Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents i

Contents

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................IV

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................VIII

ABSTRACT OF THE MOTORIZED TRAVEL MANAGEMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT............................................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)....................XIII

PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................................................. XIII

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ................................................................................................................................ XIII

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL.................................................................................................XIV

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION....................................................................... 1

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

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Travel Management on the Modoc National Forest ............................................................................. 2

Scope of this Action............................................................................................................................... 4

National Forest Transportation System................................................................................................ 5

Project Location.................................................................................................................................... 6

PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................... 6

THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................................................................................. 8

PRINCIPAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT INFLUENCE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS ....................................... 9

DECISION FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................................. 9

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..............................................................................................................................10

Thirty-day Public Scoping Period........................................................................................................10

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Responses..............................11

ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................................11

Significant Issues .................................................................................................................................12

Non-significant Issues..........................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2. THE ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................15

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................15

HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED ...........................................................................................15

Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public During Scoping...........................................................15

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...................................................................................................16

Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................16

Mixed Use on the Forest......................................................................................................................17

Seasonal Closures for All Alternatives ................................................................................................18

Alternative 1: No Action ......................................................................................................................18

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action.....................................................................................................19

Alternative 3.........................................................................................................................................20

Alternative 4.........................................................................................................................................21

Alternative 5.........................................................................................................................................22

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................23

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis........................................................25

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.........27

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................27

ANALYSIS PROCESS...................................................................................................................................27

Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................................28

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................29

Assumptions and Limitations...............................................................................................................29

Information on Other Resources..........................................................................................................33

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ......................................................................................35
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

ii Table of Contents

Unavoidable Adverse Effects...............................................................................................................35

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources..................................................................35

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .....................................36

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................37

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................37

Regulatory Framework: Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction .............37

Affected Environment...........................................................................................................................38

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................................................42

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction.....................................................46

SOCIETY, CULTURE, AND ECONOMY .........................................................................................................47

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

Population and Demographics ............................................................................................................47

Travel Management and American Indian Interests............................................................................51

Tribal Access to Traditional Cultural Properties................................................................................53

Employment and Income: Environmental Consequences....................................................................54

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values...............................................................................................................66

Forest Service Budget Projections: Roads ..........................................................................................67

Forest Budget Effects...........................................................................................................................68

Environmental Justice..........................................................................................................................68

Civil Rights Impact Analysis................................................................................................................69

Public Involvement and Scoping..........................................................................................................69

RECREATION .............................................................................................................................................73

Summary ..............................................................................................................................................73

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................73

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ....................................74

Impacts Relevant to Recreation ...........................................................................................................75

Assumptions Specific to Recreation Analysis.......................................................................................75

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences....................................................................76

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................................................84

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction...................................................100

VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................101

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................101

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction...........................................101

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................102

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................105

CULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................................................................117

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................117

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and Other 

Direction ............................................................................................................................................118

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................120

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources Analysis .......................................................................123

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action.......................................................................................123

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................125

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction..............................................................................132

SOILS AND WATER ..................................................................................................................................133

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................133

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..................................133

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................136

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................137

BOTANICAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................151

Summary ............................................................................................................................................151

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................151

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Modoc LRMP, and Other Direction...............................152

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................154

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................158

NOXIOUS WEEDS.....................................................................................................................................199
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents iii

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................199

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..................................199

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................199

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................202

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction .....................................................................217

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE..........................................................................................................................219

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................219

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..................................219

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................221

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................224

Terrestrial Biota Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................................230

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives.........................................................................335

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction .....................................................................335

AQUATIC ORGANISMS .............................................................................................................................337

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................337

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ..................................337

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................338

Aquatic Biota Methodology by Action ...............................................................................................340

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................................................341

Summary of Effects by Alternative .....................................................................................................363

Summary of Determinations...............................................................................................................363

Compliance with the Modoc LRMP and Other Direction..................................................................363

ROADLESS AND SPECIAL AREAS..............................................................................................................365

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other Direction...........................................365

Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................365

Roadless and Special-Areas Methodology by Action.........................................................................367

Inventoried Roadless Areas ...............................................................................................................369

Research Natural Areas.....................................................................................................................375

Special-Interest Areas........................................................................................................................376

Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................................................377

Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRA) ......................................................................................377

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................................380

Compliance with the Modoc LRMP and Other Direction..................................................................385

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................387

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................387

Core Interdisciplinary Team Members..............................................................................................387

Support Interdisciplinary Team Members .........................................................................................387

CONSULTATION .......................................................................................................................................387

Federal, State, and Local Agencies....................................................................................................387

Tribal Governments...........................................................................................................................388

DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINAL EIS ............................................................................................................388

Federal Agencies ...............................................................................................................................388

State Agencies....................................................................................................................................389

Other Governments............................................................................................................................389

Tribal Governments...........................................................................................................................390

Organizations.....................................................................................................................................390

GLOSSARY...............................................................................................................................................391

LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................................................399

INDEX........................................................................................................................................................411
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

iv Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table S-1. List of Significant Issues______________________________________________________ xiii

Table S-2. List of Alternatives Considered in Detail__________________________________________xiv

Table 1-1. Length of Unauthorized Roads Common to all Action Alternatives ______________________ 3

Table 2-1. Maintenance Levels for Forest Service Roads ______________________________________ 17

Table 2-2. Seasonal Closure Type and Dates_______________________________________________ 18

Table 2-3. Alternative 2—Seasonal Closures Grouped By Date (proposed addition of unauthorized routes)

___________________________________________________________________________________ 19

Table 2-4. Alternative 2—Seasonal Closures Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads) ______________ 19

Table 2-5. Alternative 2—Proposed Changes in Vehicle Class (allowing mixed use on level 3 roads)___ 20

Table 2-6. Alternative 2—Miles of Unauthorized Road Added to the NFTS, by District ______________ 20

Table 2-7. Alternative 4—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (proposed addition of unauthorized routes)

___________________________________________________________________________________ 21

Table 2-8. Alternative 4—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads) _______________ 21

Table 2-9. Alternative 4—Miles of Road Added to the NFTS, by District _________________________ 22

Table 2-10. Alternative 5—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (proposed addition of unauthorized routes)

___________________________________________________________________________________ 22

Table 2-11. Alternative 5—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads) ______________ 23

Table 2-12. Alternative 5—Summary of NFTS Routes Proposed for Mixed Use ____________________ 23

Table 2-13. Alternative 5—Miles of Unauthorized Road Added to the NFTS, by District _____________ 23

Table 2-14. Summary Comparison of Alternatives ___________________________________________ 24

Table 3-1. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation-Altering Actions on Public Land in and 

Adjacent to the Modoc National Forest____________________________________________________ 29

Table 3-4. Miles Of Unauthorized Roads Available for Mixed use, by Alternative___________________ 39

Table 3-2. Deferred Maintenance Needs for Roads (1994 -2008) _______________________________ 40

Table 3-3. Average Costs per Mile for Road Maintenance _____________________________________ 40

Table 3-5. Miles of NFTS Roads and Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs, by Alternative ___________ 41

Table 3-6. Acres of Modoc National Forest Lands, by County __________________________________ 47

Table 3-7. Median Age by State and County ________________________________________________ 49

Table 3-8. Racial Percentages of Total Population by County and State, Census 2000_______________ 51

Table 3-9. Federally Recognized Tribes and their Office Locations______________________________ 52

Table 3-10. Federal Laws and Executive Orders Relevant to American Indian Concerns Regarding 

National Forest Management ___________________________________________________________ 52

Table 3-11. Poverty Status by State and County, 2000 and 2005 ________________________________ 55

Table 3-12. Activity Participation on Modoc National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) ________________ 56

Table 3-13. Number of Visits, by Activity __________________________________________________ 57

Table 3-14. Expenditures per Visit _______________________________________________________ 58

Table 3-15. Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients, by Activity Type ________________ 60

Table 3-16. Employment and Labor Income Effects, by Activity Type ____________________________ 62

Table 3-17. Percent of Total Employment and Labor Income Effects, by Activity Type _______________ 63

Table 3-18. Total Employment and Labor Income Effects _____________________________________ 65

Table 3-19. Percent of Total Area Employment and Total Area Labor Income Effects _______________ 65

Table 3-20. Construction and Maintenance Budget, by Fiscal Year______________________________ 67

Table 3-21. Highest Percent Visits, by Participation and Primary Activity ________________________ 76

Table 3-22. Second-Highest Percent Visits, by Participation and Primary Activity __________________ 77

Table 3-23. Acres by ROS Class on the Forest ______________________________________________ 80

Table 3-24. Miles of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Addition in Each ROS Class, by Alternative ___ 80

Table 3-25. Number of ROS acres Available for Quiet Use (Buffered by 1⁄2 mile on ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 )

___________________________________________________________________________________ 81

Table 3-26. Perception of Crowding by Forest Visitors_______________________________________ 81

Table 3-27. Total NFTS Mileage by Vehicle Class and Maintenance Level _______________________ 82

Table 3-28. Total Mileage Available for each Vehicle Type (Including Change in Vehicle Class and Mixed 

Use) _______________________________________________________________________________ 83
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents v

Table 3-29. Miles and Proposed Unauthorized Routes Available for Dispersed Recreation Opportunity, by 

Action Alternative ____________________________________________________________________ 84

Table 3-30. Number of Miles of Routes Proposed for Addition to the NFTS, by Alternative, within 1⁄2 Mile of 

Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (Included is NFTS Mileage for Comparison Purposes) _______ 84

Table 3-31. Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS, by VQO Class ____________________ 113

Table 3-32. Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized Routes, by VQO Class___________________ 114

Table 3-33. Comparison of Effect Categories under NEPA and NHPA __________________________ 122

Table 3-34. Effects to Known Cultural Resources: Summary Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 5 (which 

authorize the same routes), with Alternative 4 _____________________________________________ 129

Table 3-35. Soils with High Risk Factors, by District ________________________________________ 137

Table 3-36. Summary of Results of ERA-TOC CWE Analysis__________________________________ 146

Table 3-37. Species Considered in Analysis, Status, Known Occurrences, and Habitats_____________ 160

Table 3-38. The number of Fen and Meadow Species Occurrences Known Within 100 Feet of Unauthorized 

Routes, by Alternative ________________________________________________________________ 168

Table 3-39. Approximate Number Of Miles and Acres of Habitat of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) or Proposed 

(Alts. 2-5) Routes Within 100 Feet of Fens and Wet Meadows Habitat1

__________________________ 169

Table 3-40. The Number of Forest Species Occurrences Known Within 100 Feet of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) or 

Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative _______________________________________________ 169

Table 3-41. Approximate Number of Miles and Acres of Habitat of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized 

Routes Within Forest Habitat Type1

, and Acres of Potential Habitat Within 100 Feet of Routes_______ 170

Table 3-42. The Number of Riparian Species Occurrences Known within 100 feet of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) 

and Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative ____________________________________________ 170

Table 3-43. Approximate Number of Miles and Acres of Potential Habitat of Proposed Routes and 

Unauthorized Routes within 100 Feet of Streams and Lake Shores _____________________________ 171

Table 3-44. The Number of Sage Steppe Species Occurrences Known within 100 Feet of Unauthorized (Alt. 

1) and Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative __________________________________________ 171

Table 3-45. Approximate Miles and Acres Adjacent to Habitat of Potential Habitat of Proposed Routes and 

Unauthorized Routes within Sage Steppe Habitat Type ______________________________________ 172

Table 3-46. The Number of Vernal Pool and Swale Species Occurrences Known within 100 Feet of 

Unauthorized (Alt. 1) or Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative____________________________ 172

Table 3-47. Approximate Miles of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized Routes within 100 Feet of Vernal 

Pools and Swales____________________________________________________________________ 173

Table 3-48. The Number of Federally Listed, Threatened Orcuttia Tenuis Occurrences Located in Vernal 

Pools within 300 Feet of Presently Proposed, Unauthorized Routes ____________________________ 173

Table 3-49. Approximate Miles And Acres Of Habitat of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized Routes within 

300 Feet Of Vernal Pools _____________________________________________________________ 173

Table 3-50. Rare Plant Species Located Within 100 Feet of Unauthorized Routes (Alt. 1) or Proposed 

Routes (Alts. 2, 4, 5) _________________________________________________________________ 175

Table 3-51. Summary of Indicator Measures for the Analysis of Effects to Rare Plant Species for the 

Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel and the Addition of Routes Under Alternative 2 ______________ 178

Table 3-52. Potential Impacts to Buxbaumia viridis from Alternative 2 __________________________ 179

Table 3-53. Potential Impacts to Gratiola heterosepala from Alternative 2 _______________________ 180

Table 3-54. Potential Impacts to Pogogyne floribunda from Alternative 2 _______________________ 180

Table 3-55. Potential Impacts to Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus from Alternative 2 ___ 181

Table 3-56. Potential impacts to Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum from Alternative 2. ______ 182

Table 3-57. Potential impacts to Carex halliana from Alternative 2 ____________________________ 182

Table 3-58. Potential Impacts to Dimeresia howellii from Alternative 2_________________________ 182

Table 3-59. Potential Impacts to Iliamna bakeri from Alternative 2_____________________________ 183

Table 3-60. Potential impacts to Orcuttia tenuis from Alternative 2_____________________________ 184

Table 3-61. Rare Plant Species Located within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed for Seasonal Closures, 

for all Alternatives___________________________________________________________________ 185

Table 3-62. Vernal Pools and Fens Within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed for Seasonal Closures, for 

all Alternatives _____________________________________________________________________ 186

Table 3-63. Rare Plant Species Located Within 100 Feet of Level 3 NFTS Roads Proposed for Mixed Use, 

for all Alternatives___________________________________________________________________ 187
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

vi Table of Contents

Table 3-64. Vernal Pools and Fens within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed For Mixed Use, for all 

Alternatives ________________________________________________________________________ 188

Table 3-65. Alternative 4: Summary of Indicator Measures for the Analysis of Effects to Rare Plant Species 

for the Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel and the Addition of Routes _________________________ 191

Table 3-66. Potential Impacts to Gratiola heterosepala from Alternative 4 _______________________ 192

Table 3-67. Potential Impacts to Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus from Alternative 4 ___ 192

Table 3-68. Effects Summary for Rare Plants, Habitats, and Noxious Weeds _____________________ 197

Table 3-69. Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Inventory within Affected Environment __________ 202

Table 3-70. High-Priority Noxious Weed Populations Documented Within 100 Feet of an Existing 

Unauthorized Route__________________________________________________________________ 204

Table 3-71. Risk Ratings for Unauthorized Routes _________________________________________ 204

Table 3-72. Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 Feet of an Alternative 2 Proposed Route

__________________________________________________________________________________ 206

Table 3-73. Alternatives 2 and 5—Risk Ratings for Proposed Routes ___________________________ 207

Table 3-74. Alternative 2—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 Feet of a Proposed NFTS 

Level 3, Mixed-Use Road _____________________________________________________________ 209

Table 3-75. Alternative 2—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of an NFTS Road with 

Proposed Seasonal Closures ___________________________________________________________ 210

Table 3-75a. Alternative 4—Risk Ratings for Proposed Routes________________________________ 211

Table 3-76. Alternative 4—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of an NFTS Road with 

Proposed Seasonal Closures ___________________________________________________________ 212

Table 3-77. Alternative 5—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of a Proposed NFTS 

Level 3, Mixed-use Road _____________________________________________________________ 213

Table 3-78. Summary of Effects Measures for all Alternatives ________________________________ 216

Table 3-79. Risk Analysis for all Alternatives ______________________________________________ 217

Table 3-80. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Terrestrial Species of the Modoc National Forest _ 224

Table 3-81. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) of the Modoc National Forest _________ 225

Table 3-82. Wildlife Group and Focal Species Represented within Groups _______________________ 226

Table 3-83. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation-Altering Actions on Public Land In and 

adjacent to the Modoc National Forest___________________________________________________ 229

Table 3-84. For the Late-Successional Group, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stages and the 

Acres of Potential Habitat Occurring on the Modoc National Forest ___________________________ 230

Table 3-85. Alternative 1: The Potential Late-Successional Habitat that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, off-Road Travel______________________________________________________________ 233

Table 3-86. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group__ 233

Table 3-87. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group__ 237

Table 3-88. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group__ 239

Table 3-89. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group __ 241

Table 3-90. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group __ 243

Table 3-91. Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative___________________________________ 244

Table 3-92. Security Index Rank Ratings, by Alternative _____________________________________ 244

Table 3-93. Comparison of Other Goshawk Habitat-change metrics Between Alternatives___________ 245

Table 3-94. Comparison of Selected Habitat-Change Metrics for Other Late-Successional Focal Species, 

by Alternative ______________________________________________________________________ 245

Table 3-95. For the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stages 

Considered Suitable, and the Acres of Potential Habitat Occurring on the Modoc National Forest ____ 250

Table 3-96. Alternative 1: The Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group that Could be 

Impacted by Cross-Country, off-Road Travel ______________________________________________ 251

Table 3-97 Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

__________________________________________________________________________________ 251

Table 3-98. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

__________________________________________________________________________________ 253

Table 3-99. Alternative 3: The Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group that Could be 

Impacted by Cross-Country, off-Road Travel ______________________________________________ 254

Table 3-100. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore 

Group ____________________________________________________________________________ 254
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents vii

Table 3-101. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore 

Group ____________________________________________________________________________ 255

Table 3-102. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore 

Group ____________________________________________________________________________ 257

Table 3-103. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative __________________________________ 257

Table 3-104. For the Ungulate Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes Considered 

Suitable ___________________________________________________________________________ 259

Table 3-105. Alternative 1: Potential Key Habitat for the Ungulate Group that Could be Impacted by 

Cross-Country, Off-Road Travel ________________________________________________________ 260

Table 3-106. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes Within Potential key Habitat for the Ungulate Group_____ 261

Table 3-107. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential key Habitat for the Ungulate Group _____ 262

Table 3-108. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group________ 264

Table 3-109. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group________ 265

Table 3-110. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group________ 266

Table 3-111. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative __________________________________ 267

Table 3-112. For the Riparian Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes Considered 

Suitable ___________________________________________________________________________ 270

Table 3-113. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel _____________________________________________________________ 270

Table 3-114. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group ________ 271

Table 3-115. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group ________ 274

Table 3-116. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group ________ 277

Table 3-117. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group ________ 279

Table 3-118. Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group ____________________ 281

Table 3-119. Riparian Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative __________________________ 282

Table 3-120. Bald Eagle Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative ________________________ 282

Table 3-121. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative __________________________________ 282

Table 3-122. Snag Retention Guidelines on the Modoc National Forest _________________________ 285

Table 3-123. For the Cavity-Dependent Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable__________________________________________________________________ 286

Table 3-124. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group that Could be Impacted by 

Cross-Country, Off-Road Travel ________________________________________________________ 288

Table 3-125. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group _ 289

Table 3-126. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group _ 291

Table 3-127. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group_ 292

Table 3-128. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group _ 293

Table 3-129. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore 

Group ____________________________________________________________________________ 295

Table 3-130. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the CavityDependent Group ___________________________________________________________________ 296

Table 3-131. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative __________________________________ 296

Table 3-132. For the Oak-associated Group: California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable__________________________________________________________________ 298

Table 3-133. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Oak Group that Could be Impacted by Cross-Country, 

Off-Road Travel_____________________________________________________________________ 299

Table 3-134. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group ___ 300

Table 3-135. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group ___ 302

Table 3-136. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group ___ 303

Table 3-137. Alternative 4: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group____ 305

Table 3-138. Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group ______________ 306

Table 3-139. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the OakAssociated Group ___________________________________________________________________ 307

Table 3-140. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Oak-Associated Group, by Alternative __________ 307

Table 3-141. For the Wetland-Associated Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable__________________________________________________________________ 309
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

viii Table of Contents

Table 3-142. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel _____________________________________________________________ 310

Table 3-143. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group _________ 310

Table 3-144. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group _________ 312

Table 3-145. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group _________ 314

Table 3-146. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group _________ 315

Table 3-147. Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group _____________________ 317

Table 3-148. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the Wetland 

Group ____________________________________________________________________________ 317

Table 3-149. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Oak-Associated Group, by Alternative __________ 317

Table 3-150. For The Sage-Steppe Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable__________________________________________________________________ 320

Table 3-151. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel _____________________________________________________________ 322

Table 3-152. Alternative 1: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group ______ 322

Table 3-153. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group______ 325

Table 3-154. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group______ 327

Table 3-155. Alternative 4: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group ______ 329

Table 3-156. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group______ 331

Table 3-157. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Sage-Steppe Group, by Alternative_____________ 332

Table 3-158. Unauthorized Road Stream Crossings within RCAs, and TES Habitat ________________ 340

Table 3-159. Miles of Unauthorized Roads within RCAs, CARs, and TES Habitat _________________ 341

Table 3-160. Federally Listed Aquatic Species Found on the Forest ____________________________ 341

Table 3-161. USDA Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Aquatic Species that Occur on or Have Habitat 

Downstream from the Modoc National Forest _____________________________________________ 345

Table 3-162. Inventoried Roadless Areas: Categories, Acres, and NFTS Road Miles _______________ 368

Table 3-163. Existing Research Natural Areas and Size (in acres)______________________________ 375

Table 3-164 : Geologic Special-Interest Areas _____________________________________________ 376

Table 3-165. Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas ___________________________________________ 377

Table 3-166. CIRAs: Miles of Proposed Road for Each Alternative_____________________________ 380

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Location of the Project _______________________________________________________ 6

Figure 3-1. Population Estimates 1 and Projections 2 for Modoc National Forest Study Area Counties _ 48

Figure 3-2. Age Distribution in California, by County ________________________________________ 50

Figure 3-3. Age Distribution in Oregon, by County __________________________________________ 50

Figure 3-4. Per Capita Income for the Modoc Five-County Area________________________________ 54

Figure 3-5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum on the Modoc National Forest______________________ 79

Figure 3-6. Typical Landscape of Medicine Lake Lava Flows; View from Modoc Volcanic Historic Loop 

near Lava Beds National Monument _____________________________________________________ 106

Figure 3-7. Homestead Flat viewed from South Warner Auto Loop Tour ________________________ 106

Figure 3-8. Devil’s Garden North of Big Sage Reservoir _____________________________________ 107

Figure 3-9. View West From Hwy 139 (Highway fence prevented unauthorized routes.) ____________ 107

Figure 3-10. View of Highway 139 Corridor just inside the Forest Boundary Looking North (Emigrant 

Trails Scenic Byway). Note that highway fencing prevented unauthorized routes from developing along this 

corridor. __________________________________________________________________________ 107

Figure 3-11. Fandango Valley Viewed from North Warner Auto Loop Tour ______________________ 108

Figure 3-12. Warner Mountain Uplift Viewed from Surprise Valley Barrel Springs Backcountry Byway 108

Figure 3-13. Vegetation on Western Warner Mountain in North Parker Creek Drainage ____________ 108

Figure 3-14. Regeneration Harvest along Hunters Ridge Road ________________________________ 109

Figure 3-15. Vegetation and Landform Features near the Dibble Place on Ash Valley Road _________ 109
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents ix

Figure 3-16. Utility Corridor Viewed from Highway 139_____________________________________ 109

Figure 3-17. View of Unauthorized Spur Road from Level 3 Road. ML2054 is beginning to be hidden by 

vegetation. _________________________________________________________________________ 110

Figure 3-18. Approaching Unauthorized Road ML1300 from System Road 42A61A. The unauthorized road 

appears smaller and less used than the System road, which turns to the left. _____________________ 111

Figure 3-19. Approaching unauthorized road ML2046; the road is not visible. ___________________ 112

Figure 3-20. Number of Unauthorized Routes to be Added, by Alternative _______________________ 132

Figure 3-21. Comparison of Number of Potentially Affected, Known Sites Across all Alternatives_____ 132

Figure 3-22. Annual Precipitation in Alturas, California _____________________________________ 227

Figure 3-23. Acres Of National Forest Burned on the Modoc National Forest, by Year, With Five-Year 

Moving Average Plotted (Note: y-axis is logarithmic.)_______________________________________ 228

Figure 3-24. Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Modoc NF___________________________________ 374

Figure 3-25. Wilderness Interests on the Modoc NF_________________________________________ 379

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Abstract xi

Abstract of the Motorized Travel 

Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement

Lassen, Modoc, and Siskiyou Counties, California

Lead Agency: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Stanley G. Sylva, Forest Supervisor

Modoc National Forest

800 W. 12th Street

Alturas, CA 96101

For further information: Kathleen Borovac

800 W. 12th Street

Alturas, CA 96101

(530) 233-8754

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the environmental effects of a 

proposal by the Modoc National Forest (MDF) to make the following changes to the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads:

1. Prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel by the public off designated NFTS roads, 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Cross-country motor vehicle travel is 

defined as any travel off an authorized NFTS route. This includes travel on unauthorized 

routes or open land.

