Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 1

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................5

APPENDIX B: FIELD VISIT RATIONALE..............................................................................................37

Botany..................................................................................................................................................37

Recreation............................................................................................................................................37

Heritage ...............................................................................................................................................37

Aquatics...............................................................................................................................................37

Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................37

Hydrology and Soils .............................................................................................................................38

APPENDIX C: MONITORING PLAN.......................................................................................................39

BOTANY MONITORING PLAN ......................................................................................................................39

Alternative 1.........................................................................................................................................39

Alternative 2.........................................................................................................................................39

Alternative 3.........................................................................................................................................40

Alternative 4.........................................................................................................................................40

Alternative 5.........................................................................................................................................40

HERITAGE RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................43

HYDROLOGY AND SOILS MONITORING PLAN ..............................................................................................43

AQUATICS MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................................43

FACILITIES MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................................................43

WILDLIFE MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................................................44

RECREATION MONITORING PLAN ...............................................................................................................44

VISUAL RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN.....................................................................................................44

APPENDIX D: WATER-QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN..................................................................45

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................45

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................45

DESCRIPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.......................................................................................46

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX E: PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS...........................49

FUEL TREATMENTS AND FIRE.....................................................................................................................49

RANGE MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................................................49

DAM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE..................................................................................................49

RECREATION .............................................................................................................................................49

TIMBER HARVEST AND VEGETATION TREATMENTS.....................................................................................50

REFORESTATION ........................................................................................................................................50

ROAD AND RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................50

STATE AND COUNTY EASEMENTS ...............................................................................................................51

RAILROADS ...............................................................................................................................................51

SPECIAL USES............................................................................................................................................51

PAST ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND DECOMMISSIONING .................................................................................51

OTHER FEDERAL LANDS IN CALIFORNIA.....................................................................................................52

National Forest Lands..........................................................................................................................52

Federal Lands under Other Administration...........................................................................................52

Private Land.........................................................................................................................................53

APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNAUTHORIZED ROUTES TO 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES.....................................................................................................................57

APPENDIX G: LAW ENFORCEMENT....................................................................................................69

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................69

AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................................69
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

2 Appendix A—Route Analysis

COOPERATION........................................................................................................................................... 70

IMPLEMENTATION AND TRACKING ............................................................................................................. 71

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY .................................................................................................................... 71

ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 73

Enforcement Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 73

Agency Funding Assumptions............................................................................................................... 74

Public Attitude and Compliance Assumptions....................................................................................... 74

MEASURES OF SUCCESS............................................................................................................................. 74

APPENDIX H: INFORMATION ON MAINTENANCE BACKLOG ...................................................... 75

APPENDIX I: GOSHAWK HABITAT I.................................................................................................... 79

APPENDIX J: GOSHAWK HABITAT II.................................................................................................. 95

APPENDIX K: TRIBAL RELATIONS.....................................................................................................129

Native American Intergovernmental Affairs Origins.............................................................................129

The Source of Federal Trust Responsibilities.......................................................................................130

Forest Service Trust Responsibilities...................................................................................................130

Brief on Selected Tribes of the Modoc National Forest.........................................................................131

Federal Statutes Relevant to American Indian Tribes...........................................................................133

APPENDIX L: NON-SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO THE MODOC NF LAND AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN (LRMP)..............................................................................................................135

LRMP GENERAL CHANGES ......................................................................................................................135

CHANGES BY RESOURCE...........................................................................................................................135

CHANGES BY MANAGEMENT AREA...........................................................................................................136

TIONESTA-AREA ROADS...........................................................................................................................137

APPENDIX M: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................................................139

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................139

ADDING ROUTES ......................................................................................................................................139

AIR QUALITY ...........................................................................................................................................140

ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................141

ADEQUACY OF ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................141

AQUATICS................................................................................................................................................142

BALD EAGLE (LRMP AMENDMENT).........................................................................................................143

BASELINE ................................................................................................................................................144

BIG-GAME RETRIEVAL .............................................................................................................................145

BOTANY ..................................................................................................................................................145

CLIMATE CHANGE....................................................................................................................................147

CLOSE SYSTEM ROADS.............................................................................................................................147

CROSS-COUNTRY TRAVEL........................................................................................................................148

CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................148

DIRECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................149

DISPERSED CAMPING................................................................................................................................149

DO NOT CLOSE FOREST ............................................................................................................................150

ENFORCEMENT.........................................................................................................................................150

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.................................................................................................................................150

IMPLEMENTATION AND EDUCATION ..........................................................................................................150

INFRA DATABASE...................................................................................................................................151

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS (IRAS) ...................................................................................................151

MAINTENANCE.........................................................................................................................................152

MAPS.......................................................................................................................................................153

MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM .........................................................................................................................153

MIXED USE..............................................................................................................................................154

MULTIPLE USE.........................................................................................................................................155

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) ...................................................................................156

NOISE ......................................................................................................................................................156
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 3

NOT ADDING ROUTES (APPENDIX A-1 OF THE DEIS) ................................................................................ 156

OPEN AREAS ........................................................................................................................................... 157

OVER-SNOW VEHICLES............................................................................................................................ 157

PARKING ................................................................................................................................................. 157

PERMITTED USE....................................................................................................................................... 157

PLAN DIRECTION ..................................................................................................................................... 158

PRIMITIVE AND SEMI-PRIMITIVE NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM ....................... 158

PRIVATE PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................. 158

PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................................................................. 158

RANKING TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 159

RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................... 159

ROADLESS AREAS (CITIZEN-INVENTORIED AND AGENCY)......................................................................... 160

ROADS - APPENDIX N OF THE DEIS.......................................................................................................... 160

ROUTE-SPECIFIC COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 161

SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................... 161

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................ 162

SEASONAL CLOSURES .............................................................................................................................. 163

SOILS AND HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 164

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS........................................................................................................................... 166

SUBPART A OF THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE..................................................................................... 167

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE........................................................................................................................... 167

TRAVEL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 171

TRAVEL ANALYSIS STEPS ........................................................................................................................ 171

UNAUTHORIZED ROUTES .......................................................................................................................... 171

COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)............................................ 172

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED................................................................................................................. 174

APPENDIX N: MIXED USE..................................................................................................................... 175
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 Appendix A—Route Analysis
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 5

Appendix A: Route Analysis

Introduction

Appendix A displays the site-specific resource information and required mitigation measures for all 

of the motorized trails proposed in the alternatives as additions to the National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS). Table A-1 below displays the following information for each proposed motorized 

trail to the NFTS. 

The unique route ID used throughout the document and maps for each motorized trail 

addition to the NFTS

The reason for adding is the determination made by the interdisciplinary team that justified 

the need for the proposed road to the system. 

The vehicle class (also known as maintenance level) and season of use that would be 

authorized, should the motorized trail be added to the NFTS in each respective alternative. 

The possible combinations of season of use are listed in table A-1, below. All roads will be 

brought in as Maintenance Level 2 roads– which are open to all vehicles.

Season of Use Reason for Adding to System

W – 4/1 to 12/15 A - To provide motorized access to dispersed 

camping

X – 5/1 to 11/30 B - Provide a diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities

Y – 5/1 to 2/14 C - To assure adequate access to public and 

private lands

Z - Open all year

SU—season of use

ML—maintenance level (ML2 is open to all vehicles)

Table A-1. Maintenance Level, Season of Use, and Length of Routes

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Route ID Reason for 

Adding

ML SU ML SU ML SU Length

(miles)

BA101 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.20

BA104 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA105 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

BA107 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA110 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA111 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA112 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA113 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BA115 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.67

BA116 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

BA117 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.20
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA118 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.97

BA119 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.02

BA120 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

BA121 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA122 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.21

BA123 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.94

BA124 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.08

BA125 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA127 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

BA128 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA129 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.01

BA13 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA130 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

BA131 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

BA132 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.19

BA133 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA134 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.49

BA136 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.78

BA140 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.49

BA141 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.17

BA142 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.13

BA143 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.50

BA144 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.11

BA149 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.23

BA150 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.33

BA153 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.62

BA156 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.09

BA16 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.26

BA163 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

BA164 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BA165 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.08

BA169 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.10

BA171 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.15

BA172 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.91

BA173 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.08

BA183 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA185 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

BA186 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA19 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 7

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA191 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA193 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA199 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.51

BA200 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA201 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.44

BA203 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.95

BA205 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA206 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA209 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.57

BA211 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA212 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.80

BA213 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.20

BA214 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

BA215 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.95

BA216 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

BA217 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

BA219 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.86

BA2203 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

BA2204 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA2206 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA2207 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

BA2208 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.48

BA221 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

BA2214 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BA2215 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA2216 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA2217 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

BA2218 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA222 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

BA222 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.57

BA2221 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.06

BA2223 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA2224 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

BA2225 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA2226 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA2227 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

BA223 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.56

BA2231 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

BA2233 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

8 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA2234 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

BA2235 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA2236 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA225 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA2250 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.09

BA2252 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

BA2253 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.33

BA2254 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA2255 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.11

BA226 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.65

BA2260 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.07

BA2263 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BA2264 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

BA2266 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BA2267 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA2268 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

BA2269 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BA227 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

BA2271 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

BA2272 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA2276 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA2279 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.35

BA228 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA2280 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

BA2284 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

BA2285 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.25

BA2286 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA2287 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.06

BA2288 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA2289 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.14

BA229 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA2290 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.09

BA2292 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.29

BA2295 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

BA230 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

BA2301 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

BA2302 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA2303 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

BA2304 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.58
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 9

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA2305 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA2306 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA231 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

BA233 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.82

BA234 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA235 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.65

BA236 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA238 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.55

BA241 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.67

BA247 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.27

BA248 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA249 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

BA250 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.85

BA251 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.11

BA252 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA253 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA257 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

BA258 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

BA26 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

BA260 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

BA265 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

BA267 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA27 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

BA271 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA272 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

BA273 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.61

BA278 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA279 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA28 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

BA283 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

BA284 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

BA286 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.81

BA288 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.59

BA290 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.18

BA296 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

BA297 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.37

BA3 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA35 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.61

BA357 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

10 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA358 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA359 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA36 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.05

BA363 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA365 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.74

BA366 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA368 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

BA369 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA37 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.71

BA370 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA371 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

BA373 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.13

BA377 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.30

BA378 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.21

BA379 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.51

BA38 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.37

BA380 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

BA385 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.35

BA386 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.39

BA387 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BA389 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.17

BA394 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.13

BA395 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.49

BA396 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

BA397 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.64

BA398 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

BA406 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.53

BA407 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.62

BA408 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.60

BA410 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.57

BA411 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA412 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.67

BA413 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA423 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA425 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA43 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.46

BA431 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA438 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

BA446 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 11

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA447 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.70

BA448 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA449 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BA452 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA453 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

BA454 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.48

BA456 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

BA458 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA463 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA464 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA465A A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

BA467 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

BA47 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

BA470 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

BA471 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

BA472 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

BA473 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

BA474 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA475 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.53

BA478 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.40

BA479 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.38

BA48 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

BA482 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.68

BA485 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.11

BA489 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA490 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA491 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.29

BA492 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA493 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA495 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

BA496 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

BA497 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.22

BA498 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

BA499 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA501 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.70

BA503 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

BA51 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA52 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

BA54 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

12 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA540 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

BA541 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BA542 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

BA543 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

BA544 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA545 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA546 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA549 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

BA55 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BA553 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.12

BA554 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.07

BA555 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.10

BA556 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.10

BA557 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.25

BA558 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.10

BA559 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.18

BA560 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.12

BA564 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.18

BA566 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.28

BA57 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

BA572 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.43

BA573 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.17

BA574 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.54

BA576 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.06

BA577 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

BA62 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

BA63 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

BA65 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

BA67 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.79

BA71 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.97

BA72 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA77 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

BA80 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

BA81 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

BA82 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.21

BA87 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.18

BA88 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.44

BA91 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

BA93 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 13

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

BA94 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.27

BA95 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.88

BG10 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.67

BG12 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

BG14 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BG16 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

BG19 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.85

BG2 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.89

BG31 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

BG32 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

BG35 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.32

BG39 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.12

BG40 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.35

BG41 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.09

BG44 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

BG47 B 2 X Z 2 Y 0.69

BG49 B 2 X Z 2 Y 1.92

BG5 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.20

BG7 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.56

BG8 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.58

DJ13 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

DJ14 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

DJ15 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

DJ22 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.08

DJ25 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

DJ27 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.24

DJ28 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.45

DJ3 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.20

JW2110 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.16

JW2111 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.05

JW2112 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.06

JW2113 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

JW2115 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.12

JW2116A A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.28

JW2116B B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.38

JW2117 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.10

JW2119 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

JW2120 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

JW2121 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

14 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

JW2122 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

JW2123 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

JW2124 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

JW2126 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.47

JW2127 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

JW2128 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

JW2129 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

JW2130 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

JW2132 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

JW2134 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.02

JW2135 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

JW2136 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

JW2137 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.40

JW2138 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.15

JW2140 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

JW59 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

JW60 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

JW61 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.75

JW62 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

JW63 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

JW64 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.37

JW65 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

JW66 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.30

JW67 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

JW68 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

JW69 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

JW70 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

JW71 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.93

JW72 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

JW74 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.56

JW75 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

JW78 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.83

JW79 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

JW80 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

JW81 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.97

JW82 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

ML10 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.77

ML1001 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML1002A A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 15

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML1002B A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML1009 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

ML101 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.36

ML1010 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

ML1016 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.01

ML103 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.75

ML104 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 1.19

ML105 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.46

ML106 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

ML108 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

ML109 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML111 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

ML112 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

ML114 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.68

ML115 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

ML116 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML119 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.34

ML12 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

ML120 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.52

ML121 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.92

ML123 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.91

ML124 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

ML126 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.17

ML13 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML1300 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.31

ML1304 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML1307 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML1308 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

ML1310 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

ML135 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML136 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML14 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

ML140 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML141 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML145 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.82

ML146 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.69

ML148 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.52

ML15 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

ML150 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

16 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML164 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.57

ML166 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

ML17 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML172 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

ML173 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

ML175 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

ML177 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.37

ML178 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.02

ML18 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

ML180 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML181A C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.60

ML19 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML20 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.04

ML2000 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.76

ML2002 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML2004 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML2005 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML2006 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML2010 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML2015 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML2018 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.40

ML2023 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML2024 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML2028 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML2030 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML2031 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.39

ML2035 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML2036 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML2037 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML2038 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML2042 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML2043 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML2044 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML2045 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML2047 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

ML2048 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.84

ML2049 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

ML2050 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML2051 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 17

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML2052 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML2054 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.05

ML206 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.05

ML2060 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

ML2061 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

ML2063 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML2067 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

ML207 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.06

ML2070 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML2075 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML208 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.06

ML2081 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.09

ML2085 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.13

ML209 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.47

ML2093 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.05

ML2095 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.12

ML21 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.23

ML214 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.82

ML231 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

ML233 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

ML234 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML238 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML24 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

ML25 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML250 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.73

ML251 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.46

ML26 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

ML260 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 2.07

ML263 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML264 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.60

ML27 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML274 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML283 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.07

ML286 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML287 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML288 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

ML29 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

18 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML293 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.94

ML299 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2.27

ML3 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

ML300 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 3.63

ML301 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

ML302 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.62

ML303 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

ML304 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

ML305 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML306 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML307 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

ML308 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

ML309 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML310 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML312 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.70

ML315 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML317 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML318 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

ML320 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

ML322 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.22

ML323 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

ML324 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML327 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.36

ML328 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.39

ML329 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML330 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML336 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML337 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML338 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML340 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.48

ML343 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

ML344 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML348 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.09

ML353 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML354 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.97

ML355 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.69

ML358 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 19

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML359 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML36 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML360 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

ML37 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

ML370 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML372 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.05

ML373 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML374 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.04

ML375 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

ML377 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML378 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML379 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

ML380 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML381 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML382 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.62

ML383 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.34

ML384 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.48

ML385 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.39

ML386 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

ML387 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

ML388 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML39 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

ML390 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.51

ML391 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

ML392 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML394 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML395 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML396 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML4 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

ML40 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

ML401 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

ML4012 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML4013 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4017 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.01

ML4018 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

ML4019 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4022 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4023 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML4024 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

20 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML4029 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML4030 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

ML4034 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

ML4035 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML4036 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4037 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4039 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML404 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML4041 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML4043 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML4045 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.61

ML4046 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.01

ML4048 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

ML405 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML406 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

ML410 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.08

ML415 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.83

ML416 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML417 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.16

ML418 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

ML421 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.53

ML425 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

ML43 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML432 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.21

ML434 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.49

ML436 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.43

ML443 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML461 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.24

ML467 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML469 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.06

ML477 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.25

ML479 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML48 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML481 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

ML482 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

ML486 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML488 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.27

ML491 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML492 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.67
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 21

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML496 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.37

ML499 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.56

ML50 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

ML500 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML502 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML504 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.47

ML505 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML506 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

ML508 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML509 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML51 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML510 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

ML513 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

ML514 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.87

ML516 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.60

ML518 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

ML520 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.11

ML524A B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.39

ML526 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML527 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.61

ML535 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML537 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.16

ML543 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.67

ML546 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.55

ML547 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML548 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

ML549 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML551 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.78

ML552 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.85

ML553 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

ML556 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.50

ML566 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML577 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

ML578 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML58 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML580 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

ML583 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML584 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML589 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

22 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ML591 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.42

ML592 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.92

ML60 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

ML62 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML63 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML64 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.40

ML66 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

ML67 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

ML68 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML71 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML72 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

ML73 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

ML76 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

ML78 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

ML79 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

ML8 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

ML84 C 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.10

ML85 C 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.34

ML88 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

ML89 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

ML9 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.29

ML90 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

ML91 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.70

ML92 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

ML94 B 2 X Z 2 Y 0.37

ML96 A 2 X Z 2 Y 0.24

ML97 A 2 X Z 2 Y 0.08

ML99 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.45

PA1 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

PA10 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.46

PA11 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

PA13 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

PA14 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

PA15 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

PA16 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

PA17 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

PA18 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

PA2 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

PA3 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 23

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

PA30 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PA38 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

PA39 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

PA4 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

PA40 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

PA7 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

PK1 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PK10 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.49

PK11 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

PK13 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.86

PK14 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PK15 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

PK16 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

PK17 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

PK18 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

PK19 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

PK20 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.40

PK21 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PK22 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

PK23 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

PK24 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

PK25 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.85

PK26 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

PK27A A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PK27AA A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

PK28 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PK31 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

PK4 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

PK5 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

PK6 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

PK8 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

PK9 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

PUB003 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.00

PUB009 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.53

PUB010 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

PUB011 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

PUB012 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.05

PUB013 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PUB017 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

24 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

PUB018 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

PUB019 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

SS01 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

SS05 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS1000 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS1002 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2.13

SS1003 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS1004 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.75

SS102 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS103 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS106 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

SS107 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

SS111 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

SS113 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

SS115 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS118 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.83

SS12 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS120 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS121 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

SS123 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS126 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS131 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS132 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS133 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS135 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.38

SS136 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS140 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.41

SS141 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS150 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS1501 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

SS1507 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

SS151 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.06

SS164 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.19

SS165 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.32

SS17 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS170 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS171 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS173 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.42

SS174 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.12
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 25

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS176 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS177 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS180 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS186 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS189 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.47

SS192 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

SS193 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS194 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS195 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.03

SS197 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

SS199 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.36

SS200 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS201 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

SS202 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS203 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

SS207 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS210 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS211 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS212 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS215 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS216 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

SS22 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS220 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS221 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

SS223 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS224 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.87

SS225 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

SS226 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

SS227 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS228 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS229 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.20

SS23 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

SS231 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS232 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS233 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS234 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS236 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

SS238 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.57

SS24 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

26 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS240 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

SS241 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS242 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.69

SS243 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

SS244 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.24

SS247 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

SS248 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS250 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS251 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS252 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

SS254 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS255 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS256 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS258 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS259 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS272 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.77

SS273 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.52

SS274 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

SS275 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.70

SS276 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.71

SS280 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS281 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS282 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS285 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS286 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

SS287 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS288 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

SS289 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS290 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS293 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.08

SS295 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.98

SS299 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

SS300 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.79

SS301 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS303 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS305 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2.15

SS306 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.95

SS307 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

SS308 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 27

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS309 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS310 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS312 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.86

SS315 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

SS318 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS319 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.92

SS320 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

SS321 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.99

SS322 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

SS324 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

SS325 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.26

SS327 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.65

SS328 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.36

SS337 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

SS338 B 2 2 2 0.44

SS339 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

SS345 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

SS346 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.20

SS350 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.50

SS351 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.50

SS352 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.14

SS353 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.04

SS354 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

SS358 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS359 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS363 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

SS364 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

SS366 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS367 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

SS373 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS374 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS375 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS376 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS377 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS379 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.33

SS380 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS382 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS383 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.55

SS384 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

28 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS386 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS389 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

SS390 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS396 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS397 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.64

SS415 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS417 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.81

SS418 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

SS420 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS421 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

SS432 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

SS436 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

SS437 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

SS48 B 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.72

SS500 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

SS501 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

SS502 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.56

SS503 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.72

SS504 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS505 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

SS506 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS507 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.91

SS508 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.84

SS509 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS510 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS514 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS515 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.19

SS517 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS520 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS522 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS524 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

SS525 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.61

SS526 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS527 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS528 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.73

SS529 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS530 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS531 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS532 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 29

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS533 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.83

SS534 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS535 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

SS535A C 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.22

SS551 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS554 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS556 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

SS557 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS558 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS562 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS563 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS564 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS565 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS566 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS567 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS568 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

SS569 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS573 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS574 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS575 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS579 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

SS580 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS581 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS582 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.03

SS583 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.85

SS584 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS585 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS588 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS589 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS59 C 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.26

SS590 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS591 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS593 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS600 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS601 C 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.14

SS602 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS603 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS605 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS606 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

30 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS607 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS608 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.30

SS613 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

SS614 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS62 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS622 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS627 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS628 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS63 C 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.45

SS630 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS631 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS633 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS634 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.70

SS635 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.04

SS639 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.14

SS64 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS640 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS641 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS648 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS65 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.62

SS656 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

SS659 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS66 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS660 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS662 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS667 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.12

SS668 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS669 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS67 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 1.31

SS670 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

SS671 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS678 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.07

SS690 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS691 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS695 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.51

SS697 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.65

SS701 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.26

SS702 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.34

SS706 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 31

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS707 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS71 A 2 X 2 X 2 Y 0.13

SS710 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS711 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

SS715 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.49

SS725 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS726 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS727 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS736 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.77

SS739 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.46

SS74 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.26

SS75 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.40

SS757 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.31

SS76 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS767 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.19

SS770 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

SS78 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS788 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.75

SS789 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS79 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS790 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS792 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS795 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS80 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS818 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

SS819 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS824 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS83 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.32

SS841 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.47

SS844 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

SS847 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

SS852 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS854 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS862 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS864 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS865 B 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.34

SS866 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

SS868 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS871 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.17
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

32 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS881 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.97

SS882 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS883 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS884 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

SS886 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

SS903 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS904 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.29

SS910 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

SS912 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS914 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS920 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS926 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS927 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

SS928 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS929 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS930 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.35

SS931 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

SS932 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS933 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS934 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

SS935 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS940 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

SS941 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

SS948 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS949 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

SS950 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

SS951 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS952 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS954 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

SS955 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

SS957 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.14

SS958 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.34

SS964 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 1.02

SS969 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS973 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS978 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

SS979 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.13

SS980 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS983 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 33

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SS984 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.17

SS988 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

SS989 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2.22

SS990 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.76

SS991 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.85

SS993 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2.23

SS994 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

SS996 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.45

TR10 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

TR100 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.46

TR101 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.21

TR102 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

TR105 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

TR106 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

TR11 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 1.02

TR12 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.49

TR13 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.05

TR14 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.17

TR15 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.17

TR16 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.17

TR18 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.10

TR2 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.34

TR20 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.08

TR21 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.39

TR22 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.14

TR23 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.03

TR24 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.07

TR25 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.06

TR27 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

TR28 A 2 W Z 2 Y 0.22

TR29 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.07

TR300 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.06

TR301 A 2 Z Z 2 Z 0.08

TR302 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.23

TR303 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

TR307 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

TR308 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.43

TR310 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

TR32 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.05
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

34 Appendix A—Route Analysis

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

TR33 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.04

TR34 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.05

TR35 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.07

TR36 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.11

TR37 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.07

TR38 A 2 W Z 2 Y 0.15

TR39 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.03

TR4 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.03

TR41 A 2 W Z 2 Y 0.50

TR42 A 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.06

TR43 B 2 W Z 2 Y 0.36

TR44 B 2 W 2 W 2 Y 0.40

TR50 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

TR51 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.18

TR52 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

TR53 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

TR54 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.59

TR55 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

TR56 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.12

TR59 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

TR60 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

TR61 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.27

TR62 C 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.11

TR63 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

TR64 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.41

TR65 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.03

TR66 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

TR67 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

TR68 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.16

TR69 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

TR70 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.42

TR71 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

TR72 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.08

TR73 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.28

TR74 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.61

TR75 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.39

TR76 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.44

TR77 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.25

TR78 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02
Modoc NF Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A—Route Analysis 35

Maintenance Level and Season of Use

Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

TR79 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

TR8 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

TR80 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.05

TR81 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.02

TR82 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.24

TR83 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.06

TR84 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

TR85 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.15

TR87 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

TR88 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.09

TR89 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.86

TR90 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.20

TR93 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.50

TR94 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.10

TR95 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.22

TR96 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 1.13

TR97 B 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.38

TR98 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.07

TR99 A 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 0.04

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix B—Field Visit Rationale 37

Appendix B: Field Visit Rationale

Each resource specialist determined the necessity for field visits based on their individual 

knowledge of areas of interest across the Forest and through the GIS exercise which looked at 

each individual route against a backdrop of potential areas of concern. The text below describes 

field visit rationale. 100% of the routes were assessed during the GIS Interdisciplinary Team 

exercise, which was the first filter. More refined filters were created by each resource specialist 

and that criteria determined the need for which roads needed field visits. 

Botany

Botany evaluated all unauthorized/proposed routes against existing botanical records, using GIS 

and paper records. Field visits were performed when it appeared that potential habitat for 

Federally Listed plant species overlapped with routes proposed for addition. Field visits were not 

performed on other proposed routes because there was neither enough time nor an urgent need to 

visit every route: most of these unvisited routes were considered to have a low potential for 

special status plant habitat, and none were considered to have a high potential. Mitigations were 

not considered necessary, since botany concerns were addressed early on during the project 

planning process. There were 83 routes that were field visited which is seven percent of the 1,154 

proposed unauthorized routes.

Recreation

During the inventory process and subsequent GIS analysis, all routes receiving any type of 

vehicle use were identified. The Forest identified routes with low resource impact potential as 

proposed additions to the National Forest Transportation System. As a result, there was not a 

need to field visit each proposed route by the Recreation Specialist to determine its recreational 

value; since most of the road segments were proposed to be added and therefore not a concern for 

recreation. 

Heritage

(See appendix F)

Aquatics 

Unauthorized and proposed routes were overlaid on aquatic species habitat utilizing GIS and 

Forest records. All of the routes proposed within RCA's were field checked to determine if there 

was a hydrologic connectivity to a perennial or seasonally flowing stream. Field visits were not 

performed on other proposed routes as those outside of RCA's were considered to have no or 

insignificant potential for impacts to aquatic species.

Monitoring of aquatic resources will occur on unauthorized routes added to the Forest 

Transportation System utilizing the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. In areas that 

have the greatest potential for impacts to aquatic species, monitoring of fine-grained sediments 

would be implemented using Stream Condition Inventory protocols. Sites monitored may vary 

from year to year.

Wildlife

As part of the design process for the proposed action, an interdisciplinary team and the Forest's 

line officers met and evaluated each inventoried unauthorized road segment for inclusion in the 

NFTS. As part of the evaluation, each segment was reviewed for proximity to sensitive wildlife
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

38 Appendix A-2—Field Visit Rationale

habitats. The familiarity of the team and line officers with on-the-ground conditions made 

subsequent review of these segments duplicative and unnecessary for the wildlife resource area.

Hydrology and Soils

To evaluate direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action to water quality, the Forest 

hydrologist used the Forest soils database, housed in GIS layers. He used the following screening 

criteria (rating factors) to make an initial screen-out:

Maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR)

Water runoff potential

Watershed sensitivity

Slope-stability hazard

If all the above ratings factors were low to moderate, then the risk was low. If the risk was low, 

no field-checking was done.

If the rating factors were exceeded (i.e., if they were greater than low to moderate), the proposed 

route was field-checked to see if it was consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines for soil 

and water. In the field, the following method used was to determine if the proposed route met the 

effectiveness measure from the BMPEP T02 form (Best Management Practice Evaluation 

Protocol—a standardized form approved by the California State Water Resources control Board). 

These measures are as follows:

1. Erosion on skid trail{ XE "trail" } surface: little or no evidence of rills

2. Rutting: little or no evidence of rutting

3. Water bars

a. Diversion of runoff: less than 10 percent of water bars fail to divert flow off skid 

trail{ XE "trail" }

b. Sediment below: sediment deposition absent, or does not extend beyond outlet 

control

c. Erosion below outlet: no evidence of rills or gullies

4. Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management zone 

(SMZ)

For the last step in the analysis of direct & indirect effects, the Forest hydrologist analyzed the 

results of the field check to determine whether the LRMP standards and guidelines had been met. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C—Monitoring Plan 39 

Appendix C: Monitoring Plan

The following pages show the monitoring plan for the unauthorized routes that are proposed for 

addition. If a resource is not mentioned below it is because that specialist will not be doing any 

additional monitoring for these roads under Travel Management other than what would normally 

be required in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). 

Botany Monitoring Plan

Under each different alternative of the Modoc National Forest Travel Management EIS, there 

would be different botany concerns requiring differing monitoring needs.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 provides for cross-country travel, which poses the possibility of effects upon all 

special status plants on the Forest. Although this would ideally call for monitoring of each plant 

occurrence as often as possible, this is impractical.

It is recommended, therefore, that the highest priority plants (Endangered and Threatened) would 

be monitored yearly to determine the effect of cross-country travel upon these plant occurrences. 

At present, there are 1 Endangered plant occurrence and 16 Threatened plant occurrences known 

on the Forest, so it should take about three weeks with a two-person crew (one of whom is either 

the Forest Botanist or Assistant Forest Botanist) to implement botany monitoring protocols upon 

these sites, including clerical work to appropriately document and file monitoring records. In 

addition, the plant occurrences in Table B-1 would be monitored, providing a representative 

sample of Alternative 1‘s effects upon special status plant populations. In total, this would 

require six weeks per year with a two-person crew to monitor 34 plant occurrences, including 

clerical work, and would thus require a budget of about $8,000 per year. Because of the 

possibility that new roads affecting special status plant occurrences could be created in any year, 

there should be no time limit on monitoring.

Alternative 2 

Table B-1 shows most of the special status plant occurrences located within one hundred feet of 

roads proposed for addition under Alternatives 2 and 5, save those for Iliamna bakeri. I. bakeri

was removed because it is an upland shrub, growing in conifer or scrub communities, which 

germinates immediately following fires, and is therefore not especially prone to severe damage, 

by motorized vehicle traffic. The other species represented here are smaller, and thus more likely 

to suffer damage by vehicles, and occur in more sensitive habitats, such as meadows, vernal 

pools, riparian areas, or soft gravelly soils. This leaves 7 rare plant species in 17 occurrences 

potentially affected by 20 proposed routes.

It is recommended that all 17 occurrences be monitored each year for four years. If no noticeable 

effects are identified on any of these sites within those four years, then the need to continue 

monitoring should be re-examined. This would require a two-person crew (one of whom is either 

the Forest Botanist or Assistant Forest Botanist) three weeks to implement botany monitoring 

protocols upon these sites, including clerical work to appropriately document and file monitoring 

records. This would require a budget of about $4,000 per year for four years; however, this 

regiment may be adjusted at the end of the first year based on findings and professional 

judgement.

.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

40 Appendix C—Monitoring Plan

Alternative 3

No routes would be proposed for addition under this Alternative, and cross-country travel would 

be prohibited. Therefore, there would be no need for monitoring the effects of implementing this 

Alternative.

Alternative 4

The botany monitoring plan would be similar to that for Alts. 2 and 5 above, except that four less 

occurrences (Calochortus longebarbatus sites 78A and 82, Dimeresia howellii site 2, and 

Gratiola heterosepala site 9) would be monitored, as the routes that would affect them are not 

proposed for addition in this Alternative.

It is recommended, therefore, that all 13 occurrences be monitored each year for four years. If no 

noticeable effects are identified on any of these sites within those four years, then the need to 

continue monitoring should be re-examined. This would require a two-person crew (one of 

whom is either the Forest Botanist or Assistant Forest Botanist) three weeks to implement botany 

monitoring protocols upon these sites, including clerical work to appropriately document and file 

monitoring records. This would require a budget of about $4,000 per year for four years, since it 

would require about the same amount of driving and organizational time as monitoring for 

Alternatives 2 or 5; however, this regiment may be adjusted at the end of the first year based on 

findings and professional judgment.

