Objective, 9, 22, 85, 89, 92, 

443, 444, 446

Roadless Characteristics, 172, 173

S

salamander, southern torrent, 298, 373, 460

salmon

chinook, 267, 294

coho, 267, 292, 294

Southern Oregon Northern California coho 

salmon, 267, 273, 275, 277, 278, 283, 286, 

290, 292, 294

sapsucker, red-breasted, 310, 319, 320, 357

sediment, 41, 174, 198, 224, 230, 231, 233, 234, 

235, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 

250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 

262, 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 

274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 

286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 305, 317, 377, 

392, 436, 452

Sensitive Species

fish, 262, 263

plants, 377-379, 383, 388, 395-402

wildlife, 296, 305, 307, 310, 312, 317, 319

serpentinite, 199, 202, 228, 390

shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, 373

skipper, Mardon, 373

Snag/Cavity Dependent Group, 319

Social And Economic, 20, 117, 123, 129, 130, 

132

soil

compaction, 229, 346, 363, 369, 392, 395

nutrients, 223

species of interest

plants, 391

squirrel, western grey, 298, 320, 321, 364, 460

standards and guidelines, 8, 56, 62, 84, 112, 142, 

161, 178, 196, 223, 224, 240, 263, 296, 317, 

381, 414, 443, 463

streamflow, 239, 263

sucker, Lost River, 294

T

Threatened and Endangered Species

plants, 385, 387, 395

Wildlife, 164, 372

Threatened and Endangered Species:, 15, 16, 

292, 294, 298, 303, 381, 383, 384, 407, 408, 

443

Travel Management, iii, iv, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 50, 51, 

52, 53, 55, 65, 83, 85, 98, 109, 121, 123, 126, 

127, 140, 141, 142, 147, 163, 175, 177, 198, 

217, 442, 443, 446, 448, 449, 450

Travel Management Rule, iii, iv, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 50, 

51, 52, 53, 65, 83, 85, 98, 109, 121, 123, 126, 

127, 140, 163, 175, 177, 443

trout, 

 rainbow, 267, 273, 275, 277, 278, 283, 286, 

290, 292, 293

steelhead, 267, 273, 275, 277, 278, 280, 283, 

286, 290, 292, 293, 294

turtle, northwestern pond, 316

U

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 295, 299, 322, 378, 

386, 391, 438, 443, 460, 463

use conflicts, 9, 58, 387

V

Visual Quality Objectives, 163, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

193, 443

vole, long-tailed, 316, 348, 349, 352, 353, 354, 

355
Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4: Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References, Index

Klamath National Forest 469

W

water quality, iv, 15, 49, 89, 239, 240, 264, 393, 

452

watershed effects

cumulative, 246, 442

watershed restoration, 6

wetlands, 317, 318, 385, 389, 393

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 63, 84

wildlife, 295, 296, 298, 304

amphibians, 454

aquatic species, 261, 264

federally listed, 305, 385, 386, 390, 391

wildlife

Late-successional species, 310, 324

riparian dependent group, 316

ungulates, 298, 313, 455

wide-ranging carnivores, 298, 321

willow flycatcher, 301, 316, 347, 349, 352, 353, 

354, 373

wolverine, 298, 308, 454

woodpecker

acorn, 298, 320, 321, 364

pileated, 298, 310, 319, 357, 454

white headed, 319