2. Add 1,154 existing unauthorized routes (336 miles) to its National Forest road system; 

approximately 20 miles, or 74 of the added routes, would have seasonal restrictions.

3. Make the following changes to existing NFTS roads:

• Add seasonal restrictions to approximately 312 miles of 213 roads

• Allow non-highway legal vehicle access on approximately 138 additional miles

• Restrict use to “highway vehicles only” on roads 44N08 and 44N01

• Close road 46B29HB

4. Amend the MDF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for areas not covered 

under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA ROD, pg. 59, #69), by removing 

the objective to “Keep over 87 percent of the Forest open to off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs).”

5. Amend the MDF LRMP to provide a specific area exemption to the bald eagle winter roost 

guidelines to allow for motor-vehicle use year round in the bald eagle winter roost area 

directly outside of Tionesta. Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 

44N04Y would be exempt from the winter roost guidelines.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

xii Abstract

These actions are needed to implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, 

Subpart B) while providing for a diversity of motor vehicle recreation opportunities, and 

providing motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the MDF. The FEIS discloses 

environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action, a No-Action Alternative and three 

additional action alternatives developed in response to issues raised by the public during scoping 

of the Proposed Action. The responsible official prefers a modified Alternative 5 as the selected 

alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary xiii

Summary of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS)

Proposed Action 

The Modoc National Forest (MDF) proposes the following actions to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS):

1. Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads by the public, 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization. Cross-country motor vehicle travel is 

defined as any travel off an authorized NFTS route. Authorized NFTS routes will be 

identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

2. Add 336 miles (1,154 existing unauthorized routes) to its National Forest road system 

(approximately 20 miles, or 74 of the added routes, would have seasonal restrictions).

3. Make the following changes to existing NFTS roads:

a. Add seasonal restrictions to approximately 312 miles of 213 roads

b. Change vehicle class to “open to all vehicles” on approximately 138 additional 

miles where it was previously open to highway-legal vehicles only

c. Remove non-highway legal use from roads 44N08 and 44N01 and restrict use to 

“highway vehicles only”

d. Close road 46B29HB to motor vehicle use

4. Amend the MDF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for areas not covered 

under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), by removing the objective to 

“Keep over 87 percent of the Forest open to off-highway vehicles (OHVs)” (LRMP p. 4-

11).

5. Amend the LRMP to provide a specific area exemption to the bald eagle winter roost 

guidelines to allow for motor-vehicle use year round in the bald eagle winter roost area 

directly outside of Tionesta. Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 

44N04Y would be exempt from the winter roost guidelines.

Significant Issues 

Scoping for the Proposed Action and additional information brought forward during the process 

identified the following significant issues that were used to develop the action alternatives. The 

Significant Issues are displayed in the following table: 

Table S-1. List of Significant Issues 

Issue Topic Cause and Effect 

1. Access and Recreation 

Opportunity 

The Proposed Action unreasonably restricts motorized recreation use by prohibiting cross-country 

travel. The addition of 336 miles of unauthorized roads to the National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) provides insufficient public access to MDF lands and unfairly limits motorized 

recreation. 

2. Motorized recreation 

opportunity (mixed use)

Change of vehicle class of 138 miles to allow mixed use on the NFTS of level 3 roads does not 

provide adequate connectivity and recreational diversity for non-highway legal motorized travel. 

3. Resource Impacts Some of the roads proposed for addition to the NFTS may cause adverse impacts to plants, 

wildlife, water quality, soils, the spread of noxious weeds, and other natural resources.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

xiv Summary

4. Maintenance Cost The NFTS is already too large to provide adequate maintenance. Current maintenance backlogs 

should be addressed before proposing the addition of new routes to an already overburdened 

system. 

5. Quiet Forms of 

Recreation

The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would impact the ability of people to enjoy a quiet 

recreation experience. 

Alternatives Considered In Detail 

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

alternatives generated in response to the significant issues listed above. The five alternatives 

considered in detail for this analysis are listed in table S-2, below. Complete details of the 

alternatives are found in chapter 2 of this document. 

Table S-2. List of Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative 1: 

No-Action 

Alternative

The No-Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the NoAction Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project 

area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS, and cross-country travel would continue. The 

Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no MVUM would be produced. Motor 

vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated routes. The agency would take no 

affirmative action on any unauthorized routes.

• Adds no new NFTS facilities

• Does not prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

Alternative 2: 

Proposed 

Action 

The Proposed Action makes changes to the NFTS and the prohibition of cross-country travel as 

described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92). It also 

responds to concerns over natural resource impacts and the concept of connector roads to 

improve motorized recreation opportunity. 

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel

• Adds 336 miles (1,154 routes ) of unauthorized routes to the NFTS system

• Closes 312 miles of NFTS road seasonally

• Allows use by all vehicles on 138 miles (23 routes) of NFTS roads where use is 

currently limited to use by highway-legal vehicles only

• Closes 46B29HB to motor vehicle use by the public

• Prohibits non-highway legal vehicle use on 44N08 from Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to 

44N01

• Amends the LRMP for Travel Rule consistency 

• Amends the LRMP to exclude Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, 

and 44N04Y from the bald eagle winter roost guidelines

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 responds to maintenance costs and natural resource impacts by prohibiting crosscountry travel without adding any facilities to the NFTS. It also responds to quiet use by not adding 

routes or expanding vehicle class on the existing system. This alternative also provides a baseline 

for comparing the impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS. 

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel 

• Does not add any unauthorized routes

• Does not make any seasonal closures

• Allows mixed use on level 2 roads only

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 responds to issues of impacts on natural resources and the concept of quiet use. This 

alternative prohibits cross-country travel, and does not add routes where resource concerns were 

raised or additional information was brought forward during the scoping of the Proposed Action.

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel

• Adds 286 miles of unauthorized (1020 routes ) (seasonal closures on 15 miles)

• Closes 425 (270 routes) miles of NFTS road seasonally 

• Allows mixed use on level 2 roads only; no change in vehicle class on existing roads

• Closes 46B29HB to public use

• Prohibits non-highway legal vehicle use on 44N08 from Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to 

44N01

• Amends the LRMP for Travel Rule consistency

• Amends LRMP to exclude Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 

44N04Y from the bald eagle winter roost guidelines
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary xv

Alternative 5 Alternative 5 responds to the issue of access and motorized recreation opportunity. This alternative 

prohibits cross-country travel and incorporates suggestions the MDF received during scoping of the 

Proposed Action, requesting expansion of all-vehicle use roads on the NFTS that would better 

provide access and motorized recreation opportunity. Alternative 5 incorporates many of those 

suggestions. 

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel

• Adds 336 miles of unauthorized (1,154 routes)

• Closes 312 miles (213 routes) of NFTS road seasonally

• Changes vehicle class on 513 miles (198) of level 3 roads to allow for mixed use 

• Closes 46B29HB to public use

• Prohibits non-highway legal vehicle use on 44N08 from Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to 

44N01

• Amends the LRMP for Travel Rule consistency 

• Amends LRMP to exclude Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 

44N04Y from the bald eagle winter roost guidelines

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance 

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

and regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

The document is organized into four chapters: 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the Proposed Action, the 

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

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

responded. 

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

description of the agency’s Proposed Action, as well as alternative actions that were developed in 

response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the chapter includes a 

summary table comparing the Proposed Action and alternatives with respect to their 

environmental impacts.

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

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

in the environmental impact statement.

Glossary: The glossary lists specialized vocabulary and definitions.

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Literature Cited: This lists books, periodicals, government documents, and other technical and 

scientific publications used in preparing this FEIS.

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

found in the project record located at the Modoc National Forest (MDF) Supervisor’s Office at 

800 W.12th Street, Alturas, CA 96101.

Background

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

Nationally, the number of OHV users has climbed seven-fold in the past 30 years, from 

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

level of OHV use of any state in the nation. There were 786,914 ATVs and off-road motorcycles 

registered in 2004, up 330% since 1980. Annual sales of ATVs and off-road motorcycles in 

California were the highest in the U.S. for the last five years. Four-wheel-drive vehicle sales in 

California increased to 3,046,866 (1500%) from 1989 to 2002.

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 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

2 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

vehicle use. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of “Four Key Threats 

Facing the Nation’s Forests and Grasslands” (USDA Forest Service, June 2004).

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

memorandum of intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation 

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

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

OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for motor vehicles on maps of the 19 

national forests in California by 2007.”

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

Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291). 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, NFTS trails and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles on roads and 

trails that are not specifically designated for public use.

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

vehicle travel, repeated use has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized roads and trails. These routes 

generally developed without environmental analysis or public involvement, and do not have the 

same status as NFS roads and NFS trails included in the NFTS. Nevertheless, some unauthorized 

routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and 

non-motorized users, and would enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized routes are poorly located 

and cause unacceptable impacts. Only NFS roads and NFS trails can be designated for motor 

vehicle use. In order for an unauthorized route to be designated, it must first be added to the 

Forest transportation system.

In 2007, the MDF completed an inventory of unauthorized routes on NFS lands as described in 

the MOI and identified approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes. The MDF then used an 

interdisciplinary process to conduct travel analysis that included working with the public to 

identify proposals for changes to the existing MDF transportation system. Roads and trails that 

are currently part of the MDF transportation system and open to motor vehicle travel would 

remain designated for such use, except as described below under the Proposed Action. This 

proposal makes needed changes (seasonal restrictions, vehicle class restrictions, etc.) to the 

Modoc National Forest NFTS roads and NFTS trails on NFS lands in accordance with the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B).

In accordance with the Travel Management Rule and following a decision on this proposal, the 

MDF will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) identifying all MDF NFTS roads that are 

designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM will specify the classes of vehicles and, if 

appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated. Unauthorized routes not included in 

this proposal are not precluded from future consideration for addition to the National Forest 

Transportation System and inclusion on an MVUM. Future decisions associated with changes to 

the NFTS and the MVUM may trigger the need for additional environmental analysis, public 

involvement, and documentation.

Travel Management on the Modoc National Forest

The Modoc National Forest has the lowest recreational use of any national forest in the country

(Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring, or NVUM). Road use on this Forest is 

completely different than any other forest in California because of the low population and relative 

isolation of the Forest. Resource impacts or potential impacts from roads are much less than in 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 3

other areas in the state due to the lower volume of vehicle traffic and types of use. The roads on 

the Modoc may be less prone to erosion than on other Forests because of the flat topography.

Many of the inventoried unauthorized routes on the Modoc National Forest have been in place for 

over 40 years and despite their long existence, little impact has occurred based upon 

observational data from Engineering and other staff. Two-thirds of the inventoried unauthorized 

routes are less than 1⁄4 mile in length; another 20 percent are less that 1⁄2 mile in length; and only 5 

percent are over a mile in length. Most of these are very short spurs, and were considered by the 

public to be a part of the existing road system; but were never officially added to the NFTS (See 

table 1-1).

These short spur roads provide access to camping, picnic areas, and parking off dusty roads for a 

variety of recreational and management purposes. Many of these short roads were established by 

recreationists, primarily hunters, when hunting licenses for deer were unlimited. The total hunting 

licenses sold in 1980, before they were limited, was 21,400. Total licenses in 2007 were 3,485—

an 84 percent decrease. A corresponding decrease in recreational hunting use has also occurred, 

along with a related reduction in unauthorized route use. 

Today, many of these routes are used infrequently but do provide access to dispersed recreation

and parking off the existing NFTS roads. Based on feedback given to the Forest by the public, we 

know that these recreational opportunities are an important resource for the local community.

With the high cost of fuel and uncertainty of the economy, a substantial increase in non-local use 

will likely not occur over the next ten years. Local use on the Forest may increase due to the high 

cost of fuel and the unwillingness to travel far distances for recreational purposes. However, even 

this use may be tempered for the same reasons. It is reasonable to assume that use on the Modoc 

will remain fairly consistent with current use.

Many unauthorized routes are also used for administrative purposes such as fire control. The firedisturbance regimes and frequent fire-return intervals—especially in east-side pine and sagesteppe ecosystems—necessitate motorized access. Decommissioning and obliteration of the roads 

will not occur because of this need. 

Table 1-1. Length of Unauthorized Roads Common to all Action Alternatives

Number of Roads Length Percent

422 less than 0.1 mile 37%

336 between 0.1 and 0.25 mile 29%

208

between 0.25 and 0.50 

mile

 18%

125 between 0.5 and 1 mile 11%

63 more than 1 mile 5%

1,154 Total 100%

Previous decisions made over the past 10 years have led to a reduction in the number of miles of 

Forest Service system roads available for motorized use, and in some cases, decommissioning. 

These previous decisions have resulted in 28 miles being closed, 0 miles being seasonally closed, 

and 76.8 miles decommissioned. Analysis done during forest planning, vegetation management 

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

landscape analysis, watershed analysis and the roads analysis process (RAP) has helped to 

identify problems that led to management decisions of the current transportation system. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

Implementation of this proposal and subsequent designation of motorized routes through 

publication of the Motor Vehicle Use MAP (MVUM) are only the first steps in the ongoing, 

overall management of the MDF NFTS.

Scope of this Action

This proposal is not intended to revisit previous 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 focused on implementing the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B). Previous decisions concerning road 

construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, trail construction, and land suitability 

for motorized use are outside of the scope of this proposal. Further, the responsible official is 

limited as to staff and funding and, by necessity, must limit the scope of any project to that which 

is within his or her means to accomplish. Through transportation planning, the MDF identifies 

projects, prioritizes them, and builds them into the future program of work. Only those specific 

projects within the capability of the Forest are brought forward by the responsible official and 

carried forward in accordance with the Purpose and Need for action. 

The infrastructure of a national forest will always have room for improvement, and the MDF 

welcomes suggestions for improving the current NFTS and restoring the environment. Such 

suggestions are considered within the context of the overall mission of the MDF, and will be 

considered as availability of staff and funding allows. Scoping for this project resulted in many 

suggestions for improving the NFTS through NFS road and trail construction, decommissioning, 

closures, restoration, etc. These ideas and suggestions have been captured by the MDF and will

be considered in future programs of work.

The following list is a summary of key elements considered when developing the scope of the 

action:

1. Previous decisions on the NFTS do not need to be revisited to implement the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212.50(b)). The NFTS contains existing facilities (roads & 

trails) that either underwent a NEPA process or predate NEPA. Allowing continued 

motor vehicle use of the facilities in the NFTS in accordance with existing laws and 

regulations does not require a NEPA analysis and decision. The Forest Service Handbook 

7709.55, section 11.3, states the following:

2. The regulations at 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, do not require reconsideration of previous 

travel management decisions.

3. Many administrative units or ranger districts have NFS roads and NFS trails that are 

already designated for the uses for which they are currently managed. All administrative 

units or ranger districts, for example, have NFS roads managed as open to highway-legal 

vehicles (generally NFS roads classified at Operational Maintenance Levels 2 through 5). 

These roads are in effect already designated for use by highway-legal vehicles. 

4. User-created roads and trails, as well as temporary Forest Service-created roads are not 

NFTS facilities. They are unauthorized. Proposals to add these to the NFTS require a 

NEPA analysis and decision.

5. The unauthorized routes not included in the Proposed Action are not precluded from 

future consideration for either addition to the NFTS or removal from the landscape and 

restoration to the natural condition. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 5

6. There are vehicles and uses that are exempt from the travel management process, such as 

over-snow vehicles; emergency uses; and vehicles, law enforcement activities, and other 

uses that are specifically authorized. Refer to 36 CFR 212.51.

7. For travel management, the Federal action requiring NEPA analysis and decision is any 

change to the current NFTS (e.g., prohibiting cross-country travel, adding or removing 

facilities, or changing vehicle class or season of use). “Designation’ is an administrative 

act which does not require NEPA analysis and decision. Designation technically occurs 

with printing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and NEPA is not required for 

printing a map.

National Forest Transportation System

The Modoc National Forest currently manages and maintains 4,580 miles of National Forest 

System (NFS) roads. Of these, 4,339 are open for public use. The Modoc National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) was developed over many decades to meet a variety needs, 

including timber management, fuel treatment, access to private inholdings, fire control, utility 

management, special-uses management, and recreation. Other roads were acquired with past land 

exchanges or acquisitions. Harvesting of special forest products such as greenery, firewood, 

mushrooms, and plants are among the many opportunities afforded by the NFTS. 

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

objectives. The roads range from paved to roughly graded, high-clearance roads, depending on 

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

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

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

facilities and associated information available as of January 12, 2001 (Forest Service Manual 

7711.2). Details concerning the management of individual roads and trails are maintained in the 

Forest infrastructure database (INFRA). 

In 2002, the Modoc National Forest populated the INFRA database by examining previous 

records (maintenance plans, maintenance expenditures, existing road and trail atlases, Forest 

maps, etc.) to capture the entire NFTS, transfer the necessary information into INFRA, and verify 

the Forest Transportation Atlas. Roads or trails that had no record of being mapped or maintained 

for a specific use were not included in the NFTS. 

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

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

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

management objectives for each transportation facility. Decisions regarding changes to the NFTS 

(new road construction, realignment, decommissioning, etc.) are subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and require public involvement and disclosure. The NFTS is 

always changing, depending on resource needs and management concerns 

This travel management proposal is just one of many in the Modoc National Forest’s continuing 

effort to manage the transportation system to meet current and future needs. Previous decisions 

have changed the number of miles of NFS roads for motor vehicle use. These decisions have 

resulted in road closures, seasonal restrictions, and decommissioning of selected routes. These 

decisions have resulted in 28 miles being closed and 76.8 miles decommissioned. This has been 

accomplished through forest planning, vegetation management projects, watershed restoration 

projects, fuels treatment projects, trail construction projects, trail management decisions, 

landscape analysis, watershed analysis, and various roads analyses. All of these efforts have 

contributed to sustainable management of the Modoc National Forest NFTS. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

Ongoing efforts include the following: (1) project-specific efforts to reduce the impacts 

associated with non-system routes, and (2) addressing impacts associated with the current Forest 

transportation system through the Forest’s road operation and maintenance program.

Implementation of this project is only one step in the overall management of motor vehicle travel 

on the Modoc National Forest.

Project Location

Figure 1-1. Location of the Project

Purpose and Need

The following needs have been identified for this proposal:

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

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

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

Rule, 36 CFR Section 212. Subpart B, provides for a system of NFS roads, NFS trails, and 

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

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

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

damage caused by unmanaged motor vehicle use by the public. In accordance with national 

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

National Forest is scheduled for completion in January, 2010.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 7

2. There is a need for limited changes to the MDF transportation system to—

a. Provide motorized access to existing dispersed recreation opportunities 

(camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). There is a need to 

maintain motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation activities that 

historically have been accessed by motor vehicles. A substantial portion of 

known, dispersed recreation activities (camping, fishing, hiking, horseback 

riding, hunting, etc.) are not located directly adjacent to an existing NFTS 

road or NFTS motorized trail. Some dispersed recreation activities depend on 

foot or horseback access, and some depend on motor vehicle access. Those 

activities accessed by motor vehicles consist of short spurs that have been 

created and maintained primarily by the passage of motor vehicles. Many 

such unauthorized, “user-created” routes are not currently part of the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS). Without adding them to the NFTS, the 

regulatory changes noted above would make continued use of such routes 

illegal through the prohibition of cross-country travel, and would preclude 

access to many dispersed recreation activities.

b. Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (four-wheel drive 

vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, SUVs, passenger vehicles, etc.). It is Forest 

Service policy to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities for 

experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with 

the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)). 

Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule will severely 

reduce acres and miles of motorized recreation opportunities relative to 

current levels. As a result, there is a need to consider limited changes to the 

NFTS.

3. There is a need for protection of heritage resources in the area along road 46B29HB (the road 

along Boles Creek between Clear Lake and Steel Swamp) due to documented cases of 

vandalism. 

4. There is a need to consider the safety of non-highway legal vehicles users on 44N08 between 

the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine and 44N01 because this route is also used by large 

commercial haul trucks for hauling pumice.