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5 no routes would be added that would impact any known Threatened, 

Endangered, or Sensitive plant species occurrences. Therefore, monitoring would only be needed 

for the nine known occurrences of Watch List plant species. Monitoring for these Watch List 

species occurrences (Carex halliana, Dimeresia howellii, Gratiola heterosepala, Pogogyne 

floribunda) would follow protocols similar to those described for Alternative 2.

It is recommended, therefore, that all 9 occurrences be monitored each year for four years. If no 

noticeable effects are identified on any of these sites within those four years, then the need to 

continue monitoring should be re-examined. This would require a two-person crew (one of 

whom is either the Forest Botanist or Assistant Forest Botanist) three weeks to implement botany 

monitoring protocols upon these sites, including clerical work to appropriately document and file 

monitoring records. This would require a budget of about $3,000 per year for four years.

However, this regiment may be adjusted at the end of the first year based on findings and 

professional judgment.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C—Monitoring Plan 41

Table B-1. Special-Status Plant Occurrences for Botany Monitoring

Species Status Occurrence

Number

Acres District Name Route

Number

Miles Alternative

2 4 5

Buxbaumia viridis Sensitive 1 .10 Warner Mtn. BA473

BA474

.15

.11

X X

Buxbaumia viridis Sensitive 4 .10 Warner Mtn. BA406

BA407

.53

.62

X X

Buxbaumia viridis Sensitive 7 .10 Warner Mtn. BA472 .12 X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus Sensitive 20 1.3 Big Valley TR310 .06 X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus Sensitive 77 186 Devil‘s Gdn. JW2135 .13 X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus Sensitive 78A 31 Devil‘s Gdn. BA143 .50 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus Sensitive 82 3.3 Devil‘s Gdn. ML432 .21 X

Carex halliana Watch List 7 29.2 Doublehead BA2204 .09 X X X

Dimeresia howellii Watch List 2 .6 Warner Mtn. BA497 .22 X X

Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum Sensitive 6 1 Warner Mtn. SS551 .10 X X

Gratiola heterosepala Watch List 9 357 Devil‘s Gdn. BA173 .08 X X

Gratiola heterosepala Watch List 13 51.4 Devil‘s Gdn. ML584 .10 X X X

Gratiola heterosepala Watch List 16 .5 Doublehead BA55 .17 X X X

Gratiola heterosepala Watch List 18 1.6 Doublehead BA2217 .22 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda Watch List 4 1.6 Doublehead BA71 .97 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda Watch List 10 8.2 Doublehead ML299 2.27 X X X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

42 Appendix C—Monitoring Plan

Species Status Occurrence

Number

Acres District Name Route

Number

Miles Alternative

2 4 5

Pogogyne floribunda Watch List 29 24 Devil‘s Gdn. SS312 .86 X X X

The Modoc National Forest recently issued the Noxious Weed Treatment Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (NWTPFEIS; R5-MB167; Aug. 2008). As part of the NWTPFEIS, we will monitor noxious weeds on the Forest as part of the Early Detection – Rapid Response and 

treatment effectiveness monitoring. The NWTPFEIS, as a forest-wide weed monitoring and treatment project, covers all areas under consideration 

in the Motorized Vehicle Travel Management project.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C—Monitoring Plan 43 

Heritage Resources Monitoring Plan

As identified in the Modoc National Forest Travel Management EIS under Heritage Resources 

under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, it has been recommended to relocate two previously recorded 

archaeological sites to see if they are actually within the affected area of the route designation and 

monitor their condition, and to monitor another 242 archaeological sites that have been identified 

as being within route designation corridors. These efforts are designed to enable a better 

determination of the affects, if any, upon these cultural resources by route designation. The 

effects may be the result of the continuing use of these routes after designation. Thus, there is a 

total of 244 archaeological sites that require some level of relocation and monitoring.

It is recommended that this process be spread over a three-year period.

First, both of the archaeological sites marked for relocation should be relocated within this time 

period. If either of these sites is found to be within the designated route corridor it would have a 

new archaeological site record completed and a baseline condition assessment made a part of that 

record. If a site is determined to be outside of the route corridor, its updated site record may be 

deferred to a later date.

Second, a sample of the 242 archaeological sites designated for monitoring should be examined 

each year. It is recommended that a 10 percent sample be selected—or 24 sites per year for three 

years. If no noticeable effects are identified on any of these sampled sites, then the need to 

continue monitoring should be reexamined.

It is anticipated that given the relatively light use that most of the designated routes exhibit at 

present, if use does not increase significantly as a result of designation, that continued light use

should have little noticeable effect on these sites.

Hydrology and Soils Monitoring Plan

Monitoring of soils and hydrology resources will occur on unauthorized routes added to the 

Forest transportation system, using the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. See 

Appendix G , Water Quality Monitoring Plan.

Aquatics Monitoring Plan

Monitoring of aquatic resources will occur on unauthorized routes added to the Forest 

Transportation System utilizing the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. In areas that 

have the greatest potential for impacts to aquatic species, monitoring of fine-grained sediments 

would be implemented using Stream Condition Inventory protocols. Sites monitored may vary 

from year to year.

Facilities Monitoring Plan

Condition Surveys are performed on all maintenance level 3,4, and 5 roads every 5 years, with 

approximately 20 percent completed each year. 

Condition Surveys are performed on maintenance level 1 & 2 roads based on a random sample 

generated by the Washington Office. It is a relatively small sample. All of the roads that are 

proposed for addition will be classified as level 2.

In addition to the formal condition surveys, we monitor road conditions continually as they are 

driven for other purposes. As problems are identified, they are addressed as resources allow.

There will be no additional monitoring resulting from Travel Management; however whatever 

roads are added to the system will be monitored based on the guidelines listed above.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

44 Appendix C—Monitoring Plan

Wildlife Monitoring Plan

Wildlife monitoring on the routes added to the system will be done annually and will begin at the 

rate of 15 routes per year. However, this regiment may be adjusted at the end of the first year 

based on findings and professional judgment.

Recreation Monitoring Plan

There is no monitoring proposed for recreation.

Visual Resources Monitoring Plan

There is no monitoring proposed for visual resources.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix D—Water Quality Management Plan 45 

Appendix D: Water-Quality Management 

Plan

Introduction

The purpose of the Water Quality Management Plan is to meet state water quality objectives as 

identified by the State of California Water Quality Control Board, and to protect and maintain the 

identified beneficial uses of water flowing off National Forest System (NFS) lands from the 

occurrence of an adverse or negative direct and indirect effect to water quality. The downstream 

beneficial use of the water is identified by the appropriate regional control water boards (Central 

Valley, Lahontan, and North Coast)

Water Quality Management Plan 

The primary method of meeting the above-stated purposes of the water management plan is by 

maintaining the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) in a manner where the roadways

are not hydrologically connected to the stream network, or to insure the roadways are not subject 

to excessive levels of road runoff or road erosion. The following water-quality guidelines are 

based on applications of BMPs, and are incorporated into the designation of proposed routes as 

additions to the NFTS Plan. This can be accomplished in the following manner:

Disconnect the hydrologic connectivity of roads to the stream and lake network across 

the Forest.

Maintain the proposed routes with adequate water diversion structures (e.g., cross drains, 

water bars, or rolling dips) to prevent the gulling of the routes. Use of natural gradient 

slope breaks and route relocation, promoting travel along the contours, and minimizing

hill climbs are also acceptable measures to achieve the desired goal.

Over the next 10 years, complete monitoring of the routes dedicated to OHV use and 

longer than 0.5 miles (this does not include mixed-use routes) according to a developed 

protocol. The recommended protocol is the Region 5 OHV Trail-Monitoring Protocol

(the red-yellow-green protocol developed by Brent Roath, Region 5 Soil Scientist). It is 

assumed that approximately 20% of the dedicated use OHV routes added to NFTS would 

be monitored per year.

Annually, routes added to the NFTS would be monitored under the R5 BMPEP as part of 

the Forest-wide monitoring program. These routes would be picked at random and can be 

monitored using the following BMPEP forms:

BMPEP form E08: Road Surface, Drainage, and Slope Protection; and BMPEP form 

#09: Stream Crossings

BMPEP Form E20: Management of Roads During Wet Periods

Within Region 5, past monitoring completed as part of the Best Management Practices Evaluation 

Program (BMPEP), has validated the effectiveness of BMPs in mitigating the effects of Forest

management activities on water quality. No evidence has been observed during monitoring 

completed in 2000-2008 of multiple Forest management activities (i.e., timber sales, road 

maintenance, road reconstruction and fuels reduction projects) that these projects were adding 

additional levels of sediment into the stream network, above the natural erosion rate when the 

BMP is implemented according to plan description or guidance. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

46 Appendix D—Water Quality Management Plan

Description of Best Management Practices

The Forest Service water quality maintenance and improvement measures called Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) were developed in compliance with Section 208 of the Federal 

Clean Water Act, PL92-500, as amended. Following a lengthy development and public review 

process from 1977 to 1979, the BMPs developed by the Forest Service were certified by the State 

of California Water Quality Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. These 

practices are the measures both the state and federal water quality regulatory agencies expect the 

Forest Service to implement to meet federal and state water quality objectives, and to maintain 

and improve water quality.

In 1997, the BMPs were reviewed and evaluated by a cadre of water resources specialists in the 

Forest Service. The result of this effort was to update and improve the BMP program in Region 5. 

In 1999 and 2000, the updated version of the BMPs, as revised by agency water quality and 

aquatics specialists, were reviewed and approved by the State Water Quality Control Board for 

implementation.

Based on monitoring of similar type of activities on the Modoc National Forest, BMPs have been 

proven to be effective measures in protecting water quality, based on the identified beneficial 

uses. BMPs have been shown to be effective measures in meeting state and federal water quality 

objectives as identified by the Central Valley Basin Water Quality Control Plan, and will aid in 

providing protection of hydrologic function of the watersheds and stability of stream courses.

Table 1. Description of Best Management Practices

BMP # Name Objective

1.20 Erosion Control Structure 

Maintenance

To ensure that constructed erosion control structures 

are stabilized and working

2.7 Control of Road Drainage To minimize road runoff and related sediment 

production from road surfaces

2.22 Maintenance of Roads To maintain roads in a manner which provides for 

water quality protecting by minimizing rutting, failures, 

side casting, and blockage of drainage facilities, all of 

which can cause erosion, sedimentation, and 

deteriorating watershed conditions

2.23 Road Surface Treatment to 

Prevent Loss of Materials

To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and 

consequently reduce the likelihood of sediment 

production from those areas

2.24 Traffic Control During Wet 

Periods

To reduce road surface disturbance, rutting of roads,

and minimize the sediment washing from the disturbed 

roads

2.26 Obliteration or Decommissioning 

of Roads

To reduce sediment generated from temporary or 

unclassified and system roads by obliterating or 

decommissioning them at the completion of their 

intended use

4.7 Water Quality Monitoring of OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Use 

according to a Developed Plan. 

To provide a systematic process to determine when 

and to what extent OHV use would cause, or is 

causing, adverse effects on water quality
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix D—Water Quality Management Plan 47 

BMP # Name Objective

7.7 Management by Closure to Use To exclude activities that could result in damages to 

either resources or improvements, resulting in 

degraded water quality

Conclusion

By implementing the above-described water quality standards, it is unlikely that the proposed 

activities would result in an adverse or negative direct or indirect effect to water quality or its 

identified downstream beneficial uses.

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions 49

Appendix E: Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The following actions were considered in cumulative effects analysis for each resource: fuel 

treatments and{ XE "Fuels" } fire{ XE "Fire" }, range management, dam construction and 

maintenance, recreation{ XE "Recreation" }, timber management and vegetation treatment, 

reforestation, road management, special uses{ XE "Special uses" }, and noxious weed{ XE 

"Noxious weed" } treatment. Below is a description of these actions. Reasonably foreseeable 

and present actions on National Forest System lands considered in cumulative effects analysis are 

shown in Table H-2, which was developed by reviewing the July to September 2008 Schedule of 

Proposed Action{ XE "Proposed action" }s.

Fuel Treatments and Fire{ XE "Fire" }

Approximately 10,000 acres are proposed for fuel treatments per year across the forest: 4,000 

acres of prescribed burns and 6,000 acres of mechanical and physical fuel treatment. Present and 

reasonably foreseeable fuel projects are listed in Table H-2. The fuels{ XE "Fuels" } program 

does not build roads to carry out treatment. Cross-country travel may be required either by truck 

or OHV.

Wildfire and associated suppression and rehabilitation measures sometimes require the creation 

of temporary roads and fuel breaks that in the past have been used by the public and turned into 

unauthorized routes on the forest.

Range Management

Grazing allotments occur on most of the Modoc National Forest. Presently there are 76 active 

allotments, 12 vacant allotments, and 3 allotments that have been closed to grazing. There are 

approximately 122,500 animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing permitted on the forest. Actual 

use differs annually from permitted use depending on economics, weather conditions, market 

conditions, etc. During 2007, actual use was about 95,700 AUMs. There is also one wild-horse 

territory with an estimated population of 450 head. 

Individual range-management projects include installing cattle guards, fencing, developing water 

sources, and thinning juniper. Projects such as fencing and juniper thinning, and administering 

permits (e.g., scheduling on- and off-dates) have restored riparian areas{ XE "Riparian 

areas" }. Range management generally does not include the creation of new roads. Present and 

reasonably foreseeable range projects are included in Table H-2.

Dam Construction and Maintenance

There are 152 dams and water impoundments on the forest, which are used for livestock ponds, 

irrigation, recreation{ XE "Recreation" }, and wildlife{ XE "Wildlife" } habitat. Thirty-four of 

these are considered as dams by the State of California. Associated with irrigation dams are 

canals used to transport water. Many of these structures are maintained by range permittees. 

Recreation{ XE "Recreation" }

On the Modoc National Forest, there are 34 developed campgrounds and several other developed 

recreation sites, including boat launch facilities, trail heads, etc., and numerous dispersed 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

50 Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions

recreation sites (primarily dispersed campgrounds). Present recreation projects are shown in 

Table H-2. There is not any road construction shown in the SOPA for the proposed projects.

Travel management and the restriction of cross-country travel will impact recreation users by 

eliminating a certain type of recreation opportunity. However, many of the recreation 

opportunities will still be available.

There is a variety of recreation-{ XE "Recreation" }associated activities,{ XE "Noxious 

weeds" } including firewood gathering, mineral gathering, hiking, camping, and horse use. 

Timber Harvest and Vegetation Treatments

The forest estimates a timber harvest of approximately 15-20 MMBF (million board-feet) 

annually for the next 5 years. About half of that will be the board-foot equivalent in tons of 

chips for biomass power generation, and half in sawtimber. Past vegetation management actions 

are tracked in the FACTS (Forest Activity and Tracking System) database. This database contains 

information about vegetation management activities back to 1954. Since 1954, there have been

over 169,939 acres of vegetation treatments on the forest. On average, 2,500 acres are harvested 

annually for saw logs, with an additional 3,000 acres for wood fiber. Harvest prescriptions vary 

from clear cutting to understory thinning; however, clear cutting has been greatly reduced over 

the past ten years. 

In the past, road construction was supported by timber harvest. The existing forest transportation 

system was developed, in part, through the need to provide timber to the public after World War 

II. This trend continued until the late  ̳70s or early  ̳80s. In the future, the forest plans to evaluate 

each project on a site-specific basis for existing roads that can be used, and for the possible 

decommissioning of roads that are no longer necessary. There may still be a need for temporary 

road construction and for the reconstruction of existing roads to allow for use of new equipment 

and for adjusting to specific logging systems required for steeper ground.

The Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy, a reasonably foreseeable action, is a 

programmatic analysis for treating 1,254,200 acres of juniper on the Modoc National Forest, 

BLM Alturas Field Office lands, and surrounding federal lands that lie within the sage steppe 

ecosystem. Treatment would be through mechanical treatment{ XE "Mechanical treatment"

}s, hand treatments, or prescribed fire{ XE "Prescribed fire" }{ XE "Fire" }. This project 

consists of restoring sagebrush communities that have been invaded by juniper over the last 100 

to 150 years. There will be no new permanent roads built to support this project. 

Reforestation

Reforestation will occur as needed after wildfires or timber management. Past activities 

associated with replanting trees included the use of herbicides and mechanical and physical site 

preparation to reduce the competition for soil{ XE "Soil" } nutrients and sunlight from grasses 

and shrubs (release). Existing roads are used for reforestation projects.

Road and Right-of-Way Management

A system of federal, state, and county highways provides access to the Modoc National Forest. 

Forest system roads are extensions of these highways, and provide access to and mobility within 

the forest. Roads allow protection, management, use, and development of forest resources on 

which local communities depend. The forest road system consists of approximately 4,996 miles. 

Integrated with the system are approximately 416 miles of private roads{ XE "Roads" }. There 

are also approximately 491 miles of non-system roads on the forest.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions 51

State and County{ XE "County" } Easements

Sixty miles of state highway cross portions of the Modoc National Forest. The highway right-ofway is managed according to the terms of the specific easement. Vegetation management within 

the right-of-way is done according to the laws and regulations of the State of California.

Modoc County maintains about 1,040 miles of roadway through the Modoc National Forest. 

These roads{ XE "Roads" } are maintained by agreement with the forest, or as easements. The 

rights-of-way are maintained according to county standard.

Railroads

Two railroads cross portions of the Modoc National Forest. Railroad rights-of way are embedded 

in the forest and are owned by the railroad.

Special Uses{ XE "Special uses" }

Approximately 325,000 acres of privately owned lands lie within the forest boundary (2,000 state

acres, 1,000 tribal acres, and 323,000 acres of land owned by companies and individuals). 

The Modoc National Forest has a caseload of about 160 special-use authorizations annually for 

apiaries, ditches, dams, water sources, roads{ XE "Roads" }, recreational residences, utility 

transmission and communication sites, outfitters and guides, a ski hill, and miscellaneous permits. 

Special uses on the forest encompass over 125,000 acres and result in a return of over $70,000 in 

fees to the U.S. Treasury. Special-use permits authorize facilities and services necessary for 

public health, welfare, safety{ XE "Safety" } and security, such as communications sites for 

local 911 radio repeaters to support local law enforcement and emergency response entities. 

Others provide basic needs such as power and telephone lines to private homeowners.

All new authorizations are issued with specific terms and conditions; road construction is 

generally not part of a new authorization.

The Modoc National Forest administers slightly over 3,000 acres authorized for the purpose of 

transmitting or distributing power in the form of electricity and natural gas. In many cases these 

acres overlap because power and pipeline facilities are located within designated corridors. 

Currently there is analysis for a proposal for vegetation maintenance for the U.S. Department of 

Energy‘s Western Area Power Authority, Sierra Nevada Region (right-of-way vegetation 

maintenance for high-voltage power lines), including two 500-kV transmission lines through the 

Doublehead Ranger District. The proposal includes the maintenance of vegetation within the 

right-of-way with manual methods (cutting, girdling, topping and trimming), mechanical methods 

(mowing), and use of herbicides. The proposal specifies maintaining 30 feet of clearance around 

each transmission tower or structure. 

The Modoc National Forest administers 1,460 acres rented to public and private agencies for 

communications purposes. Over 900 acres of that is authorized to the Department of Defense for 

a radar installation. The remaining acres are within nine designated communications sites or are 

parallel to transportation, power line, or pipeline facilities. These authorizations require prior 

approval for removal of vegetation.

Past Road Construction and Decommissioning

Over the past ten years there have been 9.5 miles of new road constructed and 76.8 miles 

decommissioned. See Table H-1 below.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

52 Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions

Table H4-1. Road Construction and Decommissioning from 1998 to 2007 

Fiscal Year Decommissioning 

(miles)

Construction & Reconstruction

(miles)

1998 13.5 0.0

1999 20.0 0.0

2000 9.4 0.0

2001 15.0 0.0

2002 14.9 0.0

2003 4.0 0.3

2004 0.0 9.1

2005 0.0 0.1

2006 0.0 0.0

2007 0.0 0.0

Other Federal Lands in California

National Forest Lands

The Modoc National Forest abuts the Klamath and Shasta-Trinity national forests on the western 

flank. The Lassen National Forest administers some of these lands, and also has land that lies 

roughly 2 to 4 miles south of the Big Valley District. 

Klamath National Forest-Goosenest District: There are approximately 1,005 miles of NFTS 

(National Forest Transportation System) roads on the district and 309 miles of unauthorized 

routes. 

Lassen National Forest: The Lassen National Forest is doing its travel management process. It 

has completed a notice of intent; the proposed action includes adding 37 miles of unauthorized 

routes, 12 miles of additional mixed use routes, and 26 acres for open use.

Shasta-Trinity National Forest: The Shasta Trinity is currently in the travel management 

process and intends to publish its notice of intent in July, 2008. The forest has 6,754 miles of 

NFTS roads and 175 miles of NFTS trails. Their proposed action will designate 33 miles of roads 

and 11 miles of trails. There will be no open-use areas, but there will be a change in the 

designation of ―below high-water areas.‖ 

Federal Lands under Other Administration

Lava Beds National Monument: The monument has an existing road system. We are unaware 

of any plans to add to it.

Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge: The refuge has an existing road system. We are unaware 

of any plans to add to it.

Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge: The refuge has an existing road system and does not 

propose to create any new roads for public use in the near future.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge: The refuge has an existing road system and does not propose 

to create any new roads for public use in the near future.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions 53

BLM-Alturas and Surprise Valley Offices: Both the Alturas and Surprise Valley offices 

recently completed resource management plans (RMPs) and signed records of decision in April 

2008. Both offices included a section on travel management. In both areas, OHV travel will be 

―limited to existing roads and trails‖ year-round, except where further restrictions are specifically 

assigned (i.e., ―open‖, ―closed,‖ ―seasonally closed‖, or ―limited to designated routes‖).

The Alturas Field Office manages approximately 503,045 acres in northeastern California. The 

geographic area consists of BLM-administered lands within the counties of Modoc, Lassen, 

Shasta, and Siskiyou, California. There are 902 miles of system roads in the Alturas District and 

OHV travel would be  ̳Limited to Existing Roads and Trails‘ year-round, except where further 

restrictions are specifically assigned off-highway vehicle. Eighty acres are designated open, 

498,140 acres are designated as  ̳limited to designated routes‘ and 4,825 acres are designated 

closed. The RMP also proposes to construct approximately 66 miles of new motorized and nonmotorized trails, including a 40-mile stretch of the abandoned Modoc Line rail bed. 

The Surprise Valley Field Office manages approximately 1,220,644 acres in northeastern 

California and northwestern Nevada. The geographic area consists of BLM-administered lands 

within the counties of Modoc and Lassen (California) and Humboldt and Washoe (Nevada). The 

Surprise Valley office will manage 1,809 miles of routes as the designated route network for 

access to BLM-administered lands, and close 92 miles of routes within WSAs (wilderness study 

areas). OHV use would be designated as 0 acres open, 1,208,670 acres ―limited to designated 

routes‖, and 11,994 acres closed. An OHV special recreation management area would be 

developed if the need arises. Commercial, competitive, and other organized OHV activities would 

be managed with special recreation permits. Road maintenance would continue at a rate of 30 to 

75 miles per year. 

Private Land

There are currently 416 miles of non Forest Service roads within the Forest Service boundary. 

This includes roads managed by the county across FS lands and private roads on private land that 

are within the Forest Service boundary. Because private landowners do not typically publish their 

long-term management plans, actions on private land are difficult to analyze. Some new roads 

could be built on private lands to support restoration projects and provide access; however, new 

roads on private lands would likely not be open to the public. (Sage Steppe EIS) Cross-country 

travel will most likely continue across private land by ranchers and others in their day-to-day 

business and for recreation. Timber production will continue on private land and road 

construction associated with that will likely occur. These roads will probably be temporary and 

will support timber operations. Firewood gathering will continue to occur on private land but 

most likely will use existing roads and travel cross country will be for short distances only. There 

are two existing utility corridors that cross private land and there are no future plans for additional 

corridors in the future. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

54 Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions

Table H-2. Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions1

Activity NEPA Project Name District

Fuels Management Rush2 Vegetation Treatment BV

Fuels & Vegetation 

Management

Devil's Garden Plantation Management DG

Fuels & Vegetation 

Management

Cedar Pass Forest Health WM

Fuels & Vegetation 

Management

Lassen Creek Watershed Forest Health and Restoration Project WM

Fuels & Vegetation 

Management

North Warner Roadside Fuel Break Management WM

Fuels & Vegetation 

Management

Fletcher Fire Salvage DG

Grazing Management Crank Springs, Gerig, Kramer, Shawville and Happy Camp Allotments BV

Grazing Management Pit River Fence BV

Grazing Management Riparian and Upland Enhancement at Pit river Allotments Adjacent to Shaw Ranch BV

Grazing Management Spring Hill Allotment Stockpond BV

Grazing Management Triangle Allotment Grazing Management Project DG

Grazing Management Crummes Allotment EA DH

Grazing Management Tucker Grazing Allotment EA DH

Minerals and Geology Geothermal Leasing - Lake City KGRA WM

Road Management BIA Road Improvement Lauer Reservoir Access DG

Road Management Medicine Lake Highlands Road Closure DH

Special Use and 

Recreation

Warner Mountain Relay Event WM

Special Uses Ewind Testing Project for Existing Sites BV, DH

Special Uses Ewind Testing Project for Potential Sites BV

Special Uses Fandango Pass Wind Energy Project WM

Vegetation Treatment Noxious Weed Treatment Forest-wide

Vegetation Treatment Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Forest-wide
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E—Past, Present, & Future Actions 55

Vegetation Treatment Ash Vegetation Treatment BV

Vegetation Treatment Black Mountain Plantation Thinning and Fuels Treatment DH

Vegetation Treatment Clear Lake Quaking Aspen Restoration Project DH

Vegetation Treatment Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project DH

Wildlife Improvement Devils Garden Guzzlers DG

1

Projects listed on the 07/01/2008 to 09/30/2008 Schedule of Proposed Action{ XE "Proposed action" }s for the Modoc National Forest

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 57

Appendix F: Environmental Consequences 

of Unauthorized Routes to Archaeological

Sites

This appendix analyzes the environmental consequences of the identified unauthorized, usercreated routes have, or are believed to have, on the associated archaeological sites. 

The nature of the effect varies greatly, depending upon how each site is associated with a route. 

For example, a site may be bisected by a route, it may be adjacent to a route (within 30 meters of 

either side of the route), it may be adjacent or bisected and have a dispersed recreation camp site 

(hunter‘s camp) associated with it, it may have past wood-cutting activity present, etc. Table I-1 

below shows the affected sites within the Proposed Action, and the perceived effects. A ―direct 

effect‖ means that the route actually crosses the site or some associated activity, e.g., a hunter‘s 

camp is directly on the site. An ―indirect effect‖ means that the site is adjacent to the route and 

that there may be signs that users of the road are somehow affecting the site (―pot hunting‖ or 

looting). ―None‖ means that the site is adjacent to the route, but there is no evidence that it has 

been affected. Cumulative effects are the anticipated effects that would occur through time to 

sites that continue to be accessible by these routes.

For the ―Types of Effect‖ column in the table below we have used the following codes:

N = None D = Direct I = Indirect C = Cumulative

For the ―Nature of Effect‖ column we have used the following codes:

R = rutting (visible traces through the site; some soil displacement or minor erosion)

C = camping (a dispersed recreation and hunting camp physically on the site; fire ring, modern 

debris, etc.)

L = looting (visible ―pothunters‘ piles‖ of flakes or other signs of artifact collection or removal)

WC = woodcutting (evidence of firewood cutting—slash piles, stumps, etc.)

B = bladed and engineered road (constructed as an access and maintenance road for a power 

transmission line, gas transmission line, OTH-B Radar Installation, or other permitted facility)

N= no direct effects observed

For the most part, no significant ―erosion‖ was noted on any of the sites visited; this may be due 

to the relatively flat nature of most of the forest. The ―rutting‖ may range from very minor visible 

―two-track traces‖, to very deep ruts caused by utilizing the road in mudding conditions creating 

ruts up to 10 to 20 centimeters in depth. Generally, the overall use of these routes by off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) is very light, with few roads appearing to get any major use. Also of note are the 

routes to be added that are actually access or maintenance roads for power lines (e.g., CaliforniaOregon Transmission Powerline, Bonneville Power Administration Malin-Warner, Western Area 

Power Authority), natural gas transmission lines (e.g., Pacific Gas Transmission Company, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company), and the OverThe-Horizon Backscatter Radar Installation military facility. These roads were constructed under 

special-use permits. Major effects many include severe rutting and erosion, exposing 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

58 Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes

archaeological deposits; direct camping on sites, resulting in surface disturbance digging of privy 

pits or campfire pits; direct collection of surface artifacts; and excavation or other directs signs of 

vandalism. All of the associated sites, if directly affected by these routes, have been subjected to 

evaluation for the National Register of Historic Places. They were either determined to be 

ineligible and therefore not affected, or they were determined eligible and had data recovery 

undertaken as mitigation for the effect. Continued use of these routes by the public, however, 

could continue to affect those sites determined to be eligible and still substantially intact and 

adjacent to the routes.

For the ―Severity of Effect‖ column we have used negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Only the 

―major‖ category has the potential to significantly affect potential National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria to the point that the eligibility status may be jeopardized. Both 

the ―major‖ and ―moderate‖ categories may warrant the use of protection measures to lessen or 

mitigate the effects. For the most part, monitoring is recommended for these sites to determine 

the exact nature of the effects and to enable the decision as to what would be the best or most 

practicable mitigation measure to implement on a site-by-site basis. All recorded archaeological 

sites associated with proposed routes are listed in the following table, even if determined 

ineligible for the NRHP for a previous undertaking. Sites ineligible for the NRHP and sites 

determined to be unaffected by the route designations will not be proposed for monitoring of 

effects of the route designations. Routes that have deferred inventory under the Motorized 

Recreation Programmatic Agreement and have known or suspected recorded sites associated with 

them, but did not have the sites field verified, have the site identified for relocation to confirm 

their association and assess the nature of potential route effects.

Tribal consultation has not identified any significant effect on access to or use of traditional plantgathering areas, or areas of other traditional cultural practices or religious uses.

Table I-1. Alternatives 2,4, and 5—Effects to Known Cultural Resources

Note: All of the routes listed here are within Alternatives 2 and 5; bolded entries are the routes 

deleted from Alternatives 2 and 5 to create Alternative 4 (the unbolded entries). 