5. There is a need for consistency between the 2005 Travel Management Rule and the Modoc 

NF Land and Resource Management Plan (Modoc LRMP). In 2004, the portion of the 

Modoc LRMP covered under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) was 

amended to include Standard and Guideline #69 (SNFPA Record of Decision, p. 59). 

Standard and Guideline #69 is consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule because it 

prohibits “vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off-highway vehicle

(OHV) areas.” However, the remainder of the Modoc NF that is not covered by the SNFPA 

includes the objective “Keep over 87 percent of the Forest open to OHVs (Modoc LRMP p. 

4-11)” and numerous other standards and guidelines in the LRMP regarding keeping areas 

open for OHV use. These remaining Modoc LRMP standards and guidelines are not 

consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, which prohibits motor vehicle use except 

on designated NFTS roads, NFTS motorized trails, and areas. 

6. There is a need for consistency with bald eagle winter roost road closure requirements in the 

Modoc LRMP. Currently, use of system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20 and 

44N04Y, in the Tionesta area, is in conflict with Modoc LRMP Standards and Guidelines that 

require seasonal closure of roads within bald eagle winter roost sites. Currently, these roads 

provide access to the community of Tionesta and have been open to public use with no 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

8 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

discernable disturbance to the bald eagles during their wintering period. Bald eagles that roost 

here have become habituated to vehicle traffic. Seasonal closure of these roads, in 

conformance with the Modoc LRMP, would adversely impact the community of Tionesta. 

In making any limited changes to the National Forest Transportation system, the MDF will be 

considering criteria contained in Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which include the 

following: 

A. Impacts to natural and cultural resources

B. Public safety

C. Access to public and private lands

D. Availability of resources for maintenance and administration 

of roads trails and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are 

designated

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

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

G. Minimizing conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational 

uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands

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

neighboring federal lands

I. Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, 

taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors 

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

the following:

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

2. Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing

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

The Proposed Action

1. Prohibition of motor vehicle travel by the public off designated NFTS roads and trails, except 

as allowed by permit or other authorization. 

2. Additions to the NFTS: The MDF currently manages and maintains approximately 4,339

miles of NFS roads. Based on the stated Purpose and Need for action, the MDF proposes to 

add 336 miles to its NFTS roads, bringing the total to 4,675 miles.

3. Changes to Vehicle Class on Existing NFTS Roads: The Modoc National Forest proposes to 

change vehicle class on 138 miles of roads by allowing non-highway-legal vehicles to travel 

on existing NFTS roads where they are currently prohibited. 

4. Changes to season of use on existing NFTS roads and trails: The Modoc National Forest 

proposes to restrict motor vehicle use within specified dates on 312 miles of existing NFS 

roads:

a. One closure date for roads in bald eagle winter roost areas 

b. Four other closure dates for roads that are affected by wet weather

5. Other changes on existing NFS roads: Prohibit non-highway legal vehicle use on 1.45 miles 

of 44N08 and 44N01 due to safety issues. Close 46B29HB (along Boles Creek between Clear 

Lake and Steel Swamp) to public use for resource protection.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 9

6. An LRMP non-significant amendment that amends the Modoc NF Land and Resource 

Management Plan for areas not covered under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment by 

removing the objective to “keep over 87 percent of the Forest open to OHVs” (LRMP p. 4-

11)

7. A non-significant LRMP amendment that would provide a one-area exemption to the bald 

eagle winter roost guidelines and allow for vehicle use year round in the bald eagle winter 

roost area directly outside of Tionesta. The new amendment would read, “With the exception 

of Forest system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20 and 44N04Y, existing roads in 

winter roosts will be closed during the wintering period.”

A detailed description of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) can be found in chapter 2 of this 

EIS. Maps depicting the Proposed Action and the other alternatives can be found at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/modoc

Principal Laws and Regulations that Influence the 

Scope of this EIS

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

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

intensity of those impacts, and that the results be shared with the public and that the public be 

given opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the 

fullest extent possible, agencies will prepare environmental impact statements concurrently with 

and integrated with environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required by the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other 

environmental review laws and executive orders. Principal among these are the Multiple Use and 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through 

the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the 

Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974.

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B – Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use (36 CFR 212.50-57): The MDF Travel Management EIS is designed specifically to 

implement the requirements of 36 CFR 212, Subpart B, of the November 5, 2005, Rule for Travel 

Management.

Decision Framework

The responsible official will decide whether to (1) implement the Proposed Action; (2) implement 

an alternative to the Proposed Action; or (3) take no action to prohibit cross-country motor 

vehicle travel by the public off the designated system, make no changes to the existing Modoc 

National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and not amend the Modoc Land and Resource 

Management Plan.

This proposal does not revisit previous decisions that resulted in the current NFTS. This proposal 

is focused on implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. Previous administrative 

decisions concerning road construction, road reconstruction, trail construction, road 

decommissioning, and land suitability for motorized use on the existing NFTS are outside of the 

scope of this proposal. 

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

Supervisor will sign the record of decision.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

10 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

Public Involvement

The Modoc National Forest relied upon the interdisciplinary team and public involvement to 

ensure that a full range of alternatives, representing a broad array of perspectives, would be 

analyzed in this final environmental impact statement (FEIS ). Public involvement occurred 

during three key periods. First, during the public collaboration process that began in 2007; 

second, during the 30-day public scoping period for the proposed action; and third, during 

meetings with public groups to explore issues they raised during scoping. However, scoping is 

ongoing and continual throughout the process.

The Modoc National Forest met with local elected officials, Indian tribes, Federal advisory 

groups, individuals, and community groups; including service and professional organizations, to 

discuss the Travel Management Rule and travel management on the Forest. Several news 

releases were also published in area papers along with public notices. In November 2007, four 

public open houses were held in Cedarville, Alturas, Adin, and Tulelake, California to gather 

information about which routes the public uses and to identify routes missed in the inventory of 

unauthorized routes. Additionally, maps of inventoried routes were available on the Forest’s 

website and Forest Service offices. The public and the tribes used these maps to provide input 

into the process, and their suggestions were incorporated into the Proposed Action. The majority 

of public comments and discussion received during this initial phase of development favored the 

addition of all unauthorized routes to the NFTS unless a conflict with another resource was 

discovered. Information gathered during the initial collaboration process led in part to the 

development of the Proposed Action. 

Thirty-day Public Scoping Period

In May 2008, the Forest Service completed the “Proposed Action and Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement” based on comments from the meetings held in the fall of 

2007. The public comment period began with publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, 

Number 92), and ended June 10, 2008. Presentations to a variety of groups, phone calls, news 

releases, website postings, and emails were used to alert the public of the opportunity to comment 

on the Proposed Action. Public meetings were held in Cedarville (May 19), Alturas (May 20), 

Adin (May 28) and Tulelake (May 29) to explain the Proposed Action. The concept of “mixed 

use” was also introduced during these meetings. Mixed use is defined as allowing use by both 

highway-legal vehicles and non-highway legal vehicles. Approximately fifty comments were 

received from scoping, by email and regular mail. The majority of the comments were from 

individuals in the immediate community, but some came from individuals and groups across the 

nation. Several comments were received from national organizations. Meetings were held 

throughout the scoping period with several groups, including the Modoc County Board of 

Supervisors, the community vitality group, the Wilderness Society, a local motocross group, and 

a local Rotary club. The tribal liaison for the Forest also met with the Pit River Tribe to further 

explain and receive comments on the Proposed Action. During the scoping period, we received 

some additional information that prompted us to make changes to our Proposed Action. One 

change was a non-significant LRMP amendment for bald eagle winter roost areas and the 

prohibition of OHV use on a Level 2 road that is used by Glass Mountain Pumice for hauling. On 

the week of July 21, 2008, an update notice was mailed to everyone on the mailing list and a 

notice was placed in the newspaper of record. This update notice was intended to keep people 

involved and to inform them of changes made to the Proposed Action. The scoping period was 

extended until August 8, 2008 for comments on these changes and three additional comments 

were received.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 11

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) and Responses

The comment period for the DEIS closed on February 11, 2009. The Forest received 49 separate 

comments on the DEIS. Two of those comments came as form letters through email. One was 

from the Wilderness Society and had 8,010 respondents. The comments in this form letter were 

(1) roads should not be added when you cannot maintain the existing system (2) the existing 

system must be considered and a minimum road system created (3) redundant roads must be

identified and decommissioned (4) a science-based analysis of the existing system must be done 

prior to making any decision.

The other form letter was from Trout Unlimited; we received 488 emails. The concerns 

expressed in this form letter were (1) do not add roads when you cannot maintain existing system 

(2) do not value OHV use over other uses (3) the Forest must do a watershed analysis to 

determine if action meets ACS objectives and to minimize riparian impact (4) do not construct 

roads in wetlands (5) do not add roads in riparian conservation areas (RCAs) or inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs) (both agency and citizen).

Fourteen comments came from organizations and 35 came from individuals. Many of the 

comments were similar to the comments from the form letters. Comments that came from the 

county, local public and tribes were mostly supportive and recommended choosing an alternative 

that added the most routes and recreation opportunities. Some individuals felt that the Forest was 

being too restrictive and others felt that we were not restrictive enough. The comments were 

sorted and grouped by topic. All of the comments were responded to in the FEIS, Response to 

Comments section (published as a separate volume).

Issues

An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the Proposed Action and its environmental 

impacts. Comments from the public, other agencies, and affected Indian tribes were used to 

formulate issues concerning the Proposed Action. The Pit River Tribe brought up the issue of 

elders being able to access sacred places for ritual or food gathering. The Forest will work with, 

coordinate with, and consult with the tribes to provide access to meet their cultural, spiritual, and 

gathering needs. We will also coordinate with the tribes outside of this process to provide access 

for these purposes. 

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. 

Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

Proposed Action. Non-significant issues were identified as those (1) outside the scope of the 

Proposed Action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, LRMP, or other higher-level decision; 

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

factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this 

delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” The nonsignificant issues are listed below, together with the reasons why they were determined to be nonsignificant.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

12 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

Significant Issues

Issue 1

The Proposed Action unreasonably restricts motorized recreation use by prohibiting crosscountry travel. The addition of 336 miles of unauthorized roads to the NFTS provides 

insufficient public access to MDF lands and unfairly limits motorized recreation. 

Discussion: Concerns were raised that restricting cross-country travel across the entire Forest

would impact motorized recreation opportunities and unfairly restrict access for hunting, fishing, 

camping and a host of other outdoor activities. The route inventory identified 491 miles of 

inventoried unauthorized routes across the Forest, and the Proposed Action retains only 336 miles 

of these. This is considered insufficient by some users for a quality motorized recreation 

experience on the MDF. 

Issue 2

The Proposed Action does not allow for easy and enjoyable travel across the Forest for 

motorized users. The addition of 138 miles of mixed use to the NFTS of level 3 roads does 

not provide for recreational diversity for motorized travel across the Forest.

Discussion: A concern was raised that by not opening up more roads for mixed use, the Forest 

was impacting the public and its ability to travel the Forest freely on OHVs. It was thought to be 

particularly punitive to the elderly—those who may not be able to reach destinations if they have 

to travel cross-country on foot to get to them. An example of such use is dispersed camping at a 

site that is not close to an existing road. Another is hunting, where an ATV travels cross-country 

to haul the animal back to the vehicle. Another concern was that there is a lack of loop and 

connecting routes. 

Issue 3

Many of the roads proposed for addition to the NFTS are poorly located and would cause 

adverse impacts to plants, wildlife, water quality, soils, riparian areas, and other natural 

resources. 

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

citing stream crossings, habitat fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, sedimentation, cultural sites,

and other resources that could be impacted by motorized use of roads. Concern was also 

expressed that the addition of unauthorized routes may increase the likelihood of spreading 

invasive species throughout the Forest, and that roads and OHV routes could possibly serve as 

corridors for exotic plant and disease invasion.

Issue 4

The NFTS is already too large to provide adequate maintenance and administration. 

Current maintenance backlogs should be addressed before proposing the addition of new 

routes to an already overburdened system. 

Discussion: Concerns were expressed about how the types of use allowed on roads and trails 

would impact the need for maintenance and administration. It was expressed that some types of 

use, specifically motorcycles, ATVs, and four-wheel drive vehicles, result in higher maintenance 

costs due to resource damage caused by such uses. In addition, commenters felt that increasing

the opportunities for such use by designating additional routes would result in an increased need 

for Forest Service administration of these roads, trails to prevent unauthorized uses, resolve user 

conflicts, and provide for public safety. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need 13

Issue 5

The Tribes expressed a concern that by prohibiting cross-country travel, the Forest would 

be unfairly restricting tribal elders from participating in traditional practices.

Concerns were expressed that by restricting cross-country travel, the elders and the very young in 

the tribe would be prohibited from participating in traditional practices such as vegetation 

gathering or ceremonies.

Discussion: The tribes were involved early in the process to insure that the roads necessary for 

their use were added to the NFTS. The Forest will work, coordinate, and consult with the tribes to 

provide access to meet their cultural, spiritual, and gathering needs. Due to the sensitive nature of 

this issue, the Forest will also coordinate with the tribes outside of this process to provide access 

for these purposes. 

Issue 6

The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS will impact the ability of people to enjoy a 

quiet recreation experience. The addition of some of the routes will detract from the 

roadless characteristics of an area that may currently have a low number of roads.

Discussion: Concerns were expressed that the addition of roads would impact non-motorized 

recreational opportunities. Commenters suggested that responsible officials are required to 

“minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses 

of National Forest System lands” (36 CFR 212.55). Concern was expressed that to allow OHV 

use in areas where there is currently a low number of roads would cause disproportionate conflict 

between quiet recreationists and OHV users, and possibly risk precluding roadless areas from 

further consideration for wilderness designation. 

Non-significant Issues

Addressing maintenance and decommissioning needs on the existing National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS)

Concerns were expressed that the Forest should re-consider previous decisions to establish system 

roads and trails in the NFTS. Commenters pointed out that some existing system roads and trails 

are in need of repair and maintenance and should be either repaired or closed as part of this 

proposal. 

Reasons why not considered as a relevant issue:

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

and are typically categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement in accordance with agency policy in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 31.12 (4) “Repair and maintenance of roads trails and landline 

boundaries.” Further, re-evaluation of previous decisions that established the current NFTS is not 

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

past, present and future environmental impacts of the current NFTS are factored into cumulative 

effects analyses for the proposed action and alternatives. 

Use travel analysis to develop a travel management plan for the existing National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS).

Concerns were expressed that the Forest should analyze the entire existing road system and create 

a minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, use, and 

protection of National Forest System lands in accordance with Travel Management Subpart A –

Administration of the Forest Transportation System (36 CFR 212.1 – 212.10). Commenters 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

14 Chapter 1—Introduction and Purpose & Need

believe that the current road density on the existing system is too great and that the impacts 

associated with the existing system should be analyzed for impacts to other resources, and in light 

of funding limitations for maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement. 

Reasons why not considered as a relevant issue:

The Proposed Action implements Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which states,

The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions 

regarding travel management made under other authorities, including 

designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating National Forest 

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

System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart. 36 CFR: § 212.50 (b)

The responsible official has determined that existing NFTS roads and trails will not be analyzed 

to create a minimum system as part of this proposal. The infrastructure of a national forest will 

always have room for improvement, and the MDF welcomes suggestions for improving the 

current NFTS and restoring the environment. Such suggestions are considered within the context 

of the overall mission of the MDF and will be considered as availability of staff and funding 

allows. Scoping for this project resulted in many suggestions for improving the NFTS through 

reconstruction, decommissioning, NFS road and trail closures, restoration projects, etc. These 

ideas and suggestions have been captured by the MDF, and may be considered in future travel 

management analyses. Further, re-evaluation of previous decisions that established the existing 

NFTS is not necessary for implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. However, 

past, present, and future environmental impacts of the existing NFTS are factored into 

cumulative-effects analyses for the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

Parking off road and turning around safely

Concerns were expressed by the Back Country Horsemen regarding their ability to park and turn 

around safely. 

Reasons why not considered as a relevant issue:

The 3,764 miles of existing Level 2 NFTS roads along with the additional proposed additions of 

unauthorized routes provide sufficient locations to park and turn around safely.

Travel management and snowmobile use

Concerns were expressed regarding potential impacts of snowmobile use on soils and aquatic 

systems when snow is less than one foot deep. A concern was also expressed regarding the 

potential adverse effects of snowmobile noise and air emissions. 

Reasons why not considered as a relevant issue:

Designation of areas open to snowmobile use is covered under 36 CFR 212, Subpart C, and is 

outside of the scope of this decision, which is focused on implementing 36 CFR 212, Subpart B 

of the Travel Management Rule.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 15

Chapter 2. The Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Modoc National Forest 

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

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

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

Based on the issues identified through public comment on the Proposed Action, the Forest 

Service developed three alternative proposals that achieve the Purpose and Need differently than 

the Proposed Action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No Action 

Alternative. The No Action, Proposed Action, and other action alternatives are described in 

detail below. 

How the Alternatives Were Developed

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

significant issues as described in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1).

Refining Alternatives Submitted by the Public During 

Scoping

During the 30-day public scoping process, alternatives were submitted for consideration by three 

groups. After the scoping period concluded, the Forest Service reviewed and gave due 

consideration to their proposals. The resulting alternatives incorporate these and other proposals 

and information offered by the public and the work of the Interdisciplinary Team. 

Also important in this process was the information gathered by the Forest Service in its 

consultation and discussions with tribal representatives, local counties, interested individuals, and 

Forest Service employees. State and Federal agencies advised the Forest Service during the 

process through numerous informal contacts. During the scoping period, the Forest received 

additional information internally that was incorporated into the Proposed Action. First, it was 

determined that the 44N08 and 44N01 roads that go from the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to 

County Road 97 are not safe for use by off-highway vehicles (OHVs) because of the high volume 

and low visibility of large trucks that use the road. The Forest is proposing to close these 1.45 

miles of road to use by OHVs; other vehicles will still be allowed to use the road. Second, a 

seasonal closure was initially proposed from November 1 through March 31 in bald eagle winter 

roost areas as required in the Modoc Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). After 

additional scoping, the Forest realized that in most cases this guideline can be implemented; 

however, there is one bald eagle roost area directly adjacent to the community of Tionesta. 

System roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20 and 44N04Y are within this area. These roads 

have been open to public use with no discernable disturbance to the bald eagle during their 

wintering period. Bald eagles that roost there have become habituated to vehicular traffic. If 

these roads are seasonally closed, the inholding community of Tionesta would be affected. As a 

result, the Forest is proposing a site-specific, non-significant amendment to the Modoc Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to the bald eagle winter roost guidelines that would allow 

for vehicle use year-round in this specific eagle roost area on designated roads within that area. 

All other roads in bald eagle winter roost areas would have the seasonal closure implemented as 

directed by the LRMP. An update notice was sent out to the public regarding seasonal closures in 

the Tionesta area and published in the newspapers of record the week of July 21, 2008. The 

scoping period to comment on these changes was extended until August 8, 2008 and three 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

16 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

additional comments were received but did not vary from the scope of the other comments 

received. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

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

are analyzed in detail in this FEIS. The No Action Alternative represents the continuation of 

cross-country travel, including continued use of all unauthorized routes by motor vehicles. This 

alternative serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives, and is required by the 

implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The planning area for the alternatives includes National Forest System lands on the Modoc 

National Forest. It does not include any private, state, or other Federal lands.

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

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

applicable Federal laws. Each alternative also assumes that private lands will meet applicable 

state and Federal land-use regulations. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions, the accuracy of 

analysis assumptions, and conclusions. Monitoring of road and trail conditions is required, and 

must meet regional and national standards. If monitoring determines additional resource damage 

is occurring, steps to prevent further damage may be appropriate. If the mitigations are not 

effective or are not possible, road or trail closures may be required, and may require additional 

NEPA analysis. Condition surveys are performed on all ML 3, 4, and 5 roads every five years, 

with approximately 20 percent completed each year. Condition surveys are performed on ML 1 

and 2 roads based on a relatively small random sample generated by the Forest Service 

Washington Office. In addition to the formal condition surveys, the Forest will monitor road 

conditions continually as they are driven for other purposes. As problems are identified, they will 

be addressed as resources allow, and appropriate management actions (such as emergency 

closures) will be undertaken in accordance with law, regulation, and policy.

See volume 2 of this FEIS, Appendix C, Monitoring Plan for more information.

Descriptions Common to All Action Alternatives

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

described in three parts with the action alternatives having several common factors: 

1. Cross-country travel: All of the action alternatives ban cross-country travel.

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

vary in changes to the existing NFTS in terms of vehicle class or season of use.

3. Additions to the NFTS: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 include unauthorized roads that are 

proposed for addition to the NFTS. Each of these roads is identified by a unique road 

number or route ID. All proposed route additions have an assigned maintenance level 

based on specific road objectives, and any applicable vehicle class or season of use. All of 

the proposed additions on the Modoc National Forest (MDF) will be ML 2 and open to all 

vehicles. All proposed routes will receive the appropriate level of routine maintenance such 

as clearing brush, posting signs, cleaning, clearing debris, etc. Each road, trail, or area is 

site-specifically addressed in appendices A1 and A2, where site-specific reviews by 

resource specialists are documented. Resource specialists reviewed all proposed routes to 

determine site-specific impacts. For some routes, no work beyond routine maintenance is 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 17

needed. For one road, SS563, additional work is needed to bring the route up to a safe and 

environmentally sustainable condition. This work will be done prior to the publication of 

the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

4. LRMP Amendments: Note LRMP amendments described in the Purpose and Need in 

Chapter 1 of this document.

Mixed Use on the Forest

Mixed use is defined as the designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both 

highway-legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles (FSM 7705). Currently mixed use occurs on 

ML 2 and 3 roads, and is not regulated. However, mixed use on ML 4 and ML 5 roads is not 

allowed. On the ML 4 and 5 roads, use is only allowed by highway legal motor vehicles. Mixeduse analysis was done on all of the ML 3 roads (see Appendix N). In addition, the Forest 

surveyed to determine the number of vehicles using the ML 3 roads, and found use to be very 

low, averaging 1.8 vehicles per hour. ML 2 roads are rough surface roads that require driving at 

slower speeds and are therefore suitable for high-clearance vehicles. Surveys were also done on 

ML 2 roads; the use averaged 1 vehicle per 1.4 days. All ML 2 roads will provide for mixed use 

unless specifically prohibited. 