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

BA104 56-2859/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA130 55-1453 D/I R MINOR/NEG. MONITOR

BA16 55-2081 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA16 55-2407H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA16 55-2409H NONE N N MONITOR

BA206 55-0139/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA215 55-0473 NONE N N N

BA223 55-0488 D/I R MINOR RELOCATE

BA2234 56-1600 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA226 55-0616 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA227 55-0615 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA228 55-0621 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

BA2289 55-0843 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA2290 55-0758 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA2300 55-1703 D/I R MINOR MONITOR
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 59

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

BA2301 56-0871 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA241 55-1047 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA241 55-1049 D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

BA241 55-1058 NONE N N N

BA248 55-0710 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA26 56-0059 I N N MONITOR

BA267 55-1333 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA27 55-2242 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA27 55-2243 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA28 55-2242 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA28 55-2243 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA283 55-0863 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

BA296 55-0809 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA347 53-1013 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

BA358 53-0838 N N N INELIGIBLE

BA359 53-0838 N N N INELIGIBLE

BA368 53-0166 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA373 53-0264 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA373 53-0266 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA38 55-1389 NONE N N N

BA397 53-0172 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA407 53-1321 D/I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

BA408 53-1385 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

BA412 53-1320 D/I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

BA412 53-1455 D/I R NEGILIGIBLE MONITOR

BA431 53-0735 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA438 53-0984 I L MINOR MONITOR

BA442 53-0426 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

BA443 53-0426 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

BA444 53-0426 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

BA445 53-0426 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

BA446 53-0828 I WC MINOR MONITOR

BA449 53-0409 D/I C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA452 53-0409 D/I C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA485 53-0549 D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

BA490 53-1051 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA491 53-1071 I N NEGLIGIBLE N

BA491 53-1082 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

60 Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

BA491 53-1083 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA492 53-0054 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA493 53-0054 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA495 53-1119/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA501 53-0996/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA503 53-1130/H D/I C MINOR MONITOR

BA54 56-0823/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BA55 56-2114/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

BA67 56-3014 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

BG19 55-1602 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BG2 55-1584 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BG39 55-0103/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BG49 55-1606 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BG49 55-1614 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

BG7 55-0551/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

BG7 55-2413 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

DJ13 55-2407H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

DJ13 55-2408 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

DJ27 56-1509 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

JW60 56-3171H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

JW81 55-1083 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

JW82 56-1792/H D/I R N INELIGIBLE

ML105 55-2334 D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML105 55-2335H D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML105 55-2338 D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML105 55-2340/H D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

ML105 55-2343H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML106 55-2342/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML123 55-2410H NONE N N N

ML123 55-2411H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML1310 56-2418 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML146 56-1294 I N N INELIGIBLE

ML146 56-1295 I N N INELIGIBLE

ML146 56-1296 I N N MONITOR

ML146 55-2323 I N N MONITOR

ML146 55-2324/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML146 55-2290 I WC MINOR MONITOR

ML164 55-2326H NONE N N N
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 61

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

ML164 55-2327H D/I R MONOR MONITOR

ML164 55-2336H D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

ML172 55-2329H D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

ML172 55-2331 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

ML181A 55-0084 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR - E

ML181A 55-1521/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML181A 55-1522 D/I N N INELIGIBLE

ML181A 55-1742 D/I N N INELIGIBLE

ML198 55-2156 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

ML201 55-2156 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

ML2010 56-1792/H D/I N N INELIGIBLE

ML202 55-2156 D/I RCL MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

ML203 55-2156 D/I R/C/L MODERATE DO NOT AUTH

ML2035 56-0917 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML2095 55-1927 NONE N N N

ML244 56-2045 D/I R/L MINOR/MOD DO NOT AUTH

ML250 56-2100/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML250 56-2323H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML251 56-2120 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML251 56-2323H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML260 56-2323H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML283 56-1185 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML283 56-1190 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML288 56-2183/H D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

ML293 56-1220 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML293 56-1226 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML293 56-1266 I B N INELIGIBLE

ML293 56-1267 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML293 56-1268 I N MNIOR/NEG MONITOR

ML293 56-1274 I B N INELIGIBLE

ML293 56-1276 D/I B N INELIGIBLE

ML293 56-1277 I B MINOR MONITOR

ML299 56-1235 D/I R N MONITOR

ML299 56-1295 D/I B N INELIGIBLE

ML3 55-2418 D/I R/WC MINOR MONITOR

ML300 56-1096 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML300 56-1099 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML300 56-1143 I B N INELIGIBLE
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

62 Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

ML300 56-1144 I B N INELIGIBLE

ML300 56-1293 I B N INELIGIBLE

ML300 56-1396 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML300 56-1399 I N MINOR MONITOR

ML300 56-1400 I B N INELIGIBLE

ML310 56-3080 I N N MONITOR

ML312 56-1206 D/I R N INELIGIBLE

ML315 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML317 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML318 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML319 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML322 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML323 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML324 56-1060/-

1061/-1062

D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

ML328 56-1067 D/I B MINOR ineligible

ML328 56-2019/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML328 56-2021 I N N MONITOR

ML328 56-2037/H I N N MONITOR

ML354 55-1413H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML358 55-0722 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML384 55-1986 I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML387 55-1990/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML388 55-1990/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML4 55-2419 I WC MINOR MONITOR

ML4024 54-0776H I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML410 55-0756 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML410 55-0758 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML415 55-0755 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML415 55-2107/H I N N MONITOR

ML417 55-1451 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML417 55-1452 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML421 55-1181 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML425 55-0586 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

ML479 55-1409 D/I R MINOR MONITOR
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 63

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

ML491 55-1511 D/I R/C MINOR MONITOR - E

ML491 55-2089 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML516 55-1000 NONE N N MONITOR

ML516 55-1001 NONE N N MONITOR

ML552 55-0290 D/I R MINOR RELOCATE

ML556 55-1006 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML584 55-

0225/0195

D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML591 55-0080 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

ML78 55-2347 I N N MONITOR

ML79 55-2347 I N N MONITOR

ML9 53-1740 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

ML90 55-1306H I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

PA39 56-1800/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

PK10 54-0453 NONE N N N

PK10 54-0464 NONE N N N

PK10 54-0476 D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

PUB009 55-2391 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS01 55-2414 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS1000 56-1601 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1000 56-1602 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1601 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1602 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1609 D/I B MINOT MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1610 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1611 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-1768 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-3070 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1002 56-3071 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1004 56-1761 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1004 56-1939 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

64 Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

SS1004 56-1940 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS1004 56-1941 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS136 55-2348H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS136 55-2349 I N NEGLIGIBLE NONE

SS140 55-2400H D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

SS150 56-2114/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS189 55-1526 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS199 56-1133 I N NEGILIBLE MONITOR

SS201 56-1107 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS210 56-2114/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS211 56-2114/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS225 55-0694/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS227 55-0692 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS256 55-0905 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS281 55-0049/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS282 55-0049/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS288 55-1528 NONE N N NONE

SS288 55-1536 NONE N N NONE

SS289 55-0049/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS290 55-0049/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS309 56-3277 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS396 55-2088/H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS417 55-1567 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS418 55-0903 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

SS420 55-0218 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS421 55-0218 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS421 55-0989 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS432 55-0086 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS562 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS564 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS565 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS566 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS567 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS568 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS569 53-0448HA D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS575 53-1053H D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

SS579 53-0551 I C/L MINOR MONITOR
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 65

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

SS583 53-0033H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS589 53-0449H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS590 53-0449H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS591 53-0449H D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS608 53-0559 D/I R/L MINOR MONITOR

SS628 53-0685 NONE N N N

SS633 53-0710 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS634 53-0588/-

0622/-0705

D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS634 53-0630 NONE N N N

SS634 53-1361 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS635 53-0676 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS635 53-1226 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS641 53-0632 NONE N N N

SS641 53-0677H NONE N N N

SS702 53-0185 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS725 53-0503H D/I R/C/L MODERATE SIGN/MONITOR

SS727 53-0765 D/I R NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

SS736 53-0773 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS788 53-0912 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS788 53-1297 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS789 53-0054/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS789 53-0912 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS790 53-0054/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS790 53-0912 D/I R/C/L MINOR MONITOR

SS792 53-0054/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS884 53-1119/H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS904 53-0124 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

SS910 53-0573H D/I R/C MINOR MONITOR

SS912 53-0573H D/I R/C MINOR MONITOR

SS931 53-0110 D/I R/C MINOR MONITOR

SS940 53-0100 I N NEGLIGIBLE MONITOR

SS969 56-1571H D/I N N INELIGIBLE

SS969 56-1576 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS978 56-1607 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS979 56-1607 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS980 56-1570H N N N INELIGIBLE
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

66 Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

SS980 56-2908 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS983 56-1206 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

SS984 56-1607 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS989 56-1601 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS989 56-1602 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS989 56-1609 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS989 56-1610 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS990 56-1761 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS990 56-1939 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS990 56-1940 MINOR

SS990 56-1941 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS991 56-1608 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS991 56-3263 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS991 56-3270 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-1605 D/I B N INELIGIBLE

SS993 56-1606 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-2053 D/I B MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-2804 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-2805 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-2806 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-3053 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-3264 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS993 56-3266 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

SS994 56-3053 D/I B MINOR MONITOR 

(MAINT. RD)

TR50 56-1789H D/I R MINOR MONITOR

TR50 56-1972H D/I R MINOR MONITOR
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F—Effects of Unauthorized Routes 67

Route ID Site Number Type of 

Effect 

Nature of 

Effect 

Severity of Effect Protection or

Mitigation

TR96 56-1026 D/I R MINOR MONITOR

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G—Law Enforcement 69

Appendix G: Law Enforcement

Introduction

U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel are responsible for 

protecting the public, employees, natural resources, and other property under the agency‘s 

jurisdiction. Additionally, LEI investigates and enforces applicable laws and regulations that 

affect the National Forest System (NFS) lands, and prevents criminal violations. The new Travel 

Management Rule is one such regulation.

The Travel Management Rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor 

vehicle use, and the prohibition of cross-country, wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public. 

This is a considerable change in public motorized access management from previous conditions,

where most forests were managed as ―open to cross-country travel.‖ The implementation of 

designated routes and areas for motorized vehicles will be the responsibility of all agency 

employees, especially in the area of education and enforcement. The law enforcement program is 

primarily responsible for issuing violations to the Travel Management Rule. 

The national LEI budget is funded by appropriated funds from Congress to provide law 

enforcement services on the NFS lands. The Travel Management program is one of many forest

programs to benefit from federal law enforcement funding. For the past few years, law 

enforcement funding has increased, and that has translated into an increase in field law 

enforcement personnel1. 

To enhance enforcement of the Travel Management Rule, Region 5 Forest Recreation Programs 

have applied for and received grant dollars (green sticker funding) from the State of California 

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program. These State funds are 

earmarked specifically for enforcement of off-highway vehicle laws and regulations on the 

various forests, and are performed primarily by Forest Protection Officers (FPO). In addition, 

Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) support the FPOs as needed, especially if serious violations 

have occurred. In recent years, State law enforcement grants have ranged from three to four

million dollars annually, with similar funding anticipated for the 2008-2009 grant cycle. 

Authority and Jurisdiction

The Forest Service exercises its law enforcement authority when violation of laws or regulations 

occurs on NFS lands, or when incidents affect the NFS. The existing authorities for enforcement 

are completely adequate and no new laws will be needed to implement the Travel Management 

rule.

Every national forest has a law enforcement plan that is updated periodically. All Forest Service 

employees have a duty to know and understand their authorities and responsibilities, and to 

properly enforce laws and regulations relating to the forest within their authority and capability. 

LEI and agency personnel provide a regular and recurring presence on vast amounts of public 

land, roads, trails, and areas, and take appropriate action if illegal activity is discovered. 

Violations involving motorized vehicles are enforced by FPOs and LEOs. There may be 

agreements with local law-enforcement authorities to support Federal enforcement. These include 

violations such as operating a motor vehicle in violation of federal regulations and California 

 

1 Region 5 Law Enforcement budget figures for the past four years have increased, and the number of law enforcement 

officers has increased by 65.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

70 Appendix G--Law Enforcement

vehicle code, parking improperly, resource damage to soils, vegetation or wildlife, and disorderly 

or unruly behavior. LEOs have discretion when deciding what type of action to initiate when 

handling violations to the following federal laws that pertain specifically to motor vehicle use.

The Act of June 4, 1897 (Title 16 United States Code 551) is the authority for issuing 

regulations at Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261 (36 CFR 261). Specific 

OHV travel management regulations are in sections 261.9 – Property, 261.13 –Motor 

Vehicle Use, and 261.15 –Use of Vehicles Off-Road (see Attachment X). These CFRs 

cover a wide array of misdemeanor infractions.

The Act of March 3, 1905 (Title 16 United States Code 559) authorizes all employees of 

the Forest Service to make arrests for violation of the laws and regulations pertaining to 

national forests. Normally, arrest authority is limited to trained law enforcement 

personnel. (Any employee may take immediate action when necessary to protect life and 

prevent serious damage to or destruction of property, escape of a suspect, or loss of 

material evidence when such action can be done with reasonable safety.)

Cooperation 

The Forest Service shares responsibility and cooperates with local, State, and other Federal 

agencies in the execution of its law enforcement program. The authority for cooperation among 

agencies, especially as it pertains to Travel Management, is within the following laws: 

The act of August 10, 1971 (Title 16 United States Code 551a) authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture to cooperate with, and provide reimbursement to, any State or political 

subdivision thereof, for the enforcement of their laws within NFS. This law does not 

deprive any State or local law enforcement agency from exercising its criminal and civil 

jurisdiction on lands that are part of the NFS. 

The California Penal Code, Section 830.8, provides that Forest Service law enforcement 

personnel may exercise State Peace Officer authority where the sheriff of the county 

wherein the officer works has provided specific written permission for the officer.

The State vehicle code section 38301 allows State law enforcement officer to enforce any 

of the Federal Cars related to motor vehicles on NFS lands.2

Each forest maintains close working relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that have law enforcement responsibilities within or adjacent to the forest boundary. 

Significant cooperating agencies relative to the Travel Management Rule include the local county 

sheriff departments, the California Department of Fish and Game, California Highway Patrol, 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and occasionally one or more Federal 

agencies, depending on the violation. Forest Service law enforcement personnel cooperate fully 

with these agencies in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities by providing assistance,

liaison, advice, and information.

Forests maintain Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements with their respective county sheriff‘s 

office. In Region 5, the total cost for the 2008 Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements is 

$891,397.3These funds are for performance of duties in addition to the normal activities in which 

 

2

The State Vehicle code, section 38301. (a) It is unlawful to operate a vehicle in violation of special regulations which 

have been promulgated by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over public lands, including, but not limited to, 

regulations governing access, routes of travel, plants, wildlife habitat, water resources and historical sites. 

3 Region 5 Law Enforcement Cooperative Agreement 2008 spreadsheet. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G—Law Enforcement 71

the sheriff‘s deputies handle crimes against persons and their property that may occur within the 

NFS boundary. In these agreements, both parties recognize that public use of NFS lands is 

usually located in areas that are remote or sparsely populated, and the enforcement of State and 

local law is related to the administration and regulation of NFS lands. Within the Cooperative 

Law Enforcement Agreements, an Operating Plan is developed outlining the supplemental work 

to be performed by the cooperating agency. Relative to the Travel Management Rule, operating 

plans may provide:

Supplemental patrols in areas of high use

Supplemental patrols on weekends or during particular months of high use

Additional officers for large group gatherings or events (e.g., enduros)

Vehicle checkpoints for vehicle registration spark arrestors, and other miscellaneous 

items

Implementation and Tracking

Implementation of the Forest Service law enforcement program is continually adapting as law 

enforcement personnel assess the changing patterns of visitor use and attitudes, and the trends in 

violations, especially for property and resource damage. One method of assessment is the 

analysis of Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System 

(LEIMARS) data. LEIMARS tracks all known violations of criminal law or regulation on NFS 

lands (FSH 5309.11, chapter 40 and FSM 5340). Additionally, imbedded in LEIMARS is the 

Case Tracking System, which tracks all felony and serious misdemeanor cases.These tracking 

systems:

Capture and record information on location, volume, damages, and type of violations 

occurring on NFS lands

Provide a retrieval system of data on incidents and violations that is responsive to the 

needs of all organizational levels 

Provide agency managers with a means to identify and monitor law enforcement 

activities.

Specifically identify problem areas and periods of activity 

Provide a method to record and analyze incidents involving violations or suspected 

violations on NFS lands

Trends in violations related to the Travel Management Rule can be analyzed and appropriate 

action(s) taken, if needed. Appropriate action(s) may involve one or more techniques or adaptive 

strategies. In the law enforcement community, this is often referred to as the ―three E strategy‖ of 

engineering, education, and enforcement. With the change in the Travel Management Rule, it is 

anticipated that the law enforcement program will use a combination of strategies, especially 

during the first five years of the rule implementation. 

Implementation Strategy

Engineering, Education, and Enforcement

The Engineering strategy is designed to prevent or reduce inadvertent violations, resource 

damage, and crime vulnerability. The strategy‘s goal is to remove the opportunity to commit a 

violation. LEI personnel work with each forest, particularly the recreation and engineering 

programs, to implement some or all of the following specific tactics:
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

72 Appendix G--Law Enforcement

Proper design of improvements and facilities

Facility security measures such as installation of barricades, gates, and other natural 

obstacles

Forest signing, both directional and informational, to assist the public to ensure they stay 

on designated trails, and out of the wilderness and other sensitive areas 

Closure and rehabilitation of decommissioned roads and trails

The Educational strategy focuses on specific user groups, school groups, recreation users, and the 

public. The goal is to develop responsible and concerned public land use attitudes in forest users; 

it is violation prevention. Forest LEOs and FPOs make regular contacts in the field, informing 

the users of the regulations and need for the prohibition. The LEI personnel work with each 

forest, particularly the recreation and public information programs, to identify and implement 

some or all of the following specific tactics.

Have motor vehicle use maps easily available to public

Have route numbers visually marked on the ground

Distribute maps and brochures promoting responsible use

Conduct environmental interpretation activities in local communities, at schools, and with 

special interest groups

Use of all forms of the media (television, radio, and newspapers), especially prior to, and 

during, the high use periods 

Ensure all employees understand the Travel Management Rule

Use high visibility prevention patrols and public information checkpoints, especially 

during the peak use periods 

Encourage cooperating law enforcement agencies to make visitor contacts and provide 

violator information to forest officers 

Ride with other agency officers to demonstrate solidarity to the public

Issue news releases of arrests and successful prosecutions, including offender names, 

criminal penalties, and court ordered restitution 

The Law Enforcement strategy is to effect crime prevention measures that are designed to reduce 

specific criminal activity, deter potential and repeat offenders, maximize enforcement actions and 

visibility, and increase prosecutorial successes. All enforcement actions should result in a better 

understanding of regulations pertaining to the management of NFS lands. LEI personnel work 

with each forest, to identify and implement some or all of the following specific tactics:

Schedule officers to work during the identified problem periods, including holidays and 

weekends

Use high-profile ―saturation patrols‖ and stationary surveillance posts in the identified 

problem areas 

Use the most effective and efficient means of patrol, including foot, horseback, all-terrain 

vehicle, snowmobile, watercraft, and aircraft

Use aerial overflights to enforce restriction under Travel Management Rule

Enlist the aid of volunteers
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G—Law Enforcement 73

Initiate an awards program

Supplement patrols with cooperating law enforcement agencies in areas of concern

Use technical investigative equipment (cameras, monitors, sensors) to assist officers with 

detecting and monitoring violations at known or suspected violation sites

Conduct planned and approved compliance checkpoints

Follow up on complaints to document violations, damages, and identify suspect vehicles 

or persons

Require cooperating law enforcement agencies to assist with reporting and/or enforcing 

violations within their authority

Patrol with other cooperating law enforcement agency officers

Conduct unpredictable patrol schedules

Conduct special enforcement actions (unmarked vehicle deployment, surveillance, traffic 

checkpoints)

Use LEIMARS and Central Violations Bureau databases along with the State motor 

vehicle data, to identify repeat offenders for enhanced prosecution

Pursue court ordered restitution or civil collections for resource and property damages. 

Encourage prosecutorial and judicial support

Execute bench warrants related of off-highway vehicle violations

Assumptions

Based on many years of enforcing off-highway vehicles, implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule from a law enforcement perspective assumes the following to be true. 

Additionally, these assumptions are based on several case studies in R5 (see Attachment 1). 

These assumptions may change in time with analysis of the LEIMARS database.

Enforcement Assumptions

Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to Travel Management will be enforced 

equally in authority and weight as with all other Federal laws and regulations.

As with any change in a regulation on NFS lands, there is usually a transitional period for 

the public to understand the changes. It is anticipated there will be a higher number of 

violations to the Travel Management Rule the first few years and the number of 

violations will decline as the users understand and comply with the rules. It is assumed :

Users in communities adjacent to the forest will comply within one to two years.

Frequent users but further in distant from the forest will comply within two to three 

years.

Infrequent users, regardless of distance, may take up to five years to comply.

Law enforcement officer and agency personnel‘s presence and enforcement actions will 

positively affect OHV users‘ behaviors and attitudes.

The Travel Management Rule and associated motor vehicle use map clearly define the 

designated routes. Therefore, there would be no doubt about violations.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

74 Appendix G--Law Enforcement

Once the motor use vehicle map is published, the implementation of the established 

dedicated network of roads, trails, and areas with signs, and user education programs, 

will reduce the number of violations. 

FPOs spend a large percentage of their time on Travel Management issues, and 

depending on the forest the estimate range from 30 to 50 percent. LEOs spend 

approximately 10 to 20 percent of their time on enforcement of off-highway vehicle 

issues.4

Agency Funding Assumptions

Appropriated program funding levels and number of law enforcement personnel does not affect 

enforcement of the Travel Management Rule. All laws and regulations are enforced equally.

Appropriated funds will remain level or increase slightly in the next five years.

The State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program (green 

sticker funding) enhances and provides additional law enforcement presence in the field at the 

forest level. 

Public Attitude and Compliance Assumptions

Forest users want to do the right thing and will obey the rule5, once they understand the 

rule and motor vehicle use map.

User compliance6is based on the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle 

Recreation Division data and is anticipated to be as follows: 

95 percent of the users are fully compliant.

2 to 3 percent of the users think about and may violate a law.

1 to 2 percent of the users will violate the law.

Measures of Success 

Measuring the success of the Travel Management Rule from a law enforcement perspective will 

be done using the LEIMARS database. An analysis of the data may alert a forest to a particular 

problem area for violations, such as a group campsite area that may be surrounded by flat 

meadow areas inviting riders to potentially violate the regulation. A successful program will see a 

positive change in the following measures: 

Measure 1: A reduction in the number of off-route travel violations

Measure 2: A reduction in the number of resource damage violations

 

4

Barnett, G. 2004-2005 Law Enforcement Workload Analysis.

5

Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 320

6

User compliance was computed by using the State Vehicular Recreation Area Fiscal year 2006/2007 data: 4.2M SVRA 

visitors divided by the 210,000 citations written, is approximately 5 percent non-compliant, and 95% compliant. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix H—Maintenance Backlog 75

Appendix H: Information on Maintenance 

Backlog

The table below (Table K-1) shows the deferred maintenance backlog for our maintenance level 

(ML) 3,4, and 5 roads. It is based on condition surveys done on 98.46% of ML 3 roads and 100% 

of ML 4&5 roads; the reporting year was 2007. The remaining 1.54% of the ML 3 roads was 

extrapolated from the ones that were done. It shows a deferred maintenance backlog of 

$9,087,533 for the ML 3,4, and 5 roads.

For the ML 1 and 2 roads, condition surveys have only been done on a very small percentage 

(0.09%), so this data is not valid to extrapolate to the remainder. Most of the ML 1 and 2 roads do 

not need much work. The deferred maintenance on these roads is about $500 per mile. This is 

based on almost all of them needing a route marker installed, and some minor drainage or 

clearing work. The current number of miles, based on objective maintenance levels, is 3,491 

miles of ML 2 and 256 miles of ML 1. At $500 per mile, the deferred maintenance estimate for 

ML 1&2 roads is $1,873,500.

The total deferred maintenance estimate for roads is then $10,961,033, or in round numbers 

$11,000,000.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

76 Appendix H—Maintenance Backlog

Figure K-1. Data on Maintenance Backlog (2007 data)

Maint. level All miles Existing miles Sample miles Sample 

percent

Reason Priority Needed funds Extrapolated 

funds

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 forest mission critical 18,6400 2,915

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 forest mission noncritical1160,755 18,155

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 health and safety critical 260,240 4,070

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 health and safety noncritical91,120 1,425

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 resource protection critical 50,391 788

3 703.4 703.4 692.565 98.46 resource protection noncritical6795,671 106,290

4 13.09 13.09 13.09 100 forest mission noncritical19,325 0

4 13.09 13.09 13.09 100 health and safety critical 812 0

4 13.09 13.09 13.09 100 health and safety noncritical311 0

4 13.09 13.09 13.09 100 resource protection noncritical292,406 0

5 18.364 18.364 18.364 100 forest mission noncritical16,025 0

5 18.364 18.364 18.364 100 health and safety critical 678 0

5 18.364 18.364 18.364 100 health and safety noncritical756 0

5 18.364 18.364 18.364 100 resource protection critical 148 0

5 18.364 18.364 18.364 100 resource protection noncritical78,850 0

Totals $8,953,888 $133,645

Total of needed and extrapolated funds for ML 3,4, &5 roads $9,087,533
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix H—Maintenance Backlog 77

Total of deferred maintenance estimate for ML 1&2 roads $1,873,500

Total of deferred maintenance estimate for all roads $10,961,033

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 79

Appendix I: Goshawk Habitat I

Table L-1. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index And Security Index Rank And Ratings Where There Are At Least 200 Acres Of NFS Within The Watershed 

(HUC)—Alternative 1

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of

all acres

in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Acres of 

NF habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat (NF) 

w/in 200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands only)

Security Index 

Rank

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 155.7 15% Low 561.2 46% High

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 312.0 11% Low 1181.9 59% Moderate

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.8 8284.8 57% 1042.3 13% Low 3543.0 57% Moderate

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.7 277.7 2% 54.0 19% Low 204.0 27% High

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.7 767.8 6% 134.7 18% Low 392.6 49% High

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 48.4 11% Low 166.2 61% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek - North 25038.1 12896.4 8071.5 63% 1237.9 15% Low 3663.6 55% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek- South 16350.0 11917.6 3792.6 32% 657.1 17% Low 2389.1 37% High

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 255.1 12% Low 1053.1 50% Moderate

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.8 7010.9 58% 1318.0 19% Low 4342.0 38% High

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 44.2 7% Low 198.7 67% Moderate

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 105.7 7% Low 364.8 76% Low

East Creek 29458.5 29035.7 6007.4 21% 922.4 15% Low 3054.2 49% High

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.6 496.5 5% 95.6 19% Low 298.8 40% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

80 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of

all acres

in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Acres of 

NF habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat (NF) 

w/in 200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands only)

Security Index 

Rank

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.2 6611.1 50% 1059.6 16% Low 3257.5 51% Moderate

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.7 267.9 1% 52.2 19% Low 162.2 39% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 21.2 9% Low 60.7 74% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 457.1 17% Low 1682.0 37% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.6 1230.6 12% 190.4 15% Low 686.8 44% High

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 516.8 12% Low 1867.4 57% Moderate

Kephart 56959.8 38508.8 2416.6 6% 379.9 16% Low 1346.5 44% High

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.1 5600.3 44% 1151.1 21% Low 3695.8 34% High

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.6 340.9 1% 82.3 24% Low 249.7 27% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.4 2823.1 16% 502.6 18% Low 1771.3 37% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 534.9 23% Low 1604.6 32% High

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.9 210.9 1% 47.5 23% Low 156.5 26% High

Lower West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake

18149.3 11465.7 4780.1 42% 676.3 14% Low 2155.7 55% Moderate

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.8 570.8 5% 70.0 12% Low 260.7 54% Moderate

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8 3183.2 37% 186.5 6% Low 720.7 77% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 664.9 21% Low 2030.2 35% High

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.7 282.7 1% 44.5 16% Low 183.2 35% High

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.5 9778.6 51% 735.2 8% Low 2898.2 70% Moderate

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 64.2 8% Low 267.4 68% Moderate

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.7 21% Low 127.5 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.5 7386.1 40% 493.4 7% Low 1779.5 76% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 81

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of

all acres

in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Acres of 

NF habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat (NF) 

w/in 200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands only)

Security Index 

Rank

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali Lake 33370.8 15619.5 4351.5 28% 641.0 15% Low 2007.3 54% Moderate

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.1 13042.8 61% 2510.3 19% Low 8497.3 35% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 207.4 11% Low 699.9 62% Moderate

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 164.5 16% Low 488.2 53% Moderate

Pine Creek south 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 478.9 8% Low 1808.4 70% Low

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderate

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.6 1022.3 9% 244.9 24% Low 629.4 38% High

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.9 1392.9 10% 149.8 11% Low 544.4 61% Moderate

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 585.6 24% Low 1807.0 27% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.0 8729.5 34% 1693.8 19% Low 5363.5 39% High

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.7 6164.5 48% 892.4 14% Low 2734.5 56% Moderate

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.0 1305.8 10% 252.2 19% Low 864.0 34% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 245.4 24% Low 665.0 35% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.1 9230.9 24% 1878.7 20% Low 5490.6 41% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 115.9 19% Low 391.0 36% High

Southwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake

38038.8 18510.5 4415.2 24% 295.6 7% Low 899.2 80% Low

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.9 3610.2 14% 583.8 16% Low 2091.3 42% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.8 797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 457.8 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 112.8 4% Low 499.9 82% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.8 2304.1 3% 367.5 16% Low 1187.5 48% High

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 227.3 19% Low 842.3 30% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

82 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of

all acres

in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Acres of 

NF habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat (NF) 

w/in 200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands only)

Security Index 

Rank

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.5 14% Low 217.4 61% Moderate

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.8 251.0 2% 46.8 19% Low 150.1 40% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 13.0 2% Low 89.9 87% Low

Upper West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake

28856.1 12213.2 4623.9 38% 494.3 11% Low 1484.0 68% Moderate

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.8 428.6 3% 73.7 17% Low 218.7 49% High

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.5 268.9 2% 69.8 26% Low 199.7 26% High

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.9 377.5 2% 65.8 17% Low 289.6 23% High

West Shore Lower Alkali Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 286.6 10% Low 980.8 67% Moderate

West Shore Middle Alkali Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 148.5 9% Low 538.2 68% Moderate

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.9 9073.7 34% 1645.8 18% Low 5757.5 37% High

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 110.6 30% Moderate 291.0 20% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.7 4758.2 32% 439.5 9% Low 1666.8 65% Moderate
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 83

Table L-2. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index And Security Index Rank And Ratings Where There Are At Least 200 Ac Of NFS Within The Watershed 

(HUC)—Alternatives 2 And 5

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all acres in 

all ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 322.8 11% Low 1177.8 59% Moderate

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.8 8284.8 57% 1084.1 13% Low 3696.4 55% Moderate

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.7 277.7 2% 53.8 19% Low 180.1 35% High

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.7 767.8 6% 50.3 7% Low 196.0 74% Low

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9 15% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek N 25307.1 12896.4 8071.5 63% 1315.8 16% Low 3802.6 53% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek S 16350.0 11917.6 3792.6 32% 649.9 17% Low 2331.7 39% High

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 283.0 13% Low 1065.0 50% Moderate

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.8 7010.9 58% 1250.2 18% Low 4119.0 41% High

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 66.7 11% Low 277.5 54% Moderate

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

East Creek 29458.5 29035.7 6007.4 21% 830.1 14% Low 2791.8 54% Moderate

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.6 496.5 5% 91.7 18% Low 265.6 47% High

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.2 6611.1 50% 1119.6 17% Low 3370.7 49% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.7 267.9 1% 52.2 19% Low 162.2 39% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

84 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Headwaters North Fork Pit River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 424.1 16% Low 1601.5 40% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.6 1230.6 12% 182.9 15% Low 683.6 44% High

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2 12% Low 1826.7 58% Moderate

Kephart 56959.8 38508.8 2416.6 6% 419.3 17% Low 1445.3 40% High

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.1 5600.3 44% 950.4 17% Low 3317.0 41% High

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.6 340.9 1% 82.3 24% Low 249.7 27% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.4 2823.1 16% 513.1 18% Low 1796.9 36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5 22% Low 1591.9 33% High

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58% Moderate

Lower West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake

18149.3 11465.7 4780.1 42% 556.0 12% Low 1827.5 62% Moderate

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.8 570.8 5% 68.6 12% Low 261.3 54% Moderate

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8 3183.2 37% 156.9 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 646.4 21% Low 1969.5 37% High

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.7 282.7 1% 44.0 16% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.5 9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low 1398.0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1 20% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.5 7386.1 40% 500.1 7% Low 1836.3 75% Low

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake

33370.8 15619.5 4351.5 28% 555.5 13% Low 1850.1 57% Moderate

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.1 13042.8 61% 2576.2 20% Low 8862.8 32% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7 14% Low 826.4 55% Moderate

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 183.1 18% Low 533.8 48% High

Pine Creek south 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.3 77% Low

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderate

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.6 1022.3 9% 245.1 24% Low 622.9 39% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 85

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.9 1392.9 10% 158.1 11% Low 577.7 59% Moderate

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 537.8 22% Low 1754.3 29% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.0 8729.5 34% 1749.9 20% Low 5414.0 38% High

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.7 6164.5 48% 719.9 12% Low 2417.6 61% Moderate

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.0 1305.8 10% 261.1 20% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 226.0 22% Low 643.7 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.1 9230.9 24% 1925.8 21% Low 5517.6 40% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9 24% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake

38038.8 18510.5 4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.9 3610.2 14% 646.6 18% Low 2159.4 40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.8 797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 454.9 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.8 2304.1 3% 434.4 19% Low 1417.5 38% High

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0 11% Low 550.5 54% Moderate

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3 13% Low 211.0 62% Moderate

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.8 251.0 2% 48.4 19% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake

28856.1 12213.2 4623.9 38% 438.5 9% Low 1370.8 70% Moderate

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.8 428.6 3% 73.3 17% Low 228.7 47% High

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.5 268.9 2% 63.8 24% Low 186.6 31% High

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.9 377.5 2% 61.5 16% Low 278.4 26% High

West Shore Lower Alkali Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 411.3 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.9 9073.7 34% 1668.0 18% Low 5899.7 35% High

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 103.0 28% Low 284.0 22% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

86 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Table L-3. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index And Security Index Rank And Ratings Where There Are At Least 200 Acres Of NFS Within The Watershed 

(HUC)—Alternative 3

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 317.3 11% Low 1161.3 60% Moderate

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.8 8284.8 57% 1002.5 12% Low 3581.3 57% Moderate

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.7 277.7 2% 53.7 19% Low 176.4 36% High

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.7 767.8 6% 49.7 6% Low 196.0 74% Low

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9 15% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek - North 25037.1 12896.4 8071.5 63% 1251.2 16% Low 3774.1 53% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek-South 16350.0 11917.6 3792.6 32% 648.7 17% Low 2331.7 39% High

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 261.7 12% Low 995.3 53% Moderate

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.8 7010.9 58% 1209.4 17% Low 3990.0 43% High

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 64.5 11% Low 270.5 55% Moderate

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.7 4758.2 32% 446.8 9% Low 1665.5 65% Moderate
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 87

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

East Creek 29458.5 29035.7 6007.4 21% 809.3 13% Low 2756.4 54% Moderate

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.6 496.5 5% 91.7 18% Low 265.6 47% High

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.2 6611.1 50% 1119.0 17% Low 3370.7 49% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.7 267.9 1% 52.1 19% Low 158.2 41% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 401.9 15% Low 1545.5 42% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.6 1230.6 12% 182.9 15% Low 683.6 44% High

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2 12% Low 1826.7 58% Moderate

Kephart 56959.8 38508.8 2416.6 6% 405.1 17% Low 1412.5 42% High

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.1 5600.3 44% 848.7 15% Low 3055.3 45% High

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.6 340.9 1% 79.5 23% Low 230.4 32% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.4 2823.1 16% 513.1 18% Low 1796.9 36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5 22% Low 1591.9 33% High

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58% Moderate

Lower West Shore Upper Alkali

Lake 18149.3 11465.7 4780.1 42% 502.5 11% Low 1700.6 64% Moderate

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.8 570.8 5% 68.6 12% Low 261.3 54% Moderate

Messenger Gulch East 23977.2 8602.8 3138.2 36% 156.9 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 646.4 21% Low 1969.5 37% High

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.7 282.7 1% 43.8 15% Low 182.1 36% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

88 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.5 9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low 1398.0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1 20% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.5 7386.1 40% 500.0 7% Low 1835.9 75% Low

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali Lake 33370.8 15619.5 4351.5 28% 520.1 12% Low 1761.8 60% Moderate

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.1 13042.8 61% 2454.7 19% Low 8625.8 34% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7 14% Low 826.4 55% Moderate

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 179.0 17% Low 524.7 49% High

Pine Creek South 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.3 77% Low

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderate

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.6 1022.3 9% 245.1 24% Low 622.9 39% High

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.9 1392.9 10% 158.1 11% Low 577.7 59% Moderate

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 482.4 19% Low 1614.5 35% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.0 8729.5 34% 1749.9 20% Low 5414.0 38% High

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.7 6164.5 48% 708.9 11% Low 2389.9 61% Moderate

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.0 1305.8 10% 261.1 20% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 225.7 22% Low 643.4 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.1 9230.9 24% 1703.4 18% Low 5103.3 45% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9 24% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle Alkali Lake 38038.8 18510.5 4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.9 3610.2 14% 646.6 18% Low 2159.4 40% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 89

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.8 797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 453.4 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.8 2304.1 3% 395.5 17% Low 1322.4 43% High

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0 11% Low 550.5 54% Moderate

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3 13% Low 211.0 62% Moderate

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.8 251.0 2% 48.4 19% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake 28856.1 12213.2 4623.9 38% 349.6 8% Low 1291.9 72% Low

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.8 428.6 3% 73.3 17% Low 228.7 47% High

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.5 268.9 2% 63.8 24% Low 186.6 31% High

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.9 377.5 2% 57.7 15% Low 266.6 29% High

West Shore Lower Alkali Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 409.8 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.9 9073.7 34% 1565.7 17% Low 5658.6 38% High

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 90.5 25% Low 279.3 23% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.7 4758.2 32% 420.9 9% Low 1607.1 66% Moderate
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

90 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Table L-4. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index And Security Index Rank And Ratings Where There Is At Least 200 Ac Of NFS Within The Watershed (HUC) 

Alternative 4

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 322.8 11% Low 1177.

8

59% Moderat

e

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.

8

8284.8 57% 1065.

0

13% Low 3643.

7

56% Moderat

e

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.

7

277.7 2% 53.7 19% Low 176.7 36% High

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.

7

767.8 6% 50.3 7% Low 196.0 74% Low

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9 15% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek - South 16350.0 11917.

6

3792.6 32% 815.8 22% Low 2331.

7

39% High

Cottonwood Creek- North 25037.1 12896.

4

8071.5 63% 1413.

7

18% Low 3802.

0

53% Moderat

e

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 283.0 13% Low 1065.

0

50% Moderat

e

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.

8

7010.9 58% 1250.

2

18% Low 4118.

0

41% High

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 66.7 11% Low 277.5 54% Moderat

e

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100

%

Low

East Creek 29458.5 29035.

7

6007.4 21% 830.1 14% Low 2791.

8

54% Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 91

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.

6

496.5 5% 91.7 18% Low 265.6 47% High

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.

2

6611.1 50% 1119.

6

17% Low 3370.

7

49% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.

7

267.9 1% 52.2 19% Low 162.2 39% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit 

River

26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 424.1 16% Low 1601.

5

40% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.

6

1230.6 12% 182.9 15% Low 683.6 44% High

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2 12% Low 1826.

7

58% Moderat

e

Kephart 56959.8 38508.

8

2416.6 6% 411.8 17% Low 1417.

4

41% High

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.

1

5600.3 44% 942.1 17% Low 3293.

0

41% High

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.

6

340.9 1% 82.3 24% Low 249.7 27% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.

4

2823.1 16% 513.1 18% Low 1796.

9

36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5 22% Low 1591.

9

33% High

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.

9

210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58% Moderat

e

Lower West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake

18149.3 11465.

7

4780.1 42% 523.5 11% Low 1724.

2

64% Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

92 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.

8

570.8 5% 68.6 12% Low 261.3 54% Moderat

e

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8 3183.2 37% 157.1 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 676.3 22% Low 1969.

5

37% High

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.

7

282.7 1% 44.0 16% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.

5

9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low 1398.

0

86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1 20% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.

5

7386.1 40% 500.1 7% Low 1836.

3

75% Low

Northwest Shore Middle 

Alkali Lake

33370.8 15619.

5

4351.5 28% 550.0 13% Low 1844.

2

58% Moderat

e

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.

1

13042.

8

61% 2575.

5

20% Low 8862.

8

32% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7 14% Low 826.4 55% Moderat

e

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.

6

1028.0 5% 183.1 18% Low 533.8 48% High

Pine Creek south 19547.9 11943.

3

6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.

3

77% Low

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderat

e

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.

6

1022.3 9% 245.1 24% Low 622.9 39% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I--Goshawk Habitat I 93

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.

9

1392.9 10% 158.1 11% Low 577.7 59% Moderat

e

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 537.8 22% Low 1754.

3

29% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.

0

8729.5 34% 1749.

9

20% Low 5414.

0

38% High

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.

7

6164.5 48% 719.9 12% Low 2417.

6

61% Moderat

e

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.

0

1305.8 10% 261.1 20% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 226.0 22% Low 643.7 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.

1

9230.9 24% 1885.

9

20% Low 5436.

7

41% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9 24% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle 

Alkali Lake

38038.8 18510.

5

4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100

%

Low

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.

9

3610.2 14% 646.6 18% Low 2159.

4

40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.

8

797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 454.9 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.

8

2304.1 3% 402.7 17% Low 1329.

9

42% High

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0 11% Low 550.5 54% Moderat

e

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3 13% Low 211.0 62% Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

94 Appendix I—Goshawk Habitat I

Watershed (HUC) Name Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 50m 

road buffer

Road 

buffer as 

% of 

habitat in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.

8

251.0 2% 48.4 19% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake

28856.1 12213.

2

4623.9 38% 434.2 9% Low 1362.

1

71% Low

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.

8

428.6 3% 73.3 17% Low 228.7 47% High

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.

5

268.9 2% 63.8 24% Low 186.6 31% High

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.

9

377.5 2% 59.3 16% Low 272.4 28% High

West Shore Lower Alkali 

Lake

16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake

15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 409.8 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.

9

9073.7 34% 1664.

9

18% Low 5899.

7

35% High

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 103.0 28% Low 284.0 22% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.

7

4758.2 32% 437.0 9% Low 1638.

5

66% Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 95

Appendix J: Goshawk Habitat II

Table M-1. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index And Security Index Rank And Ratings By Watershed (HUC) For Alternative 4

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Above Weed Valley 

Reservoir 33815.8 7912.3 60.2 1% 3.9 7% Low 26.3 56%

Moderat

e

Antelope Reservoir 21849.9

21510.

7 0.0

Armentrout Flat 20083.0 3627.3 115.6 3% 22.4

19

% Low 77.0 33% High

Badger Basin 34607.9 0.2 0.1

64

% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 95% Low

Baker And Thomas 

Reservoirs 25280.6

24969.

8 0.0

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5

1046.

9

46

% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1

2883.

6

38

% 322.8

11

% Low

1177.

8 59%

Moderat

e

Bidwell Creek 19501.8

14596.

8

8284.

8

57

%

1065.

0

13

% Low

3643.

7 56%

Moderat

e

Big And Little Juniper Creeks 21384.9 1947.1 0.0 0%

Big Sage Reservoir 25584.6 24600. 0.0 0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

96 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

3

Big Swamp 30138.3 2214.6 75.5 3% 0.0 0% Low 0.8 99% Low

Blacks Canyon 23132.0

14454.

7 277.7 2% 53.7

19

% Low 176.7 36% High

Boles Meadow 26436.8

25317.

5 0.0 0%

Butte Creek 24861.6 4262.5 52.8 1% 0.2 0% Low 8.4 84% Low

Canby-Pit River 38873.0

12359.

7 767.8 6% 50.3 7% Low 196.0 74% Low

Clarks Valley 10505.3 1347.6 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow Northwest 57800.1

30184.

4 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow South 28788.8

27795.

1 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 2.5 38% High

Copic 17513.1 1109.8 0.0 0%

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9

15

% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek - South 16350.0

11917.

6

3792.

6

32

% 815.8

22

% Low

2331.

7 39% High

Cottonwood Creek- North 25037.1

12896.

4

8071.

5

63

%

1413.

7

18

% Low

3802.

0 53%

Moderat

e

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1

2109.

9

53

% 283.0

13

% Low

1065.

0 50%

Moderat

e

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159. 7010. 58 1250. 18 Low 4118. 41% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 97

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

8 9 % 2 % 0

Delta Lake 19024.5 1130.9 198.7

18

% 1.6 1% Low 19.3 90% Low

Dobe Swale 14554.1 7931.0 3.6 0% 1.6

44

%

Moderat

e 3.6 0% High

Double Head Mountain 35306.3

33297.

2 0.0 0%

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6

25

% 66.7

11

% Low 277.5 54%

Moderat

e

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6

1518.

2

29

% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

East Branch Lost River 17249.0 3712.1 0.0 0%

East Creek 29458.5

29035.

7

6007.

4

21

% 830.1

14

% Low

2791.

8 54%

Moderat

e

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0

10371

.6 496.5 5% 91.7

18

% Low

265.

6

47

% High

East Tule Lake Valley 45783.3 0.0

Egg Lake 20200.5

5024.

6 23.1 0% 2.9

13

% Low 10.1

56

%

Modera

te

Fairchild Swamp 18700.9

18700

.9 8.2 0% 0.5 7% Low 3.2

61

%

Modera

te

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2

13146

.2

6611.

1

50

%

1119

.6

17

% Low

3370

.7

49

% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927 267.9 1% 52.2 19 Low 162. 39 High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

98 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

.7 % 2 %

Gleason Creek 10621.3

1501.

5 235.9

16

% 12.4 5% Low 34.2

85

% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit 

River 26218.3

9697.

6

2684.

5

28

%

424.

1

16

% Low

1601

.5

40

% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9

10560

.6

1230.

6

12

%

182.

9

15

% Low

683.

6

44

% High

Ingall Swamp 19565.1

18496

.6 0.0 0%

Jim Creek 16455.2

1476.

0 86.5 6% 41.7

48

%

Modera

te 72.3

16

% High

Jim Horn Ranch 11225.8

1953.

4 0.0 0%

Joseph Creek 12321.5

8231.

6

4303.

8

52

%

510.

2

12

% Low

1826

.7

58

%

Modera

te

Kephart 56959.8

38508

.8

2416.

6 6%

411.

8

17

% Low

1417

.4

41

% High

Knobcone Butte 24308.1

23740

.8 41.0 0% 4.5

11

% Low 19.2

53

%

Modera

te

Laird Landing 21728.6

9695.

4 4.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Lake Annie 13828.9

2764.

9 106.7 4% 5.1 5% Low 29.5

72

% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 99

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Lassen Creek 15654.3

12749

.1

5600.

3

44

%

942.

1

17

% Low

3293

.0

41

% High

Little Willow Creek 14137.6

14137

.6 5.4 0% 0.0 0% Low 1.9

65

%

Modera

te

Logan Slough 37400.2

37174

.0 0.0 0%

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6

23296

.6 340.9 1% 82.3

24

% Low

249.

7

27

% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9

18158

.4

2823.

1

16

%

513.

1

18

% Low

1796

.9

36

% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3

7105.

0

2371.

4

33

%

532.

5

22

% Low

1591

.9

33

% High

Lower Boles Creek 18618.9

18167

.4 0.0 0%

Lower Clover Swale 

Creek 21268.8

9988.

9 0.0 0%

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2

31110

.9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9

58

%

Modera

te

Lower Juniper Creek 12008.4

4783.

8 167.5 4% 28.0

17

% Low

105.

4

37

% High

Lower North Fork Pit River 14755.2

6714.

9 0.0 0%

Lower North Fork Willow 25207.5 24565 28.1 0% 9.3 33 Modera 21.3 24 High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

100 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Creek .4 % te %

Lower Rattlesnake Creek 16275.2

6124.

1 0.0 0%

Lower Warm Springs 

Valley 17963.2 239.2 0.0 0%

Lower West Shore Goose 

Lake 37205.9

27165

.4 105.0 0% 4.6 4% Low 19.8

81

% Low

Lower West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake 18149.3

11465.

7

4780.

1

42

% 523.5

11

% Low

1724.

2 64%

Moderat

e

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9

11200.

8 570.8 5% 68.6

12

% Low 261.3 54%

Moderat

e

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8

3183.

2

37

% 157.1 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1

3120.

8

32

% 676.3

22

% Low

1969.

5 37% High

Middle Ash Creek 13389.5 1802.4 6.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2

26799.

7 282.7 1% 44.0

16

% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0

19190.

5

9778.

6

51

% 448.2 5% Low

1398.

0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7

20

% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mosquito Creek-Bayley Tank 24712.7

16429.

9 116.4 1% 13.7

12

% Low 57.6 51%

Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 101

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Mowitz Creek 56660.1

49739.

1 67.0 0% 13.9

21

% Low 52.5 22% High

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1

20

% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8

18325.

5

7386.

1

40

% 500.1 7% Low

1836.

3 75% Low

North Of Horse Mountain 18038.2 0.0

Northwest Shore Middle 

Alkali Lake 33370.8

15619.

5

4351.

5

28

% 550.0

13

% Low

1844.

2 58%

Moderat

e

Old Camp One 36091.5

21510.

1

13042

.8

61

%

2575.

5

20

% Low

8862.

8 32% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5

1822.

8

29

% 254.7

14

% Low 826.4 55%

Moderat

e

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 183.1 18% Low 533.8 48% High

Pine Creek 23614.0 53.2 19.2 36% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Pine Creek south 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.3 77% Low

Pothole Valley 14309.8 13836.3 4.6 0% 1.4 30% Moderate 4.6 0% High

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8

36

% 98.6

12

% Low 345.3 58%

Moderat

e

Rimrock Lake 14873.4

14873.

4 0.0 0%

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1

11483.

6

1022.

3 9% 245.1

24

% Low 622.9 39% High

Rock Creek 45912.5

25091.

3 0.2 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

102 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Rose Canyon 18125.5

13713.

9

1392.

9

10

% 158.1

11

% Low 577.7 59%

Moderat

e

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5

2475.

4

48

% 537.8

22

% Low

1754.

3 29% High

Rush Creek 36405.2

25419.

0

8729.

5

34

%

1749.

9

20

% Low

5414.

0 38% High

Said Valley Reservoir 13108.8 3489.5 9.5 0% 0.0 0% Low 3.9 59%

Moderat

e

Service Gulch 18142.2 2729.6 144.9 5% 22.6

16

% Low 83.6 42% High

Sheep Camp 31128.3

25256.

6 0.0 0%

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0

12795.

7

6164.

5

48

% 719.9

12

% Low

2417.

6 61%

Moderat

e

South Big Swamp 16003.7 3110.1 115.5 4% 23.9

21

% Low 80.2 31% High

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9

13707.

0

1305.

8

10

% 261.1

20

% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5

1026.

3

72

% 226.0

22

% Low 643.7 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0

38510.

1

9230.

9

24

%

1885.

9

20

% Low

5436.

7 41% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9

24

% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle 38038.8 18510. 4415. 24 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100 Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 103

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Alkali Lake 5 2 % %

Spaulding Butte 30032.1

29123.

0 4.7 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Spooner Trough Canyon 15242.2 197.1 0.0 0%

Steele Swamp 16340.4

13486.

5 158.2 1% 20.6

13

% Low 92.2 42% High

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8

25094.

9

3610.

2

14

% 646.6

18

% Low

2159.

4 40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9

16320.

8 797.4 5% 158.9

20

% Low 454.9 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4

2799.

6

35

% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1

66514.

8

2304.

1 3% 402.7

17

% Low

1329.

9 42% High

Upper Ash Valley 34892.9 7022.4 70.1 1% 8.9

13

% Low 35.3 50%

Moderat

e

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8

1198.

7

41

% 135.0

11

% Low 550.5 54%

Moderat

e

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0

40

% 74.3

13

% Low 211.0 62%

Moderat

e

Upper Fletcher Creek 11239.4

11205.

6 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Upper Lost River 31724.4 0.0

Upper Lost River Frontal 16716.6

14139.

3 0.0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

104 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5

14868.

8 251.0 2% 48.4

19

% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1

12

% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper Warm Springs Valley 26074.7 7425.9 0.0

Upper West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake 28856.1

12213.

2

4623.

9

38

% 434.2 9% Low

1362.

1 71% Low

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3

14981.

8 428.6 3% 73.3

17

% Low 228.7 47% High

Van Sickle Lake 37251.5 4344.5 0.0 0%

Wagontire Creek 26475.3

11980.

5 268.9 2% 63.8

24

% Low 186.6 31% High

Warm Creek 27773.8 8806.2 21.9 0% 7.6

35

%

Moderat

e 16.7 24% High

Washington Creek 21999.0

21789.

9 377.5 2% 59.3

16

% Low 272.4 28% High

West Shore Lower Alkali 

Lake 16687.3 7113.4

2969.

5

42

% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 15403.2 6672.0

1658.

7

25

% 125.5 8% Low 409.8 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9

26529.

9

9073.

7

34

%

1664.

9

18

% Low

5899.

7 35% High

Wild Horse Creek 17140.2 9775.5 63.7 1% 0.7 1% Low 34.1 47% High

Wiley Ranch 45208.7 0.0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 105

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nation

al 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habita

t

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habitat 

in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 103.0

28

% Low 284.0 22% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6

14809.

7

4758.

2

32

% 437.0 9% Low

1638.

5 66%

Moderat

e

Table M-2. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index and Security Index Rank and Ratings by Watershed (HUC) for Alternatives 2 and 5

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Above Weed Valley Reservoir 33815.8 7912.3 60.2 1% 6.7 11% Low 30.3 50% Moderate

Antelope Reservoir 21849.9 21510.7 0.0

Armentrout Flat 20083.0 3627.3 115.6 3% 22.4 19% Low 77.0 33% High

Badger Basin 34607.9 0.2 0.1 64% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 95% Low

Baker And Thomas Reservoirs 25280.6 24969.8 0.0

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 322.8 11% Low 1177.8 59% Moderate

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.8 8284.8 57% 1084.1 13% Low 3696.4 55% Moderate

Big And Little Juniper Creeks 21384.9 1947.1 0.0 0%

Big Sage Reservoir 25584.6 24600.3 0.0 0%

Big Swamp 30138.3 2214.6 75.5 3% 0.0 0% Low 0.8 99% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

106 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.7 277.7 2% 53.8 19% Low 180.1 35% High

Boles Meadow 26436.8 25317.5 0.0 0%

Butte Creek 24861.6 4262.5 52.8 1% 0.2 0% Low 8.4 84% Low

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.7 767.8 6% 50.3 7% Low 196.0 74% Low

Clarks Valley 10505.3 1347.6 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow Northwest 57800.1 30184.4 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow South 28788.8 27795.1 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 2.5 38% High

Copic 17513.1 1109.8 0.0 0%

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9 15% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek N 25307.1 12896.4 8071.5 63% 1315.8 16% Low 3802.6 53% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek S 16350.0 11917.6 3792.6 32% 649.9 17% Low 2331.7 39% High

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 283.0 13% Low 1065.0 50% Moderate

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.8 7010.9 58% 1250.2 18% Low 4119.0 41% High

Delta Lake 19024.5 1130.9 198.7 18% 1.6 1% Low 19.3 90% Low

Dobe Swale 14554.1 7931.0 3.6 0% 1.6 44% Moderate 3.6 0% High

Double Head Mountain 35306.3 33297.2 0.0 0%

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 66.7 11% Low 277.5 54% Moderate

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

East Branch Lost River 17249.0 3712.1 0.0 0%

East Creek 29458.5 29035.7 6007.4 21% 830.1 14% Low 2791.8 54% Moderate

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.6 496.5 5% 91.7 18% Low 265.6 47% High

East Tule Lake Valley 45783.3 0.0

Egg Lake 20200.5 5024.6 23.1 0% 2.9 13% Low 10.1 56% Moderate

Fairchild Swamp 18700.9 18700.9 8.2 0% 0.5 7% Low 3.2 61% Moderate

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.2 6611.1 50% 1119.6 17% Low 3370.7 49% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 107

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.7 267.9 1% 52.2 19% Low 162.2 39% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 424.1 16% Low 1601.5 40% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.6 1230.6 12% 182.9 15% Low 683.6 44% High

Ingall Swamp 19565.1 18496.6 0.0 0%

Jim Creek 16455.2 1476.0 86.5 6% 41.7 48% Moderate 72.3 16% High

Jim Horn Ranch 11225.8 1953.4 0.0 0%

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2 12% Low 1826.7 58% Moderate

Kephart 56959.8 38508.8 2416.6 6% 419.3 17% Low 1445.3 40% High

Knobcone Butte 24308.1 23740.8 41.0 0% 6.0 15% Low 28.5 31% High

Laird Landing 21728.6 9695.4 4.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Lake Annie 13828.9 2764.9 106.7 4% 5.1 5% Low 29.5 72% Low

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.1 5600.3 44% 950.4 17% Low 3317.0 41% High

Little Willow Creek 14137.6 14137.6 5.4 0% 0.0 0% Low 1.9 65% Moderate

Logan Slough 37400.2 37174.0 0.0 0%

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.6 340.9 1% 82.3 24% Low 249.7 27% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.4 2823.1 16% 513.1 18% Low 1796.9 36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5 22% Low 1591.9 33% High

Lower Boles Creek 18618.9 18167.4 0.0 0%

Lower Clover Swale Creek 21268.8 9988.9 0.0 0%

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58% Moderate

Lower Juniper Creek 12008.4 4783.8 167.5 4% 28.0 17% Low 105.4 37% High

Lower North Fork Pit River 14755.2 6714.9 0.0 0%

Lower North Fork Willow Creek 25207.5 24565.4 28.1 0% 9.3 33% Moderate 21.3 24% High

Lower Rattlesnake Creek 16275.2 6124.1 0.0 0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

108 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Lower Warm Springs Valley 17963.2 239.2 0.0 0%

Lower West Shore Goose Lake 37205.9 27165.4 105.0 0% 4.6 4% Low 19.8 81% Low

Lower West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake 18149.3 11465.7 4780.1 42% 556.0 12% Low 1827.5 62% Moderate

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.8 570.8 5% 68.6 12% Low 261.3 54% Moderate

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8 3183.2 37% 156.9 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 646.4 21% Low 1969.5 37% High

Middle Ash Creek 13389.5 1802.4 6.3 0% 0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.7 282.7 1% 44.0 16% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.5 9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low 1398.0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mosquito Creek-Bayley Tank 24712.7 16429.9 116.4 1% 13.7 12% Low 57.6 51% Moderate

Mowitz Creek 56660.1 49739.1 67.0 0% 13.9 21% Low 52.5 22% High

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1 20% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.5 7386.1 40% 500.1 7% Low 1836.3 75% Low

North Of Horse Mountain 18038.2 0.0

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 33370.8 15619.5 4351.5 28% 555.5 13% Low 1850.1 57% Moderate

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.1 13042.8 61% 2576.2 20% Low 8862.8 32% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7 14% Low 826.4 55% Moderate

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 183.1 18% Low 533.8 48% High

Pine Creek 23614.0 53.2 19.2 36% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Pine Creek south 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.3 77% Low

Pothole Valley 14309.8 13836.3 4.6 0% 1.4 30% Moderate 4.6 0% High

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderate

Rimrock Lake 14873.4 14873.4 0.0 0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 109

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.6 1022.3 9% 245.1 24% Low 622.9 39% High

Rock Creek 45912.5 25091.3 0.2 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.9 1392.9 10% 158.1 11% Low 577.7 59% Moderate

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 537.8 22% Low 1754.3 29% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.0 8729.5 34% 1749.9 20% Low 5414.0 38% High

Said Valley Reservoir 13108.8 3489.5 9.5 0% 0.0 0% Low 3.9 59% Moderate

Service Gulch 18142.2 2729.6 144.9 5% 22.6 16% Low 83.6 42% High

Sheep Camp 31128.3 25256.6 0.0 0%

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.7 6164.5 48% 719.9 12% Low 2417.6 61% Moderate

South Big Swamp 16003.7 3110.1 115.5 4% 23.9 21% Low 80.2 31% High

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.0 1305.8 10% 261.1 20% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 226.0 22% Low 643.7 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.1 9230.9 24% 1925.8 21% Low 5517.6 40% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9 24% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 38038.8 18510.5 4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Spaulding Butte 30032.1 29123.0 4.7 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Spooner Trough Canyon 15242.2 197.1 0.0 0%

Steele Swamp 16340.4 13486.5 158.2 1% 20.6 13% Low 93.0 41% High

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.9 3610.2 14% 646.6 18% Low 2159.4 40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.8 797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 454.9 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.8 2304.1 3% 434.4 19% Low 1417.5 38% High

Upper Ash Valley 34892.9 7022.4 70.1 1% 8.9 13% Low 35.3 50% Moderate

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0 11% Low 550.5 54% Moderate
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

110 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of 

NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3 13% Low 211.0 62% Moderate

Upper Fletcher Creek 11239.4 11205.6 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Upper Lost River 31724.4 0.0

Upper Lost River Frontal 16716.6 14139.3 0.0

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.8 251.0 2% 48.4 19% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper Warm Springs Valley 26074.7 7425.9 0.0

Upper West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake 28856.1 12213.2 4623.9 38% 438.5 9% Low 1370.8 70% Moderate

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.8 428.6 3% 73.3 17% Low 228.7 47% High

Van Sickle Lake 37251.5 4344.5 0.0 0%

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.5 268.9 2% 63.8 24% Low 186.6 31% High

Warm Creek 27773.8 8806.2 21.9 0% 7.6 35% Moderate 16.7 24% High

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.9 377.5 2% 61.5 16% Low 278.4 26% High

West Shore Lower Alkali Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 411.3 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.9 9073.7 34% 1668.0 18% Low 5899.7 35% High

Wild Horse Creek 17140.2 9775.5 63.7 1% 0.7 1% Low 34.1 47% High

Wiley Ranch 45208.7 0.0

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 103.0 28% Low 284.0 22% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.7 4758.2 32% 446.8 9% Low 1665.5 65% Moderate
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 111

Table M-3. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index and Security Index Rank and Ratings by Watershed (HUC) for Alternative 3

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Above Weed Valley Reservoir 33815.8 7912.3 60.2 1% 3.9 7% Low 26.1 57% Moderate

Antelope Reservoir 21849.9 21510.7 0.0

Armentrout Flat 20083.0 3627.3 115.6 3% 22.4 19% Low 77.0 33% High

Badger Basin 34607.9 0.2 0.1 64% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 95% Low

Baker And Thomas Reservoirs 25280.6 24969.8 0.0

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 317.3 11% Low 1161.3 60% Moderate

Bidwell Creek 19501.8 14596.8 8284.8 57% 1002.5 12% Low 3581.3 57% Moderate

Big And Little Juniper Creeks 21384.9 1947.1 0.0 0%

Big Sage Reservoir 25584.6 24600.3 0.0 0%

Big Swamp 30138.3 2214.6 75.5 3% 0.0 0% Low 0.8 99% Low

Blacks Canyon 23132.0 14454.7 277.7 2% 53.7 19% Low 176.4 36% High

Boles Meadow 26436.8 25317.5 0.0 0%

Butte Creek 24861.6 4262.5 52.8 1% 0.2 0% Low 8.4 84% Low

Canby-Pit River 38873.0 12359.7 767.8 6% 49.7 6% Low 196.0 74% Low

Clarks Valley 10505.3 1347.6 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow Northwest 57800.1 30184.4 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow South 28788.8 27795.1 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 2.5 38% High

Copic 17513.1 1109.8 0.0 0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

112 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9 15% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek - North 25037.1 12896.4 8071.5 63% 1251.2 16% Low 3774.1 53% Moderate

Cottonwood Creek-South 16350.0 11917.6 3792.6 32% 648.7 17% Low 2331.7 39% High

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 261.7 12% Low 995.3 53% Moderate

Davis Creek 21933.7 12159.8 7010.9 58% 1209.4 17% Low 3990.0 43% High

Delta Lake 19024.5 1130.9 198.7 18% 1.6 1% Low 19.3 90% Low

Dobe Swale 14554.1 7931.0 3.6 0% 1.6 44% Moderate 3.6 0% High

Double Head Mountain 35306.3 33297.2 0.0 0%

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 64.5 11% Low 270.5 55% Moderate

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

East Branch Lost River 17249.0 3712.1 0.0 0%

East Creek 29458.5 29035.7 6007.4 21% 809.3 13% Low 2756.4 54% Moderate

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0 10371.6 496.5 5% 91.7 18% Low 265.6 47% High

East Tule Lake Valley 45783.3 0.0

Egg Lake 20200.5 5024.6 23.1 0% 2.9 13% Low 10.1 56% Moderate

Fairchild Swamp 18700.9 18700.9 8.2 0% 0.5 7% Low 3.2 61% Moderate

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2 13146.2 6611.1 50% 1119.0 17% Low 3370.7 49% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7 37927.7 267.9 1% 52.1 19% Low 158.2 41% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 401.9 15% Low 1545.5 42% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9 10560.6 1230.6 12% 182.9 15% Low 683.6 44% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 113

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Ingall Swamp 19565.1 18496.6 0.0 0%

Jim Creek 16455.2 1476.0 86.5 6% 41.7 48% Moderate 72.3 16% High

Jim Horn Ranch 11225.8 1953.4 0.0 0%

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2 12% Low 1826.7 58% Moderate

Kephart 56959.8 38508.8 2416.6 6% 405.1 17% Low 1412.5 42% High

Knobcone Butte 24308.1 23740.8 41.0 0% 4.5 11% Low 19.2 53% Moderate

Laird Landing 21728.6 9695.4 4.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Lake Annie 13828.9 2764.9 106.7 4% 5.1 5% Low 29.5 72% Low

Lassen Creek 15654.3 12749.1 5600.3 44% 848.7 15% Low 3055.3 45% High

Little Willow Creek 14137.6 14137.6 5.4 0% 0.0 0% Low 1.9 65% Moderate

Logan Slough 37400.2 37174.0 0.0 0%

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6 23296.6 340.9 1% 79.5 23% Low 230.4 32% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9 18158.4 2823.1 16% 513.1 18% Low 1796.9 36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5 22% Low 1591.9 33% High

Lower Boles Creek 18618.9 18167.4 0.0 0%

Lower Clover Swale Creek 21268.8 9988.9 0.0 0%

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2 31110.9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58% Moderate

Lower Juniper Creek 12008.4 4783.8 167.5 4% 28.0 17% Low 105.4 37% High

Lower North Fork Pit River 14755.2 6714.9 0.0 0%

Lower North Fork Willow Creek 25207.5 24565.4 28.1 0% 9.3 33% Moderate 16.1 43% High

Lower Rattlesnake Creek 16275.2 6124.1 0.0 0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

114 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Lower Warm Springs Valley 17963.2 239.2 0.0 0%

Lower West Shore Goose Lake 37205.9 27165.4 105.0 0% 4.5 4% Low 15.2 85% Low

Lower West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake 18149.3 11465.7 4780.1 42% 502.5 11% Low 1700.6 64% Moderate

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9 11200.8 570.8 5% 68.6 12% Low 261.3 54% Moderate

Messenger Gulch East 23977.2 8602.8 3138.2 36% 156.9 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 646.4 21% Low 1969.5 37% High

Middle Ash Creek 13389.5 1802.4 6.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2 26799.7 282.7 1% 43.8 15% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0 19190.5 9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low 1398.0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mosquito Creek-Bayley Tank 24712.7 16429.9 116.4 1% 13.5 12% Low 53.2 54% Moderate

Mowitz Creek 56660.1 49739.1 67.0 0% 13.9 21% Low 52.5 22% High

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1 20% Low 126.1 39% High

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8 18325.5 7386.1 40% 500.0 7% Low 1835.9 75% Low

North Of Horse Mountain 18038.2 0.0

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 33370.8 15619.5 4351.5 28% 520.1 12% Low 1761.8 60% Moderate

Old Camp One 36091.5 21510.1 13042.8 61% 2454.7 19% Low 8625.8 34% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7 14% Low 826.4 55% Moderate

Parsnip Creek 38600.6 19596.6 1028.0 5% 179.0 17% Low 524.7 49% High

Pine Creek 23614.0 53.2 19.2 36% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 115

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Pine Creek South 19547.9 11943.3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low 1436.3 77% Low

Pothole Valley 14309.8 13836.3 4.6 0% 1.4 30% Moderate 4.6 0% High

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6 12% Low 345.3 58% Moderate

Rimrock Lake 14873.4 14873.4 0.0 0%

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1 11483.6 1022.3 9% 245.1 24% Low 622.9 39% High

Rock Creek 45912.5 25091.3 0.2 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Rose Canyon 18125.5 13713.9 1392.9 10% 158.1 11% Low 577.7 59% Moderate

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 482.4 19% Low 1614.5 35% High

Rush Creek 36405.2 25419.0 8729.5 34% 1749.9 20% Low 5414.0 38% High

Said Valley Reservoir 13108.8 3489.5 9.5 0% 0.0 0% Low 3.9 59% Moderate

Service Gulch 18142.2 2729.6 144.9 5% 22.6 16% Low 83.6 42% High

Sheep Camp 31128.3 25256.6 0.0 0%

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0 12795.7 6164.5 48% 708.9 11% Low 2389.9 61% Moderate

South Big Swamp 16003.7 3110.1 115.5 4% 23.9 21% Low 80.2 31% High

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9 13707.0 1305.8 10% 261.1 20% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 225.7 22% Low 643.4 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0 38510.1 9230.9 24% 1703.4 18% Low 5103.3 45% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9 24% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 38038.8 18510.5 4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Spaulding Butte 30032.1 29123.0 4.7 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

116 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Spooner Trough Canyon 15242.2 197.1 0.0 0%

Steele Swamp 16340.4 13486.5 158.2 1% 20.6 13% Low 92.2 42% High

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8 25094.9 3610.2 14% 646.6 18% Low 2159.4 40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9 16320.8 797.4 5% 158.9 20% Low 453.4 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1 66514.8 2304.1 3% 395.5 17% Low 1322.4 43% High

Upper Ash Valley 34892.9 7022.4 70.1 1% 8.9 13% Low 35.3 50% Moderate

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0 11% Low 550.5 54% Moderate

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3 13% Low 211.0 62% Moderate

Upper Fletcher Creek 11239.4 11205.6 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100% Low

Upper Lost River 31724.4 0.0

Upper Lost River Frontal 16716.6 14139.3 0.0

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5 14868.8 251.0 2% 48.4 19% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper Warm Springs Valley 26074.7 7425.9 0.0

Upper West Shore Upper Alkali 

Lake 28856.1 12213.2 4623.9 38% 349.6 8% Low 1291.9 72% Low

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3 14981.8 428.6 3% 73.3 17% Low 228.7 47% High

Van Sickle Lake 37251.5 4344.5 0.0 0%

Wagontire Creek 26475.3 11980.5 268.9 2% 63.8 24% Low 186.6 31% High

Warm Creek 27773.8 8806.2 21.9 0% 7.6 35% Moderate 16.7 24% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 117

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat on 

National 

Forest

% of 

National 

Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % of 

habitat 

in HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index Rank

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Security 

Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index Rank

Washington Creek 21999.0 21789.9 377.5 2% 57.7 15% Low 266.6 29% High

West Shore Lower Alkali Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 409.8 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9 26529.9 9073.7 34% 1565.7 17% Low 5658.6 38% High

Wild Horse Creek 17140.2 9775.5 63.7 1% 0.7 1% Low 34.1 47% High

Wiley Ranch 45208.7 0.0

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 90.5 25% Low 279.3 23% High

Willow Creek WM 23817.6 14809.7 4758.2 32% 420.9 9% Low 1607.1 66% Moderate

Table M-4. Goshawk Habitat Influence Index and Security Index Rank and Ratings by watershed (HUC) for Alternative 4

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Above Weed Valley 

Reservoir 33815.8 7912.3 60.2 1% 3.9 7% Low 26.3 56%

Moderat

e

Antelope Reservoir 21849.9

21510.