During open houses, the public asked that we keep as many of the level 3 roads open to mixed 

use as possible. These roads are used for access to recreations sites, hunting, fishing, and for the 

most popular activity on the Forest, driving around to enjoy the scenery. Use on this Forest is the 

lowest in the country. Information from the Modoc County California Highway Patrol and the 

Forest engineer indicates there have been no accidents on the Forest and there is no accident 

history involving ATVs on the Forest. Therefore, crash probability is low, and if an accident 

occurs, the crash severity would be moderate. In the alternatives we have considered allowing a 

range of 0 to 544 miles of additional mixed use on ML 3 roads. The table below explains 

maintenance levels for Forest Service roads.

Table 2-1. Maintenance Levels for Forest Service Roads

ML 5

Highest traffic volume and speeds

Typically connect to state and county roads

Culverts for drainage

Usually arterial and collector

May include some developed recreation roads

Usually paved or chip-sealed

ML 4

Subject to requirements of Highway Safety Act

Moderate traffic volume and speeds

May connect to county roads

Culverts provide drainage

Usually a collector

May include some developed recreation roads

ML 3

Low to moderate traffic volumes

Subject to Highway Safety Act
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

18 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

Typically connect to arterial and collectors roads

Combination of dips and culverts provide drainage

May include some dispersed recreation roads

Potholing or washboarding may occur

ML 2

Low traffic volume and low speed

Typically local roads

Connect collectors or other local roads

Dips are the preferred drainage treatment

Not subject to Highway Safety Act

Surface smoothness is not a consideration

Not suitable for passenger cars

ML1

Vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic

Physically blocked or entrance is disguised

Not subject to Highway Safety Act

Maintenance done only to minimize resource impacts

Seasonal Closures for All Alternatives

In the past, seasonal closures have been issued and enforced. Currently, there are no seasonal 

restriction closures in place on the Forest, although there are several standards and guidelines in 

the Modoc LRMP that indicate where closures may be beneficial. 

Seasonal closures in this document are proposed for three of the four action alternatives. Most of 

the closures are weather related and are proposed because of the effects of rain and snow events 

on clay soils and the resulting damage to roads. The table below shows the closure name, date, 

and the reason for the closure. A variation of these closures is common to all three of the 

alternatives where seasonal closures are proposed. Only one closure date per road would be 

applied.

Table 2-2. Seasonal Closure Type and Dates

Closure name Closure date Closure type

SC1 11/1-3/31 bald eagle winter roost 

SC2 11/1 - 4/30 wet weather

SC3 12/1-4/30 wet weather

SC4 12/16-4/30 wet weather

SC5 2/15-4/30 wet weather

Alternative 1: No Action

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

Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS, and no cross-country travel 

prohibition would be put into place. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, 

and no MVUM would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 19

designated routes. Unauthorized routes would continue to proliferate and have no status or 

authorization as NFTS facilities.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off designated NFS roads and NFS trails by the 

public would continue except as currently prohibited by Forest order. A total of 1,609,466

acres are currently open to cross-country travel. 

2. Changes to the existing NFTS: No changes would be made to the existing NFTS or to 

current LRMP direction. No seasonal restrictions exist under current management plan 

direction.

3. Additions to the NFTS: There would be no additions to the existing NFTS.

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action was created by the Interdisciplinary Team using input from the public 

regarding the inventoried unauthorized routes. It includes the prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel, proposed changes to the existing NFTS, and the additions to the NFTS as 

described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92).

1. Cross-country travel: This alternative would prohibit motor vehicle travel off the designated 

NFTS roads by the public, except as allowed by permit or other authorization.

2. Changes to the existing NFTS: Close approximately 6 miles of 46B29HB (along Boles 

Creek between Clear Lake and Steel Swamp) to public motorized use. 

Proposed seasonal restrictions: Seasonal restrictions on 336 miles (213 routes) of NFS roads 

due to weather-related road restrictions. There would be three weather-related closure dates 

and one related to bald eagle winter roosting. The roads seasonally closed for bald eagle 

winter roost requirements total approximately five miles, with the remainder of closures 

being weather related.

Table 2-3. Alternative 2—Seasonal Closures Grouped By Date (proposed addition of unauthorized

routes)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Type

SC1 11/1-3/31

SC2 11/1-4/30

SC3 12/1-4/30 9.44 23 weather & road condition

SC4 12/16-3/31 10.36 51 weather & road condition

Total 20 74

Table 2-4. Alternative 2—Seasonal Closures Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Reason

SC1 11/1-3/31 4.85 2 bald eagle

SC2 11/1-4/30 14.25 15 weather & road condition

SC3 12/1-4/30 178.13 83 weather & road condition

SC4 12/16-3/31 115.23 113 weather & road condition

Total 312.46 213
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

20 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

Changes in class of vehicles: There are currently 3,764 miles of level 2 roads open to the public

for mixed use. Mixed use is defined as the designation of an NFS road for use by both highwaylegal and non-highway legal motor vehicles (FSM 7705). Alternative 2 proposes to change the 

class of vehicle on 138 additional miles of ML 3 roads to allow for mixed use. It would restrict 

use to highway vehicles only on approximately 1.45 miles of 44N08 and 44N01 roads near Glass 

Mountain Pumice Mine for public safety caused by potential interaction with the large haul trucks 

from the mine.

The table below lists the vehicle class changes proposed under Alternative 2. 

Table 2-5. Alternative 2—Proposed Changes in Vehicle Class (allowing mixed use on level 3 roads)

Miles Number of Routes

138 23

Note: See appendix A for a list of all routes.

3. Additions to the NFTS: This Alternative proposes to add approximately 336 miles 

(1,154 routes) of existing, inventoried unauthorized routes to the NFTS as level 2 roads. 

There would be approximately 20 miles of these roads that would have seasonal 

restrictions. The following summary table shows the miles and types of roads, by 

district, to be added into the National Forest Transportation System. A complete table 

with each road listed is located in Appendix A, Route Analysis.

Table 2-6. Alternative 2—Miles of Unauthorized Road Added to the NFTS, by District

Miles of Unauthorized Road Added District

40 Warner Mountain

21 Big Valley

93 Doublehead

185 Devils Garden

336 Total

Of the 1,154 roads proposed to be added in Alternative 2, the majority of the roads are spur roads 

and under a quarter of a mile in length. Table 1-1 in chapter 1 of this document shows the 

distribution of road lengths.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 responds to the issues of cost, maintenance, inventoried roadless areas, quiet use, 

and natural resource impacts by prohibiting cross-country travel without adding any new facilities 

to the NFTS. This alternative also provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of other 

alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS in the form of new roads. None of the currently 

unauthorized roads would be added to the National Forest System under this alternative.

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads by the public, 

except as allowed by permit or other authorization, would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing NFTS: Only those seasonal restrictions as specified in the MDF 

LRMP and contained in existing Forest orders would be continued. Currently, there are no 

seasonal restriction closures in place on the Forest. No changes to vehicle class are 

proposed in this Alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 21

3. Additions to the NFTS: There would be no additions to the existing NFTS.

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 was developed as a modified version of an alternative submitted during scoping by 

a coalition of environmental groups. Alternative 4 responds to issues of inventoried roadless 

areas, quiet use, and natural resource impacts. It does not add routes where resource concerns 

were raised internally and externally. 

1. Cross-country Travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFTS roads by the public,

except as allowed by permit or other authorization, would be prohibited.

2. Changes to the existing NFTS: Close approximately 6 miles of 46B29HB (along Boles 

Creek between Clear Lake and Steel Swamp) to public use to protect heritage resources. 

Proposed Seasonal restrictions: There would be four weather-related closures and one related to 

bald eagle winter roosts. System roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 44N04Y east of 

Tionesta would be excluded as stated in the Proposed Action. The table below shows weatherrelated seasonal restrictions on an additional 15 miles of proposed routes, 419 miles on NFS 

roads, and approximately 5 miles for bald eagle winter roost requirements.

Table 2-7. Alternative 4—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (proposed addition of unauthorized

routes)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Reason

SC1 11/1-3/31

SC2 11/1-4/30

SC3 12/1-4/30 6.13 18 weather & road condition

SC4 12/16-3/31 9.14 47 weather & road condition

Total 15.27 65

Table 2-8. Alternative 4—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Reason

SC1 11/1-3/31 4.85 2 bald eagle

SC2 11/1-4/30 14.25 15 weather & road condition

SC3 12/1-4/30 178.13 83 weather & road condition

SC4 12/16-3/31 115.23 113 weather & road condition

SC5 2/15-4/30 112.17 57

Total 424.63 270

Changes in class of vehicles: There are currently 3,764 miles of level 2 roads open to the public 

for mixed use. Mixed use is defined as the designation of an NFS road for use by both highwaylegal and non-highway legal motor vehicles (FSM 7705). Alternative 4 would not add any routes 

for mixed use. It would restrict use to highway-legal vehicles only on approximately 1.45 miles 

of 44N08 and 44N01 roads near the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine. This is for public safety 

concerns caused by potential interaction with large haul trucks from the mine.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

22 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

3. Additions to the NFTS: The Forest is proposing to add approximately 286 miles of existing 

unauthorized routes to the system as ML 2 roads. Approximately 15 miles of these roads 

would have seasonal restrictions. The following summary table shows the miles and types of 

roads, by district, to be added into the National Forest Transportation System. A more 

complete table with each road listed is included in Appendix A, Route Analysis. 

Table 2-9. Alternative 4—Miles of Road Added to the NFTS, by District

Miles of Unauthorized Road Added District

32 Warner Mountain

20 Big Valley

85 Doublehead

149 Devils Garden

286 Total 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 responds to the issue of access and motorized recreation opportunity, while 

protecting the environment. It was developed as a modified version of an alternative submitted by 

a recreation use group and public comments. During scoping, the MDF also received 

recommendations for additional mixed use that would better provide for access and motorized 

recreation opportunity. 

1. Cross-country travel: Motor vehicle travel off the designated NFS roads and NFS trails by 

the public would be prohibited except as allowed by permit or other authorization. 

2. Changes to the existing NFTS: Close approximately 6 miles of 46B29HB (along Boles 

Creek between Clear Lake and Steel Swamp) to public use to protect heritage resources. 

Proposed seasonal restrictions: There would be seasonal restrictions on 307 miles of NFS roads 

due to weather restrictions: one season for wet weather closures and one season related to bald 

eagle winter roosting. The roads seasonally closed for bald eagle winter roost requirements total 5 

miles and exclude system roads 44A19D, 44A19C, 44N19, 44N20, and 44N04Y east of Tionesta 

as stated in the Proposed Action. These roads will not have winter roost restrictions.

Table 2-10. Alternative 5—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (proposed addition of unauthorized

routes)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Reason

SC5 2/15-4/30 19.8 74 weather & road conditions

Total 19.8 74
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 23

Table 2-11. Alternative 5—Seasonal Closure Grouped by Date (existing NFTS roads)

Group name Date closed Miles Number Reason

SC1 11/1-3/31 4.85 2 bald eagle

SC5 2/15-4/30 307 211 weather & road conditions

Total 312.46 213

Changes in class of vehicles: There are currently 3,764 miles of level 2 road open to the 

public for mixed use. Mixed use is defined as the designation of an NFS road for use by both 

highway-legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles (FSM 7705). Based on input from the 

public during scoping, Alternative 5 proposes to change the vehicle class on 513 additional 

miles of ML 3 roads to allow for mixed use. The 44N01 road would not be recommended for 

inclusion due to safety issues related to the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine. Alternative 5 

would restrict use on this 1.45 miles of 44N08 and 44N01 roads to highway-legal vehicles 

only. The table below lists the vehicle changes proposed under Alternative 5.

Table 2-12. Alternative 5—Summary of NFTS Routes Proposed for Mixed Use

Miles Number of Routes

Alternative 5 544 197

Note: See Appendix A for a complete table of all routes.

3. Additions to the NFTS: The Forest is proposing to add approximately 336 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS as ML 2 roads. Approximately 20 miles of 

these roads would have seasonal restrictions. The following summary table shows the 

miles and types of roads, by district, to be added into the National Forest Transportation 

System. A complete table with each road listed is included in Appendix A, Route 

Analysis.

Table 2-13. Alternative 5—Miles of Unauthorized Road Added to the NFTS, by District

Miles of Unauthorized Road Added District

40 Warner Mountain

21 Big Valley

93 Doublehead

185 Devils Garden

336 Total miles 

Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives in detail. This section of 

Chapter 2 compares the alternatives by summarizing key differences between the alternatives and 

providing a summary of the effects analysis for all alternatives.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

24 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

Table 2-14. Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Alternative 3

CC Restriction

Alternative 4

Resource

Alternative 5

Recreation 

Cross-country 

Travel

Yes No No No No

Proposed Miles 

and Number of 

Unauthorized 

Routes Added to 

NFTS

0 336 Miles 

1,154 Routes

0 286 Miles 

1,025 Routes

336 Miles 

1,154 Routes

Miles of Seasonal 

Closures on 

Roads Proposed 

to be Added

0 20 Miles 0 15 Miles 20 Miles

Miles and 

Number of NFTS 

Roads Proposed 

for Seasonal 

Closure

0 312 Miles 

213 Routes

0 425 Miles 

270 Routes

312 Miles 

213 Routes

Current NFTS 

Mixed Use Miles 

(ML 2 roads)

3,764 Miles 3,761 Miles 3,764 Miles 3,761 Miles 3,761 Miles

Additional Mixed 

Use Miles 

Proposed (ML 3 

roads)

0 138 Miles 0 0 513 Miles

Total of Mixed 

Use NFTS and 

Proposed (ML 2 

& ML 3 roads)

3,764 Miles 3,899 Miles 3,764 Miles 3,764 Miles 4,292 Miles

Table 2-14 above shows the major differences between the alternatives: (1) prohibition of crosscountry travel; (2) addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS; and (3) changes to the existing 

NFTS that include seasonal restrictions, and that provide for mixed use on ML 3 routes.

Alternative 1 provides for the continuation of cross-country travel. This alternative has the 

greatest potential to create harm to the natural, physical, and cultural resources. Conversely, it 

provides the greatest opportunity for motorized recreation. However, this alternative does not 

meet the requirement of the Travel Management Rule. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 prohibit crosscountry travel and potentially reduce harm to the natural, physical and cultural resources.

Alternative 1 would provide continued use of unauthorized routes as they are currently used. 

Potential harm to natural, physical, and cultural resources would continue. Alternative 3 would 

not add any unauthorized routes. Over time these routes would passively restore themselves; 

however, these routes would no longer be available for motorized recreation. Many of these 

routes have been used for over 40 years. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 propose to add between 286 and 

336 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This represents approximately 68 percent of the 

inventoried unauthorized routes on the Forest. An Interdisciplinary Team review determined that 

this level of addition would not harm the resources or environment in a substantial way. Any 

routes of concern were eliminated from consideration for addition to the NFTS. Using monitoring 

guidelines in the LRMP, the Forest will evaluate the proposal over time and make adjustments as 

appropriate.

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not provide for seasonal restrictions that would reduce motor vehicle use 

on roads during wet weather, which would in turn, reduce damage caused by this use. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2—The Alternatives 25

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 do provide for seasonal restrictions; this would help reduce damage to 

roads and reduce road maintenance costs. Protection is also provide for bald eagle during the 

winter roost season.

Change in vehicle class as provided for with mixed-use is the final difference between the 

alternatives. The biggest difference in mixed use opportunities is that Alternatives 2 and 5 

provide for mixed use on some or most of our ML 3 roads. Alternatives 3 and 4 only allows for 

use on ML2 roads but does not provide for mixed use on ML3 roads. Alternative 1 would allow 

current use to continue unchanged. Based on the Forest engineer’s Mixed-Use Analysis 

(Appendices N1, N2, and N3), mixed use on the ML 3 routes is acceptable from a user safety 

perspective. There is no record of any OHV accidents on the Modoc National Forest. The local 

public also requested that we allow mixed use on these routes to provide loop routes and 

connected travel across the NFTS. This use would enhance the motorized recreation opportunity 

expressly requested by recreation users and local government.

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal officials to rigorously explore 

and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and to briefly discuss the reasons for 

eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). NEPA requires 

consideration of only those alternatives that would fulfill the Purpose and Need described in 

Chapter 1. The following describes those alternatives that were considered but eliminated from 

detailed study, and the rationale for their elimination.

Add all unauthorized routes to the NFTS

This alternative was developed in response to initial comments from the public at open houses 

held in Modoc County, who told us they did not want us closing any routes or placing any 

restrictions on their current use of the Forest. This alternative was suggested prior to creation of 

the Proposed Action. This approach would add all of the unauthorized routes that were 

inventoried, and not have any seasonal closures. Every level 3 road would be designated for 

mixed use.

Rationale for elimination: This alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need. Several of the 

inventoried unauthorized routes have resource conflicts and create a potential for resource 

damage if added to the NFTS and allowed use by the public. Adding all of the unauthorized 

routes would not meet the Travel Management Rule criteria of minimizing damage to soil, 

vegetation, and other Forest resources.

Designate several high-use open areas where use is not restricted to designated routes

Rationale for elimination: The current network of roads across the Forest is extensive, and 

already provides for a varied motorized use experience. There is not a need to designate open 

areas when the Forest provides an extensive network of roads available for OHV use already. 

Such an approach would lead to continued resource degradation and potential safety and use 

conflicts that the Purpose and Need are intended to address.

Develop and implement a rainfall-based wet weather closure

Rationale for elimination: This does not meet the requirement of the Travel Management Rule to 

produce a Motor Vehicle Use Map that will be the final product of this process. The MVUM is 

produced annually, not daily or weekly. It would therefore not allow for the flexibility necessary 

for rainfall-based closure.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

26 Chapter 2—The Alternatives

Reduce system road density based on a comprehensive travel analysis

Rationale for elimination: This alternative is outside of the scope of the project because it 

primarily points to Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule. The Proposed Action implements 

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which states—

The Responsible Official may incorporate previous administrative decisions 

regarding travel management made under other authorities, including 

designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating National Forest 

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

System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart (36 CFR: § 212.50 (b)). 

In addition, the Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, section 10.2, says that “Reconsideration of the 

entire forest transportation system is not required or appropriate (FSM 7715.1).”

The responsible official has determined that existing NFTS roads and trails would not be 

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

maintenance of the existing NFTS are routine, ongoing activities on national forests, and are 

typically categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement in accordance with agency policy in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 31.12 (4): “Repair and Maintenance of Roads Trails and Landline 

Boundaries.” Further, consideration of previous decisions in the planning process that led to the 

development of the Proposed Action determined that the existing NFTS is not necessary for 

implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. However, past, present, and future 

environmental impacts of the existing NFTS are incorporated into cumulative-effects analyses for 

the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

This action is not addressing the creation of a travel management plan, but rather deals 

specifically with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, which provides direction for a 

system of NFTS roads and trails 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. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis 27

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are 

affected by the proposed action and alternatives and the effects on that environment that would 

result from implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The affected environment section under each resource topic describes the existing, or baseline, 

condition against which environmental effects were evaluated, and from which progress toward 

the desired condition can be measured. The environmental consequences section forms the 

scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives, including the Proposed Action. 

This section discusses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, together with applicable mitigation 

measures. These terms are defined as follows:

Direct effects are caused by the action, and occur at the same place and time as the action.

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, of further removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Analysis Process

The environmental consequences presented in chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions 

proposed under each alternative for the Modoc National Forest. This effects analysis was done at 

the Forest scale (the scale of the Proposed Action as discussed in chapter 1). However, the 

effects findings in this chapter are based on site-specific analyses of each road proposed for 

addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and any changes in vehicle class or 

season of use for existing NFTS roads. Each affected road proposed in the alternatives has been 

reviewed by resource specialists; their findings are documented in appendix A. Readers seeking 

information concerning the environmental effects associated with a specific road are directed to 

appendix A.

For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described 

separately for three discreet actions, and then combined to provide the total direct and indirect 

effects of each alternative (see below). The combination of these discreet actions is then added to 

the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative effects analysis. The three 

discreet actions common to all action alternatives are as follows: 

1. Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel: The direct and indirect effects of this 

action are described generally in each alternative, considering both current conditions and 

projected trends. Both short (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) effects are 

presented. 

2. Addition of new facilities (roads,) to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS):

As described above, the impacts of new facilities are addressed in sum total in this chapter, 

while impacts of individual routes are addressed in appendix A. For most resources, one or 

more resource indicators are used to measure the direct and indirect effects of each 

alternative. Both short- (1 year) and long-term (approximately 20 years) impacts are 

presented. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

28 Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis

3. Changes to vehicle class and season of use on the existing NFTS: Impacts caused by 

changes to vehicle class and season of use on the existing NFTS are described by 

alternative. For some impacts (for example, public safety), impacts are also addressed by 

route. Where impacts associated with individual routes are warranted, the reader is directed 

to appendices or project files where this data is located.

Cumulative Effects 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative 

impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes 

the entire Modoc National Forest, including private and other public lands that lie within the 

Forest boundary. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in 

the “Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section 

under each resource. See appendix E for a list of reasonably foreseeable actions. 

To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all 

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment, and might contribute 

to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking 

this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile 

and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over 

the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have 

residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an 

individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action or 

alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at 

existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of 

individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each action over the last century that 

has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human 

actions, risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events; and this may 

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, 

we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless 

of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Finally, the Council on 

Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis 

of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by 

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details 

of individual past actions.” See also 36 CFR 220.4(f). For these reasons, the analysis of past 

actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

The present and reasonably foreseeable actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects on 

this project are fuel treatments and fire, range management, dam construction and maintenance, 

minerals management, recreation, timber harvest and vegetation treatments, reforestation, road 

and right-of-way management, state and county easements, railroads, special uses, and past road 

construction and decommissioning. For further discussion of these, see appendix E. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis 29

Table 3-1. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation-Altering Actions on Public Land in and 

Adjacent to the Modoc National Forest

Type of Vegetation Change Estimated Average Impact Federal Agency

Prescribed fire 4,000 acres/ year Modoc NF

Mechanical fuels treatment 6,000 acres/ year Modoc NF

Timber harvest 2,500 acres for saw logs/year

3,000 acres for wood fiber/year

Modoc NF

Modoc NF

Sage-steppe restoration 15,000 acres first decade

19,000 acres second decade

Modoc NF & BLM*

Modoc NF & BLM

Grazing 122,500 AUMs/year

147,346 AUMs/year

Modoc NF

BLM

Power transmission corridor 

maintenance

3,000 acres/decade Modoc NF

Road construction 0.95 miles/ year (based on last 10 

years)

Modoc NF

Road decommissioning 7.68 miles/ year (based on last 10 

years)

Modoc Nf

*Bureau of Land Management

Affected Environment Overview

There are many aspects of the affected environment that are shared by all resources. In order to 

avoid repeating these shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section, the 

following general elements of the affected environment are provided. 