7 0.0

Armentrout Flat 20083.0 3627.3 115.6 3% 22.4

19

% Low 77.0 33% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

118 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Badger Basin 34607.9 0.2 0.1 64% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 95% Low

Baker And Thomas 

Reservoirs 25280.6

24969.

8 0.0

Ballard Reservoir 12852.6 2270.5 1046.9 46% 74.1 7% Low 223.8 79% Low

Bare Creek 33440.5 7599.1 2883.6 38% 322.8

11

% Low

1177.

8 59%

Moderat

e

Bidwell Creek 19501.8

14596.

8 8284.8 57%

1065.

0

13

% Low

3643.

7 56%

Moderat

e

Big And Little Juniper Creeks 21384.9 1947.1 0.0 0%

Big Sage Reservoir 25584.6

24600.

3 0.0 0%

Big Swamp 30138.3 2214.6 75.5 3% 0.0 0% Low 0.8 99% Low

Blacks Canyon 23132.0

14454.

7 277.7 2% 53.7

19

% Low 176.7 36% High

Boles Meadow 26436.8

25317.

5 0.0 0%

Butte Creek 24861.6 4262.5 52.8 1% 0.2 0% Low 8.4 84% Low

Canby-Pit River 38873.0

12359.

7 767.8 6% 50.3 7% Low 196.0 74% Low

Clarks Valley 10505.3 1347.6 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow Northwest 57800.1

30184.

4 0.0 0%

Clear Lake Inflow South 28788.8

27795.

1 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 2.5 38% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 119

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Copic 17513.1 1109.8 0.0 0%

Corral Creek 16487.0 5304.0 429.3 8% 65.9

15

% Low 227.5 47% High

Cottonwood Creek - South 16350.0

11917.

6 3792.6 32% 815.8

22

% Low

2331.

7 39% High

Cottonwood Creek- North 25037.1

12896.

4 8071.5 63%

1413.

7

18

% Low

3802.

0 53%

Moderat

e

Crooks Canyon 25109.4 3944.1 2109.9 53% 283.0

13

% Low

1065.

0 50%

Moderat

e

Davis Creek 21933.7

12159.

8 7010.9 58%

1250.

2

18

% Low

4118.

0 41% High

Delta Lake 19024.5 1130.9 198.7 18% 1.6 1% Low 19.3 90% Low

Dobe Swale 14554.1 7931.0 3.6 0% 1.6

44

%

Moderat

e 3.6 0% High

Double Head Mountain 35306.3

33297.

2 0.0 0%

Dry Creek 28886.1 2403.3 603.6 25% 66.7

11

% Low 277.5 54%

Moderat

e

Eagle Creek 11360.2 5190.6 1518.2 29% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

East Branch Lost River 17249.0 3712.1 0.0 0%

East Creek 29458.5

29035.

7 6007.4 21% 830.1

14

% Low

2791.

8 54%

Moderat

e

East Fork Juniper Creek 24313.0

10371.

6 496.5 5% 91.7

18

% Low 265.6 47% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

120 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

East Tule Lake Valley 45783.3 0.0

Egg Lake 20200.5 5024.6 23.1 0% 2.9

13

% Low 10.1 56%

Moderat

e

Fairchild Swamp 18700.9

18700.

9 8.2 0% 0.5 7% Low 3.2 61%

Moderat

e

Fitzhugh Creek 24606.2

13146.

2 6611.1 50%

1119.

6

17

% Low

3370.

7 49% High

Frog Waterhole 42760.7

37927.

7 267.9 1% 52.2

19

% Low 162.2 39% High

Gleason Creek 10621.3 1501.5 235.9 16% 12.4 5% Low 34.2 85% Low

Headwaters North Fork Pit 

River 26218.3 9697.6 2684.5 28% 424.1

16

% Low

1601.

5 40% High

Hulbert-Turner Creek 11128.9

10560.

6 1230.6 12% 182.9

15

% Low 683.6 44% High

Ingall Swamp 19565.1

18496.

6 0.0 0%

Jim Creek 16455.2 1476.0 86.5 6% 41.7

48

%

Moderat

e 72.3 16% High

Jim Horn Ranch 11225.8 1953.4 0.0 0%

Joseph Creek 12321.5 8231.6 4303.8 52% 510.2

12

% Low

1826.

7 58%

Moderat

e

Kephart 56959.8

38508.

8 2416.6 6% 411.8

17

% Low

1417.

4 41% High

Knobcone Butte 24308.1

23740.

8 41.0 0% 4.5

11

% Low 19.2 53%

Moderat

e
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 121

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Laird Landing 21728.6 9695.4 4.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Lake Annie 13828.9 2764.9 106.7 4% 5.1 5% Low 29.5 72% Low

Lassen Creek 15654.3

12749.

1 5600.3 44% 942.1

17

% Low

3293.

0 41% High

Little Willow Creek 14137.6

14137.

6 5.4 0% 0.0 0% Low 1.9 65%

Moderat

e

Logan Slough 37400.2

37174.

0 0.0 0%

Lone Pine Butte 23296.6

23296.

6 340.9 1% 82.3

24

% Low 249.7 27% High

Lower Ash Valley 18595.9

18158.

4 2823.1 16% 513.1

18

% Low

1796.

9 36% High

Lower Big Valley 27523.3 7105.0 2371.4 33% 532.5

22

% Low

1591.

9 33% High

Lower Boles Creek 18618.9

18167.

4 0.0 0%

Lower Clover Swale Creek 21268.8 9988.9 0.0 0%

Lower Fletcher Creek 33027.2

31110.

9 210.9 1% 19.4 9% Low 88.9 58%

Moderat

e

Lower Juniper Creek 12008.4 4783.8 167.5 4% 28.0

17

% Low 105.4 37% High

Lower North Fork Pit River 14755.2 6714.9 0.0 0%

Lower North Fork Willow 

Creek 25207.5

24565.

4 28.1 0% 9.3

33

%

Moderat

e 21.3 24% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

122 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Lower Rattlesnake Creek 16275.2 6124.1 0.0 0%

Lower Warm Springs Valley 17963.2 239.2 0.0 0%

Lower West Shore Goose 

Lake 37205.9

27165.

4 105.0 0% 4.6 4% Low 19.8 81% Low

Lower West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake 18149.3

11465.

7 4780.1 42% 523.5

11

% Low

1724.

2 64%

Moderat

e

Lower Willow Creek 26748.9

11200.

8 570.8 5% 68.6

12

% Low 261.3 54%

Moderat

e

Messenger Gulch East 11401.7 8602.8 3183.2 37% 157.1 5% Low 630.2 80% Low

Messenger Gulch West 12575.4 9673.1 3120.8 32% 676.3

22

% Low

1969.

5 37% High

Middle Ash Creek 13389.5 1802.4 6.3 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Middle Fletcher Creek 39222.2

26799.

7 282.7 1% 44.0

16

% Low 182.1 36% High

Mill Creek 22288.0

19190.

5 9778.6 51% 448.2 5% Low

1398.

0 86% Low

Moon Lake 46904.6 4084.5 831.7 20% 45.9 6% Low 205.7 75% Low

Mosquito Creek-Bayley Tank 24712.7

16429.

9 116.4 1% 13.7

12

% Low 57.6 51%

Moderat

e

Mowitz Creek 56660.1

49739.

1 67.0 0% 13.9

21

% Low 52.5 22% High

Mud Lake 9119.1 5948.9 207.5 3% 42.1

20

% Low 126.1 39% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 123

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

North Fork Parker Creek 19166.8

18325.

5 7386.1 40% 500.1 7% Low

1836.

3 75% Low

North Of Horse Mountain 18038.2 0.0

Northwest Shore Middle 

Alkali Lake 33370.8

15619.

5 4351.5 28% 550.0

13

% Low

1844.

2 58%

Moderat

e

Old Camp One 36091.5

21510.

1

13042.

8 61%

2575.

5

20

% Low

8862.

8 32% High

Parker Creek 22262.2 6240.5 1822.8 29% 254.7

14

% Low 826.4 55%

Moderat

e

Parsnip Creek 38600.6

19596.

6 1028.0 5% 183.1

18

% Low 533.8 48% High

Pine Creek 23614.0 53.2 19.2 36% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Pine Creek south 19547.9

11943.

3 6114.8 51% 392.1 6% Low

1436.

3 77% Low

Pothole Valley 14309.8

13836.

3 4.6 0% 1.4

30

%

Moderat

e 4.6 0% High

Red Rock Canyon 39828.8 2331.8 827.8 36% 98.6

12

% Low 345.3 58%

Moderat

e

Rimrock Lake 14873.4

14873.

4 0.0 0%

Roberts Reservoir-Pit River 35562.1

11483.

6 1022.3 9% 245.1

24

% Low 622.9 39% High

Rock Creek 45912.5

25091.

3 0.2 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

124 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Rose Canyon 18125.5

13713.

9 1392.9 10% 158.1

11

% Low 577.7 59%

Moderat

e

Ross Creek 12755.9 5190.5 2475.4 48% 537.8

22

% Low

1754.

3 29% High

Rush Creek 36405.2

25419.

0 8729.5 34%

1749.

9

20

% Low

5414.

0 38% High

Said Valley Reservoir 13108.8 3489.5 9.5 0% 0.0 0% Low 3.9 59%

Moderat

e

Service Gulch 18142.2 2729.6 144.9 5% 22.6

16

% Low 83.6 42% High

Sheep Camp 31128.3

25256.

6 0.0 0%

Sohonchin Spring 13229.0

12795.

7 6164.5 48% 719.9

12

% Low

2417.

6 61%

Moderat

e

South Big Swamp 16003.7 3110.1 115.5 4% 23.9

21

% Low 80.2 31% High

South Fork Juniper Creek 14338.9

13707.

0 1305.8 10% 261.1

20

% Low 891.2 32% High

South Of Goose Lake 16687.9 1425.5 1026.3 72% 226.0

22

% Low 643.7 37% High

South Tule Lake Sump 85568.0

38510.

1 9230.9 24%

1885.

9

20

% Low

5436.

7 41% High

Southern Jess Valley 12378.5 8179.2 609.1 7% 146.9

24

% Low 439.6 28% High

Southwest Shore Middle 38038.8 18510. 4415.2 24% 0.0 0% Low 0.0 100 Low
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 125

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Alkali Lake 5 %

Spaulding Butte 30032.1

29123.

0 4.7 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Spooner Trough Canyon 15242.2 197.1 0.0 0%

Steele Swamp 16340.4

13486.

5 158.2 1% 20.6

13

% Low 92.2 42% High

Stone Coal Creek 29094.8

25094.

9 3610.2 14% 646.6

18

% Low

2159.

4 40% High

Stones Canyon 27725.9

16320.

8 797.4 5% 158.9

20

% Low 454.9 43% High

Thoms Creek 16587.7 8005.4 2799.6 35% 163.2 6% Low 657.2 77% Low

Tionesta 77495.1

66514.

8 2304.1 3% 402.7

17

% Low

1329.

9 42% High

Upper Ash Valley 34892.9 7022.4 70.1 1% 8.9

13

% Low 35.3 50%

Moderat

e

Upper Canyon Creek 23229.2 2926.8 1198.7 41% 135.0

11

% Low 550.5 54%

Moderat

e

Upper Deep Creek 16321.8 1393.7 552.0 40% 74.3

13

% Low 211.0 62%

Moderat

e

Upper Fletcher Creek 11239.4

11205.

6 4.1 0% 0.0 0% Low 0.0

100

% Low

Upper Lost River 31724.4 0.0

Upper Lost River Frontal 16716.6

14139.

3 0.0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

126 Appendix J—Goshawk Habitat II

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

Upper Turner Creek 15941.5

14868.

8 251.0 2% 48.4

19

% Low 157.2 37% High

Upper Twelvemile Creek 27790.4 5453.2 670.1 12% 10.6 2% Low 73.8 89% Low

Upper Warm Springs Valley 26074.7 7425.9 0.0

Upper West Shore Upper 

Alkali Lake 28856.1

12213.

2 4623.9 38% 434.2 9% Low

1362.

1 71% Low

Upper Willow Creek 23120.3

14981.

8 428.6 3% 73.3

17

% Low 228.7 47% High

Van Sickle Lake 37251.5 4344.5 0.0 0%

Wagontire Creek 26475.3

11980.

5 268.9 2% 63.8

24

% Low 186.6 31% High

Warm Creek 27773.8 8806.2 21.9 0% 7.6

35

%

Moderat

e 16.7 24% High

Washington Creek 21999.0

21789.

9 377.5 2% 59.3

16

% Low 272.4 28% High

West Shore Lower Alkali 

Lake 16687.3 7113.4 2969.5 42% 19.6 1% Low 94.2 97% Low

West Shore Middle Alkali 

Lake 15403.2 6672.0 1658.7 25% 125.5 8% Low 409.8 75% Low

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir 51922.9

26529.

9 9073.7 34%

1664.

9

18

% Low

5899.

7 35% High

Wild Horse Creek 17140.2 9775.5 63.7 1% 0.7 1% Low 34.1 47% High

Wiley Ranch 45208.7 0.0

Willow Creek DH 38896.9 4421.5 363.7 8% 103.0 28 Low 284.0 22% High
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J--Goshawk Habitat II 127

Watershed (HUC) Name

Sum of all 

acres in all 

ownerships

National 

Forest 

System 

Acres

Acres of 

Goshawk 

habitat 

on 

National 

Forest

% of 

Nationa

l Forest 

within 

HUC in 

Habitat

Ac of NF 

habitat 

within 

50m 

road 

buffer

Road 

buffer 

as % 

of 

habita

t in 

HUC 

(NFS 

lands)

Habitat 

Influence 

Index 

Rank

Acres of 

Goshaw

k habitat 

(NF) w/in 

200m 

buffer

Securit

y Index 

(NFS 

lands 

only)

Security 

Index 

Rank

%

Willow Creek WM 23817.6

14809.

7 4758.2 32% 437.0 9% Low

1638.

5 66%

Moderat

e

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program 129

Appendix K: Tribal Relations

Native American Intergovernmental Affairs: 

Modoc National Forest, Tribal Relations 

Program

Native American Intergovernmental Affairs Origins

The United States and the 562 federally recognized tribes share a unique relationship whose 

foundation lies in the earliest history of this country. 7 The settlement of the New World began 

with Native American tribes possessing a clear strategic advantage over the 13 colonies, both 

militarily and economically; consequently, early American treaties with Indian tribes emphasized 

both tribal sovereignty and property rights. 8 Also, treaties were intended to deter foreign powers 

from forging alliances with Native Americans on U.S. promises of protection and trade. 9 Good 

relations with Indian tribes were paramount to American foreign policy since tribes protected 

U.S. western and southern borders from European aggressors. 10 The practice of treaty making 

continued as the country reconstituted itself under the United States Constitution in 1787. 11 Over 

371 treaties were negotiated with Native American tribes by special commissioners acting on 

behalf of the President and under oversight by the War Department until 1849; subsequently, 

oversight was transferred to the newly established Department of the Interior. 12 The U.S. Senate 

continued to ratify Indian treaties between 1787 and 1871, which ―under the Authority of the 

United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land.‖ 13 Treaties are superior to state 

constitutions and state laws. 14 The U.S. House of Representatives protested their exclusion over 

the Indian treaty-making process by passing the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871. The action 

prevented Congress from entering into any treaties with Indian tribes (25 U.S.C. § 71). 15 

 

7 Federal Register, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to 

Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Volume 73, No. 66, 2008), 18553.

8 Charles Wilkinson, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments, 2nd ed. (Oakland: American Indian Lawyer Training 

Program, 2004), 93.

9

Ibid, 93-96; Johnson v. M‘Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 5 L.Ed. 681, 8 Wheat. 543 (1823).

10 Wilkinson, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments, 93-94.

11 Yale Law School, ―The Avalon Project-Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy,‖ under ―Report of Proceedings in 

Congress; February 21, 1787,‖ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/const04.asp (accessed October 14, 

2008). 

12 The National Archives, ―Records of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 1820-1946,‖ under ―Chapter 12. Records of the 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and Predecessor Committees, 1816-1968,‖ 

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-12-indian-affairs.html#1-41 (accessed 

October 14, 2008).

13 U.S. Constitution, in article 2, section 2, President ―shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the 

Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,‖ and article 6.

14 Worcester v. State of Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). 

15 Wilkinson, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments, 97.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

130 Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program

The Source of Federal Trust Responsibilities 

As non-Indian populations dramatically increased coupled with industrial revolutionary 

technological advances and the War of 1812, Indian tribes suffered a shift in the balance of power 

that favored the United States; consequently, Congress increased their use of treaties as 

instruments for massive land concessions from American Indians. 16 Land concessions obligated 

the nation to tribes when aboriginal territories were exchanged for U.S. promises set forth in 

treaties. 17 The obligation is known as, ―the doctrine of trust responsibility,‖ was first articulated 

in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall. 18 The Honorable John Marshall 

created two distinctions. Firstly, Chief Justice Marshall limited the sovereign status of Indian 

tribes by designating all tribes as ―domestic dependent nation.‖ 19 Lastly, federal trust 

responsibility is drawn from the reference, ―Their (Indian tribes) relation to the United States 

resembles that of a ward to his guardian.‖ 20 The Honorable Frank Murphy, Justice on the U.S. 

Supreme Court, further distinguished trust responsibility in his opinion to the Court in 1941: 

In carrying out its treaty obligation with the Indian tribes the Government is something 

more than a mere contracting party. Under a humane and self imposed policy which has 

found expression in many acts of Congress and numerous decisions of this Court, it has 

charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct, 

as disclosed in the acts of those who represent it in dealings with Indians, should 

therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. 21

Again, fiduciary responsibilities are based upon treaties, which are, ―not a grant of rights to the 

Indians, but a grant of right from them, – a reservation of those not granted.‖ 22

Forest Service Trust Responsibilities

The USDA Forest Service, Southwest Pacific Region (Region 5), Modoc National Forest, is an 

agency of the federal government, whose obligation toward Native American tribes is governed 

by trust responsibility and where, ―any Federal government action is subject to the United States' 

fiduciary responsibilities toward the Indian tribes.‖ 23 The scope of these trust responsibilities are 

defined by the Constitution, Congress, courts, the executive branch, and statutes to protect and 

maintain the lands, resources and traditional use areas of Indians. 24 Presently, the Modoc 

National Forest consists of 1,979,407 acres of which 1,654,392 acres are administered by the 

Modoc National Forest, which includes portions of the aboriginal homelands for seven federally 

recognized tribes, which are as follows: 

Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; and

Cedarville Rancheria, California; and

 

16 Wilkinson, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments, 93-96.

17 Ibid, 53.

18 Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).

19 Mary Christina Wood, ―Origins and Development of the Trust Responsibility: Paternalism or Protection?‖ [paper 

presented at the Federal Bar Association-28th Annual Indian Law Conference, Albuquerque, NM, April 10, 2003]

20 Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)..

21 Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1941).

22 United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905).

23 Covelo Indian Community v. FERC, 895 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1990); Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir. 1981).

24 U.S. v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983); U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Prepared by the Office of the General 

Council. Departmental Regulation: Policies on American Indians and Alaska Natives [March 14, 2008] No. 1340-007.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program 131

Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; and

Klamath Tribes, Oregon (formerly the Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon); and

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma; and

Pit River Tribe, California (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek 

and Roaring Creek Rancherias); and

Susanville Indian Rancheria, California. 25

Also, the Modoc National Forest includes the indigenous territories of two federally unrecognized 

tribes, which are as follows:

The Shasta Tribe, Inc.; and

The Shasta Nation, Inc. (Confederated Bands of the Shasta and Upper Klamath River Indians). 26

Brief on Selected Tribes of the Modoc National Forest

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma 

The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma were followers of Keintpoos  ̳having the water-brash‘ who is 

commonly known as Captain Jack. 27 The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma once belonged to the 

amalgamation of tribes that signed the 1864 Treaty of Klamath Lake, Oregon with the Klamath, 

Modoc, and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians. 28 The refusal of Captain Jack to remain on the 

Klamath reservation led to the Modoc War of 1872-73, which ended in the execution of 

Keintpoos on October 2, 1873, and the relocation of 153 Modoc men, women, and children to the 

Quapaw Agency in Oklahoma. 29 The Eastern Shawnee purchased 4,000 acres of trust land for 

the Modoc in 1874; however, Modoc populations dwindled to 99 natives by 1879 and only 68 

Modoc were eligible to receive allotments following the passage of the General Allotment Act of 

1887. 30 The U.S. Congress authorized the remaining Modoc survivors to return to the Klamath 

Tribes, Oregon, on March 3, 1909, but many remained or returned to Oklahoma. 31 Upheavals in 

national Indian policy prevailed following the Hoover Commission, Indian Reorganization Act of 

1934, and World War II with federal trust responsibility being utilized as an instrument against 

tribes. The enactment of Public Law 83-280 on August 15, 1953, facilitated the termination of 

 

25 Federal Register, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to 

Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Volume 73, No. 66, 2008), 18553; Modoc National Forest, ―About Us: Forest Facts,‖ 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/modoc/about/index.shtml [accessed October 29, 2008].

26 Dan Meza, ―Tribal Contact Information of the Modoc National Forest,‖ Modoc National Forest [March 30, 2008]. 

27 Keith A. Murray, The Modocs and Their War [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959], 35. ―The leader of the 

Modoc group who adjusted best to the new ways in Yreka was Keintpoos, dubbed, for a joke, by Judge Steele as  ̳Captain 

Jack‘ because of an alleged resemblance to one of the miners of that community.‖; Access Genealogy-Indian Tribal 

Records, ―Modoc Indian Chiefs and Leaders,‖ 

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/modoc/modocindianchiefs.htm [accessed October 29, 

2008].

28 ―Treaty with the Klamath, etc., 1864,‖ October 14, 1864, 16 Stats., 707., Ratified, July 2, 1866, Proclaimed February 17,

1870, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II (Treaties). Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1904, http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/ea/ tribal/treaties/Klamath_1864.pdf [accessed 

October 29, 2008]. 

29 Murray, The Modocs and Their War, 304, 318.

30 Patricia Shruggs Trolinger, ―The History of the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma,‖ Modoctribe.net. http://www. 

modoctribe.net/history.html [accessed October 29, 2008].

31 Chapter 253, Mar. 3, 1909. [H. R. 16743.] | [Public, No. 306.] 35 Stat., 751. Section 5; Trolinger. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

132 Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program

both the Klamath and Modoc Tribes. 32 Again, Federal Indian policy revolved when President 

Richard Milhous Nixon repudiated the former Indian policy of termination with his address to 

Congress on July 8, 1970. 33 President Nixon introduced a new Indian policy of SelfDetermination, which continues to be followed today. The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma acted on 

this new policy and was recognized as a tribe on May 15, 1978. 34 The Modoc tribe remains the 

only federally recognized entity with traditional cultural properties on the national forest that is 

without the jurisdictional concerns of Public Law 83-280. 

Pit River Tribe, California (Includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, 

Montgomery Creek and Roaring Creek Rancherias)

The Modoc National Forest encompasses portions of the Pit River Tribe, which is one of five 

California tribes and one Oregon tribe of the national forest whose tribal jurisdictions are subject 

to Public Law (P.L.) 83-280. 35 The passage of P.L. 83-280 authorized state criminal jurisdiction 

over Indians and non-Indians in the mandatory states of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon 

and Wisconsin with Alaska as the 6th state; moreover, P.L. 83-280 transferred criminal 

jurisdiction to those mandatory states without tribal consent between 1953 and 1968. 36 Nonmandatory states or optional states could enact P.L. 83-280 by legislative action; however, the 

law was amended in 1968 to where tribes must provide consent. 37

The switch to state jurisdiction also meant a decline in potential tribal control over law 

enforcement because tribes under Public Law 280 could not take advantage of the 1975 

Indian Self-Determination Act to contract with the BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] for the 

administration of their own law enforcement services. 38

The Pit River Tribe, California, and 106 tribes of California have not requested the state to 

retrocede their jurisdiction back to the United States; furthermore, all California tribes are subject 

to P.L. 83-280. 39 Public Law 83-280 uses federal trust responsibility as an instrument to 

assimilate tribes, which adds to issues of tribal, federal and state jurisdiction within the Modoc 

National Forest. The late President Richard M. Nixon redirected American Indian policy to SelfDetermination, which Congress enacted as Public Law (P.L.) 93-638, the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. 40

 P.L. 93-638 provides federal 

government-to-government authorities for agencies to contract with tribes; however, those 

authorities are limited by statute to the Department of the Interior and Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

 

32 Pubic Law 83-280, August 15, 1953, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. § 1360, and 25 U.S.C. § 1321–1326; 25 

U.S.C. 564. 

33 Environmental Protection Agency. Presidential Documents, ―President Nixon, Special Message on Indian Affairs,‖ [July 

8, 1970] http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/pdf/president-nixon70.pdf [accessed on October 29, 2008]. 

34 25 U.S.C. 861a; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report: ―Indian Issues: BLM‘s Program for Issuing Individual 

Indian Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable,‖ GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments, [October 20, 2006] 16.

35 Wilkinson, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments, 126; Public Law (P.L.) 83-280, August 15, 1953, codified as 18 

U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. § 1360, and 25 U.S.C. § 1321-1326.

36 Garole Goldberg, J.D., Duane champagne, Ph.D., ―Final Report: Law Enforcement and Criminal Jurisdiction Under 

Public Law 280,‖ [November 1, 2007], vi, 3. 

37 Ibid., vi. 

38 Ibid., 6.

39 Garole Goldberg, J.D., Duane champagne, Ph.D., ―Final Report: Law Enforcement and Criminal Jurisdiction Under 

Public Law 280,‖ [November 1, 2007], 9. 

40 P.L. 93-638, Approved January 4, 1975 (88 Stat. 2203).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program 133

The Pit River Tribe, California, was federally recognized by the Secretary of the Interior through 

an Act of Congress on August 13, 1946. 41 The tribe is a confederation of eleven bands as 

follows, under a constitution adopted in 1964: 

1. Ajumawi 5. Atwamsini 9. Kosealekte

2. Astariwi 6. Hammawi 10. Madesi

3. Aporige 7. Illmawi 11. Hewisedawi 42

4. Atsugewi 8. Itsatawi

The traditional cultural properties of the tribe are described as the 100-mile square by the Pit 

River Tribe, which were based upon natural boundaries of mountains and watersheds; however, 

exact boundaries that was offered as evidence to the Indian Claims Commission was not specific, 

according to the commission. 43 Nevertheless, tribal trust land and fee patent land of the Pit River 

Tribe, California, lies within or abuts the boundaries of the Modoc National Forest; therefore and 

pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the national forest maintains a government-to-government 

consultation agreement with the tribe to assist the agency‘s execution of its‘ federal trust 

responsibility. 44 The Modoc National Forest explained its travel management alternatives to the 

Pit River Tribal Council during a scheduled consultation on Wednesday, 3 September 2008. 45 

Irvin Brown, Tribal Councilman-Kosealekte Alternate, stated during the meeting that the plan 

was acceptable provided that road closures did not impede tribal members from accessing sacred 

sites or traditional cultural properties. 46

Klamath Tribes, Oregon 

The Klamath Tribes, Oregon, is subject to state jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280, where, 

―state or county law enforcement replaced the Bureau of Indian Affairs police, and state criminal 

trials largely replaced those carried out by the federal government.‖ 47 

Federal Statutes Relevant to American Indian Tribes

Table O-1. Federal Laws Relevant to Native American Concerns on National Forest Management

Law Purpose

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Requires consideration of effects on cultural values 

and diversity.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as 

amended in 1994

Protects Indian religious practices and access to 

sacred sites.

 

41 Indian Claims Commission, No. 347, The Pit River Indians of California, Petitioners v. The United States of America, 

Defendant, Smithsonian Institution [August 11, 1951], 1. 

42 Pit River Tribe, Tribal Contact List, [January 22, 2008]; Native American Rights Fund, ―National Indian Law Library,‖ 

[1964] http://doc.narf.org/nill/Constitutions/pitconst/pitriverconst.htm. [accessed October 29, 2008]. 

43 Indian Claims Commission, No. 347, [August 11, 1951], 21-22. 

44 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding a Communication and Consultation Protocol between USDA Forest Service, 

Modoc National Forest, Lassen Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and Lassen National Forest and the Pit River Tribe [May 4, 

2007].

45 Modoc National Forest, Tribal Relations Program, ―Government-to-Government Consultation Standard Form‖ 

[Wednesday, 3 September 2008].