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

degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. On some Modoc NFS lands, long managed as 

open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, repeated use has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized 

roads and trails. These routes generally developed without environmental analysis or public 

involvement, and do not have the same status as NFTS roads and NFTS trails included in the 

Forest transportation system. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

The following assumptions and limitations were applied in the effects analysis in each section:

1. No NEPA decision is necessary to continue use of the NFTS (i.e., by OHVs and other 

modes of transportation) as currently managed under the No Action Alternative. These 

decisions were made previously.

2. User-created roads, trails, and areas are not NFTS facilities. They are unauthorized and 

have no standing. Proposals to add these to the NFTS require a NEPA decision.

3. Temporary roads, trails, and areas built to support emergency operations or temporarily 

authorized in association with contracts, permits or leases are not intended for public use. 

They are not NFTS facilities (i.e., they are unauthorized for public use). Any proposal to 

add the temporary roads to the NFTS will require a NEPA decision.

4. Any unauthorized routes not included in the Proposed Action are not precluded from 

consideration for addition to the NFTS in future travel-management actions. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

30 Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis

5. The agency will continue to make changes to the NFTS on an as-needed basis. It will also 

continue to make decisions about temporary roads or trails on an as-needed basis 

associated with contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization.

6. Any activity associated with contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization is 

exempt from designation under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51 (a) (8)), and 

should not be part of the proposal (e.g., fuelwood permits, motorized SUP permits, mining 

activity, etc.). Such actions are subject to separate NEPA analysis.

7. “Designation” is an administrative act that does not trigger NEPA. Designation technically 

occurs with printing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). NEPA is not required for 

printing a map.

8. For travel management, the Federal action triggering NEPA is any change to current 

restrictions or prohibitions regarding motorized travel by the public. Examples would be 

prohibiting cross-country travel, changing management (e.g., changing vehicle class or 

season of use), and any additions or deletions of facilities (roads, trails, or areas) to the 

NFTS.

9. Previous decisions on the NFTS do not need to be revisited to implement the Travel 

Management Rule (TMR) or the MVUM. That is, the NFTS contains existing facilities 

(roads and trails) that either underwent the NEPA process or predate NEPA. Allowing 

continued motorized use of the facilities in the NFTS in accordance with existing laws and 

regulations, does not require a NEPA decision.

10. Dispersed recreation activities (i.e., activities that occur after the motor vehicle stops, such 

as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.) are not part of the scope of the Proposed Action. 

The action and the analysis focus on motor vehicle use.

11. Travel analysis is a pre-NEPA planning exercise for transportation planning that informs 

travel management. Until new directives are published, the agency continues to follow 

existing policy related to transportation planning and analysis. For example, some roads 

analysis process requirements in FSM (Forest Service Manual) 7700 and 7710 are still 

applicable. 

12. Setting road-maintenance levels and changing maintenance levels are administrative, and 

not subject to NEPA. However, changes in allowed vehicle class, season of use, access, 

and proposals to reconstruct facilities are subject to NEPA.

13. The system will be maintained to standard and all additions or changes to the NFTS will 

meet standards prior to availability for public use.

14. Seasonal Restrictions – Seasonal closures will be shown on the MVUM.

Resource Reports

Each section in this chapter provides a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, and 

input prepared by Forest Service specialists, which are incorporated by reference in this Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Each of following sections includes a summary of the 

report findings, including a description of the methodology used to determine impacts. The 

following reports and memoranda are incorporated by reference: Botanical Biological Evaluation, 

Botany Report, Noxious Weeds Risk Assessment; Biological Assessment and Biological 

Evaluation (BA and BE) for Fish and Wildlife; Hydrology and Soils Report; Recreation, Visual 

Resources, and the Heritage Resources Report. These reports or memorandums are part of the 

project record on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Alturas, California. Copies of these 

reports are available upon request by contacting Kathleen Borovac, Project Leader, at 530-233-

8754.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis 31

Route-Specific Analysis Summary

During the planning stages of the travel management project for the Modoc National Forest 

(MDF), members of the public recommended changes to the existing NFTS with a focus on 

unauthorized routes. Comments regarding specific routes were also received during the public 

scoping period for the notice of intent (NOI). The disposition of these routes fell into two 

categories 1) routes brought forward for detailed study in alternative(s), and 2) routes eliminated

from detailed study. These decisions were made by the Responsible Official based upon the 

Purpose and Need, the scope of the EIS, and issues raised by the public and the Interdisciplinary 

Team. The Forest developed a spreadsheet for all routes considered in alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

This spreadsheet is available in the appendices A1 and A2. The process used for analysis and the 

development of the spreadsheet is described below.

Step 1—Setting up the analysis: The analysis was set up considering the agency objective and 

priority of implementing Subpart B and prohibiting cross-country travel. After doing an inventory 

of all the unauthorized routes, these routes were examined by an Interdisciplinary Team to 

determine if there would be any negative impact on environmental issues such as soil and water 

resources, invasive species, and biological communities. Conflicts among users were also 

considered, along with public access, user safety, and accessibility. The Forest also determined 

where existing right-of-ways were in place and if additional right-of-ways were necessary. 

Meetings with the tribes, the county, and other organizations and individuals were held to expand 

our view of existing conditions and to determine future needs based on the perspective of the 

public.

The Forest travel atlas was created by reviewing historic maps, consulting with experienced 

personnel on the Districts for affirmation of findings, updating the results into the INFRA 

database, and then combining that with GIS data to complete the process. This process enabled us 

to create maps for analysis based on the existing system. Maps were created using the INFRA 

database which serves as a repository for previous administrative decisions regarding travel 

management. Several open houses were held and members of the public, which included private 

individuals that owned property within the Forest boundary, were asked for feedback on the 

proposal. We received scoping comments from the public expressing their desires and needs for 

specific roads to either be added to the system or to remain unauthorized, across the Forest. In 

considering the duration of effects from changes to the transportation system, it was determined 

that short term would be one year and long term would be 20 years. 

Step 2—Describing the situation: Current Land and Resource Management Plan and travel 

management direction was assembled, maps were produced using the travel atlas which includes 

the current inventory of National Forest System roads managed for vehicle use and the 

unauthorized inventoried routes. The primary result of this process was the realization that the 

prohibition of cross-country travel would have a major impact on recreational opportunities and 

how the public uses the Forest. Information was also gathered on environmental, social and other 

issues. The Forest Engineer was part of the Interdisciplinary Team and provided us with a 

summary of existing travel management decisions and an assessment of available resources to 

maintain and operate the Forest transportation system. Accident history and law enforcement 

input was also included in the assessment. 

Step 3—Identifying issues: Based on public input during scoping, it was determined that the 

primary concern of the public was that we do not shut down the Forest. Members of the public 

asked that we keep as many of the existing routes on the Forest open as possible since crosscountry travel was being eliminated. Therefore, we approached the task of determining which 

unauthorized routes were to be added to the National Forest Transportation System from the 

perspective of including all of the routes unless it was determined that there would be 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

32 Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis

immitigable resource damage caused by the inclusion. We had also heard from the public that 

many of short spurs were used for access to dispersed camping. Later in the process we heard 

differing opinions and these comments were used to develop alternatives.

All of the unauthorized routes, which had been inventoried in 2007, were used to create a GIS 

layer. This layer was examined by the Interdisciplinary Team against the backdrop of several GIS 

layers to determine if there would be conflict or environmental resources from these routes if 

added to the National Forest Transportation System. The GIS layers used were 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 RCA, 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.

If there was conflict in adding the routes to the National Forest Transportation System and the 

consequences could not be mitigated, the route was removed from further consideration.

A number of the recommended routes are proposed to be added to the NFTS under one or more 

of the action alternatives. For these routes, Appendix A, Table A-1 identifies the alternative(s) 

under which the route is proposed, maintenance levels, and the season when the route would be 

open. It describes any mitigation measures that would be implemented on the route prior to 

publication on an MVUM and allowing public use. It also contains effects determinations. 

Regular operation and maintenance activities (e.g., clearing brush, posting signs, cleaning and 

maintaining existing drainage structures, patrolling routes, etc.) are a part of regular maintenance 

and management strategies for the NFTS.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement authority and jurisdiction, cooperation, implementation and tracking, 

implementation strategy, assumptions and measures of success are discussed in details in 

appendix G.

Enforcement Assumptions:

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. The emphasis for the first several years will be on education 

and gaining voluntary compliance. 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 that—

• Users in communities adjacent to the Forest would comply within 1 to 2 years.

• Frequent users, but further in distant from the Forest, would comply within 2 to 3 years.

• Infrequent users, regardless of distance, may take up to 5 years to comply.

• Law enforcement officer and agency personnel’s presence and enforcement actions will 

positively affect OHV users’ behaviors and attitudes.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis 33

• The Travel Management Rule and associated Motor Vehicle Use Map clearly define the 

designated routes, thereby making violations to the rule unequivocal.

• Once the Motor Vehicle Use Map is published, the implementation of the established

dedicated network of roads, trails, and areas with signs, together with user education 

programs, will reduce the number of violations. 

• FPOs (Forest protection officers) spend a large percentage of their time on travel 

management issues; depending on the Forest, the estimates range from 30 to 50 percent. 

LEOs (law enforcement officers) spend approximately 10 to 20 percent of their time 

enforcing off-highway vehicle rules.

• The Forest, through the Proposed Action, plans to facilitate the change from a crosscountry travel system to one where such travel is prohibited. This would be done by 

providing motorized access in popular locations where it is already occurring. Providing 

this access would create an incentive to stay on the designated routes—helping reduce 

pressure to travel off those designated routes.

Information on Other Resources 

The Proposed Action and alternatives do not affect wilderness or air quality. However, a 

summary of why they are not included in chapter 3 is provided below, based upon input received 

during scoping.

Wilderness

Actions proposed are in compliance with wilderness designations and the Wilderness Act of 

1964. Wilderness resources are not affected by the Proposed Action or the alternatives, and 

motorized activity would continue to be prohibited in wilderness under all the alternatives per the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Air Quality

Actions proposed are in compliance with state air quality regulations and the Modoc National 

Forest LRMP. Air emissions are generally managed and analyzed spatially by air basins 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/basin/basin.swf), where topographic features delineate 

common air-quality characteristics. Air quality conditions are largely determined by short- and 

long-term meteorological and climatic conditions. 

Generally, the number of vehicle miles traveled annually by Forest users is not expected to 

change in any alternatives through the prohibition of cross-country travel and the redirection of 

motorized use onto a designated system of roads, trails and areas. As a result, no adverse effects 

are anticipated to air quality. It is possible, where seasonal restrictions are put into place, that 

there may be a slight benefit to air quality as a result of the actions. Where action alternatives 

propose adding routes to the NFTS, any air quality-related issues would be offset by the reduction 

of cross-country travel. These routes were pulled from the inventory of unauthorized routes open 

to public use as part of cross-country travel prior to this proposal. The following analysis led to a 

determination that no adverse effects to air quality would result from any of the action 

alternatives. None of the proposed routes passes through serpentine soils; none of the alternatives 

proposes routes, areas or terminal facilities that would result in a significant increase or change in 

concentration of use; and none of the alternatives proposes routes located in Federal (national) 

non-attainment areas for pm 2.5 and ozone 8 hour. Tailpipe emissions have been accounted for by 

CARB in the green and red sticker program suggesting that CARB has a program to regulate 

these emissions to achieve state implementation plan targets. No adverse change in attainment 

status is expected to occur as a result of these projects
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

34 Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis

Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) developed a “State of Knowledge” paper 

that outlines what is known and what is uncertain about global climate change. The following 

elements of climate change are known with near certainty: 

1. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels 

of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial 

times are well-documented and understood. 

2. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of 

human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 

3. An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7 F occurred from 1906 to 2005. 

Warming occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres and over the oceans 

(IPCC, 2007).

4. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for 

periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that 

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few 

decades. 

5. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. 

According to EPA (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that 

warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system, including 

precipitation patterns. 

Given what is and is not known about global climate change, the following discussion outlines 

the cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and effects of climate change 

on forest resources. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) emissions generated by public 

motorized vehicle travel on NFTS facilities are expected to contribute to the global concentration 

of greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air 

temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, 

and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. 

The intensity and severity of these effects are expected to vary regionally and even locally, 

making any discussion of potential site-specific effects of global climate change on forest 

resources speculative. 

Because greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse 

gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other 

greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a 

practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in 

climate change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects 

on global climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in 

the global atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative 

impact on global climate from emission associated with this project. In summary, the potential 

for cumulative effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because none of the alternatives 

would result in measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global climatic patterns. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis 35

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). All action 

alternatives have the potential to improve the long-term productivity of the landscape by reducing 

cross country travel on the landscape. Unauthorized routes not designated for public motor 

vehicle use will have the potential to revert to vegetated conditions, gradually reducing adverse 

effects on forest resources related to motorized use of these routes. Based on an average route 

width of 15 feet, this represents an improvement in productivity on up to 282 acres in Alternative 

2 and 5; 373 acres in Alternative 4, 893 acres in Alternative 3, and 0 acres in Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 propose to add existing unauthorized routes to the Forest transportation 

system and designate those routes for public motor vehicle use. Although these designations may 

be revised in the future in response to changing conditions, the designation of routes is considered 

to be a long-term use of the environment, with long-term impacts on productivity within the route 

tread. However, as described in the section below on unavoidable impacts, mitigations are 

proposed as needed in the action alternatives to ensure adverse effects the productivity of the 

environment are avoided, eliminated, or minimized.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse effects are expected with implementation of Alternative 1, as described in 

the resource analyses contained in this Chapter. Alternative 1 (no action) would allow continued 

use of all unauthorized routes, including those known to be adversely affecting forest resources, 

and would not propose mitigations to reduce, avoid, or eliminate those effects. 

Implementation of Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects; however, mitigations are proposed as needed to ensure effects are avoided 

or minimized to acceptable levels in all alternatives (e.g., species viability is maintained, Best 

Management Practices standards are met, etc.). Overall, these effects are not expected to be 

significant, because the alternatives were designed using site-specific information regarding the 

nature and location of sensitive natural and cultural resources. Routes with resource concerns 

that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

Alternative3 would have no unavoidable adverse effects as no unauthorized routes are added to 

the NFTS. The environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these 

effects in more detail.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a powerline right-of-way or road.

None of the alternatives are expected to result in irreversible impacts. The action of adding 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS as low standard roads, or changing vehicle class on existing 

NFTS roads would not result in any impacts that cannot be regained. However, roads represent a 

commitment of the soil resource, in that the route tread is dedicated to use as a transportation

facility. As a result, the designation of existing unauthorized routes for public motor vehicle use 

is expected to result in an irretrievable commitment of the soil and plant and animal habitat 

occupied by the routes. The routes under consideration are low standard, native surface routes 

maintained primarily by continued passage of motor vehicles. Based on an average width of 15 

feet, routes would encumber 893 acres (plus the potential for unlimited route creation) in 

Alternative 1, followed by 611 acres in Alternative 2 and 5; 520 acres in Alternative 4; and 0 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

36 Chapter 3—Affected Environment & Effects Analysis

acres in Alternative 5. These effects are considered irretrievable for as long as the route is 

designated for public motorized use, in that continued passage by motor vehicles would keep the 

route tread free of vegetation. If designated routes are closed to motor vehicle use in future travel 

management decisions, the area occupied by the route would gradually revegetate and assume the 

characteristics of surrounding habitat as described in the resource effects analyses in this Chapter. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and 

Other Direction 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare Draft 

Environmental Impact Statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” Each resource section includes a list of applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, and executive orders that are relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses, 

and findings required by those laws are addressed in those sections. 

National Forest Management Act 

The Forest Service is complying with the provisions of this law (see appendix C on monitoring 

for how the Forest complies with the NFMA in its monitoring activities). 

2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212

The Forest Service is complying with the provisions of this law (see the project file for a copy of 

the rule). 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities 37

Transportation Facilities

Introduction

This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which alternatives respond to

transportation facilities direction established in the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan transportation facilities direction was 

established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

and the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) consists of roads, trails, and airfields. The NFTS provides for protection, 

development, management, and use of resources on the national forests. There are other roads and 

trails on the Forest that are not currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in 

this analysis include roads and trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use. This analysis 

considers changes needed to the NFTS to meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions 

regarding changes in the transportation facilities must consider (1) providing for adequate public 

safety, and (2) providing adequate maintenance of the roads and trails that will be designated for 

public use. The analysis in this section focuses primarily on these two aspects of the NFTS 

Regulatory Framework: Compliance with the Forest Plan 

and Other Regulatory Direction 

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects transportation facilities includes the 

following:

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 212 (36CFR212) is the implementing regulation for 

the FRTA, and includes portions of the Travel Management Rule published in the Federal 

Register on November 9, 2005. Part 212 provides criteria for designation of roads and trails. 

Providing safe transportation facilities and considering the affordability of maintaining the 

transportation facilities are two of the criteria. 

Forest Service Manual, Sections 2350 and 7700 contain agency policy for management of the 

National Forest Transportation System. The policy requires the development of road 

management objectives (RMOs). The RMOs document the purpose of each road. The 

purpose for the road sets the parameters for maintenance standards needed to meet user 

needs, resource protection, and public safety. Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 describes the 

maintenance management system the Forest Service uses, and the maintenance standards 

needed to meet road management objectives (RMOs) for the road system. It also includes 

considerations for public safety. 

The Regional Forester’s letters, file code 7700/2350, dated 08/26/06, 01/13/09, and 06/20/07, 

contain procedures national forests in the Pacific Southwest Region will use to evaluate 

safety aspects of public travel on roads, when proposed changes to the NFTS would allow 

both highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic on a road (motorized mixed use).

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulates the use of motor vehicles in California, including 

motor vehicles used on the national forests. The CVC sets safety standards for motor 

vehicles and vehicle operators. It defines the safety equipment needed for highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal vehicles. It also defines the roads and trails where non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles may be operated. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

38 Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities

Affected Environment

Background

People in northeastern California are used to driving to their destinations, because people and 

places are so far apart. Highways 299, 395, and 139 are important routes into and out of 

northeastern Lassen County and Modoc County.

Traveling east from Interstate 5 at Redding, California, State Highway 299 approaches the Modoc 

National Forest through Big Valley, passes over Adin Pass at an elevation of 5,200 feet, through 

the Upper Pit River valley, then up to an elevation of about 6,300 feet over Cedar Pass in the 

Warner Mountains to Surprise Valley and on to the Nevada border. Traveling north from 

Interstate 80 at Reno, Nevada, US Highway 395 moves onto the Modoc Plateau, across the 

Madeline Plains, and into the Upper Pit River valley, then proceeds along the east shore of Goose 

Lake to the Oregon border. State Highway 139 is an important cut-off route from Highway 299 

to Klamath Falls, Oregon – the closest large town. These highways are important to local citizens 

and tourists, in both summer and winter. Local citizens use these routes as a means to reach 

amenities not available in the small rural communities. As truck routes used for import and 

export of goods and services, these highways are essential to the economic well-being of the area. 

They also connect to the Forest and county roads that provide access to the national forest as well 

as other places favored by tourists and local residents.

The county road system within the interior of the national forest provides public access for 

recreation, natural resource management, livestock management, and other activities on the 

Forest. The Forest Service does not have authority for management of these roads. These roads 

are gravel, and most are safe for passenger cars when the road surface is dry. Most prominent of 

these county roads are Crowder Flat through Devil’s Garden, Fandango Pass from the west side 

of the Warner Mountains east to Fort Bidwell, Tionesta Road from Highway 139 to Medicine 

Lake, and the Jess Valley road from Likely to Blue Lake. Many Forest Service roads are 

tributary to the county road system.

Many Forest roads were constructed to permit access for fire suppression and to facilitate 

vegetation management. These roads also provide access for resource protection and for 

commercial activities or public uses such as grazing, mining, vegetation management, fire 

suppression, and recreation outfitting and guiding. In addition, the system provides access for 

recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, skiing, bird watching, camping, hiking, and driving 

for pleasure. Roads also provide access for traditional rural activities such as woodcutting and 

hunting. 

Public Safety and Mixed Use

36 CFR 212.55 requires public safety be considered when designating roads, trails and areas for 

motor vehicle use. The proposed additions and changes to the NFTS have been evaluated for the 

effects on public safety. Refer to appendices A and N, and the project record for specific 

information on each road or trail. 

Motorized mixed use: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires motor vehicles operated on 

roads (i.e., maintenance level 3, 4, or 5) to be highway legal, and be operated by licensed drivers. 

The CVC has exceptions to those requirements for off-highway vehicles. It allows the operation 

of non-highway-legal vehicles by unlicensed drivers on roughly graded (maintenance level 2) 

roads. The Modoc National Forest considers roads maintained for high-clearance vehicles as 

roughly graded, and considers operation of OHVs on these roads to be consistent with State law. 

Roads maintained for passenger cars are not considered roughly graded, and operation of OHVs 

on maintenance level 3 roads will be consistent with State law when the Travel Management 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities 39

Rule is implemented and the MVUM is produced. The approval for change of vehicle class on 

these roads was dependent upon a comprehensive safety analysis and review process that 

consisted of several levels of review which included the Forest Engineer, the Regional Engineer 

and the California Highway Patrol. This analysis can be found in the project record. 

Mixed use is occurring now. The conclusion drawn from the mixed-use analysis is that 

continuing to allow mixed use would result in a low probability of a crash occurring on any of the 

roads proposed for mixed use. For maintenance level 2 roads there is a low risk to public safety, 

and for maintenance level 3 roads the severity of a possible crash is likely to be moderate. 

Maintenance level 1 roads are closed to all motorized use, and no mixed use is being proposed for 

maintenance level 4 & 5 roads. For further discussion of mixed use, refer to Chapter 2, Mixed 

Use on the Forest.

Table 3-4. Miles Of Unauthorized Roads Available for Mixed use, by Alternative

Public Safety Measurement 

Indicator

(Miles)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Passenger car roads reduced to highclearance road0 0 0 0 0

High-clearance roads improved to 

passenger car roads

0 0 0 0 0

Roads changed to trails 0 0 0 0 0

Unauthorized routes added as ML 2 

roads (miles)

0 336 0 286 336

Unauthorized routes added as trails 0 0 0 0 0

NFTS and Proposed Unauthorized ML 

2 roads consistent with California 

Vehicle Code (CVC)

3,764 4,103 3,764 4,050 4,103

Change in Vehicle Class on NFTS 

ML3 Roads to Allow for Mixed Use 

(Consistent with California Vehicle 

Code (CVC))

0 138 0 0 544

Affordability

36 CFR 212.55 requires consideration of the need for maintenance and administration of the 

designated NFTS. Costs for the NFTS system include costs for needed maintenance work that 

has not been completed for various reasons (deferred maintenance) and costs of maintenance that 

should be performed routinely to maintain the facility to its current standard (annual 

maintenance). In addition, there may be additional costs associated with proposed changes to the 

NFTS (implementation costs). These costs may be for improving safety, installing signs and for 

resource improvements, costs of changing maintenance levels, and costs of closing routes to use 

by motor vehicles. 

An estimate of the deferred maintenance for roads on the Modoc National Forest is 

$128,053,267. Note that this number is based on a national random sample of deferred 

maintenance needs done in 2006. It is not statistically valid or appropriate at the national forest

level. It is not a good estimate of the maintenance needs for the existing road system.

A more realistic estimate of the deferred maintenance needs for roads on the Modoc National 

Forest based on condition surveys completed during the last five years is as follows:
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

40 Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities

Table 3-2. Deferred Maintenance Needs for Roads (1994 -2008)

Maintenance Level Dollar Amount Source of Data

Maintenance level 4 & 5 roads $409,311 From condition surveys done on 100%

Maintenance level 3 roads $8,678,223 From condition surveys done on 98.46%

Maintenance level 1 & 2 roads $1,873,500 Estimated at $500 per mile

Total estimated deferred maintenance 

needs

$10,961,034

Estimates of the annual maintenance costs for the road system for each alternative are included in 

Table 3-3, below. Forest-wide average costs per mile to maintain each operational maintenance 

level (ML) were developed and applied to the road system to calculate the estimated total cost. 

The average costs per mile are shown in the table below. The average costs per mile were derived 

using the Washington Office unit costs including overhead, and local information from condition 

surveys conducted in the field.

Table 3-3. Average Costs per Mile for Road Maintenance

Operational Maintenance Level Annual Maintenance Cost

1 $78

2 $213

3 $538

4 $828

5 $828

Affordability

Annual maintenance costs for unauthorized routes proposed to be added to the transportation

system would be similar to the maintenance level 1 roads in table 3-3, above. These roads are 

roughly graded roads that would not require surface maintenance or brush removal. Annual 

maintenance consists of occasionally conducting a condition survey and installing a route marker 

every 10 years. Any other maintenance needs identified while conducting condition surveys or 

from other sources would be prioritized and dealt with the same as any maintenance needs on the 

existing transportation system. Implementation costs for proposed changes to the NFTS would be 

installing a sign on each road segment. Carsonite posts with a vertical number would be used. 

These cost about $50 each, installed. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not propose adding any roads, so the 

implementation cost would be zero. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose adding 1,168 roads; the signs 

would cost $58,400. Alternative 4 proposes adding 1,022 roads; the signs would cost $51,100. 

Additional implementation costs for all alternatives would be installing route markers where they 

do not currently exist. The NFTS currently has 3,651 maintenance level 2 roads. Approximately 

50 percent of these are missing a route marker. Approximately 1,825 vertical route markers are 

needed. This would cost approximately $91,250. The NFTS currently has 216 maintenance level 

3, 4, and 5 roads. Approximately 50 percent of these are missing a route marker. Approximately 

108 horizontal route markers would be needed. These need to be a post with a horizontal sign 

attached. These signs cost approximately $75 installed, for a total of $8,100.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities 41

The table below displays the NFTS and estimated costs for each alternative. The total cost shown 

at the bottom of the table includes the estimated annual maintenance costs for roads and trails, as 

well as implementation costs described previously.

Table 3-5. Miles of NFTS Roads and Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs, by Alternative

Affordability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Miles of NFTS roads and 

Additonal Unauthorized routes 

(Including ML 1 roads)

4,579 4,915 4,579 4,865 4,915

Annual road maintenance $1,130,550 $1,155,975 $1,130,550 $1,152,000 $1,155,975

High-clearance roads improved to 

passenger car road

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Passenger car roads reduced to 

high clearance road

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Roads converted to motorized 

trails

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Trails converted to roads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Roads removed from the NFTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Trails removed from the NFTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Cost of implementing MVUM $0 $151,050 $99,350 $137,750 $151,050

Total estimated cost for 

alternative

$1,130,550 $1,307,025 $1,229,900 $1,289,750 $1,307,025

Annual road maintenance cost estimates for each alternative are as follows: Alternatives 1 and 

3—$1,130,550; Alternative 4—$1,152,000; Alternatives 2 and 5—$1,155,975. This compares to 

road-maintenance funding of $1,128,000 per year.

Funding

The Forest currently maintains its road system through a combination of appropriated funds, 

cooperators, timber sale operators, and other funding as it becomes available. The current year 

(FY 09) allocation to the Forest is $768,000. This is down slightly from $779,000 in FY 08. In 

addition to work done with appropriated funds, a substantial amount of work is done on the road 

system by cooperators (primarily timber operators hauling from private lands) and timber sale 

operators. It is estimated that the work performed by cooperators is valued at $30,000 annually, 

and from timber sale operators $230,000 annually. Additionally, other funding from the Resource 

Advisory Committee (RAC), legacy road funding, and other sources contribute about $100,000 

annually. This is a total of approximately $1,128,000 per year available for road maintenance. 

Funds are sufficient for maintenance of the existing system, and for additional maintenance level 

2 roads proposed for addition to the system. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

42 Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities

Environmental Consequences 

Measurement Indicators

Measurement indicators are intended to address how each action (direct and indirect effects) and 

each alternative as the sum total of its proposed actions (cumulative effects) responds to the need 

for a safe and affordable NFTS. Direct effects of this decision are due to additions to the NFTS 

and changes in class of vehicle allowed on NFTS roads. 

The measurement indicators used to display differences between the effects of the alternatives on 

NFTS roads are (1) public safety and (2) affordability.

Alternative 1

Safety: Direct and Indirect Effects

Because cross-country travel would not be prohibited, unauthorized routes may continue to be 

created. This could be a safety issue because the roads that are created have no standards and 

could be unsafe for users. With no seasonal closures to direct users away from potentially 

dangerous situations during wet weather, there is the potential for users to get stuck and be unable 

to get out. This could also create rutting which is a potentially unsafe situation. OHV users 

would continue to use all roads (NFTS and unauthorized) and the potential for accidents would 

exist on roads that are also used at higher speeds by highway vehicles. Law enforcement would 

continue to have a difficult time with enforcement and being able to keep track of where the 

public travels in motorized vehicles.

Affordability: Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation costs for proposed changes to the NFTS would be installing a sign on each road 

segment. Carsonite posts with a vertical number would be used. These cost about $50 each,

installed. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not propose adding any roads, so the implementation cost would 

be zero for unauthorized routes. Annual maintenance on NFTS roads consists of occasionally 

conducting a condition survey and installing a route marker every 10 years. This cost would be 

considered to be part of ongoing annual maintenance. Because cross-country travel would not be 

prohibited, unauthorized routes may continue to be created and this could eventually lead to 

resource damage which may have unknown costs associated with it. 

Cumulative Effects 

Unauthorized routes would continue to be created. Rutting would continue causing potentially 

dangerous situations, and on unauthorized routes would never be repaired because they are not 

part of the NFTS. Rutting on existing roads would continue, and the cost for maintenance could 

rise because of this. Signs would not be put in place across the entire Forest. This could result in 

the conversion of roads from maintenance level 3 to a level 2, which require less maintenance. 

Appropriated funding would continue to be received at close to the current rate, along with 

cooperative funding from timber operators, the Resource Advisory Committee, legacy road 

funding, and others. 

Alternative 2

Safety: Direct and Indirect Effects

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

would be prohibited. This would eliminate the use by the public of routes that have not been 

constructed and maintained to Forest Service standards. Seasonal closures would prevent use of 

wet roads, which are potentially dangerous. This would lessen the chance that users would get 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities 43

stuck. OHV use would be limited to level 2 roads and to 138 miles of selected level 3 roads 

where mixed-use analysis has been conducted and use is considered to be safe. Signs would be 

installed and this may lessen the possibility of accidents between OHVs and highway vehicles. A 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be available for use by the public and will make law 

enforcement for officers easier. Signs will be on all roads that are on the MVUM. Closure of 

44N08 and 44N01 by the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to non-highway legal vehicles, would 

eliminate the chance for accidents between OHVs and large haul trucks on this road.

Affordability: Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation costs for proposed changes to the NFTS would be installing a sign on each road 

segment. Carsonite posts with a vertical number would be used. These cost about $50 each,

installed. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose adding 1,168 roads; the signs would cost $58,400. There is 

an additional cost of signing the NFTS routes which comes to approximately $99,350. Crosscountry travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited. This would 

eliminate use by the public of routes that have not been constructed and maintained to FS 

standards. The 336 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS may require some 

maintenance. The potential expense of this maintenance is considered to be approximately $78 

per mile for a total annual maintenance cost of $26,208. Maintenance needs for the entire road 

system would be prioritized based on public safety, resource protection, user comfort, and other 

factors. There is sufficient funding to address public safety and resource protections needs 

identified. Seasonal closures would prohibit use during wet weather on roads where the likelihood 

of rutting is high. This would reduce rutting, which would in turn reduce maintenance costs. OHV 

use would be limited to level 2 roads and to selected level 3 roads where mixed-use analysis has 

been conducted. OHV use on these roads is not expected to have any additional cost. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited. Over 

time the unauthorized routes would revegetate. Rutting would be reduced on existing roads with 

seasonal closures. Maintenance costs may be reduced because of less rutting. The cost of signing 

roads would be higher initially and be reduced over time when signs are only replaced on an asneeded basis. Appropriated funding would continue to be received at close to the current rate, 

along with cooperative funding from timber operators, the Resource Advisory Committee, legacy 

road funding, and others. The added routes could be used in the future for fire fighting and other 

resource management operations which would reduce the need for construction of new roads.

Alternative 3

Safety: Direct and Indirect Effects

Because cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited, 

there would no longer be a safety issue resulting from this kind of use. With no seasonal closures 

to direct users away from potentially dangerous situations during wet weather, there is the 

potential for users to get stuck and be unable to get out. OHV users would use only level 2 roads 

and the potential of accidents could be reduced because these roads are generally not used by 

vehicles traveling at higher speeds. Law enforcement would monitor use on the existing NFTS, 

and the MVUM may make enforcement less difficult, unless the public elected to purposely 

violate not adding any unauthorized roads. This is a definite possibility. Signs will be in place on 

all roads on the MVUM. Not adding the short spur roads would lessen the number of places 

available for safe turn around and parking of vehicles. Closure of 44N08 and 44N01 by the Glass 

Mountain Pumice Mine to non-highway legal vehicles, would eliminate the chance for accidents 

between OHVs and large haul trucks on this road.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

44 Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities

Affordability: Direct and Indirect Effects

Because cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited, 

there would no longer be use on any of the unauthorized routes. None of the unauthorized routes 

would be added to the NFTS so there would be no additional maintenance costs. However, 

Alternative 3 would have the additional cost of signing the NFTS routes which comes to 

approximately $99,350. Signing of all roads will be required once an MVUM is implemented. 

With no seasonal closures to direct users away from roads affected by wet weather, there is the 

potential for rutting on existing NFTS roads, which in turn could require additional maintenance. 

OHV users would only use level 2 roads, and there should be no additional maintenance cost 

associated with this vehicle use. 

Cumulative Effects

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited. Over 

time the unauthorized routes would revegetate. Rutting would continue on existing roads because 

there would be no seasonal closures. This may result in increased maintenance costs. If budgets 

decrease or remain flat, system roads would continue to degrade, and level 3 roads may have to 

be converted to level 2s. The cost of signing roads would be higher initially and be reduced over 

time when signs are only replaced on an as-needed basis. Appropriated funding would continue to 

be received at close to the current rate, along with cooperative funding from timber operators, the 

Resource Advisory Committee, legacy road funding, and others. 

Alternative 4

Safety: Direct and Indirect Effects

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

would be prohibited. This would eliminate the use by the public of routes that have not been 

constructed and maintained to Forest Service standards. OHV use would be limited to level 2 

roads, which are generally not used by highway vehicles traveling at high speeds. Seasonal 

closures would prohibit use during wet weather on roads considered potentially dangerous to use. 

This would lessen the potential for users getting stuck. Signs will be in place on all roads on the 

MVUM. Closure of 44N08 and 44N01 by the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine to non-highway legal 

vehicles, would eliminate the chance for accidents between OHVs and large haul trucks on this 

road.

Affordability: Direct and Indirect Effects

The addition of 286 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would require some maintenance. 

The cost of annual maintenance of these additions is considered to be $78 per mile for a total of 

$22,308. Implementation costs for proposed changes to the NFTS would be installing a sign on 

each road segment. Carsonite posts with a vertical number would be used. These cost about $50 

each, installed. Alternative 4 proposes adding 1,022 roads; the signs would cost $51,100. There is 

an additional cost of signing the NFTS routes which comes to approximately $99,350. Crosscountry travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes, would be prohibited. This would 

eliminate the use by the public of routes that have not been constructed and maintained to FS 

standards. This alternative has the highest number of miles of seasonal closures. Seasonal 

closures would prohibit use during wet weather on roads where the likelihood of rutting is high. 

This would reduce rutting, which would in turn reduce maintenance costs. Signs will be required 

on all roads once the MVUM is implemented. OHV use would be limited to level 2 roads; and 

there should be no additional maintenance cost associated with this vehicle use. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities 45

Cumulative Effects 

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

would be prohibited. Over time the unauthorized routes would revegetate. Rutting would continue 

on existing roads because there would be no seasonal closures. This may result in increased 

maintenance costs. If budgets decrease or remain flat, system roads would continue to degrade, 

and level 3 roads may have to be converted to level 2s. The cost of signing roads would be higher 

initially and be reduced over time when signs are only replaced on an as-needed basis. 

Appropriated funding would continue to be received at close to the current rate, along with 

cooperative funding from timber operators, the Resource Advisory Committee, legacy road 

funding, and others. 

Alternative 5

Safety: Direct and Indirect Effects

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

would be prohibited. This would eliminate the use by the public of routes that have not been 

constructed and maintained to FS standards. Seasonal closures on 312 miles of NFTS roads 

would prevent use of wet roads, which are potentially dangerous. This would lessen users getting 

stuck and prevent rutting. OHV use would be expanded to include 513 miles of level 3 roads, 

which may increase the possibility for accidents between highway-legal vehicles and OHVs. 

However, the probability of such an accident would be low, and the severity of the crash is likely 

to be moderate. Signs will be in place on all roads on the MVUM which will decrease the 

probability of the public getting lost on the Forest. Closure of 44N08 and 44N01 by the Glass 

Mountain Pumice Mine to non-highway legal vehicles, would eliminate the chance for accidents 

between OHVs and large haul trucks on this road.

Affordability: Direct and Indirect Effects

The addition of 336 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would require some maintenance. 

The potential expense of this maintenance is considered to be approximately $78 per mile for a 

total annual maintenance cost of $26,208. Implementation costs for proposed changes to the 

NFTS would be installing a sign on each road segment. Carsonite posts with a vertical number 

would be used. These cost about $50 each, installed. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose adding 1,168 

roads; the signs would cost $58,400. There is an additional cost of signing the NFTS routes which 

comes to approximately $99,350. Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized 

routes not added to the NFTS, would be prohibited. This would eliminate the use by the public of 

routes that have not been constructed and maintained to Forest Service standards. Seasonal 

closures on 312 miles of NFTS roads would prohibit use during wet weather on roads where the 

likelihood of rutting is high. This would reduce rutting, which would in turn reduce maintenance 

costs. OHV use would be expanded to include 513 miles of Level 3 roads where mixed-use 

analysis has been conducted. OHV use on these roads is not expected to have any additional cost. 

Cumulative Effects

Cross-country travel, which includes the use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS, 

would be prohibited. Over time the unauthorized routes would revegetate. Rutting would be 

reduced on existing roads with seasonal closures. The cost of signing roads would be higher 

initially and be reduced over time when signs are only replaced on an as-needed basis. 

Appropriated funding would continue to be received at close to the current rate, along with 

cooperative funding from timber operators, the Resource Advisory Committee, legacy road 

funding, and others. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

46 Chapter 3—Transportation Facilities

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory 

Direction 

All alternatives are consistent with the Modoc LRMP (Forest Plan). 

For roads under three miles, Alternatives 2 and 5 require review by the state of California for 

mixed use on maintenance-level 3 roads. The Forest requested combined-use (California 

Highway Patrol parlance for mixed use) highway designation for specific maintenance-level 3 

roadway segments. The request was approved, contingent upon completion of the following 

signage recommendations (Alturas Area refers to the California Highway Patrol jurisdictional 

unit):

Alturas Area recommended that information/cautionary signs be posted at the 

entrance to the improved campgrounds, which include Ash Creek, Big Sage, 

Cave Lake, C Reservoir, Cedar Pass, Jane’s Reservoir, Patterson, Pepperdine, 

Plum Valley, Upper and Lower Rush Creek, Soup Springs, and Stowe Reservoir 

campgrounds.

Additionally, Alturas Area recommends a sign be posted at the entrance to Lily 

Lake day use, due to limited sight distance and moderate use.

Alternatives 2 and 5 are consistent with the Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.

Alternative 1 (No Action) would not address the issue of mixed use on maintenance level 3, 4, 

and 5 roads. Mixed use is currently occurring on these roads. Alternative 1 is not consistent with 

the Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.

The LRMP calls for providing a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities (Modoc NF LRMP, 

Standards and Guidelines, section 4-1 to 4-3 (Facilities)).

The applicable standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan for managing the Forest 

transportation system are listed below.

1. Provide and manage a Forest transportation system to achieve resource management 

objectives, while protecting resource values.

a. Plan, design, and construct local roads to the lowest standard commensurate with 

intended use

b. Maintain all Forest roads to their objective maintenance levels

c. Provide for signing in accordance with the road management objectives and the 

MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) standards

2. Manage and maintain the transportation system to protect soil, water, and all other resource 

values. Close local roads as needed to meet these objectives. Develop road closure and 

OHV plans.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 47

Society, Culture, and Economy

Introduction

The Modoc National Forest is located in portions of three northern California counties: Modoc, 

Lassen and Siskiyou. Table 3-6 shows the total county size in acres and the proportion of land 

base in the Modoc National Forest. Additionally, since the Modoc National Forest is bordered by 

Oregon to the north, two Oregon counties have important interactions with the Forest both 

socially and economically. Cities and towns in Lake and Klamath Counties serve as bedroom 

communities for people working and recreating on the Modoc National Forest, and also provide 

important shopping outlets for residents nearby the Forest to purchase goods and services. In 

addition, several Forest products harvested on the Forest are processed by facilities located in 

those Oregon counties. Thus, both Lake and Klamath counties are included in the Modoc 

National Forest study area, and can be included in the Modoc National Forest region (Wilson

Draft, 2008).

Table 3-6. Acres of Modoc National Forest Lands, by County

County Total Acres 1 Modoc NF Acres 2 Percent of County

Modoc 2,689,920 1,378,994 83%

Lassen 3,020,800 156,375 9%

Siskiyou 4,062,080 128,032 8%

1 Total acres calculated as total square miles in the county, multiplied by 640 acres per square mile. Total square 

miles reported in http://en.wikipedia.org.

2 Source: USDA Forest Service FS-383, January 2008

In relation to some of the more metropolitan counties in California, the counties in the Modoc 

study area are very rural. Thus, interactions between the Forest and local communities are likely 

to be very important for the social and economic well-being of the area. The three California 

counties (Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou) are very different in terms of proximity to the Forest, 

demographics, economic base, and tax structure than the Oregon counties (Lake and Klamath). 

Nonetheless, the Oregon counties provide important services for residents of the local area and 

resource production on the Forest (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Population and Demographics

Historical Background

People have lived in the Modoc National Forest (MDF) region for thousands of years (See 

chapter 3, cultural resources).

Today people in the MDF region derive their livelihood in diverse ways. Ranching is still an 

important component of the community, and many of the families that are ranching today have 

historic roots in the area. The Forest currently has active logging, mining, and recreation use. 

Exploration is occurring for geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric resources. Permits are also 

issued for grazing, firewood cutting, and other special uses. 

Current Population and Growth Trends

Population, age, and racial distributions of counties are important socioeconomic considerations 

in land-management planning. The following sections highlight demographic trends in the five-
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

48 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

county study area. Population forecasts provide a projection of future population levels, which 

may help to indicate whether there may be the potential for increased pressures for uses and 

recreational opportunities on the Modoc National Forest. Age distributions provide insights into 

the socioeconomic dynamic in the local area in terms of assessing the proportion of individuals in 

the working-age group, compared to retirees and minors who typically use local services in 

different ways. Similarly, the racial composition of the local area may affect the cultural and 

heritage uses of public lands (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Population

The following section highlights trends and considerations of the five counties surrounding the 

Modoc National Forest. Population projections predict what the population levels may be in the 

future. These numbers help to indicate whether there is the potential for increased pressures for 

uses and recreational opportunities on the national forests. Future population demands may 

increase the desire for different travel management patterns dependent upon desired uses, 

recreational opportunities, and values (Cordell and Overdevest, 2001). Population increases may 

lead to conflicts over Forest uses, travel management, recreation activities, and values; these are 

conflicts that Forest Service managers may have to contend with and attempt to balance in landmanagement decisions (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Figure 3-1 shows the population in the five-county area from 1990 to 2005, along with 

projections to 2030. In recent years populations have remained relatively stable; Modoc and 

Lake Counties have experienced minimal population growth, while Klamath, Siskiyou and 

Lassen Counties have had slow, but steady, growth since 1990. There have been no sharp 

increases or decreases in population to suggest significant changes in the economic or social 

structure of the counties. Growth rates in each county are very slow; and Modoc, Lassen, and 

Lake Counties all experienced negative growth during some of the years. (Wilson Draft, 2008)

Figure 3-1. Population Estimates 1 and Projections 2 for Modoc National Forest Study Area Counties

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520152030

Modoc

Lassen

Siskiyou

Lake

Klamath

1 Population estimates for California counties provided by the Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico. 

Population estimates for Oregon counties provided by the Oregon Employment Department.