46 Ibid. 

47 Garole Goldberg, J.D., Duane champagne, Ph.D., ―Final Report: Law Enforcement and Criminal Jurisdiction Under 

Public Law 280,‖ [November 1, 2007], 3,9.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

134 Appendix K—Tribal Relations Program

Law Purpose

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Coordinates with Indian tribes to inventory, plan, and 

manage resources of value to tribes.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1976 Accounts for impacts of management on prehistoric 

and historic sites.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended in 1992

Protects archeological resources and requires that 

affected tribes be notified if archeological studies 

might harm or destroy culturally or spiritually 

important sites.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990

Requires consultation with tribes about disposition of 

Native American remains, funerary objects, and 

other cultural relics.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 135

Appendix L: Non-Significant Amendments to 

the Modoc NF Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP)

LRMP General Changes

Current Language Replacement Language

―Keep over 87 percent of the Forest open to 

OHVs.‖ (p. 4-11)

―Prohibit motor vehicle travel off designated 

roads and trails.‖

Changes by Resource

Current Language Replacement Language

Recreation: ―Provide off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

recreation where OHV activities will not cause 

resource damage nor conflict with other uses. 

Reference the OHV map for use areas.‖ p. 4-19

―Provide off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation 

where OHV activities will not cause resource 

damage nor conflict with other uses. Reference 

the MVUM for routes available for mixed use.‖ p. 

4-19

―OHV use is generally open, but may be subject 

to restriction identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-36

―OHV use is subject to restrictions identified on 

the MVUM.‖ p. 4-36

Visual Retention Management Prescription: ―Offhighway vehicle use is permitted, but with 

restrictions.‖ p. 4-77

―Off-highway vehicle use is permitted only on 

routes designated as open to mixed use (see 

MVUM).‖ p. 4-77

Visual Retention Management Prescription: 

―Random entry from main roads is discouraged 

by maintenance of ditches, natural barriers, 

vegetation, signing, etc. Use is subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖

―Random entry from main roads is discouraged 

by maintenance of ditches, natural barriers, 

vegetation, signing, etc. Use is subject to 

restrictions identified on the MVUM.‖

Visual Retention Management Prescription: 

―Areas with this prescription are open to OHV 

use if impacts cannot be seen from the primary 

roads.‖

―Areas with this prescription are open to OHV 

use only on routes designated for mixed use.‖

Raptor Management Prescription: ―Off-highway 

vehicle use has seasonal restrictions.‖ p. 4-85

Raptor Management Prescription: ―Motor vehicle 

use has seasonal restrictions.‖ p. 4-85

Minimum Level Management Prescription: ―Offhighway vehicle use is permitted.‖ p. 4-35"Off-highway vehicle use is permitted on roads 

specified for mixed use only."

Recreation: ―Refer to OHV map for seasonal 

closure areas.‖ p. 4-88

Recreation: ―Refer to MVUM for seasonally 

closed roads and trails.‖ p. 4-88

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-96

Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-96

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-104

Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-104

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-110

―Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-110

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-114

Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-114

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-119

Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-119
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

136 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Current Language Replacement Language

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-128

Recreation: ―OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-128

Recreation: ―Permit OHV use subject to 

restrictions identified on the OHV map.‖ p. 4-132

Recreation: ‖OHV use subject to restrictions 

identified on the MVUM‖ p. 4-132

Rangeland Management Prescription: ―Offhighway vehicle use is permitted.‖ p. 4-93 Rangeland Management Prescription: ―Offhighway vehicle use is only permitted when 

indicated specifically in the permitee‘s AOP.‖ p. 

4-93

Rangeland Management with Forage 

Improvements (Range-Forage) Management 

Prescription : ―Off-highway vehicle use is 

permitted.‖ p. 4-99

Rangeland Management Prescription: ―Offhighway vehicle use is only permitted when 

indicated specifically in the permitee‘s AOP.‖ p. 

4-99

Even-aged Timber Management Prescription: 

―Off-highway vehicle use is permitted.‖ p. 4-109

―Off-highway vehicle use is restricted to 

designated roads indicated on the MVUM.‖

Timber Management with Partial Retention 

Management Prescription: ―Off-highway vehicle 

use is permitted.‖ p. 4-113

―Off-highway vehicle use is restricted to 

designated roads indicated on the MVUM.‖

Timber Management with Forage Production 

Management Prescription: ―Off-highway vehicle 

use is permitted.‖ p. 4-117

―Off-highway vehicle use is restricted to 

designated roads indicated on the MVUM.‖

Uneven-aged Timber Management Prescription: 

―Off-highway vehicle use is permitted.‖ p. 4-127

―Off-highway vehicle use is restricted to 

designated roads indicated on the MVUM.‖

Timber Management on Low Productivity Lands 

Management Prescription: ―Off-highway vehicle 

use is permitted.‖ p. 4-131

―Off-highway vehicle use is restricted to 

designated roads indicated on the MVUM.‖

Changes by Management Area

Current Language Replacement Language

31 – Highgrade - ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-150

31 – Highgrade - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-150

3 - Fandango - ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-154

3 - Fandango - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-154

33 - Lake City – ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-158

33 - Lake City – ―Limit OHV use to authorized 

NFTS roads.. Rehabilitate areas causing 

watershed degradation. Restrict use or obliterate 

roads and trails, when necessary, to protect the 

soil resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-

158

34 - Fitzhugh – ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 34 - Fitzhugh – ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 137

Current Language Replacement Language

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-154

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-154

36 - Patterson - ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-170

36 - Patterson - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-170

42 - Stone Coal - ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-178

42 - Stone Coal - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-178

43 - Portuguese Ridge - ―Soils: On sensitive 

watersheds and other sensitive areas, limit OHV 

to established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-181

43 - Portuguese Ridge - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-181

44 - North Adin - ―Soils: On sensitive watersheds 

and other sensitive areas, limit OHV to 

established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-185

44 - North Adin - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-185

61 - Medicine Lake - ―Soils: On sensitive 

watersheds and other sensitive areas, limit OHV 

to established roads and trails, as needed. 

Rehabilitate areas causing watershed 

degradation. Restrict use or obliterate roads and 

trails, when necessary, to protect the soil 

resource and maintain water quality.‖ p. 4-212

61 - Medicine Lake - ―Soils: Limit OHV use to 

authorized NFTS roads. Rehabilitate areas 

causing watershed degradation. Restrict use or 

obliterate roads and trails, when necessary, to 

protect the soil resource and maintain water 

quality.‖ p. 4-212

Tionesta-Area Roads

Current Language Replacement Language

b. (S) ―New roads will not be constructed in 

winter roosts. Existing roads in winter roosts will 

be closed during the wintering period.‖

This decision amends the Modoc NF LRMP to 

exclude Tionesta-area system roads 44A19D, 

44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 44N04Y from the 

winter road-closure requirement for bald eagle 

winter roost habitat.

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 139

Appendix M: Response to Public Comments

Introduction

The public comment period on the Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Modoc National Forest began on May 12, 2008 and closed on June 10, 2008. Agencies, officials, 

and members of the public were invited to comment on the DEIS. Public open houses were provided 

throughout May, and the public was invited to provide the Forest with written comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement.

The Forest received 49 comment letters, including two form letters—one with 8,010 signatures, and one 

with 488 signatures. Fourteen letters came from organizations, 35 from individuals. 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) state, 

Comments on an environmental impact statement or on a proposed action shall be as 

specific as possible and may address either the adequacy of the statement or the merits 

of the alternatives discussed or both.‖ (40 CFR 1503.3) Comments and responses in this 

section are based on those types of specific comments, ―which proposed to (1) modify 

alternatives including the proposed action, (2) develop and evaluate alternatives not 

previously given serious consideration, (3) supplement, improve, or modify its analysis, 

and (4) make factual corrections (40 CFR 1503.4).

Comments were grouped by type of substantive comments described above, and were forwarded to the 

interdisciplinary team for review. The Interdisciplinary Team prepared statements which address the 

concerns expressed. The following sections contain those statements and the responses to them. 

The bracketed numbers following the comment indicate who made the comment. They correspond to the 

list on the last page (―Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement‖). 

Adding Routes

Public comment 1: Some respondents thought that we should not add any more routes—the Forest 

Service cannot maintain the existing National Forest Transportation System (Same as issue 4 p.10 of the 

FEIS). [44, 45, 23, 14, 1, 32].

Response: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 add a range of 286 to 336 miles of unauthorized routes to the 

National Forest Transportation System. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not add any unauthorized routes to 

the National Forest Transportation System. The Forest maintains Maintenance Level (ML) 3, 4, 5 

routes with our existing budget, and we have sufficient funds to maintain ML 2 routes that need 

attention; however, the need is very small each year. Refer to the Transportation, Affordability 

section in chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Public comment 2: Some respondents stated that 336 miles is too many roads added to the National 

Forest Transportation System [2, 44, 43, 45].

Response: The Modoc National Forest is currently open to cross-country travel on 87 percent of the 

land. After this decision is implemented, cross-country travel will be prohibited, and access to many 

popular recreation activities will be reduced. The Forest Service completed an inventory of 

unauthorized routes in 2007, and 491 miles of unauthorized routes were identified. Many of these 

routes provide important motorized access and recreation opportunities. In order to maintain 

opportunities for the public to use and recreate on the Modoc National Forest, a range of 286 to 336 

miles of routes were analyzed in the FEIS for potential addition to the National Forest Transportation 

System. Although these additions may seem to be great, when compared to the loss of use of 87 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

140 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

percent of the Forest, it is quite small. In addition, in considering these potential additions to the 

National Forest Transportation System, the Forest Service considered factors such as safety, law 

enforcement, costs, user conflicts, public opinion and desires, resource impacts, and motorized and 

non-motorized opportunities. The FEIS addressed all of these factors. Chapter 3 of the FEIS analyzes 

impacts of the additions to each resource, including recreation.

Public comment 3: One respondent thought that all unauthorized routes should be added to the National 

Forest Transportation System and those roads with erosion problems should be added as ML 1 roads until 

the problem can be repaired [21].

Response: All unauthorized routes were evaluated against many different possible environmental 

consequences, not just erosion, to determine if they should be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System. If it was determined that the route would cause environmental consequences 

to other resources that could not be mitigated, that route was not proposed for addition. The amount 

of harm caused by its inclusion in the National Forest Transportation System would outweigh the 

benefit of the addition. All of the unauthorized routes that would be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System will be brought in as ML 2 roads.

Public comment 4: One respondent suggested that a table should show each route proposed for addition 

and evidence that supports the inclusion into the National Forest Transportation System. Show 

methodology for choosing routes [33 - #5].

Response: Volume 2, appendix A of the FEIS contains a table that shows why each route is being 

proposed for addition into the National Forest Transportation System. The Interdisciplinary Team 

evaluated each inventoried unauthorized route against a series of GIS backdrops, including fens, 

vernal pools, noxious weeds, Threatened and Endangered plants, critical aquatic refuge, lost river 

short nose sucker, shortnose sucker, Threatened and Endangered fish, Modoc National Forest 

Threatened and Sensitive fish, hydrological area of concern, soil areas of concern, primitive 

recreation opportunity spectrum class, recreation sites, resource and natural areas, recreation 

opportunity spectrum class semi-primitive non-motorized, special interest areas, riparian streamside, 

Riparian Conservation Area, riparian reserve, tribal areas of concern, tribal kosale area of concern, 

bald eagle, bald eagle winter roost, California spotted owl, golden eagle, goshawk, leks, prairie 

falcon, sandhill crane, Swainson's hawk, northern spotted owl, caves, roadless area, and user 

comment. The user comment layer was created in response to comments we received regarding 

specific, particular unauthorized routes and their use by the public.

Each of the inventoried unauthorized routes was displayed against the backdrop of all of these layers. 

If the route was found to be in conflict with a resource and the resource specialist found the impact to 

be unacceptable and immitigable, the route was eliminated from further consideration. The remaining 

routes were proposed for potential addition. The reason for proposing addition of the route is 

explained in the first table in Appendix A, Route Analysis. 

Public comment 5: Several respondents requested that a short spur route should be added at Reservoir F 

for use by fly fisherman [20, 46, 47, 48].

Response: The Responsible Official agrees on adding this route to the National Forest Transportation 

System, along with seasonal closures. However, because additional analysis is necessary to determine 

potential effects, addition of this route would be addressed outside of the travel management process.

Air Quality

Public comment 1: Some respondents felt that the DEIS fails to adequately address issues of air quality. 

Consequently, we must use quantification and modeling to understand whether the MDF‘s plans will 

comply with Federal and State air quality standards and to know what impact they may have on human 

health, wildlife, vegetation, water bodies, and climate [33].
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 141

Response: See FEIS, Chapter 3, Affected Environment Overview, Information on Other Resources, 

Air Quality. The number of vehicle miles traveled annually by Forest users is not expected to change 

in any alternative through prohibition of cross-country travel and the redirection of motorized use 

onto designated routes. Therefore, no change is anticipated that will adversely affect air quality. 

Alternatives

Public comment 1: Some respondents thought that Alternative 3 should include seasonal closures on all 

native surface roads in winter [15, 11, 1, 32].

Response: Thank you for your comment. Alternative 3 does not include seasonal closures. It was 

partially developed as a baseline for comparing impacts of the other action alternatives.

Public comment 2: Many respondents thought that an Alternative that considers road closures on the 

existing national forest road system must be included in the range of alternatives [33, 43, 31, 32].

Response: The Purpose and Need for action is identified in chapter 1 of the FEIS. The Proposed 

Action deals specifically with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. It provides direction for a 

system of National Forest Transportation System roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle 

use, and the prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated 

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

by the public. Therefore, any analysis of our existing system and comprehensive changes made to 

that system are beyond the scope of this analysis. We did, however, close one road because of known 

resource vandalism – knowledge of the vandalism was known prior to analysis and we used this 

process as the vehicle to provide the necessary protection. 

The Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, section 10.2 provides further direction on travel planning for 

the designation of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use. Under objective number 1, it states 

that reconsideration of the entire Forest transportation system is not required or appropriate (Forest 

Service Manual 7715.1).

Adequacy of Analysis

Public comment 1: Many respondents stated that the Forest must do a science-based travel analysis [33, 

44, 45, 32].

Response: The resource specialists‘ analyses in the FEIS are based on the best available science 

known to the Forest staff at the time of document preparation. We also note that Forest Service 

Manual 7712 (1) states the following: ―...travel analysis is not required to inform decisions related to 

the designation of roads and trails for those administrative units and ranger districts that have issued a 

Proposed Action as of January 8, 2009.‖ Nothing in the travel management regulations at 36 CFR 212 

requires that travel analysis must be completed before roads and trails on National Forest System 

lands are designated for motor vehicle use in accordance with Subpart B of the Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR 212.50).

Public comment 2a: Some respondents requested that the Forest Service incorporate previous decisions 

into the analysis of the impacts of those routes (existing system) [33].

Public comment 2b: The Forest Service should perform a comprehensive inventory of its past 

transportation decisions as part of travel analysis [33].

Response: The Forest Service believes that reviewing and inventorying all roads, trails, and areas 

without regard to prior travel management decisions would be unproductive, inefficient, and counter 

to the purposes of the Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. In its response to comments on 

these regulations, the Department of Agriculture explained that ―[n]othing in this final rule requires 

reconsideration of any previous administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

142 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

use on NFS roads and NFS trails or in areas on NFS lands and that were made under other authorities, 

including decisions made in land management plans and travel plans.‖ 70 Fed. Reg. 68264, 68268 

(Nov. 9, 2005). To clarify that travel management decisions implementing Subpart B need not 

review and inventory all past transportation decisions, the Forest Service added paragraph (b) to 36 

CFR 212.50, which provides that these prior decisions may be incorporated in the designation of 

roads, trails, and areas pursuant to Subpart B. Similarly, the Forest Service Manual 7715.03 – Policy 

(1) states that the Forest must use previous decisions to establish a starting point for proposals to 

change travel management decisions. Please see the ―Baseline‖ section in this document for 

additional information.

Public comment 3: One group suggests that no decisions should be made until the Forest completes a 

comprehensive inventory of all roads, trails, temporary roads and user created routes [33].

Response: The existing NFTS routes are in the INFRA database. The Forest conducted an extensive 

effort to inventory the existing unauthorized routes on the Forest. Public meetings and open houses 

were held to inform the public about the inventory and to receive comments on the inventory. The 

inventory was posted on the Forest‘s website, and many comments were received from the public. 

Missing routes identified by the public were visited and were added to the inventory where 

appropriate. Some unauthorized routes were no longer used by wheeled motor vehicles, and so were 

not included in the inventory.

Aquatics

Public comment 1: The DEIS did not analyze impacts to Goose Lake and Warner Lake (sic) redband 

trout [32, 43, 33].

Response: The analysis of effects of the Proposed Action on the Goose Lake redband trout and the 

Warner Valley redband trout were completed in the Biological Evaluation for aquatic species

(available in the project record). For the Goose Lake redband trout it was determined that there would 

be a ―may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability‖ determination. On a Forest-wide scale, in-channel sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and 

collection were not expected to be a significant impact due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use 

in the areas of concern. With the prohibition of cross-country travel and no identified unauthorized 

routes within or adjacent to its habitat, the Warner Valley redband trout does not have suitable habitat 

that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected by the Proposed Action. There is a ―no impact‖ 

determination for the Warner Valley redband trout.

Public comment 2: There was no analysis of this redband trout done in the DEIS. Seasonal closures on 

the existing system roads should be enacted in the spawning area of the Warner Lake (sic) redband trout 

[32, 43, 33].

Response: The analysis of effects of the Proposed Action on the Warner Valley redband trout was 

completed in the Biological Evaluation for aquatic species. Seasonal closures on existing system 

roads to protect spring spawning habitat for the Warner Valley redband trout would have limited 

effectiveness as these spawning areas are generally not accessible by vehicle traffic during spawning 

season for this species. 

Public comment 3: The DEIS does not mention listed Threatened and Endangered species (Modoc 

sucker, shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker, Shasta crayfish, and the proposed Oregon spotted frog) [33].

Response: The analysis of effects of the Proposed Action on Threatened and Endangered species is 

contained in the aquatic Biological Assessment (BA) for aquatic species, which is part of the project 

record and is incorporated by reference in the FEIS. This BA was written in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (19 USC 1536(c)), and follows 

standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). The Oregon spotted frog 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 143

was analyzed in the Biological Evualation on page 5. Analysis of candidate species is not a 

requirement of the ESA.

Public comment 4: The DEIS does not disclose how the OHV designation decisions will minimize 

impacts to riparian areas [33].

Response: Direct and indirect effects to habitat can be found in the Biological Evaluation and 

Biological Assessment for aquatic species (available in the project record). During the

Interdisciplinary Team analysis process, each route was looked at for potential impacts to riparian 

areas. If there was a known impact or conflict with the riparian resource, the route was excluded from 

addition to the NFTS.

Public comment 5: There should be strict seasonal closures on roads in spring spawning area of redband 

trout. [43]

Response: The Biological Evaluation determined that all action alternatives would eliminate crosscountry travel and reduce overall authorized use at varying levels from the current baseline. This 

reduction would result in no significant impacts (direct, indirect, or cumulative) from road use during 

spring spawning to these species from the current baseline. Furthermore, the roads in the spring 

spawning area self-regulate and are essentially impassable during the spawning season. Weather 

conditions make the road impassable to all vehicles most years. In the years where passage does 

occur, vehicle use would be limited to system roads and is so low that impacts are considered 

insignificant. 

Bald Eagle (LRMP Amendment)

Public comment 1: Some respondents asked that the winter bald eagle roost closure remain in place [31, 

3, 2, 23, 16, 15].

Response

Biological History

Bald eagle winter roosting at Timber Mountain has been known to the Modoc National Forest since at 

least 1988. Records indicate that local residents were aware of winter roosting occurring on the north 

edge of Timber Mountain as early as 1984. Roosting appears to have occurred at two locations. One 

location was near the border of the Forest with private land in sections 22 and 15. This is near what 

was the Watt Ranch in the late 1980s. For purposes of clarity this site will be referred to as the 

―Ranch roost‖ in this response. The second site is uphill and south of the private land straddling the 

section line between sections 21 and 28 near a game guzzler. This site will be referred to as the 

Guzzler roost. Both roost sites were used during the period of 1988 through 1992 during the winters. 

In June 1992, the Timber Mountain fire burned with stand-replacing intensity through the Ranch roost 

while the Guzzler roost was under burned, but fire did not kill the roost trees. Eagle roosting was 

observed in the Ranch roost in the fall of 1992 with some indication in the spring of 1993 that further 

roosting had occurred. Spring surveys of the Guzzler roost in 1993 also indicate that some roosting 

may have occurred during the winter of 1993. No formal surveys have been made since 1993 of roost 

areas. Anecdotal information and incidental observations indicate a probable decline in bald eagle use 

of the Timber Mountain and Highway 139 corridor. 

Change in use pattern

There may have been a change in the use of the local area by bald eagles. Prior to 1993, observations 

of bald eagles eating road killed deer along Highway 139 are relatively common in the Forest 

incidental observation database. After 1993 they are infrequent. The working theory of local 

biologists is that road-killed deer declined so significantly that road-killed carcasses were generally 

unavailable to feed large groups of eagles. The severe deer herd kill that occurred during the winter of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

144 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

1992-1993 reduced the deer herd significantly. California Department of Fish and Game data indicate 

a drop in the number of deer from 90,000 in 1992 to 30,000 for 1993 in the northeastern California 

deer assessment unit (Loft et al. 1998 Report to the Fish and Game Commission). There is no current 

evidence of a rebound in numbers of deer.

Current condition of the roosts

There is little evidence that that the Ranch roost is still viable or used. Most of the area has no trees or 

snags suitable for perching due to the fire and salvage activities. The Guzzler roost may be used 

occasionally when weather conditions and deer herd movements result in regular deer road kill along 

Highway 139.

Management History

The Ranch roost and Guzzler roost were considered at the time of Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan finalization in 1990. However, after plan signature in 1991, signing of closures and 

Forest orders did not occur before the Timber Mt. fire occurred in 1992. With subsequent changes in 

eagle use in the Timber Mountain area, a seasonal closure was never implemented. It does not appear 

that there is a viable winter roost at the Ranch roost site at this time. The Guzzler site appears to 

provide structurally suitable conditions for roosting but may have provided only a sporadic food 

source after the 1992-1993 winter deer die-off. The Guzzler site is also inaccessible most winters due 

to snow drifting on the roads that access the area. These roads do not provide access to the electronics 

site on the top of Timber Mountain and therefore generally remain untracked and inaccessible. 

Conclusion

Given the low suitability of the Ranch roost site, and the low accessibility of the Guzzler site, there 

does not appear to be a need to implement a road closure buffer for these two roosts. A seasonal road 

closure would not appear to provide any additional protection for bald eagles in this location. 

Therefore, the Forest proposes making a non-significant amendment to the Land and Resource 

Management Plan to reflect conditions on the ground and to clarify public access in the vicinity of the 

community of Tionesta.

Baseline

Public comment 1: Some respondents suggest that the Forest Service has not provided adequate or 

reliable documentation for what they consider to be the "baseline" of the current transportation system. 

The Forest has not provided decision notices, records of decision, NEPA documentation, road 

management objectives, or funding allocation data for putative system routes in its jurisdiction [33].

Response: The National Forest Transportation System was reviewed prior to the start of this project, 

and was established as the baseline. A combination of the INFRA database and the Forest‘s GIS 

system serve as the transportation atlas for the Forest. This atlas was created by reviewing historic 

transportation maps which were checked by experienced personnel for accuracy. Once the existing 

system was determined, the data was then uploaded into the INFRA database. The INFRA database is 

periodically updated as things change across the transportation system. 

Public comment 2: One respondent felt that the No-Action Alternative should not be used as a baseline 

to compare against the other alternatives. [33]

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service is required by law to follow the 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulation, Sec. 1502.14 (d) which directs us to include the 

alternative of no action. The Region feels that this is an appropriate baseline for this project since it 

compares how the landscape would be affected if current management continues against the other 

alternatives which enact the Travel Management Rule by prohibiting cross country travel.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 145

Big-Game Retrieval

Public comment: One respondent requested that reasonable allowance should be made for big game 

retrieval with ATVs . There was a suggestion to employ a permit system which allows hunters to retrieve 

their game from off road with an ATV or other motorized vehicle [8].

Public comment 1: Several respondents request that the MDF should seasonally allow cross-country 

travel with ATVs for the specific purpose of big-game retrieval [34, 3, 8].

Response: Thank you for your comment. Forest Service Manual 7715.74 (3) states that ― To promote 

consistency, the Regional Forester should coordinate designations pursuant to Forest Service Manual 

7715.74, paragraph 1, within states and among adjoining administrative units.‖ The Regional 

Forester of Region 5. which includes the Modoc National Forest decided to not generally provide for 

retrieval of big game by ATVs across country. 

Public comment 2: One respondent suggested that the Forest Service work with the county Fish, Game, 

and Recreation Commission to develop a process for downed game retrieval [40].

Response: Thank you for your comment. See response immediately above. 

Botany

Public comment 1: One commenter suggests that mitigations such as barriers or re-routing of roads 

would be effective in eliminating OHV effects on the two Sensitive species plants [34].

Response: The FEIS, Botanical Resources, Addendum to Effects Analysis, states that Alternatives 2 

and 5 may have effects on three Sensitive plant species: Buxbaumia viridis, Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum. There are three 

occurrences of Buxbaumia viridis, four occurrences of Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus, and one occurrence of Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum located within 100 

feet of proposed route additions under Alternatives 2 and 5 (eight total Sensitive plant occurrences). 

The Responsible Official has decided not to add routes located within 100 feet of these sensitive 

plants to eliminate any potential for harm. The routes that impact these species will not be included 

as part of the National Forest Transportation System or shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

In response to the barrier question, it is unlikely that erecting barriers or re-routing roads would 

eliminate effects on these three Sensitive plant species. These are typically spur roads which often 

pass through or adjacent to the occurrence, and through potential habitat. An effective barrier would 

essentially negate the value of the spur in several instances, or simply close the spur. Re-routing of 

roads could cause further disturbance in potential habitat and negate possible benefits of re-routing 

for Sensitive species. 

Public comment 2: One group suggests that the Forest should conduct field surveys of Sensitive and 

Watch List plant species on proposed routes with a high likelihood of their presence [41 ].

Response: Field surveys were performed on vernal pools located within 300 feet of proposed routes 

which had potential habitat for the two Federally listed plant species, Orcuttia tenuis and Tuctoria 

greenei. Survey results are available in the project record. All routes with a potential to affect any 

occurrence of either of these species were removed from all of the action alternatives.

Analysis of the effects of proposed routes on Sensitive plant species was conducted with the best 

available information. Please see Appendices A-2 and F for additional information. 

Public comment 3: The Modoc National Forest has very little current, accurate field data as to how much 

public rangeland and Forest is infected with noxious weeds, and what the effect of the action will have on 

the situation [43].
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

146 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Response: An inventory of weed locations on the Forest exists, and is updated as new occurrences are 

discovered. Surveys for new occurrences of noxious weeds are conducted annually concurrently with 

sensitive plant surveys, even though no systematic surveys have been conducted exclusively for 

noxious weeds since 2004. The FEIS effects analysis for noxious weeds was conducted using the best 

available information on noxious weed infestations across the Forest. The potential effects of the 

action alternatives on noxious weeds are analyzed in the FEIS, Noxious Weeds, Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences; and in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, Modoc 

National Forest Motorized Travel Management Project. The Record of Decision for Noxious Weed 

Treatment was approved on August 12, 2008. 

Public comment 4: Additional information is necessary to evaluate the continued use of roads and trails 

near fens, wet meadows, riparian habitat and vernal pools.

Response: The focus of the current action is to implement the prohibition on cross-country travel 

contained in the Travel Management Rule, and to address important motorized recreation access and 

opportunities affected by the prohibition. The Forest is not, at this time, evaluating whether use on 

existing system roads and trails should continue (see response to comment Adequacy of Analysis 2b 

above). The effects of proposed routes and mixed use near fens, wet meadows, riparian habitat, and 

vernal pools were analyzed in the FEIS, Chapter 3-Botanical Resources, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences. Effects associated with the National Forest Transportation System are 

considered in the cumulative effects section of Chapter 3, Botanical Resources, pp. __.

Public comment 5: There have been no systematic noxious-weed surveys on the Forest since 2004 and 

no route-specific surveys done for travel management (p. 178). Very little current field data is available 

on how much land is affected; therefore, the Forest Service also does not know what the situation is on 

hundreds of miles of proposed unauthorized routes [33].

Response: A basic inventory of weed locations on the Forest exists, and is updated as new 

occurrences are discovered. Surveys for new occurrences of noxious weeds are conducted annually 

concurrently with sensitive plant surveys, even though no systematic surveys have been conducted 

exclusively for noxious weeds since 2004. The FEIS effects analysis for noxious weeds was 

conducted using the best available information on noxious weed infestations across the Forest.

Public comment 6: The DEIS reveals the failure of the Forest to comply with its Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) standards and guidelines, which direct the Forest to control noxious weeds 

and perform annual monitoring of noxious weed population levels [33].

Response: The noxious weed specialist report did not clearly describe LRMP monitoring requirements 

for noxious weeds, and this has been corrected in the FEIS. See Chapter 3, Noxious Weeds, Analysis 

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

The Land and Resource Management Plan requires that noxious weed monitoring results be reported 

annually, but monitoring itself is an ongoing process, expected to have only moderate precision and 

moderate reliability (see the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, p. 5-8, 

―Forest Pests.‖). 

Surveys for new occurrences of noxious weeds have been conducted every year since 2004 

concurrently with sensitive plant surveys, although these were not ―systematic‖ in the sense that they 

were dedicated weed-mapping surveys. New weed-occurrence reports are completed whenever new 

occurrences are found, and these new occurrences have been added to the Forest‘s noxious weed 

database annually, both prior to and after 2004. Surveys were not systematically looking for weeds, 

which typically occur in disturbed areas such as roadsides, along trails, in landings, around recreation 

areas, etc. Botany surveys generally focus on potential habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, 

and Watch list Plant species, which typically occur on sites which have not been greatly altered, while 

noxious weeds are more common on sites that have been disturbed. During botany surveys, new 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 147

noxious weed locations are mapped, however, there has been no systematic inventory specifically for 

noxious weeds across the Forest. 

Public comment 7: The assumption in the DEIS that change of vehicle class on National Forest 

Transportation System roads has no impact to rare plants or their associated habitats (p. 128) is not correct 

and contradicts (p. 185) other statement in same document [43].

Response: We agree that some statements regarding the effects of change in vehicle class were 

confusing in the DEIS and have made corrections in the FEIS. Within the section, we addressed the 

potential indirect effect on TES plants from increased noxious weed risk in the Environmental 

Consequences section. 

Public comment 8: For each route proposed to be added, the FEIS should provide the specific rationale 

that supports the decision that the benefits of continued motorized routes outweigh the negative effects. 

Analysis should be for routes within 100 feet of sensitive habitats [41].

Response: Botany analysis included sensitive habitats within 100 feet of proposed routes. Sitespecific rationale for adding proposed routes to the National Forest Transportation System are 

documented in appendix A, vol. 2, Modoc National Forest Motorized Travel Management FEIS. 

Public comment 9: The Proposed Action allows motorized travel to continue within or adjacent to 

sensitive habitats (fens, wet meadows, riparian habitat and vernal pools) (p. 141-154). Include the 

rationale for each specific road or trail within 100 feet. of sensitive habitats, and modify or reduce 

proximity to and adverse effects on these resources [41].

Response: Potential effects of proposed route additions, seasonal closures, changes to vehicle class,

and changes to the existing road system are analyzed in the FEIS for each of the alternatives in the 

Botany, Environmental Consequences section. Also in the Biological Assessment for Orcuttia tenuis

and Tuctoria tenuis, p. 9-15; and in the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants, p. 5-17.

Climate Change 

Public comment 1a: One group suggests that the DEIS violates NEPA by failing to analyze the impacts 

of climate change [33].

Public comment 1b: One group asks that the FEIS include a discussion of climate change and its 

potential effects on the Forest as it relates to the route designation decision and the National Forest 

Transportation System [41]

Response: This action is focused on managing where motor vehicles travel. This action does not 

regulate or increase the number of vehicles on NFS lands. The regulation of emissions is not within 

the jurisdiction of this agency. The Forest Service acknowledges that climate change has the potential 

to affect resources on the Forest. These effects are discussed in Chapter 3 in the Soils and Hydrology 

section, where there is a section on climate change.

Close System Roads

Public comment 1a: Several responders suggest that the Forest should close system routes around Lava 

Beds National Monument and the South Warner Wilderness, to prevent trespass [37, 15, 1].

Public comment 1b: Several responders suggest that the Forest close 46N17 and spurs east of Lava Beds 

National Monument and 46A21MB and MA to maintain the roadless characteristics of the area [15].

Response: The purpose and need for the current action is to implement Subpart B of the travel 

management regulations and address unmanaged motorized cross-country travel, not to close existing 

National Forest Transportation System roads and trails. However, the educational and lawenforcement efforts that will be associated with implementation of this decision may help with 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

148 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

motorized trespass issues in general. In addition, the need for this action may either be addressed 

outside of this process and closed administratively, or be carried forth into the revision of the Land 

Management Plan.

Cross-Country Travel

Public comment 1: Some respondents feel that cross-country travel should be allowed on the Forest [6, 

22].

Response: Across the nation, unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in 

unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural 

resource sites. Compaction and erosion are the primary effects of motor vehicle use on soils. Riparian 

areas and aquatic-dependent species are particularly vulnerable to damage from motor vehicle use. 