2 Population forecasts for California counties provided by the Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico.

Population forecasts for Oregon counties provided by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 49

Some rural areas in California and Oregon have seen substantial population growth in recent 

years due to the attraction of nearby natural amenities. Many retirees have left more congested 

areas to be closer to the visual and recreational amenities offered by National Forest System

(NFS) lands. In the case of the Modoc National Forest, nearby counties have been experiencing 

slow growth. This is likely due to the remoteness of the area and immense distance from 

metropolitan centers. Furthermore, retirees often demand medical services not readily available 

in Modoc County, which may be a cause of the slower population growth in that County (Wilson 

Draft, 2008).

Age Distribution of the Population

The age distribution of the local population can have various influences over the demands for, 

and participation in, activities on national Forests. Different age groups are likely to participate 

in different natural resource-based activities. The median age in each county of this region is 

higher than the median age for their respective states (Table 3-7). This suggests that residents in 

the Modoc National Forest study area are older than residents in more metropolitan areas of 

California and Oregon. This is likely due to there not being adequate job opportunities in the area 

to draw a younger demographic (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Table 3-7. Median Age by State and County

State of California 33.3

Modoc County 41.8

Lassen County 34.6

Siskiyou County 43.0

State of Oregon 36.3

Lake County 42.7

Klamath County 38.2

Source: US Census 2000

In terms of the distribution of age groups, all counties in the Modoc National Forest study area 

are predominantly middle aged. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 report the age distribution for California and 

Oregon counties, respectively. In all counties there is a slight decline in the percentage of 

residents in the 15- to 19-year old age group and the 20- to 24-year old age group. This is likely 

due to the lack of higher education facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Modoc National 

Forest, and lack of employment opportunities for laborers in that age group. Most individuals in 

each county lie within the 25- to 54-year old age group; this suggests that the majority of 

residents in the study area are of working age and likely dependent on their employment status to 

support themselves. Those areas with an older population typically have a higher percentage of 

retirees, and are thus less dependent on local employment conditions due to the influence of 

transfer payments from outside the local region. Modoc and Siskiyou Counties in California, and 

Lake County, Oregon have a substantial proportion of individuals over the age of 65, more so 

than the states as a whole. (Wilson Draft, 2008)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

50 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Figure 3-2. Age Distribution in California, by County

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Under 5 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years

15 to 19 years

20 to 24 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years45 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 74 years75 to 84 years

85 years and over

Percent

Modoc Lassen

Siskiyou California

Source: US Census 2000

Figure 3-3. Age Distribution in Oregon, by County

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Under 5 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years15 to 19 years20 to 24 years25 to 34 years35 to 44 years45 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 74 years75 to 84 years

85 years and over

Percent

Lake Klamath Oregon

Source: US Census 2000

Ethnicity

Table 3-8 shows the racial distribution for the five-county analysis area. The vast majority (86

percent) of residents around the Modoc National Forest are Caucasian. This is a very different 

ethnic composition than the state average for both California and Oregon. Table 3-8 reports the 

racial percentages for the five counties in the analysis area and their respective states. California 

is a more ethnically diverse state than Oregon. Oregon’s population is nearly 87 percent 

Caucasian, where California is just under 60 percent. Over 34 percent of California’s population 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 51

comes from a Hispanic origin, compared to eight percent in Oregon. At the county level, all 

counties have a higher percentage of Caucasian residents than their respective states. Of the five 

counties, Lassen is the most ethnically diverse, with nearly 20 percent of the population being 

something other than Caucasian. The Modoc National Forest region has had a large American 

Indian population. In the five-county area, American Indians and Pacific Islanders make up 3.8 

percent of the total population. At the individual county level, Modoc and Klamath counties have 

the highest proportions of American Indians, both at 4.2 percent (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Table 3-8. Racial Percentages of Total Population by County and State, Census 2000

Total 

Population

White Black or 

AfricanAmerican

Am. Ind. 

& Alaska 

Native

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander

Other 

Race

Hispanic Origin 

(of any race) 1

California 33,871,648 59.5 6.7 1 11.2 16.8 32.4

Modoc 9,449 85.9 0.7 4.2 0.7 5.7 11.5

Lassen 33,828 80.8 8.8 3.3 1.1 3.2 13.8

Siskiyou 44,301 87.1 1.3 3.9 1.3 2.8 7.6

Oregon 3,421,399 86.6 1.6 1.3 3.2 4.2 8

Lake 7,422 91 0.1 2.4 0.8 3.2 5.4

Klamath 63,775 87.3 0.6 4.2 0.9 3.4 7.8

Source: US Census 2000

1 People of Hispanic origin may identify with any race (http://www.census.gov/population/

www/socdemo/compraceho.html). Because of this, summing the ethnic distribution in an area often results in a sum of 

greater than 100%; this is the case in this table.

Travel Management and American Indian Interests

American Indian Tribes of the Modoc National Forest

The Modoc National Forest derives its name from Modoc Tribe, which is an indigenous nation of 

Northern California and Southern Oregon. Peter Skeen Ogden, a Hudson Bay Company 

employee, was one of the first non-Indians to appear on Modoc lands; he arrived in 1826. 

Missionaries, pioneers, ranchers, and many others followed. The Modoc Indian War of 1873 

launched the tribe into the American consciousness after Kientpoos, or Captain Jack, slew 

Brigadier General Edward Canby and a missionary. The action resulted in the division of the 

Modoc Nation, where Modoc tribal members joined the Klamath and Yahooskin people to form 

the Klamath Tribes, Oregon. The followers of Kientpoos were sent to Oklahoma, which 

eventually became the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. The Klamath Tribes, Oregon, signed the 1864 

Treaty of Klamath Lake, Oregon, that ceded 23 million acres of land to the United States. The 

ceded lands constitute the traditional cultural properties of the Klamath on the northern portion of 

the Modoc National Forest. In fact, the Klamath Tribes are the only federally recognized tribe 

that maintains a treaty and associated interests on Modoc National Forest lands. Six American 

Indian tribes of the Modoc National Forest are non-treaty tribes; the Klamath Tribes are subject to 

the treaty. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

52 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Tribal Governments

Table 3-9. Federally Recognized Tribes and their Office Locations

Federally Recognized Tribes Tribal Office Locations

Alturas Indian Rancheria, California Alturas, CA

Cedarville Rancheria, California Alturas, CA

Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell 

Reservation of California

Ft. Bidwell, CA

Klamath Tribes, Oregon (formerly the Klamath Indian Tribe 

of Oregon)

Chiloquin, OR

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma Miami, OK

Pit River Tribe, California (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, 

Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek, and Roaring Creek 

Rancherias)

Burney, CA

Susanville Indian Rancheria, California Susanville, CA

Federal Laws and Treaties

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. 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.” Treaties are superior to state constitutions 

and state laws; consequently, Indian tribes are sovereign nations with tribal governments. The 

U.S. House of Representatives protested their exclusion over Indian treaty-making by passing the 

Indian Appropriations Act of 1871. The statute prevented Congress from entering into any new 

treaties with Indian tribes; however, Native American interests by non-treaty tribes on national 

forest lands are determined by USDA Forest Service federal trust responsibilities, federal statutes, 

Supreme Court rulings, and Federal Indian Policy.

Federal Indian Policy

President George W. Bush signed a memorandum affirming the government-to-government 

relationship with tribes on September 23, 2004. President Barack Obama announced support to 

respect tribal sovereignty and empower Indian communities; however, no formal statement or 

Indian Policy has been issued by the Obama Administration. Table 3-10 lists federal statutes and 

executive orders that support Indian self-determination and government-to-government relations. 

Also, case law has defined reserved rights for American Indians, including water rights and trust 

responsibility of the Federal Government, among others (Getches et al. 1998).

Table 3-10. Federal Laws and Executive Orders Relevant to American Indian Concerns Regarding 

National Forest Management

Law Purpose

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended The act establishes a national policy for the environment, to 

provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental 

Quality, and other purposes.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended The act establishes national policy to protect and preserve for 

Native Americans their inherent right of freedom to believe, 

express, and exercise their traditional religions, including the 

rights of access to religious sites, use and possession of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 53

Law Purpose

sacred objects, and freedom to worship through traditional 

ceremonies and rites.

Public Law 110-246, Section 8101-8107 The act allows for the closure of campgrounds and other public 

use facilities to accommodate tribal rites and other activities.

Antiquities Act of 1906 The act authorizes the President to declare federal lands as 

national monuments for the purpose of protecting sites and 

objects of antiquity.

Administrative Procedure Act of 1966, as amended The act contains procedures that federal agencies must follow, 

including public information, open meetings, and privacy of 

information requirements, and provisions for hearings, 

adjudications, rule making and judicial and congressional 

review of agency actions.

Memorandum signed September 23, 2004 President George W. Bush reaffirms government-togovernment relationship with tribal governments.

Executive Order 13175 signed November 6, 2000 President William Jefferson Clinton expands on government-togovernment consultation with Indian tribes.

Executive Order 13007 signed May 1996 President William Jefferson Clinton signs federal guidance on 

Native American sacred sites.

Memorandum signed June 14, 1991 President George H.W. Bush reaffirms government-togovernment relationship with tribal governments.

American Indian Policy Statement signed January 24, 1983 President Ronald Reagan affirms Indian self-determination with 

an emphasis on Indian reservation economies. 

Federal Indian Policy Statement issued in a Special Address to 

Congress on July 8, 1970

President Richard M. Nixon reverses the federal Indian 

termination policies of the Eisenhower Administration and 

embarks upon Indian self-determination.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 The act authorizes the development and revision of land use 

plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use 

plans for lands in the national forest system with land use 

planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes

by, among other things, considering the policies of approval 

tribal land resource management programs.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1976 Accounts for impacts of management on prehistoric and 

historic sites.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended 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 

(NAGPRA) of 1990

NAGPRA provides a process for museums and federal 

agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—

human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects 

of cultural patrimony – to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated 

Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations.

There are six American Indian tribes residing on or near the Modoc National Forest. Native 

American people constitute approximately 3.8 percent of the total population within the Modoc 

National Forest. The statewide average is 0.5 percent. The USDA Forest Service consults with 

federally recognized tribes to comply with the laws displayed in Table 3-10.

Tribal Access to Traditional Cultural Properties

Indian treaties create reserved rights for tribes unless those rights are extinguished by acts of 

Congress to remove Indian title. The Klamath Tribes, Oregon, retained their reserved rights of 

hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering and water rights, despite the Dawes Act of 1887, termination 

and restoration. However, those rights are “not as these rights once were exercised by the tribe in 

1864” (United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 [9th Cir. 1983]). Forest Service Manual (FSM), 

Chapter 1560-State, Tribal, County and Local Agencies, articulates a traditional gathering policy 

under Section 1563.03-Policy, Item 15 that states, “Free use, without permit, of culturally 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

54 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

important plants may be granted for traditional native cultural gathering.” Presently, the Forest 

Service Washington Office is developing a special forest products rule to supersede existing 

guidance on traditional native cultural gathering. Nevertheless, the National Forest System ought 

to provide considerations to Indian tribes, accounting for off-road vehicle use by tribes based 

upon subsistence needs, traditional and cultural purposes, ceremonies and rites, and sacred sites. 

The Pit River Tribal Council was advised by the Modoc National Forest about the travel 

management guidelines during a scheduled consultation held on Wednesday, 3 September 2008. 1

 

Irvin Brown, tribal councilman-Kosealekte alternate, stated during the meeting that the plan was 

acceptable provided that road closures not impede tribal members from accessing sacred sites or 

traditional cultural properties. 2

Environmental Consequences for American Indian Population

 

Tribes are likely to continue to use Forest resources for cultural, spiritual and medicinal purposes; 

and local American Indians considers it very important to be able to maintain the ability to make 

use of Forest resources in traditional ways. Please see the environmental justice sub-section in 

this socioeconomic section for further elaboration of effects on American Indian populations. 

Also Appendix K, Tribal Relations.

Employment and Income: Environmental Consequences

Per Capita Income

Per capita income is often used as a measure of economic performance, but it should be combined 

with changes in earnings per job for a realistic picture of economic health:

Since total personal income includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income 

sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita income to rise, 

even if the average wage per job declines over time. In other words, non-labor sources of income 

can cause per capita income to rise, even if people are earning less per job. 

Figure 3-4. Per Capita Income for the Modoc Five-County Area

Per Capita Income

-

25,288

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

19701973

1976

1979

198219851988

19911994

199720002003

Thousands of 2005 $

Recession Bars Modoc NF 5 County Aggregation

 1 Modoc National Forest, Tribal Relations Program, “Government-to-Government Consultation Standard 

Form” [Wednesday, 3 September 2008].

2 Ibid. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 55

Per capita income, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $19,752 in 1970 to $25,288 in 2005.In 

2005, per capita income in the Modoc NF five-county area ($25,288) was lower than the state 

($36,511) and the nation ($34,471).

All three of the California counties fall below the poverty line, and Modoc County ranks in the 

top five most impoverished counties, as measured by individuals below the poverty line.

Table 3-11 reports the number of individuals below the poverty level and poverty rates for the

five counties in the study area and their respective states in 2000 and 2005. All counties have 

poverty rates higher than that of the states. Poverty rates in all counties except Lassen increased 

from 2000 to 2005. As of 2005, Modoc and Klamath counties had the highest poverty rates in the 

local region at just over 20 percent. Such poverty rates suggest that a substantial proportion of the 

existing population should be considered as a low-income group. 

 Table 3-11. Poverty Status by State and County, 2000 and 2005

State or County 2005 2000

Number Percent Number Percent

California 4,669,056 13.3% 4,304,909 12.7%

Modoc County 1,853 20.4% 1,772 19.7%

Lassen County 4,280 16.9% 4,312 17.5%

Siskiyou County 7,771 17.5% 7,235 16.7%

Oregon 497,318 14.1% 361,280 10.6%

Lake County 1,305 18.1% 1,134 15.2%

Klamath County 13,062 20.3% 9,072 14.3%

Source: US Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

The Forest supports employment opportunities from which local residents may generate income. 

This includes direct employment for the Federal agencies and the harvest of products from the 

Forest. Although the numbers may appear to be low when compared to the national levels, the 

effects to an individual or family may be profound if altered. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about 

recreation visitors to National Forest System-managed lands at the national, regional, and Forest

levels. Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for national 

forest plans [Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation 

of the National Recreation Agenda]. To improve public service, the agency’s strategic and annual 

performance plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. NVUM 

information assists Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound 

decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science 

based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality, and location of recreation use on 

public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers including state 

agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the 

research paper entitled Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method 

Documentation (English et al. 2002) (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

The Modoc National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project 

from October 2004 through September 2005. There were approximately 107,960 national Forest

visits on Modoc National Forest during fiscal year 2005. The full Modoc National Forest NVUM 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

56 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

report is available from the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Human Dimensions 

Module, and can be found in the project record.

Table 3-12 presents participation rates by activity for the Modoc National Forest during the 

NVUM survey period. The “total activity participation” (%) column of the table presents the 

participation rates by activity. Participation rates exceed 100 percent since visitors can participate 

in multiple activities. The “percent as main activity” column presents the participation rates in 

terms of primary activity.

Table 3-12. Activity Participation on Modoc National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 

Activity Activity Emphasis for 

Road & Trail Use

Total Activity 

Participation (%) *

Percent as Main 

Activity (%) **

Snowmobiling Motorized 1.3% 0.2%

Driving for Pleasure Motorized 41.5% 17.9%

OHV Use Motorized 16.9% 0.8%

Other Motorized Activity Motorized 0.0% 0.0%

Motorized Subtotal 18.86%

Hiking and Walking Non-motorized 20.3% 2.0%

Bicycling Non-motorized 1.1% 0.0%

Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 3.2% 0.2%

Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 0.6% 0.4%

Backpacking Non-motorized 2.8% 0.6%

Horseback Riding Non-motorized 0.9% 0.0%

Non-motorized Subtotal 3.3%

Downhill Skiing Other 0.3% 0.3%

Fishing Other 47.4% 34.0%

Viewing Natural Features Other 67.4% 23.1%

Relaxing Other 57.7% 11.7%

Motorized Water Activities Other 1.5% 0.0%

Hunting Other 3.1% 2.6%

Non-motorized Water Other 2.0% 0.1%

Developed Camping Other 10.7% 5.5%

Primitive Camping Other 4.5% 0.2%

Picnicking Other 24.5% 8.1%

Viewing Wildlife Other 0.0% 0.0%

Sightseeing Other 51.0% 5.6%

No Activity Reported Other 2.5% 3.2%

Resort Use Other 0.8% 0.6%

Visiting Historic Sites Other 4.7% 0.9%

Nature Study Other 3.4% 0.9%

Gathering Forest Products Other 5.7% 4.1%

Nature Center Activities Other 3.1% 0.0%

Other Subtotal 100.9%

Total 123.0%

* Survey respondents could select multiple activities, so this column may total more than 100%.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 57

* The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity.

** Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the Forest visit. Some 

respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

** The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.

The primary activity participation rates (“percent as main activity”) displayed in Table 3-12 were 

used to estimate use by activity emphasis. The emphasis areas were grouped into those 

emphasizing non-motorized, motorized, and other activities. Motorized activities were those that 

used motor vehicles on Forest Service roads and trails. Non-motorized activities still used the 

Forest’s roads and trails, but on foot or by non-motorized transportation such as cross-country

skis or bicycles. All other activities are all the other Forest-based activities measured by the 

NVUM survey that did not use roads or trails to pursue their primary activity. Examples of 

“other” are downhill skiing, motorized water activities, etc. Motor vehicles may have been used 

to reach a destination or participate in the activity, but it was not the primary emphasis of the 

visit. The most popular activities on the Modoc National Forest are fishing, viewing natural 

features, driving for pleasure, and relaxing.

Table 3-12 displays the number of visits for these activities. The number of visits is based on the 

primary purpose for the visit (“percent as main activity”) displayed in Table 3-12 and the total 

number of visits of 107,960 reported in the Modoc National Forest NVUM report. Users were 

determined to be either local or non-local based on the miles from the user’s residence to the 

Forest boundary. If the user reported living within 50 miles of the Forest boundary, he or she is 

considered local; if over 50 miles, non-local. It is critically important to distinguish between local 

and non-local spending, as only non-locals bring new money and new economic stimulus into the 

local community. Local spending is already accounted for in the study area base data. It is 

impossible to predict how locals would have spent money if they did not have local recreation 

opportunities on the national Forest, but it is a safe guess that much of that money would not have 

been lost to the local economy. People tend to substitute other local recreation activities or change 

the time or place for continuing the same activity, rather than traveling long distances and 

incurring high costs to do the same activity. The table indicates the most popular non-motorized 

use is hiking and walking, followed by backpacking. The most popular motorized use is driving 

for pleasure, followed by OHV use. Table 3-13 indicates that non-local visitors spend more per 

visit than local visitors primarily because of overnight lodging expenditures. Motorized day use 

expenditures are generally higher than for non-motorized activities, but non-local overnight 

visitors engaged in non-motorized activities generally expend more than non-local motorized 

users (except for snowmobiling). Snowmobilers spend the most per visit, especially non-local 

visitors.

Table 3-13. Number of Visits, by Activity

Non-Local 

Day Use

Non-Local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Non-motorized

Hiking & Walking 68 132 624 49 40

Bicycling 0 0 0 0 0

Other Non-motorized 8 16 74 6 5

Cross-country Skiing 14 43 91 7 2

Backpacking 0 43 0 67 4

Horseback Riding 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized

Snowmobiling 6 7 33 5 5
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

58 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Non-Local 

Day Use

Non-Local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Driving for Pleasure 449 544 6,204 214 721

OHV Use 36 64 166 49 11

Other Motorized Activity 0 0 0 0 0

Other

Fishing 1,641 3,114 7,105 1,313 568

Hunting 55 242 676 266 34

Viewing Wildlife 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Water Activities 0 0 0 0 0

Non-motorized Water 349 506 4,653 189 597

Downhill Skiing 17 28 53 8 3

Developed Camping 22 761 32 719 117

Primitive Camping 0 16 0 25 2

Resort Use There are no NVUM estimates for trip type segment shares for these activities

Picnicking

Viewing Natural Features

Visiting Historic Sites

Nature Center Activities

Nature Study

Relaxing

Gathering Forest Products

Sightseeing

No Activity Reported

Subtotal 1,700 4,008 10,202 3,265 879

Table 3-14. Expenditures per Visit

Non-Local 

Day Use

Non-Local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Non-motorized

Hiking & Walking $17.62 $106.96 $11.11 $39.55 $7.41

Bicycling 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41

Other Non-motorized 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41

Cross-country Skiing 18.93 119.64 14.78 87.39 13.60

Backpacking 0.00 19.09 0.00 24.10 0.00

Horseback Riding 17.62 106.96 11.11 39.55 7.41

Motorized

Snowmobiling 49.09 128.80 29.57 68.93 28.33

Driving for Pleasure 17.62 66.54 13.33 42.73 10.00

OHV Use 28.57 64.80 19.00 48.50 14.62

Other Motorized Activity 28.57 64.80 19.00 48.50 14.62

Other

Fishing 21.00 95.65 20.00 48.00 20.00

Hunting 38.10 116.32 30.00 79.47 25.50
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 59

Non-Local 

Day Use

Non-Local 

Overnight

Local Day 

use

Local 

Overnight

Non-Primary

Viewing Wildlife 20.80 82.59 10.80 53.75 10.00

Motorized Water Activities 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Non-motorized Water 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Downhill Skiing 36.36 117.93 25.24 89.13 27.89

Developed Camping 0.00 50.36 0.00 41.29 0.00

Primitive Camping 0.00 19.09 0.00 24.10 0.00

Resort Use 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Picnicking 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Viewing Natural Features 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Visiting Historic Sites 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Nature Center Activities 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Nature Study 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Relaxing 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Gathering Forest Products 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Sightseeing 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

No Activity Reported 18.52 70.36 15.00 49.20 12.41

Economic Effects Analysis Procedures

Economic effects can be categorized as direct, indirect and induced. Direct effects are changes 

directly associated with spending by a recreation visitor. Indirect and induced effects are the 

multiplier effects resulting from subsequent rounds of spending in the local economy. Inputoutput analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor 

income effects stemming from motorized and non-motorized use. Input-output analysis (Hewings 

1985) is a means of examining relationships within an economy both between businesses as well 

as between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for 

consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to 

examine the effect of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy. This 

examination is called impact analysis. Input-output analysis requires the identification of an 

economic impact area. The economic area that surrounds the Modoc National Forest used for this 

jobs and income analysis was three counties in Northern California and two in Oregon 

surrounding the Modoc National Forest. The counties included in California are Siskiyou, 

Lassen, and Modoc. The counties included in Oregon are Klamath and Lake.