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 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). This final Travel 

Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle 

use on national Forests. Only roads 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. The final rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated NFTS roads and 

NFTS trails, as well as use of motor vehicles on roads and trails that are not specifically designated 

for public use.

No National Forest is exempt from this rule.

Cultural Resources

Public comment 1: One responder stated that the Forest Service has misconstrued its obligations to apply 

the minimization criteria at a site-specific level during the route-designation process, and the agency 

proposes to designate roads through 234 archeological sites resulting in negative effect to the heritage 

resources on those sites [33].

Response: We are following the Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement (2006) with the 

State Historic Preservation Office, which allows the Forest to implement the following strategy found 

on page 96 of the FEIS, Volume 1:

National Register of Historic Places evaluation, however, can be deferred for historic 

properties where (1) no physical damage or reasonable potential for physical damage 

exists, (2) effects are ambiguous and monitoring is prescribed, or (3) Standard Resource 

Protection Measures (cf., OHV Programmatic Agreement (PA)) can be prescribed to 

ensure that the values or potential values of the historic property can be protected. If 

effects are ambiguous (i.e., origin, age, severity, etc.), then limited-term monitoring (see 

Monitoring) may be employed to more fully characterize the nature of any effects, the 

need for evaluation, or whether additional management measures might be implemented 

in lieu of NRHP evaluation or other procedures under 36 CFR 800. NRHP evaluation is 

required at sites where physical damage from past vehicle use is noted, and forests 

cannot or will not protect properties from new or ongoing effects using prescribed 

protection or treatment measures listed in this strategy, the OHV PA, or other measures 

identified in consultation with the SHPO.

We have evaluated effects to heritage resources associated with each proposed route addition. We 

determined that the observed effects of the existing user-created routes on most heritage resource sites are 

minor or negligible, as identified in appendix F. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 149

A sample of the 242 archaeological sites designated for monitoring should be examined each year. It is 

recommended that a 10 percent sample be selected—or 24 sites per year for three years. If no noticeable 

effects are identified on any of these sampled sites, then the need to continue monitoring should be 

reexamined.

Directives

Public comment 1a: Some respondents suggest that the proposed action is insufficient in the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and Northwest Forest Plan directives. Watershed analysis must be 

completed to determine influence of each road on Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. 

Public comment 1b: The exemption in the final directives is contrary to the Travel Management 

regulations at 36 CFR 212.

Response: This comment addresses issuance of national travel management directives and is outside 

the scope of the current action.

Dispersed Camping

Public comment 1: Some respondents stated that dispersed camping should be addressed in this action. 

[39,36]

Response: The Responsible Official decided to designate short spur roads in lieu of setting aside 

specific dispersed camping areas in this action. Based on public input, the Forest learned that the 

use on the Modoc National Forest is Forest-wide, and that the public prefers to have a range of 

choices on where they camp rather than be limited to a specific area.

Public comment 2: Some respondents did not want the Forest to limit parking to one vehicle length; 

instead, to designate the spurs for use as access to dispersed camping or parking [39, 36].

Response: See comment Dispersed Camping 1 above. Once the Travel Management Rule is 

implemented and the Motor Vehicle Use Map is issued, motorized travel will no longer occur across 

country. Once the Motor Vehicle Use Map is published, motor vehicles must stay on the designated 

roads, within one vehicle length, or within 30 feet of the road. 

Public comment 2: Some respondents want dispersed camping (separate from historic use) to be 

permitted within 100 feet of a designated road. (Forest Service Manual 7715.74 and 7716.13), and to 

monitor impacts of use. [34].

Response: Thank you for your comment. It states in Forest Service Manual 7715.74 (1) that ―the 

Responsible Official may include in a designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified 

distance of certain forest roads...solely for the purpose of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed 

big game....‖ It further states that the authority in paragraph 1 should be used sparingly... and that 

rather, the official should designate spur roads for this purpose. The Responsible Official will provide 

for dispersed camping along or at the end of designated routes. Nowhere in the handbook does it 

designate or recommend a specific length off a road for use by dispersed camping. 

Public comment 3: One respondent had concerns that dispersed camping would be closed (Upper and 

Lower Dan Ryan) [19].

Response: If the roads that access dispersed camping at Upper and Lower Dan Ryan are added to the 

National Forest Transportation System, they would not be in compliance with the riparian guidelines 

for the Forest and therefore would not meet the Purpose and Need for this project. An individual can 

park on a designated road and walk into the site if he or she wants to camp. The two routes that access 

the sites in question will not be added to the National Forest Transportation System because both of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

150 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

these roads would require design and substantial reconstruction in order to safely access the main 

road.

Do not Close Forest

Public comment 1: Some respondents understood the action as closing the Forest to public use [24, 22].

Response: This action will not close the Forest to public use; however, it will restrict the use of motor 

vehicles by the public to designated roads and trails. 

Enforcement

Public comment 1: One respondent requested information on where funding comes from for 

enforcement. [39]

Response: As stated in appendix G, volume II of the FEIS, page 165: 

The national Law Enforcement and Investigation (LEI) budget is funded by appropriated 

funds from Congress to provide law enforcement services on the National Forest System 

lands. The Travel Management program is one of many Forest programs to benefit from 

federal law enforcement funding. For the past few years, law enforcement funding has 

increased, and that has translated into an increase in field law enforcement personnel. 

To enhance enforcement of the Travel Management Rule, Region 5 Forest recreation programs have 

applied for and received grant dollars (green-sticker funding) from the State of California OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Grants Program. These state funds are earmarked 

specifically for enforcement of off-highway vehicle laws and regulations on the various forests, and 

are performed primarily by forest protection officers (FPOs). In addition, law enforcement officers 

(LEOs) support the FPOs as needed, especially if serious violations have occurred. In recent years, 

state law enforcement grants have ranged from three to four million dollars annually, with similar 

funding anticipated for the 2008-2009 grant cycle. 

Further information on law enforcement and how it relates to travel management can be found in 

appendix G of the FEIS.

Executive Orders

Public comment 1: Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 should guide the Travel Management process.

The route designation process should be directed by current Forest Service policy, as well as certain 

regulatory mandates, and the best peer-reviewed and objective ecological data available. Executive 

Orders 11644 (1972) and 11989 (1977): Require the agency to ensure the use of off-road vehicles on 

public land will be controlled [32, 33].

Response: The Forest Service promulgated the Travel Management Rule to implement these 

executive orders, which both address ―Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands‖ (E.O. 11644, 

as amended by E.O.11989). The current action implements direction contained in the Travel 

Management Rule regarding management of motor vehicle use on the National Forests, and in

particular, the management of OHV use and cross-country travel. 

Implementation and Education

Public comment 1: One group states that no action should be taken to decommission routes if they are 

not added to the National Forest Transportation System [40].

Response: Decisions to decommission routes are made on a case-by-case basis. If they are not added 

to the NFTS, they are evaluated as part of the Forest in general, and treated appropriately.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 151

Public comment 2: One respondent requested that the FEIS address implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule [39].

Response: An implementation strategy can be found in appendix G, volume I,. p. 167-168 of the 

FEIS in the Law Enforcement section. Pages 167-169 speak directly to implementation.

Public comment 3: Some respondents suggested share-the-road information, maps, speed limits, and 

road signs would greatly enhance visitor safety on all ML 3 roads designated for mixed use [34, 40].

Response: Education will be an ongoing effort across the Forest, especially in the early stages of 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Signage of National Forest Transportation System 

routes that will show on the Motor Vehicle Use Map should be completed within the first three years 

of the project. The implementation strategy in volume II of the FEIS in Appendix G, Law 

Enforcement, p. 167-168, describes the types of educational activities we foresee. 

Public comment 4: Respondents indicated that education of public would be important prior to 

implementation [34, 40].

Response: Education will be an ongoing effort across the Forest, especially in the early stages of 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. The implementation strategy in volume II of the 

FEIS in Appendix G, Law Enforcement, p. 167-168, describes the types of educational activities we 

foresee. 

Public comment 5: Some respondents stated that additional information would be necessary to fully 

describe monitoring and enforcement commitments, the affected environment, and proposed increase in 

mixed use [41].

Response: In Volume 2 of the FEIS there are two appendices that relate to this concern: Appendix C, 

Monitoring Plan; and Appendix G, Law Enforcement. Both of these appendices contain information 

about monitoring and enforcement commitments. The affected environment and the proposed 

increase in mixed use is addressed throughout volume 1, chapter 3 of the FEIS.

INFRA Database

Public comment 1: One group states that the Forest Service is unable to provide convincing evidence 

that all routes in the INFRA database were designed to be open for long-term, public motorized recreation 

[33].

Response: Updating the INFRA database is an ongoing effort; however, considerable time was taken 

to insure that roads designated for long-term, continuous use were correctly input into the INFRA 

database when the transportation atlas was being created. That said, through the travel management 

process additional coding errors were found, and will be corrected prior to the publication of the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Furthermore, once the MVUM is produced, it will be updated 

annually and any additional corrections will be made at that time. 

Public comment 2: Respondents noted that routes in the INFRA database that are ML 1 are showing on 

the DEIS maps [33].

Response: Thank you for helping us to find that discrepancy. An error occurred in the production of 

maps for the DEIS. ML 1 routes will not be shown on the maps for the FEIS because ML 1 roads are 

closed to motorized vehicle use. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Public comment 1a: Some respondents indicate that to allow OHV use in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

would cause disproportionate conflict between the quiet recreationist community and OHV users, and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

152 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

would risk precluding roadless areas from further consideration for wilderness designation [2, 33] (same 

as Issue 6 in FEIS). 

Public comment 1b: Some respondents suggest that the Forest Service is proposing to add routes in 

Roadless areas.

Response: There are no unauthorized routes proposed for addition in agency dedicated Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. The Citizen Proposed Wilderness Areas already contain roads. See discussion and 

analysis in the Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the Roadless Characteristics section of chapter 3.

Public comment 2: Several respondents asked that the Forest Service remove all roads (National Forest 

Transportation System and unauthorized routes from agency roadless areas).

Response: The purpose and need for the current action is to address unmanaged cross-country travel 

and to implement Subpart B of the travel management regulations, not to close and decommission 

existing National Forest Transportation System roads. See responses to comments addressing 

Subpart A below. 

Public comment 3: Routes 46N21M and 46A21M are currently used by an OHV group for their Mt. 

Dome run. They are in a roadless area. Other routes are available for use and these should be closed.

Response: The purpose and need for the current action is to address unmanaged cross-country travel 

and to implement Subpart B of the travel management regulations, not to close and decommission 

existing National Forest Transportation System roads. See responses to comments, Subpart A .

Maintenance 

Public comment 1: Use volunteers to control vegetation encroachment on mixed use roads. Describe the 

current OHV program and the potential to assist with the Forest‘s future road maintenance through 

programs such as adopt-a-trail or adopt-a-road [34].

Response: There are only a few recreation user groups in the area; therefore, it is difficult to recruit 

volunteers to do this kind of work. We have had some limited success with specific projects such as 

installing signs on the California Backcountry Trail, and developing trailheads at Pepperdine and East 

Creeks. We will continue to use volunteers and partners as opportunities arise.

Public comment 2a: The Forest cannot maintain its existing National Forest Transportation System, yet 

is proposing to add routes. As roads degrade from lack of maintenance, this is a liability for the Forest 

[42, 40, 33].

Public comment 2b: How can the Forest Service address known road-related resource impairments, 

given the lack of maintenance funds and the addition of new routes to the system? 

Response: The majority of the road maintenance costs on the Forest is for ML 3, 4, and 5 roads. 

Maintenance level (ML) 2 roads do not significantly add to our costs. All of the roads proposed for 

addition to the National Forest Transportation System are ML 2 roads, so the additional cost is 

minimal. See the FEIS, Chapter 3, Transportation Facilities, Affordability. 

Public comment 3: If the Forest Service adds routes, they should be able to maintain them. Nonmaintained routes may lead to erosion, may collapse, and may cause serious safety problems [42, 13, 40, 

33].

Response: The routes proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System are all ML 

2 roads. Maintenance on ML 2 roads is focused on correcting safety hazards, preventing resource 

damage, and on route identification signs. As safety or resource problems are identified, they will be 

prioritized for inclusion in our road maintenance program along with the maintenance needs of the 

other roads.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 153

Public comment 4: One respondent asked the Forest Service to upgrade National Forest Transportation 

System Forest Route 10 to a good-quality, unpaved road with proper foundation and surfacing aggregate 

materials (gravel)[37].

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the project. However, the Forest received funding to 

improve Primary Route 10 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. 

Work is currently planned to start next spring or summer on the repairs to this road.

Public comment 5: One respondent suggests that there should be a sign put at Ash Creek that says ―No 

vehicles past this point.‖

Response: Without additional information about where on Ash Creek this sign should go, the Forest 

cannot respond to this request.

Maps

Public comment 1: Some respondents requested that citizen wilderness areas should be shown on maps 

[31, 15].

Response: The creation of maps is an expensive and time-consuming activity. The maps that have 

been created to show the alternatives display a large amount of information. There could be endless 

amounts of additional information displayed on those maps. We feel that additions to those maps, 

such as Citizen Inventoried Areas, would allow for a loss of clarity. However, a smaller version of 

the map is located in the Roadless section of chapter 3. Furthermore, the GIS layer of citizen 

inventoried roadless areas is available on the Forest and if a specific need is identified for those maps, 

the public may request them on an as-needed basis. 

Public comment 2: One respondent asked how the Motor Vehicle Use Map will be funded each year, and 

how quality control would ensure routes aren't lost off maps from year to year. Maps should be good for 

more than a year [39].

Response: The Motor Vehicle Use Map will be funded through our normal budget process. Official 

files of the Motor Vehicle Use Map will be retained at the Forest headquarters, and can be revised as 

needed.

Minimum Road System

Public Comment 1: The Forest Service (FS) should identify the minimum road system needed for safe 

and efficient travel and for protection of FS lands. Close and decommission National Forest 

Transportation System routes that are duplicative [44, 41, 31, 15].

Response: The travel management regulations comprise three parts: Subpart A, Administration of the 

Forest Transportation System; Subpart B, Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use; and Subpart C, Use by Over-Snow Vehicles. Subpart A of the travel management regulations 

includes the provision referred to in this comment. The focus of this action is implementation of 

Subpart B, which directs the Forest Service to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor 

vehicle use. Subpart B also provides that prior decisions regarding the existing National Forest 

Transportation System may be incorporated into the designated system. For purposes of the current 

proposal, the Forest has identified a need to end unrestricted cross-country travel to protect Forest 

resources, while at the same time maintaining motorized access and recreational opportunities for the 

public. A broad-scale effort to close and decommission roads does not meet the purpose and need for 

action at this time. Implementation of Subpart B will have immediate, on-the-ground effects, which 

are the subject of the analysis contained in this FEIS.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

154 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Mixed Use

Public comment 1: One group states that the DEIS does not adequately analyze mixed use and its effects 

of OHV use and adding routes [33].

Response: Information on the impacts of mixed use is available in the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Transportation; and in appendix N.

Public comment 2: One respondent felt that OHV travel on unpaved county and National Forest System 

roads is legal [34].

Response: The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over county roads. OHV use on unpaved 

National Forest System roads may be authorized by the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor. 

Public comment 3: Green-sticker vehicle access on ML 3 roads is essential for a complete recreational 

experience with loop opportunities [36].

Response: 36 CFR 212.55, Criteria for Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas, states the following:

The Responsible Official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and 

cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, 

conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and 

administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration 

are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration 

[italics added]. 

Based on public comments, there is an interest in designating ML 3 roads for use by OHVs so that 

loop routes are connected for recreational opportunities. The mixed-use analysis in the project record

provides details on mixed use. Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 designate additional mixed use on the 

Forest. Mixed use allow for use by both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. Mixed use 

was approved by the California Highway Patrol and by the Regional Forester.

Public comment 4: One commenter states that it a misnomer to call unpaved roads passenger car roads, 

since most use is done by high-clearance vehicles [34].

Response: The category of ML 2 road addresses this question. This level is assigned to roads open for 

use by high-clearance vehicles. Generally, this level is not suitable for passenger cars. Surface 

smoothness is not a consideration, and the surface is normally unpaved native materials. 

Public comment 5: Several respondents ask that the Forest allow mixed use on all unpaved level 3 to 5 

roads where it is safe [34, 7, 40].

Response: All of Modoc National Forest ML 4 and 5 roads are paved. Alternative 5 provides mixed 

use on ML 3 roads on the Forest. Alternative 2 also provides mixed use on ML 3 roads, but to a lesser 

amount than Alternative 5. These roads are not paved. Refer to the description of alternatives in 

chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Public comment 6: The region‘s mixed-use policy invalidates your mixed-use proposals on passenger 

car roads greater than three miles [34].

Response: Based on Forest Service Manual 7715.77 (5), Motorized Mixed Use of National Forest 

System Roads, decisions on motorized mixed use, like other travel management decisions, is the 

responsibility of the Responsible Official, in this case the Forest Supervisor. If the Forest Supervisor 

wishes to provide for mixed use on ML 3 roads, a mixed-use analysis is required and needs to be 

reviewed by the Regional Engineer. The final decision is determined by the Regional Forester 

(Regional Forest Team), in consultation with the Forest Supervisor. The Regional Forester and the 

California Highway Patrol approved mixed use for the Modoc National Forest.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 155

Public comment 7: One respondent states that proposing ―combined use‖ designations on 544 miles of 

ML 3 roads requires conformance with Section 38026 of the California Vehicle Code [34].

Response: Combined use is a California Highway Patrol designation. Mixed use is a Forest Service 

designation, and mixed use is provided for in Alternatives 2 and 5. 

Public comment 8: One respondent asked if the process for designating lengths of over three miles for 

mixed use as proposed by the RO is followed, how many proposals will be approved [34]?

Response: See the FEIS, Chapter 3, Transportation; also appendix N. The Regional Forester 

approved mixed use for ML 3 roads over three miles.

Public comment 9: One respondent asks that we explain in the FEIS how the Regional Forester can cite 

the California Vehicle Code to prohibit mixed use on National Forest System passenger roads, but then 

allow it on certain roads that are far greater than three miles. This is in conflict with section 38026 of the 

California Vehicle Code [34].

Response: The Regional Forester‘s letters addressing mixed use are clear on this issue. Information 

on mixed use for Alternatives 2 and 5 is available in chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Public comment 10: The Forest Service does not have enough mixed-use accident data from Region 5 

Forests to adopt a regional policy that prohibits mixed use on thousands of unpaved roads in California 

[34, 4].

Response: Neither the Forest nor the California Highway Patrol has any record of any accidents 

involving mixed use on the Modoc National Forest.

Public comment 11: The Forest Service should approach the California Highway Patrol and California 

State Parks‘ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division to see if state safety requirements for 

minors need to be strengthened [34].

Response: Safety requirements for vehicle operation for minors are the responsibility of the 

California Highway Patrol. The Forest Service has discussed safety requirements for all motor vehicle 

operations with them. 

Public comment 12: Designating ML 3 roads for mixed use increases the threat of noxious weeds [33].

Response: Based on our traffic count surveys for ML 3 roads, which counted 5 OHVs out of a total of 

791 vehicles, the potential increase for noxious weeds is very low. Refer to the mixed-use analysis in 

the project recrod. Within the Botany, Environmental Consequences section, we addressed the 

potential indirect effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants from increased noxious 

weed risk.

Public comment 13: NEPA requires an analysis of routes proposed for mixed use. They must be 

analyzed for surface type and how additional vehicles would affect these roads [33].

Response: Routes considered for mixed use are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, including appendix N. Further information on mixed use is available in the project record.

Public comment 14: Do not cite the Highway Safety Act (HSA) as a reason for prohibiting motorized 

mixed use on National Forest System roads [34].

Response: We agree that the HSA does not directly relate to prohibition of motorized mixed use and 

is actually a safety regulation.

Multiple Use

Public comment 1: Motorized use is being unfairly valued against other use on the Forest [45].

Response: The purpose of this action is to manage use of motorized vehicles across the Forest.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

156 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

The Travel Management Rule of 2005 requires designation of those roads and trails that are open to 

motor-vehicle use, and the prohibition of cross-country travel. 

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act defines 

multiple use, in part, as ―...management of all the various resources of the National Forests so that 

they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.‖ The act 

does not prohibit motorized use.

Prohibition of motor vehicles would not meet part of the Purpose and Need for this project: (1) to 

provide motorized access to dispersed recreational opportunities, and (2) to provide a diversity of 

motorized recreational opportunities.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Public comment 1: Some respondents state that the decisions concerning which new routes to designate 

are arbitrary, and that no method of analysis is given for determining which unauthorized routes were 

added to the National Forest Transportation System [33].

Response: The basis for addition of unauthorized routes is founded in the Final Travel Rule, 36 CFR 

Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295—Travel Management; Designated Routes, and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use. We heard from the public that they use the routes across the Forest for recreation and for making 

a living. The Forest felt that the addition of routes would be appropriate for recreational access unless 

there was conflicting and immitigable resource damage that would occur with the addition. See the 

travel analysis process response section in this document. Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIS further 

describe the public involvement process and development of alternatives. 

Public comment 2: One group states that the FEIS should state how the Forest will ensure specific 

unauthorized routes are adequately evaluated pursuant to NEPA requirements. Was environmental 

analysis or public involvement done adequately to insure that the routes are not poorly located or cause 

unacceptable impacts [41]?

Response: Public involvement was done throughout the process ,and is documented in Chapter 1 of 

the FEIS. Environmental analysis was done using an interdisciplinary team, and by each of the 

resource specialists. It is documented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Noise

Public comment 1: the DEIS inadequately considers the potential impacts of the propagation of engine 

noise around roads and trails in either its route-specific assessment or its analysis of cumulative impacts 

of the motorized system [33].

Response: Motorized use on the Modoc NF is extremely low and is not expected to increase through this 

action. We do not expect a significant increase in use, and therefore do not expect a significant increase 

in noise with this action. The elimination of cross-country travel will reduce or eliminate noise in areas 

that are inaccessible by road.

Not Adding Routes (Appendix A-1 of the DEIS)

Public comment 1: Display all unauthorized routes so that readers can understand why routes were not 

added to system.

Response: This information is available upon individual request and currently resides in the project 

record. Routes were generally not added to the system if there was an existing or potential conflict 

with other resources that could not be mitigated.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 157

Open Areas

Public comment 1: Open areas should be created on the Forest [3].

Response: The Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216/ Wednesday, November 9, 2005, p. 68274 states, 

―Under the Travel Management Rule, no administrative unit or Ranger District will be required to 

designate an area.‖ The Responsible Official for the Modoc National Forest chose to not designate 

additional (open) areas, but to add appropriate unauthorized routes.

Over-Snow Vehicles

Public comment 2: Why are over-snow vehicles not addressed in the DEIS [3]?

Response: See 36CFR212.81. Over-snow vehicles will be addressed in Subpart C. This action 

addresses only Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, so it is not appropriate to address oversnow vehicles in this process. 

Parking

Public comment 1a: Some respondents state that parking should be permitted within 30 feet from any 

designated road or trail when it does not cause resource damage [34].

Public comment 1b: Some respondents state that the Forest should restrict parking (dispersed camping) 

to one vehicle length or a 300-foot corridor rather than adding spurs [31].

Response: The Forest Service Manual 7716.1 (1) – Content of Designations states,

A designation of a road or trail includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and 

turnouts associated with the road or trail. The designation also includes parking a motor 

vehicle on the side of the road, when it is safe to do so without causing damage to

National Forest System resources or facilities, unless prohibited by state law, a traffic 

sign, or an order (36 CFR 261.54). Road designations must specify either that they 

include parking within one vehicle length of the edge of the road, or within a specified 

distance of up to 30 feet from the centerline of the road.

The Forest has chosen to add spurs that access dispersed camping; in many cases these are extensions 

of existing system routes. Parking will be allowed one vehicle length, or a maximum of 30 feet, from 

designated roads.

Permitted Use

Public Comment 1a: Several respondents would like to see a change in grazing and woodcutting permits 

to include permanent language in the permits [42, 40, 35, 9].

Public Comment 1b: One respondent states that the terms and conditions of fuelwood permits should 

comply with the principles of the 2005 Travel Management Rule [34].

Public Comment 1c: One respondent asks that woodcutting permits be amended to restrict vehicle travel 

to no more than 100 feet from the road. This should be analyzed in the FEIS [34].

Response: The permitting process is outside the scope of this action as stated in the Travel 

Management Rule 36 CFR 212.51 (a) (8). Permitted use is specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

158 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Plan Direction

Public comment 1: Minimize cumulative watershed impacts on stream channel condition and water 

quality [must be analyzed] by assessing the effects of each land-disturbing activity prior to its undertaking 

[43].

Response: This undertaking does not include land-disturbing activities. The unauthorized routes 

proposed to be added to the road system already exist. 

Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum

Public comment 1: The DEIS is proposing to designate two ML 2 routes and add three new unauthorized 

routes in the Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum area [33].

Response: An error was made during the map-making process. It was not the intention of the Forest 

to add routes in the primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum areas. This error will be corrected 

prior to publication of the FEIS.

Private Property

Public comment 1a: Do not show routes that cross private property on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. Add 

signs to help keep people out of private property [5, 28].

Public comment 1b: Routes that cross private property where the Forest Service does not have a right-ofway or easement, should not be displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

Public comment 1c: Private landowners can sign their property if they want to restrict public access. The 

lack of a formal or legal road agreement across private ownerships should not eliminate unauthorized 

routes from designation [34, 3].

Response: The final rule requires responsible officials to recognize rights of access in designating 

roads and trails 212.55(d)). Rights of access include valid existing rights and rights of use of National 

Forest System roads and National Forest System trails under § 212.6(b). This final rule does not 

affect reciprocal rights-of-way between the Forest Service and private landowners. Some property 

owners may also possess reserved or outstanding rights-of-way or other rights providing access across 

National Forest System lands. These may or may not require a written authorization from the Forest 

Service. Those rights must be recognized under § 212.55(d). Although many private landowners 

allow recreational use of their lands, it is at the discretion of the landowners what public access, if 

any, occurs on their lands. The Forest Service does not have the authority to dictate the use of private 

lands by private landholders, and does not have the authority to display any lands without right-ofways on the Motor Vehicle Use Map or to direct the public to cross private lands where a right-ofway does not exist.

Public comment 2: The road marked at 48N67 is shown as a Forest Service road. It is not 5.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The 48N67 road is not a Forest Service road once it crosses 

the private land boundary. This road will not be shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Purpose and Need

Public comment 1: The Purpose and Need statement is insufficient to set up a proper and complete 

analysis [33].

Response: We see no evidence that the Purpose and Need impedes our ability to conduct a complete 

effects analysis. The Purpose and Need is established by the Responsible Official. In this case that 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 159

purpose addresses the designation of motorized routes and prohibition of cross-country travel (unless 

authorized by designated line officers). 

Public comment 2: Travel analysis must evaluate and address the environmental, social, and cultural 

impacts associated with unauthorized routes and system routes on a landscape scale [33].

Response:

Per Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, Chapter 20,

Use travel analysis ... to inform decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and 

areas for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51, provided that travel analysis is not 

required to inform decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for those 

administrative units and ranger districts that have issued a proposed action as of January 

8, 2009.

The Modoc National Forest was not required to do travel analysis at any specific scale for this 

project. However, the environmental, social and cultural impacts of this action are addressed in 

chapter 3 of volume 1 of the FEIS. 

Ranking Tables

Public comment 1: Some commenters were confused by the ranking tables for each resource and did not 

understand what was being displayed [3].

Response: The Forest has realized that the ranking tables are not a good way to accurately explain the 

relationship between the alternatives and the effects on the environment. We also felt that the tables 

are confusing for the public and did not portray any additional accurate information. Therefore, we 

have decided to remove the ranking tables from the FEIS document and replace them with a summary 

paragraph.

Recreation

Public comment 1: Several respondents state that OHV use is a very small percentage of use on the 

Forest, but creates a disproportionate amount of disturbance and resource damage [45,32,18].

Response: As stated in the Travel Management Rule, as part of the evaluation criteria for designating 

roads and trails where motor vehicle use will be allowed, the Forest Supervisor must consider the 

effects of route designations on conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands. The Recreation 

section, Environmental Consequences in chapter 3 of the FEIS discusses the possible conflicts among 

uses that would result from implementing each of the alternatives. Because of the low use on the 

Forest, the potential for conflict is considered to be low.

Public comment 2: One respondent asked that the FEIS should include the total number of routes that 

access dispersed campsites in the discussion of measurement indicator 3 (DEIS, p. 70). [34]

Response: Measurement indicator 3 looks at the impact of proposed changes in the National Forest 

Transportation System to motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities, by alternative. The 

method used to compare alternatives was miles of proposed routes accessing dispersed sites. In the 

FEIS we analyzed the number of routes that accessed dispersed recreation opportunities, not just 

campsites.

Alternative 1 is unique among the alternatives in that there are no proposed changes to the National 

Forest Transportation System, and that cross-country travel would continue. 

Public comment 1: The MDF proposal is not in line with its neighboring forest‘s proposals; their 

restrictions may increase use on the Modoc [43].
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

160 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Response: It is impossible to predict how restrictions on other forests will affect use on the Modoc. 

However, based on historical use of the Forest, we expect use to remain similar to what it is currently. 

Furthermore, communication with neighboring forests regarding this proposal is ongoing.

Roadless Areas (Citizen-Inventoried and Agency)

Public comment 1: No roads should be added in Agency Inventoried Roadless areas, Citizen-Proposed 

Wilderness Areas, or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Areas [32].

Response: No roads will be added in the agency-designated roadless areas. The citizen-proposed 

areas are currently roaded, and the addition of routes is addressed in chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Alternative 3 does not add any roads to the NFTS.

Public comment 2: National Forest Transportation System routes in the Callahan SPNM (46A21MA and 

MB, 46N16A, 46A17BB and 46A17B) are completely overgrown and should not be shown on the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map [43].

Response: Not showing a route on the Motor Vehicle Use Map is in reality removing the road from 

the National Forest Transportation System. Closing existing system roads is beyond the scope of this 

project. However, project level analysis can be done to add or decommission routes as necessary.

Public comment 3: The DEIS did not analyze the impacts of the existing system routes on wilderness 

[31, 33, 23, 17].

Response: Wilderness areas are closed to motor vehicles by statute 212.55(e):

Wilderness areas and primitive areas. National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in wilderness areas or primitive 

areas shall not be designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to this section, unless, in 

the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling 

legislation for those areas.

Chapter 3 contains a section on the impacts of adding roads in wilderness areas. Examining the impacts 

of existing system routes is beyond the scope of this action.

Roads - Appendix N of the DEIS

Public comment 1: One responder requested that the Forest define traffic service levels in the DEIS [34].

Response: Traffic service levels were listed in the engineering reports for mixed-use analysis. 

However, they were not used in the analysis because they did not add analytical value. For 

information, traffic service levels are defined as follows:

a. free-flowing with mixed traffic

b. congested during heavy traffic

c. flow interrupted; use limited

d. slow flow or may be blocked

Public comment 2: The traffic count is not scientifically valid [34].

Response: The traffic counts provide detailed information of vehicle use on ML 3 routes and 

validated our knowledge—gained by observation—that motorized recreation use on the Modoc 

National Forest is very low. The sample points were located at entry points to the Forest and other 

places where the highest use was anticipated. The traffic counts are considered adequate for the 

purposes for which they were used. Traffic counts were also conducted on sampled ML 2 roads.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 161

Public comment 3: One responder suggested that maintenance levels on all roads be lowered to match 

the existing vehicle use. The most common vehicle type is a high-clearance vehicle [34].

Response: Most of the vehicles using our roads are high-clearance vehicles. However, other factors 

such as user comfort, travel speed, transportation efficiency, and vehicle maintenance costs are also 

considered when assigning a maintenance level to a road. As stated in Forest Service Manual 

7716.11 – Vehicle Class (4),

Designation of routes for motor vehicle use does not imply that they can conveniently and 

safely accommodate all uses encompassed by the designation. Designation does not 

invite or encourage use, but merely indicates that use is not prohibited under 36 CFR 

261.13.

Public comment 4: One responder requested information regarding criteria and benchmarks used to 

determine crash probability and severity [34].

Response: The factors considered are included in the mixed-use analysis in the project record. A 

description of crash probability and severity is presented in this appendix.

Public comment 5: One commenter stated that traffic counts should not be taken at intersections [34].

Response: Traffic counts were taken at intersections to more efficiently gather data. One person 

stationed at an intersection can count the traffic on two or more roads. In some cases this results in 

one vehicle being counted twice (once on each road). However, this still results in a satisfactory count 

for vehicles using each individual road.

Public comment 6: How did we determine average speed [34]?

Response: The average speeds listed are a professional estimate of the 85th percentile speed, the 

speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorized vehicles travel. No specific speed studies were 

conducted. 

Route-Specific Comments

Public Comment 1: One group submitted a spreadsheet containing several routes they would like to see 

not be added to the National Forest Transportation System because of various resource concerns. [33]

Response: These routes were removed for addition in Alternative 4. Potential effects of Alternative 4 

and the other action alternatives (2,3, and 5) are disclosed in chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Safety

Public comment 1: One group states that several members of the public have had close calls with ATV 

riders while operating cattle trucks on these roads. Build some flexibility into this decision and monitor 

for safety and revise if safety issues emerge [42].

Response: The Motor Vehicle Use Map will be updated when needed and re-issued annually. If 

safety issues arise, the mechanism is already in place to revise the Motor Vehicle Use Map annually. 

Furthermore, the Responsible Official has the authority to take immediate action to make corrections 

if an unsafe situation is discovered. Forest Service Manual 7716.51, Temporary Emergency Closures 

1 states,

If the Responsible Official determines that motor vehicle use on a National Forest System 

road, a National Forest System trail, or in an area on National Forest System lands is 

directly causing or will directly cause considerable adverse effects on public safety, soil, 

vegetation, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources associated with that road, trail, or area, 

the Responsible Official shall immediately close that road, trail, or area to motor vehicle 

use (36 CFR 212.52(b)(2)). 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

162 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Scope of the Project

Public comment 1: One group suggests that limited funding and schedule constraints and resources are 

not adequate reason to limit scope of the project [41].

Response: The Responsible Official has the authority to determine the scope of the Proposed Action, 

and to determine which actions are undertaken annually as part of the Forest‘s program of work. 

Although funding and other constraints are nearly always a concern in conceiving and developing 

agency actions, the action and alternatives considered in this EIS were determined by the stated 

Purpose and Need, not the rationale as described in this comment. Here, the Purpose and Need is to 

implement Subpart B of the travel management regulations and especially Subpart B's prohibition on 

cross-country travel. Because this prohibition would eliminate many popular and important 

recreational opportunities, the Forest Service also identified the need to consider potential additions to 

the National Forest Transportation System to continue to provide motorized recreation opportunities 

and access to non-motorized recreation activities. 

Public comment 2: Several respondents ask that the scope be expanded to include current roads and trails 

with known impacts [42, 44].

Response: The scope of the proposal is directly related to the Purpose and Need for action. Please see 

the responses provided to comments regarding reviewing the existing National Forest Transportation 

System and identification of the minimum system. See response under Minimum Road System 

comments. However, as part of the current analysis, the Forest Service identified a road with resource 

impacts. The Boles Creek road was removed from the National Forest Transportation System 

because of known resource damage. There were no additional roads identified during this process. 

However, it is policy to address impacts from roads as they occur. This is done by the District 

Rangers and the engineering department through its annual maintenance program.

Public comment 3: Several respondents suggest that since the Forest Service has not included 

alternatives that consider road closures on the existing National Forest Transportation System, a full range 

of alternatives has not been evaluated [33, 41, 4].

Response: The purpose and need for action determines the range of alternatives considered in detail 

in the FEIS. The purpose and need for the current action is to address unmanaged cross-country 

travel and to implement Subpart B of the travel management regulations, while maintaining important 

motorized access and recreational opportunities for the public. The purpose and need is not to 

examine the existing National Forest Transportation System for potential road closures. Please also 

see response to comment above. The travel management regulations (36 CFR 212.50(b)) state,

The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding 

travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions 

of motor vehicle use, in designating National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use under 

this subpart.

The ―Scope of this Action‖, as defined in Chapter 1 of the EIS also states, 

This proposal does not revisit previous administrative decisions that resulted in the 

current NFTS. The current NFTS was developed over many decades and provides 

access for fire suppression, vegetation management, biomass production, wood cutting, 

permit implementation, private land access and a host of other purposes. This proposal is 

narrowly focused on implementing 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 of the scope of this 

proposal.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 163

A Forest-scale analysis of the existing National Forest Transportation System for closures requires 

consideration of a different and broader set of management needs than the current proposal. Such an 

analysis would make the current analysis effort more complex. It would exceed our capacity to complete 

Subpart B, thus further delaying implementation of the needed prohibition on cross-country travel. 

Public comment 4: The proposal focuses too much on analyzing the potential impacts of designating 

new unauthorized routes, and not enough on assessing the impacts of the existing system of roads [41, 

27].

Response: As noted above, the identified need for action is to implement the prohibition on crosscountry travel contained in Subpart B of the travel management regulations and to identify for 

potential addition to the National Forest Transportation System those user-created routes that are 

well-situated and provide important access and recreation opportunities. The FEIS appropriately 

focuses on the direct and indirect effects associated with the proposed action and alternatives. 

However, the entire road and trail system was considered in the cumulative effects analyses in the 

EIS, including National Forest Transportation System roads and trails, unauthorized routes, state, 

county and Federal roads, and routes on private lands.

Public comment 5: One group suggests that the travel management process should be used to create a 

better motorized travel system—one that minimizes impacts to natural resources, roadless backcountry, 

opportunities for quiet and solitude, and non-motorized visitor experiences [32].

Response: This travel management document seeks to define where motorized vehicles will be 

allowed to travel, and evaluate the impacts of that motorized use, including the impacts identified in 

this comment. The decision regarding which areas of the Forest should be allocated to motorized and 

non-motorized activities was previously made in the Forest Plan. The decision will be reconsidered in 

Forest Plan revision, which is expected to be completed over the next several years.

In addition, none of the alternatives proposes any new additions to the National Forest Transportation 

System that have a significant impact on the character of agency Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Seasonal Closures

Public comment 1a: The DEIS does not provide information on wet-weather conditions and related 

environmental impacts [41].

Public comment 1b: Closures should be based on weather-related criteria, and not set dates (DEIS, p. 22) 

[41].

Response: The Travel Management Rule allows for seasonal designations: ―...if appropriate, the 

times of year for which use is designated.‖ (36 CFR § 212.56.) The Motor Vehicle Use Map, the 

enforcement instrument, is printed annually. It is necessary to establish dates for seasonal restrictions 

when these designations are part of the Motor Vehicle Use Map. The timing of the seasonal 

restrictions was based on historical data and local knowledge. The dates were determined based on 

annual averages of soil moisture, with the understanding that there would be considerable variation.

Public comment: Some respondents suggest that there should be enforced seasonal closures on all 

unpaved routes during winter months and during peak game migration periods.

Response: Closures on all unpaved roads during the winter months are not necessary, and would 

unnecessarily limit travel across the Forest. Areas that are affected by wet weather were identified, 

and closures were put in place in the FEIS. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

164 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Soils and Hydrology

Public comment 1: The cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis is inadequate. The soils and 

hydrology section does not disclose cumulative impacts [33].

Response: Approximately 80 of the 120 6th field sub-watersheds located on the Modoc National 

Forest were analyzed for the potential for an adverse cumulative effect to soil and water quality. The 

other 40 watersheds do not have proposed unauthorized routes in them. The Forest hydrologist, in 

conjunction with the regional hydrologist, developed a modified approach to cumulative effects. This 

approach was based on local geomorphic factors (slope, hillside stability, soil sensitivity, and 

watershed sensitivity). Seventy-one of the 80 watersheds used this modified approach.

The remaining nine 6

th field sub-watersheds that included proposed routes were analyzed for 

cumulative watershed effects, using the Region 5 cumulative watershed effects analysis model. 

Included in this analysis were the existing condition, proposed action, and potential foreseeable 

action. We did not analyze impacts of all five alternatives. Instead, we chose the alternative with the 

most acres of soil disturbance to analyze for potential cumulative impacts. The results of both the 

modified CWE analysis and the Region 5 CWE analysis model were disclosed in the cumulative 

effects section of the hydrology and soils section of the FEIS.

Public comment 2: Where are the streams that have PFC (proper functioning condition) rating of ―at 

risk‖, and how will designating routes affect recovery [33]?

Response: The streams identified as FAR (functional at risk, referring to proper functioning 

condition, or PFC rating) were used in the development of the threshold of concern (TOC) used in the 

Region 5 CWE Analysis. In general terms, the reaches of streams that were identified as FAR are 

located in the Warner Mountains. Since the majority of the FAR routes to be designated are preexisting skid trails and temporary roads and are for the most part not actively eroding or adversely 

affecting the stream channels stability, it is unlikely that designating these routes would adversely 

affect the stream recovery. Only one route in the Warner Mountains is actively eroding. The Forest 

has committed to installing additional water bars in 2010 to resolve this situation.

Public comment 3: Where is the RCOA (riparian conservation objectives analysis) for the routes within 

the riparian conservation areas (RCAs)? 

Response: No separate, standalone riparian conservation objectives analysis was completed. 

However, the fundamental riparian conservation objective (RCO) was used in the analysis completed 

to determine if direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soil or water quality would occur by 

designation of these routes to the transportation plan. Riparian conservation areas are addressed in 

Chapter 3, Soils and Water.

Public comment 4: The DEIS fails to comply with the Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) soils and watershed standards and guidelines. The DEIS does not include any analysis to 

determine average soil loss and whether this project would result in exceeding the allowable soil loss.

Response: The LRMP standards and guidelines were disclosed in the hydrology and soils section of 

the FEIS. The LRMP soils and watershed standards and guidelines are based on Region 5 soil quality 

standards (R5 SQS) and best management practices (BMPs). 

The specific LRMP standard and guideline referenced in this comment is as follows:

Design management activities not to exceed an average allowable soil loss of one ton per acre per 

year

There was no direct soil measurement to determine whether the amount of soil loss was less than one 

ton per acre per year. However, the standard sets an average allowable soil loss of one tone per acre 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 165

per year. This method used was to determine if the proposed route met the effectiveness measure 

from BMPEP T02 Form. These measures are as follows:

1. Erosion on skid trail surface: little or no evidence of rills

2. Rutting: little or no evidence of rutting

3. Water bars

a. Diversion of runoff: less than10 percent of water bars fail to divert flow off skid 

trail

b. Sediment below: sediment deposition absent, or does not extend beyond outlet 

control

c. Erosion below outlet: no evidence of rills or gullies

4. Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management zone (SMZ)

If the above-referenced standards were met, the effectiveness measurement was fully successful and 

was consistent with soils and hydrology standards and guidelines.

Approximately 150 routes were field checked across the Forest to determine if these routes were 

consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines for soils and hydrology. Of these routes, only one 

short stretch of one route was identified as not meeting the above-referenced standard and guideline 

(erosion on skid-trail surfaces: minor departure as less than 20 percent of skid-trail surfaces). Since 

this route did not receive a fully successful rating, but rather a minor departure from fully successful, 

it was reasoned that this skid trail or proposed route did not meet the LRMP standard and guideline 

for allowable soil loss. This route will receive additional water bars in 2010 to eliminate the active 

eroding.

Public comment 5: The Modoc NF must carefully adhere to the Modoc NF LRMP when making a 

proposal. 

Response: Noted. The alternatives proposed adhere to LRMP direction for management of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands on the Modoc National Forest. 

Public comment 6: Stream crossings are required to be designed to pass a 100-year flood for passage of 

aquatic fauna [45].

Response: This public concern applies to only those portions of the Forest that are covered by the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). There is a small amount of the Forest that is covered by the NWFP. 

Where a stream crossing for a perennial or seasonally flowing stream consists of a low-water crossing 

or ford, a fisheries biologist is routinely consulted during the planning phase to determine if the inchannel structure would allow for the passage of aquatic fauna.

In consultation with Engineering, where existing culverts or bridges on perennial or seasonally 

flowing streams are upgraded within the NWFP, appropriate size of structure will be used to allow for 

the passage of the 100-year storm flow and passage of aquatic fauna. 

Public comment 7: The soils and hydrology section does not disclose both site-specific and cumulative 

impacts.

Response: The Soils and Hydrology, Environmental Consequences section of the FEIS discloses sitespecific and cumulative impacts. Please see the response to the first comment in this section (above) 

regarding the methodology used for the cumulative effects analysis for hydrology. The methodology 

used to conduct a site-specific analysis of direct and indirect effects to soils and hydrology is 

described in the FEIS and included a review of [explain what was used for all routes, e.g., GIS 

database, existing soil maps, etc.] In addition, the Forest conducted field surveys of approximately 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

166 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

150 routes across the Forest to determine if these routes were consistent with LRMP standards and 

guidelines for soils and hydrology. Of these routes, only one short stretch of one route was identified 

as exceeding the soil loss standard. This information is disclosed in the hydrology and soils section of 

the Travel Management FEIS.

The Forest hydrologist determined that with the application of site-specific BMPs, it is unlikely that 

the designation of pre-existing routes to the transportation plan would result in an adverse direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effect to soil or water quality. This finding was stated in the hydrology and 

soils section of the Travel Management FEIS.

Public comment 8: The soils and hydrology section describes an eight-step process in the Effects 

Analysis section for determining the acceptability of routes, but there is no documentation of this having 

actually occurred.

Response: The process was completed using GIS-generated data and maps from the corporate GIS 

data base for soils and hydrology, and direct field observations obtained by a resources crew and the 

Forest hydrologist. This data was then used in determining which routes should be field reviewed, 

based on the risk factors for direct and indirect effect to soil quality. The results of the field review 

were disclosed in the Travel Management FEIS.

Public comment 9: There is no actual, site-specific information regarding soil types, erosion hazard, 

existing condition, slope stability, or needed mitigations.

Response: Soil type, soil erosion hazard, and slope stability information were obtained from the 

following publications: Soil Survey of Intermountain Area, Soil Survey of Surprise Valley-Home 

Camp Area, and Modoc Forest Area of California. The existing conditions and site-specific 

information were obtained from a field review by the Forest hydrologist. The results of the field 

review did not indicate that additional mitigation measures were necessary to protect soil and water 

quality in excess of best management practices and Modoc NF LRMP standard and guidelines for 

soils. This conclusion was disclosed in the direct and indirect effects section of the soils and 

hydrology section of the Travel Management FEIS.

Public comment 10: Which existing or proposed new routes are on the patches of soil that have a high 

or high-to-very high maximum erosion hazard rating? 

Response: Sixty routes in the Warner Mountains were identified on soils that had a high-to-very high 

maximum erosion hazard rating. All 60 routes were field-checked by the Forest hydrologist, and only 

one route was found to be actively eroding, and thereby exceeding LRMP standards and guidelines. 

This route will receive additional water bars in 2010 to eliminate the active eroding. This information 

is disclosed in the direct and indirect effects section of the soils and hydrology section of the FEIS.

Special Designations

Public comment 1: No roads should be added in agency Inventoried Roadless Areas [32].

Response: No unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the system in agency Inventoried 

Roadless Areas.

Public comment 2: The ROD should be consistent with the 2006 petition from the State of California to 

the Secretary of Agriculture, requesting that 100 percent of all Inventoried Roadless Areas in CA remain 

in their current condition. This means that no new roads or trails should be built or developed in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas [32].

Response: No unauthorized routes are proposed to be added in Inventoried Roadless Areas in this 

action. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 167

Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule

Public comment 1: Subpart A should immediately follow Subpart B [32].

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Region is in the process of developing guidelines for 

addressing Subpart A. The Forest will address Subpart A as funding and personnel become available. 

Travel analysis for purposes of identification of the minimum road system is separate from travel 

analysis for purposes of designation of roads and trails for motor vehicle use. Travel analysis for both 

purposes may be conducted concurrently or separately (Forest Service Manual 7712 (2)). See the next 

response for an explanation of Subparts A and B of the Travel Management Rule.

Public comment 2a: The Forest Service did not follow 36 CFR, part 212, Subpart A because it did not 

identify a minimum road system needed [41].

Public comment 2b: The Modoc National Forest has not identified the minimum road system needed for 

safe and efficient travel and protection of Forest Service lands [33, 27].

Public comment 2c: Close and decommission National Forest Transportation System routes that are 

duplicative.

Public comment 2d: The FEIS should describe the information used to formulate the alternatives and 

their relationship to the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and administration of 

the National Forest Transportation System [41].

Public comment 2e: The Forest Service did not address known, road-related resource impairments and 

use conflicts of both the existing National Forest Transportation System and unauthorized routes [41].

Response: The Purpose and Need for action determines the range of alternatives analyzed in detail in 

the FEIS (FEIS, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). The FEIS analyzes resource impacts and any use 

conflicts associated with routes proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System. 

The existing National Forest Transportation System is included in the cumulative effects analyses 

provided for each resource. The existing National Forest Transportation System is maintained to 

meet certain standards, and where substantial resource concerns are occurring, the Forest plans to 

address those concerns. See response above regarding Subpart A.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Public comment 1: The DEIS does not appear to describe or address the presence or absence of wildlife 

corridors...or movement [41, 33].

Response: Although not specifically addressing corridors for any single species, corridors and effects 

to wildlife movement are considered within the analysis. Wildlife movement was considered during 

the interdisciplinary team process that was used to examine each known unauthorized route. The 

document does address impacts to wildlife movement as reflected in metrics such as the Disturbance 

Index for ungulates, the Security Index for goshawks, and the Habitat Influence Index for goshawks. 

These indices provide a means of comparing impacts of the alternatives on wildlife disturbance and 

the impact of the presence of a route. Although not specifically addressed, wildlife movement is 

inherently addressed by the comparison of indices between alternatives. For many of the indices used 

there were only minor or no differences between alternatives. This lack of difference indicates limited 

impacts from unauthorized routes because there were limited differences between Alternative 3 

(which would not add any routes to the National Forest Transportation System), Alternative 2 (the 

Proposed Action) and Alternative 1 (the existing condition).

Additionally, 66 percent of the routes proposed for addition under Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 (the 

alternatives with the most routes added to the National Forest Transportation System) are less than 1⁄4 

mile in length. The short length of these segments would appear to provide limited impact to 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

168 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

movement of larger mammals because the unauthorized routes already exist on the landscape. 

Migratory wildlife have already included the effects of these routes in their current movement 

patterns. Thus the document, although considering impacts of routes at a watershed level through the 

various indices, focuses on more salient points of concern to wildlife such as impacts to habitat over 

time. 

Public comment 2: The DEIS does not appear to describe or address the presence or absence of ...habitat 

integrity [41, 33].

Response: Each of the species group discussions describes miles of route within habitat (both to be 

added to the National Forest Transportation System and the amount of National Forest Transportation 

System), as well as describes qualitative impacts to habitat and individuals. Most of the group 

discussions also include a comparison of indices across alternatives by sixth-order watershed. The 

document provides a comparison of existing condition (Alternative 1), least vehicular traffic action 

(Alternative 3) and intermediate actions (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5). In addition, cumulative effects for 

each species group are discussed and analyzed for the foreseeable actions and the actions proposed in 

this EIS. The combination of indices, range of alternatives, and cumulative effects analysis does 

provide a description of habitat integrity for each of the species groups and for wildlife as a resource. 

Habitat integrity is adequately discussed in a manner to provide the decision-maker with a ―hard‖ 

look within the scope of the action.

Public comment 3: The Modoc NF Travel Management Plan DEIS identifies management direction in 

the Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan for mule deer, a Region 5 management indicator 

species: ―K. Within mule deer habitat: On deer winter ranges where OHV use is demonstrated to 

adversely affect deer, institute OHV closures from December 1 to March 31.‖ However, the DEIS 

provides no map of deer winter range. Nor does it make any provision for the protection of critical 

fawning habitat.[33].

Response: Because all alternatives except Alternative 1 would restrict motorized, wheeled traffic to 

designated routes, no OHV traffic would occur off designated routes during this period anywhere on 

National Forest system lands administered by the Modoc. Therefore, there is no need to include a 

map of wintering range in the FEIS. We disagree with the assertion that there would be no provision 

for protection of critical fawning habitat. The primary protection would be the cessation of crosscountry travel in Alternatives 2-5. As discussed in the ungulate group section, the inventoried routes 

do not play a significant role in impacting deer. This can be seen in the lack of difference between 

Alternative 3 and Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 in the habitat influence rankings.

Public comment 4: [The DEIS does not] make any provision for the protection of critical fawning habitat 

[33, 43].

Response: As noted in Chapter 3, Terrestrial Wildlife, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences, Alternatives 2 through 4 would have no acres open for cross-country travel. The 

unauthorized routes, when converted to equivalent-acres, would affect an area from 0 percent 

(Alternative 3) to 0.06 percent (Alternative 1) of the modeled mule deer habitat on the Modoc 

National Forest. See Public Comment 3 above.

Public comment 5: The DEIS suggests that winter and early spring seasonal restrictions in Alternative 2 

would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road, but the impact is predicted to be undetectable because snow 

drifts currently make the roads unavailable. The trend in increasing use in winter of high-clearance, 4-

wheel drive vehicles may contradict that suggestion.[33].

Response: The winter and early spring seasonal closures proposed in Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would 

prevent the use of high-clearance, 4-wheel drive vehicles within the closure areas. The impacts of the 

closures are undetectable in comparison to existing observed use where snow drifts prevent wheeled 

vehicle use.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 169

Public comment 6: The analysis of the effects of adding unauthorized routes to the Forest transportation 

system is not scientifically valid. In addressing direct and indirect effects, the FEIS states that the 

differences between alternatives are essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of 

weather and stochastic (random) events such as fires. The wildlife biologist who wrote this section 

provides no reference to published literature or scientific basis for this claim [33, 43].

Response: The effects of stochastic (random) events on wildlife populations are so ingrained within 

the scientific literature that citation was not included. Since this concern was raised we have added a 

section to discuss the direct and indirect effects setting to the wildlife portion of Chapter 3. 

Public comment 7: [T]he DEIS claims that because Alternative 2 contains only seven percent more 

routes in late-successional species habitat than Alternative 3, the difference is undetectable. The wildlife 

biologist who wrote this section provides no reference to published literature or scientific basis for this 

claim [33].

Response: The Chapter 3 wildlife section compares effects not just as a percentage of mileage 

difference between alternatives, but also compares effects using the habitat influence index 

comparisons. The habitat influence index comparison is based on the Gaines et al. (2003) document. 

In addition, a description of the direct and indirect effects setting has been added to the document, 

providing further scientific basis for the level of stochastic (random) fluctuations that occur on the 

Modoc National Forest.

Public comment 8: We request that the Forest refer to the studies of impacts of roads and motor vehicles 

to wildlife that we included in our scoping comments [33].

Response: Several of the studies in the commenter‘s scoping comments were used in the wildlife 

chapter, the draft biological evaluation, or the MIS report. These included the Birds of North America 

entry for Swainson‘s hawk by England, Bechard, and Houston (1997), Steidel and Anthony‘s 2000 

paper in the Journal Ecological Applications, Verner et al‘s 1994 Technical Assessment of the 

California Spotted Owl, and Ruggierio et al‘s 1994 RM-GTR-254 document on conserving forest 

carnivores. In addition, our biologist was familiar with several of the other references provided by the 

commenter such as the Studies in Avian Biology number 31 technical assessment of goshawk status 

ecology and management (Morrison editor 2006), Lyon and Anderson‘s 2003 Wildlife Society 

Bulletin paper on impacts to sage-grouse, and the 1990 Interagency Scientific committee Report on 

the conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. 

Public comment 9: In addressing cumulative impacts, the document says that routes ―can be converted to 

equivalent-acres by assuming each mile of route is approximately 1.8 acres based on a 15-foot wide 

impact. Thus the 35 miles of new roads added to northern goshawk habitat in the Proposed Action would 

be equivalent to approximately 64 acres, or about one percent of the area impacted annually by timber 

harvest for sawlogs or fiber. There are two flaws with this argument. The first is that the comparison is 

not warranted [33].

Response: We feel that this analysis is warranted and appropriate under the cumulative-effects 

regulations. What this and other sections do is to place habitat loss (or gain) on an equivalent basis in 

order to analyze impacts to potential habitat trends within a cumulative effects setting. Cumulative 

effects are the ―incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions‖ (40 CFR 1508.7). Additionally, the equivalent acres of habitat as a 

percentage of total habitat on the Forest (0.03 percent for Alternative 2) are disclosed in the biological 

evaluation.

Public comment 10: The [Proposed Action] Alternative should be compared to one that does not add 

new routes, not to the Forest‘s timber program [33].
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

170 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Response: The Proposed Action is compared to Alternative 3, which does not add new routes. 

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) is also compared to Alternatives 1 (the current condition), as well 

as Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Public comment 11: The assumption that the impact from a 15-foot-wide road is 15 feet is not based on 

sound wildlife biology. The impact of a road to wildlife is not limited to the footprint of the road itself. 

Even a cursory examination of the scientific literature would provide many examples to counter this 

argument [33].

Response: The impact to wildlife is larger than the footprint. Disturbance impacts were compared 

between alternatives using the zone of influence and habitat disturbance index. The commenter notes 

the use of these indices three paragraphs later in their comment letter to support the commenter‘s 

view that the National Forest Transportation System should be analyzed for closure.

Public comment 12: The Modoc NF Travel Management Plan DEIS identifies management direction in 

the Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan for mule deer, a Region 5 management indicator 

species

Response: Mule deer are not a management indicator species for the Modoc National Forest. 

Public comment 13: The Forest uses no scientific studies to determine the potential effect zone of roads 

open to motor vehicles, and thus, the analysis is speculative at best.

Response: The biological analysis in the FEIS is based on the best available science known to the 

Forest staff at the time of document preparation. Gaines et al. 2003 is specifically quoted and used as 

a basis for a portion of the analysis. Gaines et al. 2003 is based on over 225 literature citations and 

provides a peer-reviewed process for analyzing the effects of linear routes on wildlife habitats. Other 

publications are noted in the methodology section, including Trombulek and Frissell 2000. 

Public comment 14 ( Same as Issue 3 Chapter 1 of the FEIS): The Modoc NF Travel Management Plan 

DEIS identifies management direction in the Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan for mule 

deer, a Region 5 management indicator species:

K. Within mule deer habitat: On deer winter ranges where OHV use is demonstrated to adversely affect 

deer, institute OHV closures from December 1 to March 31. However, the DEIS provides no map of deer 

winter range. Nor does it make any provision for the protection of critical fawning habitat [33]

Response: Because all alternatives except Alternative 1 would restrict motorized, wheeled traffic to 

the National Forest Transportation System, no OHV traffic would occur during this period anywhere 

on National Forest system lands administered by the Modoc. There was no need to include a map of 

wintering range in the FEIS as the quoted direction is moot under any of the action alternatives. We 

disagree with the assertion that there would be no provision for protection of critical fawning habitat. 

The primary protection would be the cessation of cross-country travel in alternatives 2-5. As 

discussed in the ungulate group section, the inventoried routes do not play a significant role in 

impacting deer. This can be seen in the lack of difference between Alternative 3 and Alternatives 1, 2, 

4, and 5 in the habitat influence rankings.

Public comment 15 (Same as Issue 5, chapter 1 of the FEIS): The DEIS suggests that winter and early 

spring seasonal restrictions in Alternative 2 would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road, but the impact is 

predicted to be undetectable because snow drifts currently make the roads unavailable. The trend in 

increasing use in winter of high-clearance 4-wheel drive vehicles may contradict that suggestion [33].

Response: The winter and early spring seasonal closures proposed in Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would 

prevent the use of high-clearance 4-wheel drive vehicles within the closure areas. The impacts of the 

closures are undetectable in comparison to existing observed use where snow drifts prevent wheeled 

vehicle use.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 171

Public comment 16: Species associated with old forest ecosystems include: California spotted owl, 

Goshawk, American marten, Pacific fisher, Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, and a number of migratory 

bird species, all of which are found in the Modoc National Forest [33].

Response: As noted in the late-successional group discussion in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, wolverine and 

Sierra Nevada red fox appear to be absent from the Forest.

Public comment 17: Among the notable species on the Modoc NF are the federally threatened 

subspecies of western snowy plover and northern spotted owl, as well as the California State Endangered 

bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, western yellow-billed cuckoo, willow flycatcher, and California 

State Threatened Swainson‘s hawk and bank swallow [33].

Response: The federally threatened subspecies of western snowy plover is restricted to the Pacific 

coast population. Snowy plovers observed on the Modoc National Forest are members of the interior 

population. As noted in the Federal Register listing rule (Federal Register Vol. 58, No 42 page 12864 

3/5/1993) for the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover, this population is genetically 

isolated from western snowy plovers breeding in the interior. The yellow-billed cuckoo is not known 

to occur on the Modoc National Forest. The yellow-billed cuckoo in northern California is associated 

with Sacramento Valley riparian hardwood forests and habitats. 

Travel Analysis

Public comment 1: Travel analysis should have been used to designate routes. The FEIS should describe 

how travel analysis was used in the route designation process.

Response: The directives were published January 8, 2009 but apply to all new projects Forest 

Service Manual 7712.1. These projects began prior to the directives and are not subject to them. 

Future projects will all include travel analysis. This project used a process similar to travel analysis.

The Responsible Official determined that the scope of the analysis would be Subpart B, which is 

Forest wide in scale and focused on the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel, the addition 

of unauthorized routes and changes to vehicle class and season of use. This would allow 

implementation of subpart B and the production of a Motor Vehicle Use Map in accordance with the 

Forest Service Chief‘s timeline. 

Travel Analysis Steps

Public Comment 1: Several comments were made stating that the Forest did not do Travel Analysis for 

this project.

Response: The process for analysis can be found in the FEIS in Chapter 1 on pages 2-3.

Public comment 2: By not using travel analysis to analyze the entire system, the assessment of 

cumulative impacts is deficient under NEPA. 

Response: Cumulative effects of adding unauthorized routes are identified and described in Chapter 3 

of the DEIS, and carried forward into the FEIS. The NFTS was considered in the Cumulative Effects 

analysis for each resource. 

Unauthorized routes

Public comment 1: One responder suggested that we prohibit use on all unauthorized routes and replant 

with native vegetation. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

172 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Response: This project will not initiate road decommissioning, and therefore will not have the 

opportunity for replanting vegetation. Alternative 3 prohibits use on all inventoried unauthorized 

routes and prohibits cross country travel. The consequences and impacts associated with each of the 

alternatives are addressed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS)

C Robert Wells 1

Jim and Liz Robinson 2

Michael Damaso 3

Larry Ellenberger 4

Pete and Carolyn Carey 5

Phil Vermillion 6

Modoc County Sherriffs Posse 7

Earl S. Roberts 8

June Roberts 9

Jan and Gyla Kovialka 11

Mrs. Chuck Roethler 12

John Looper 13

Larry Laffoon 14

George and Francis Alderson 15

Lynn Hague 16

Lo I and Won Yin 17

Paul Moore 18

Claude Singleton 20

Rick Ferndon 21

Robert G. Nelson 22

Betsy Shade 23

Dearly Ellenberger 24

Robert D. Cameron 25

Mick Baldwin 26

Darca Morgan (Audubon Society) 27

John Morrow 28

Elizabeth Norton 29

Howard County Bird Club 31

Trout Unlimited 32

Wilderness Society 33

Recreation Outdoors Coalition 34

Modoc County Farm Bureau 35

Sierra Access Coalition 36

DOI - Lava Beds National Monument 37

DOI – Dept. of Envir. Compliance 38

California Association of 4 Wheel Drive clubs 39

Modoc County Board of Supervisors 40

EPA 41

Modoc County Cattlemens Association 42

Sierra Club 43

Form Letter 01 - Wilderness Society 44
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 173

Form Letter 02 - Trout Unlimited 45

Dave Gumpel 47

Charles Mattox 48
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

174 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

Comment Letters Received
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 175

Appendix N: Mixed Use

Mixed use on ML 3 roads for Alternative 5 – Modified has been approved by the 

Regional Forester for roads over 3 miles in length, see below. Mixed use for ML 3 roads 

less than 3 miles in length has been approved by the California Highway Patrol, see 

below. 

Regional Forester‘s approval letter:

File 

Code:

7700 Date: August 26, 2009

Route 

To:

(2350)

Subject: Approval of Mixed Use Analysis on the Modoc National Forest 

To: Forest Supervisor, Modoc National Forest 

I have received your April 24, 2009, 7700/2350 memo regarding Motorized Mixed Use 

on roads maintained for passenger cars and your detailed individual Mixed Use Analysis 

reports. Based on the recommendations of the Director of Engineering and in 

concurrence with the Office of General Council (OGC), I am approving the 51 roads 

proposed for Mixed Use as requested. In all cases, the Mixed Use Analysis for each road 

indicated there is a low probability of a moderate severity crash. 

Prior to opening these roads to mixed use, the Forest shall develop and implement a sign 

plan, specifically addressing Mixed Use. The Forest shall use the Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices approved “Share the Road” warning sign, with an appropriate 

yellow diamond warning sign showing an ATV, as part of your signing safety plan. 

These warning signs shall be placed at strategic points throughout the Forest, so the 

recreating public has a clear understanding of where they can operate ATV’s and where 

they cannot. The Forest should strongly consider adding additional regulatory signing for 

routes, where mixed use is specifically not allowed, to avoid confusion. All signing shall 

be in conformance with the latest addition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 

Devises. 

The Forest Supervisor shall inform the Regional Forester of any accidents on this road 

involving off-highway vehicles. The Regional Forester’s approval for Mixed Use will be 

reconsidered if there are accidents on roads involving mixed use.

If you have any questions regarding mixed use, please contact George Kulick, Director of 

Engineering at 707-562-8841.

/S/ ANGELA V. COLEMAN (FOR)

RANDY MOORE

Regional Forester
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

176 Appendix L--Response to Public Comments

California Highway Patrol‘s approval letter: 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L--Response to Public Comments 177

The individual engineering reports for the ML 3 roads to be included for mixed use are in 

the project record; these files are very large and not presented here.