The IMPLAN Pro input-output modeling system and 2006 IMPLAN data (the most recent data 

available) were used to develop the input-output model for this analysis (IMPLAN Professional 

2004). IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes 

in economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy. For 

the economic impact area, employment and labor income estimates that were attributable to all 

current recreation use (wildlife and non-wildlife activities), motorized, non-motorized and other 

activities for the Modoc National Forest were generated.

The expenditure and use information collected by the NVUM survey are crucial elements in the 

economic analysis. As reported earlier, the NVUM survey collects use and expenditure 

information for various activity types. The expenditure information is collected by twelve activity 

groups within four trip segments (non-local overnight trips, non-local day trips, local day trips 

and local overnight trips) (Stynes and White 2005; Stynes and White 2006). The reported 

spending for each of the spending categories is allocated to the appropriate industry within the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

60 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

IMPLAN model (the allocation process, also referred to as “bridging,” was conducted by the 

Forest Service Planning Analysis Group in Fort Collins, Colorado. The bridged IMPLAN files 

were used to estimate economic effects (e.g., employment and labor income) related to changes in 

spending. (Changes in spending, technically referred to as changes in final demand, are caused by 

changes in use.)

Estimated Economic Effects

Estimated economic effects (full and part-time jobs and labor income) are presented. Estimated 

economic effects are displayed in the following ways:

Direct, indirect, and induced employment; labor income response coefficients by activity type 

(jobs and labor income per 1,000 visits); and

Estimated employment and labor income by motorized and non-motorized activity types

Response Coefficients, by Activity Type

Table 3-15 displays the estimated employment and labor income response coefficients

(employment and labor income per 1,000 visits) by local and non-local activity types. The 

response coefficients indicate the number of full and part-time jobs and dollars of labor income 

per thousand visits by activity type. The response coefficients are useful in (1) understanding the 

economic effects tied to a given use level; (2) understanding projected employment effects for 

various use scenarios (sensitivity analysis); and 3) understanding the differences in employment 

effects by activity type. The response coefficients displayed in Table 3 -15, along with the visits 

presented in Table 3-13, were used to estimate the economic effects for local and non-local use 

by activity type.

Table 3-14 indicates the following: First, economic effects tied to local visitation generate lower 

employment and labor income effects. This is a result of local visitors spending less per visit in 

comparison to non-local visitors (see Table 3-14). Second, economic effects vary widely by 

motorized and non-motorized activity types. The lowest employment effect is tied to local hiking 

and walking, bicycling, other non-motorized, and horseback riding activities. (Note: The 

economic effects are identical for these categories since they share the same spending profile.)

Third, the largest economic effect is associated with non-local cross-country skiing, but is 

followed fairly closely by non-local snowmobiling. In general, economic effects vary by the 

amount of spending and by the type of activity. But it cannot be generalized that motorized or 

non-motorized activities contribute more or less to the local economy on a per-visit basis. It is 

also important to be careful with the use of response coefficients. They reflect an economic 

structure that is a snapshot in time; that is, they are not applicable to visitation numbers that are 

dramatically different from current recreation levels. If recreation activities or visits were to 

change radically, there would be a structural shift in the economy as spending patterns changed,

and these response coefficients would no longer reflect underlying economic processes. 

Table 3-15. Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients, by Activity Type

Employment

(Jobs per 1,000 Party-Trips)

Labor Income (2006 dollars)

($ per 1,000 Party-Trips)

Direct Effects Indirect & Induced 

Effects

Direct 

Effects

Indirect & 

Induced 

Effects

Non-motorized Use
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 61

Employment

(Jobs per 1,000 Party-Trips)

Labor Income (2006 dollars)

($ per 1,000 Party-Trips)

Hiking & Walking, 

Bicycling, 

Horseback Riding, 

Other Nonmotorized

Local Day 0.175 0.057 $4,050 $1,658 

Local OVN 0.755 0.241 15,684 7,372 

Non-Local Day 0.347 0.101 7,831 2,797 

Non-Local OVN 1.598 0.473 33,486 13,970 

NP 0.175 0.057 4,050 1,658 

Backpacking Local Day 0 0 

Local OVN 0.629 0.221 14,578 6,775 

Non-Local Day 0 0 

Non-Local OVN 0.744 0.241 17,226 7,136 

NP 0.629 0.221 14,578 6,775 

Motorized Use

OHV Use Local Day 0.370 0.121 8,575 3,602 

Local OVN 0.641 0.211 14,347 6,417 

Non-Local Day 0.425 0.139 9,917 4,113 

Non-Local OVN 1.069 0.351 23,907 10,693 

NP 0.370 0.121 8,575 3,602 

Driving Local Day 0.192 0.059 4,411 1,718 

Local OVN 0.842 0.242 16,582 7,287 

Non-Local Day 0.275 0.085 6,323 2,463 

Non-Local OVN 1.403 0.403 $27,638 $12,145 

NP 0.192 0.059 4,411 1,718 

Snowmobile Local Day 0.529 0.173 12,403 5,122 

Local OVN 1.553 0.449 30,386 13,519 

Non-Local Day 0.829 0.264 19,128 7,637 

Non-Local OVN 2.589 0.748 50,644 22,533 

NP 0.529 0.173 12,403 5,122 

Cross-Country Ski Local Day 0.342 0.100 6,755 2,968 

Local OVN 1.638 0.490 32,853 14,907 

Non-Local Day 0.491 0.144 9,686 4,255 

Non-Local OVN 2.729 0.816 54,747 24,845 

NP 0.342 0.100 6,755 2,968 

All Other Use

All Other Activities* Local Day 0.280 0.098 7,643 2,668 

Local OVN 0.852 0.326 25,501 8,942 

Non-Local Day 0.465 0.149 11,329 4,105 

Non-Local OVN 1.390 0.493 38,997 13,416 

NP 0.280 0.098 7,643 2,668 

*All other activities consists developed camping, primitive camping, resort use, picnicking, viewing natural features, 

visiting historic sites, nature center activities, nature study, relaxing, fishing, hunting, motorized water activities, nonmotorized water, downhill skiing, gathering forest products, viewing wildlife, sightseeing, and no activity reported.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

62 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Motorized and Non-motorized Use

Table 3-15 displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels 

reported by NVUM for local and non-local non-motorized and motorized activities. Table 3-15

expresses these employment and labor income effects as a percent of total employment and 

income for each activity. In general, the estimated economic effects are a function of the number 

of visits and the dollars spent locally by the visitors. For example, non-local users typically spend 

more money per visit than local users. Also, activities that draw more users would be responsible 

for more economic activity in comparison to activities that draw fewer users, holding constant 

spending per visit. Given that the analysis is dependent on visitation and expenditure estimates, 

any changes to these estimates affect the estimated jobs and labor income.

Table 3 -16 indicates that approximately one total average annual jobs in the five-county area

(direct, indirect and induced, full-time, temporary, and part-time) and $21,019 total labor income

(direct, indirect and induced) are attributable to non-motorized visitation on the Modoc National 

Forest. The two largest activities among those in the table are hiking and walking and crosscountry skiing. Together these account for about 1.8 percent of the jobs and 1.5 percent of the 

income generated from the activities analyzed. These activities account for about one job and 

provided $17,025 in labor income to the five-county area.

Motorized activities were responsible for approximately three total jobs (direct, indirect, and 

induced) and $78,608 total labor income (direct, indirect, and induced). The two largest 

motorized uses are OHV use and driving for pleasure. These two activities contribute about 8.3

percent of the jobs from the activities in the table, and provide about 6.2 percent of the labor 

income. Together these two activities contribute three jobs and provide about $77,118 in labor 

income to the area.

“All Other Activities” (see Table 3-12 for a list) are significant economic contributors for the 

activities studied. They provide 34 jobs, or 89 percent of the jobs from the activities analyzed. 

Labor income is about $252,838, or 90 percent of the income generated by these activities.

Table 3-16 shows that about two percent of the jobs provided from these activities are from nonmotorized use, nine percent from motorized use and 90 percent from “other activities.” The 

contributions to labor income are two percent non-motorized use, seven percent motorized use,

and 90 percent from “other activities.”

Table 3-16. Employment and Labor Income Effects, by Activity Type

Employment

(full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Indirect & Induced Direct Indirect & Induced

Non-Motorized Use

Backpacking - Local <0.1 <0.1 $1,004 $467

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 776 321

Hiking and Walking - Local <0.1 <0.1 3,403 1,441 

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 5,115 2,101

Horseback Riding - Local <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Bicycling - Local <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 63

Employment

(full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Cross-country Skiing - Local <0.1 <0.1 862 382 

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 2,561 160 

Other Non-motorized - Local <0.1 <0.1 402 170

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 605 248

Total Non-motorized 1 <0.1 $14,729 $6,291 

Subtotal 1 $21,019 

Employment

(full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Indirect & Induced Direct Indirect & Induced

Motorized Use

OHV Use - Local 0.1 <0.1 $2,197.9 $943

Non-local 0.1 <0.1 1,951.4 861

Driving for Pleasure - Local 1.4 0.4 32,006 12,653

Non-local 0.9 0.3 18,516 7,990

Snowmobiling - Local <0.1 <0.1 567 239

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 477 207

Other Motorized Activity - Local <0.1 <0.1 0 0

Non-local <0.1 <0.1 0 0

Total Motorized 2 1 $55,716 $22,893 

Subtotal 3 $78,608 

Employment

(full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Indirect & Induced Direct Indirect & Induced

All Other Use

All Other Activities - Local 11 4.10 $332,448 $116,280 

Non-local 14 5 394,580 136,559 

Total Other 25 9 $727,028 $252,839 

Subtotal 34 $979,866 

Grand Total 28 10 $797,472 $282,022

Grand subtotal 38 $1,079,494

Table 3-17. Percent of Total Employment and Labor Income Effects, by Activity Type

Employment

(% of full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income (2008 dollars)

(% of Total Income)

Direct Indirect & 

Induced

Direct Indirect & 

Induced

Non-Motorized Use
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

64 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Employment

(% of full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income (2008 dollars)

(% of Total Income)

Backpacking - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Hiking and Walking - Local 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%

Non-local 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2%

Horseback Riding - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bicycling - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cross-country Skiing - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Non-local 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%

Other Non-motorized - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Total Non-motorized 1.7% 0.5% 1.4% 0.6%

Employment

(% of full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income (2008 dollars)

% of Total Income

Direct Indirect & 

Induced

Direct Indirect & 

Induced

Motorized Use

OHV Use - Local 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%

Non-local 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%

Driving for Pleasure - Local 3.6% 1.1% 3.0% 1.2%

Non-local 2.3% 0.7% 1.7% 0.7%

Snowmobiling - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other Motorized Activity - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Motorized 6.5% 2.0% 5.2% 2.1%

Employment

(% of full- & part-time jobs)

Labor Income (2008 dollars)

% of Total Income

All Other Use

All Other Activities - Local 29.6% 10.8% 30.8% 10.8%

Non-local 36.2% 12.7% 36.6% 12.7%

Total Other 65.8% 23.4% 67.3% 23.4%

Totals 74.1% 25.9% 73.9% 26.1%

100.0% 100.0%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 65

Table 3-18. Total Employment and Labor Income Effects

Employment Effects Labor Income

(Full- and part-time jobs) (2008 dollars)

Total Non-Motorized Use Local 0.2 $2,460.00

Non-Local 0.4 3,830.80

Total Motorized Use Local 1.5 13,834.80

Non-Local 1.0 9,057.80

Total All Other Use Local 11.3 116,279.80

Non-Local 13.8 136,558.70

Total Local 13.0 132,574.60

Non-Local 15.2 149,447.30

Total for Area 28.3 $282,021.90

Table 3-19. Percent of Total Area Employment and Total Area Labor Income Effects

Employment Effects Labor Income

(full- and part- time jobs) (2008 dollars)

Total Non-Motorized Use Local 0.000% 0.000%

Non-Local 0.001% 0.000%

Total Motorized Use Local 0.003% 0.002%

Non-Local 0.002% 0.001%

Total All Other Use Local 0.021% 0.016%

Non-Local 0.026% 0.019%

Total Use 0.054% 0.040%

Table 3-19 shows the relationship of jobs and income generated from all recreational activities 

studied, compared to total jobs and income in the five-county area. All of the recreation jobs 

together only account for about 0.05 percent of the total jobs in the area, and the income 

generated is about 0.04 percent of the total labor income in the area studied. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Economic Effects

The employment and labor income effects stemming from current motorized and non-motorized 

activities occurring on the Modoc National Forest were estimated. The economic effects of all 

other types of recreation combined on the Modoc NF have also been reported for comparison 

purposes. Economic effects tied to motorized and non-motorized activities were estimated to 

address the economic impact issue tied directly to travel management. Also, the marginal 

economic effects (employment and labor income effects per 1,000 visits) of motorized and nonmotorized use are provided. The marginal effects (also called “response coefficients”) are useful 

for performing sensitivity analyses of various management alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

If the prohibition of cross-country travel is implemented (Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5), it may 

discourage OHV use on the Forest. This could result in a loss of OHV expenditures across the 

region. However, even if 100 percent of OHV use ceased on the Forest, this loss is not 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

66 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

considered to be economically significant since it results in the loss of 0.1 job or approximately 

$5,000 total labor income and a total annual total revenue to the region of approximately $11,000. 

The addition of roads to the system (Alternative 3, 4, and 5) may appeal to users who recreate by 

driving for pleasure. Changes to the existing system in the form of increased mixed use 

(Alternatives 2 and 5) may appeal to OHV users because it allows for a more continuous loop 

recreation experience. The overall historical recreation use is very low on the Modoc, and under 

any alternative the capacity for motorized recreation is very high compared to expected demand.

Cumulative Effects

Based on the data collected from IMPLAN, it is apparent that recreation use generates very little 

to the overall economy of the region, as described in the introduction of this chapter. Also, based 

on historic data and our best estimates, the Forest assumes that use will not change dramatically 

in the future because of this project. It is also assumed, that under all action alternatives, levels of 

use would be relatively static—although the use patterns may change. For example, even though 

cross-country travel is prohibited in all of the action alternatives, the same levels of use would 

simply become more concentrated on the roads.

Modoc National Forest is an isolated Forest and although it is possible that use may increase by 

non-local users because of more restrictive regulations on their local forests, it is unlikely that it 

would increase to any significant degree.

Based on the current numbers and these assumptions, the economic effects of this project across 

all of the alternatives would be insignificant to the economy of the region. 

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

Modoc National Forest held several open houses that were designed to help the public better 

understand the project, and to gather information and input that could be used to help create 

alternatives to the Proposed Action. During these open houses and from the scoping letters 

received on the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), two major perspectives emerged. 

One group perceived this action as restrictive in nature. There were three themes expressed by 

this group: (1) Do not close down the Forest (2) Add all of the unauthorized roads to the system, 

and (3) Expand mixed use on level 3 roads. Several individuals commented on specific roads that 

they use and have used historically which they would like to have added to the NFTS. There was 

a feeling of ownership of the Forest, and the comments received reflected resentment at being 

restricted on what the public feels are its public lands. There were comments made during the 

meetings that reflected fear and resentment over not being able to use the lands in the way they 

were accustomed—such as to make a living or for family recreation. 

Another group of commenters expressed the desire to see the Forest be more restrictive and 

protective of the resources. Almost universally, these commenters asked that we review our 

entire NFTS and reduce it to a size that is within our means to maintain. There was also a strong 

emphasis from this group for “quiet use” recreation opportunities and a need to maintain and 

expand Roadless and Wilderness areas.

These concerns captured during the scoping process are documented in the significant issues 

described in chapter 1. All five of the significant issues are directly tied to these two major 

perspectives.

Social effects can be difficult to measure because each individual may be affected differently by 

the same action depending upon his or her experience and perspective. For example, American 

Indians use forest products and landscapes to maintain their cultural heritage, and the local 

ranching communities have historical ties with the Forest’s resources for production purposes. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 67

Alternatively, the recreational opportunities supported by the Modoc NF have implications for the 

leisure activities participated in by many local residents. Hunting and fishing opportunities are 

just two of the many activities supported by the Forest that many individuals routinely participate 

in. There is also a contingent of people using the Forest for motorized recreation in the form of 

off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and motorcycles (Wilson Draft, 2008).

Direct and Indirect Effects

If the prohibition of cross-country travel is implemented (Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5), it may 

negatively impact OHV users on the Forest. This action may also affect the very young and the 

very old by preventing them from participating in activities that require strenuous walking for 

access. This same action may enhance the recreation opportunity for users wishing to experience 

a “quiet use” form of recreation. What positively affects one faction of users may negatively 

affect the other. This may cause resentment between user groups but because of the low number 

of users on the Forest, it is unlikely that this would occur. The addition of roads to the system 

(Alternative 3, 4 and 5) may appeal to users who recreate by driving for pleasure. Conversely, 

this may negatively affect “quiet use” users. Again the social implication is that there may be 

conflict between the groups. Changes to the existing system in the form of increased Mixed Use 

(Alternatives 2 and 5) may appeal to OHV users because it allows for a more continuous loop 

recreation experience and not appeal to “quiet users” for the same reason. 

Cumulative Effects

Based on historic data and our best estimates, the Forest assumes that use would not change 

dramatically in the future because of this project. It is also assumed, that under all action 

alternatives, levels of use would be relatively static; although the use patterns may change. For 

example, even though cross-country travel is prohibited in all of the action alternatives, the same 

levels of use would simply become more concentrated on the roads.

Modoc National Forest is an isolated Forest and although it is possible that use may increase by 

non-local users because of more restrictive regulations on their local Forest, it is unlikely that it 

would increase to any significant degree.

Based on the current numbers and these assumptions, the possibility of conflict between user 

groups is probably the most constant cumulative effect socially and may be present regardless of 

which alternative is chosen. However, based on current and predicted use on the Forest being so 

low, it is unlikely that such conflict would occur.

Forest Service Budget Projections: Roads

The roads on the Forest are gradually deteriorating due to surfacing being worn out or pushed off 

the edge of the roads, and by the occurrence of vegetation encroachment. Some of the roads are 

being encroached upon by brush; and unless the brush is cleared, the roads will eventually 

become impassable. Drainage concerns are currently being addressed and will continue to be 

addressed, so environmental degradation associated with erosion is not occurring due to lack of 

maintenance. There is the possibility that in some cases vegetation encroachment may result in 

less sight distance for drivers, which may result in a safety concern over time (Parkinson, 2008).

Table 3-20. Construction and Maintenance Budget, by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Road Trail

FY04 $814,000 $89,000

FY05 $359,000 $58,000
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

68 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Fiscal Year Road Trail

FY06 $459,000 $49,000

FY07 $800,000 $29,000

FY08 $779,000 $39,000

Projection for fiscal year 2009 is $827,574 for roads and $52,592 for trails. It is predicted that the 

next five years will have similar numbers (Parkinson, 2008). 

Timber sale operators perform maintenance on Forest roads each year. This figure will most 

likely remain at current levels or possibly go up if timber sale and biomass volumes increase. 

The majority of the roads on the Forest, are maintenance level 2 and do not get regular

maintenance unless erosion or damage is occurring. 

Forest Budget Effects

Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 do not add any roads to the existing system and continue current 

management. Therefore the cost for maintenance would remain constant or very similar over the 

next 5 years. In Alternative 2, 4 and 5 between 286 and 336 miles of road would be added to the 

system. These roads would be brought in as Level 2 roads and would require very little 

maintenance. We currently do very little maintenance on level 2 roads. Therefore the cost of 

maintenance would remain constant if predictions are accurate. Prohibition of cross-country 

travel and changes in mixed use or season of use are not expected to affect the Forest Budget.

Environmental Justice

As stated in Executive Order 12898, it is required that all Federal actions consider the potential of 

disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region. The 

principles of environmental justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness 

implications associated with Federal land management actions. The executive order sets out the 

following requirements:

Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) 

the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than 

the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate

unit of geographic analysis....

Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the 

Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In 

identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community 

either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set 

of individuals (such as migrant workers or American Indians), where either type 

of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

The five-county region that makes up the Modoc National Forest has a large low-income and 

American Indian population, compared to the rest of California. Because the existing road 

system will remain in place on the Forest, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate 

effect on American Indian and low-income populations. The prohibition of cross-country travel 

may affect the American Indian population by limiting access to areas commonly used for 

traditional use. This is especially true for the very old and the very young, who may not be 

physically able to participate in these activities if restricted to non-motorized travel. However, the 

tribes are guaranteed this right under law and the Forest Supervisor will also work with the tribes 

to ensure access outside of the Travel Management process. Low-income users will most likely 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 69

not be disproportionately affected by this project. Permitted uses such as firewood collection will 

still be allowed; therefore, prohibition of cross-country travel should not adversely affect those 

who rely on this as an income source. The addition of roads to the NFTS will allow for more 

extensive travel across the Forest. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would benefit anyone who 

uses roads for recreation or employment on the Forest. Changes to the existing system in the 

form of mixed use or seasonal closures will probably not affect either group.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

USDA civil rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, 

actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and 

activities. A civil rights impact analysis (CRIA) facilitates the identification of the effects of

eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may 

adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their 

membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons 

who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetics, political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. 

Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. 

However, some groups could be impacted more than others. This assessment addresses such 

concerns.

Public Involvement and Scoping 

A 45-day comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed on 

February 11, 2009. Please see the public scoping section in chapter 1 for a description of concerns 

and mitigations related to potential civil rights impacts. Through these public involvement efforts 

and Interdisciplinary Team discussions, several concerns were raised and are addressed below.

Gathering Special Forest Products

Many people, including members of protected groups, use motor vehicles to gather special forest 

products—mushrooms, greenery, firewood, posts, poles, etc. Such products are gathered for both 

personal and commercial use. Some protected groups are known to be very active in gathering 

certain special forest products. Concerns have been raised that the prohibition on cross-country

travel would restrict such activities to designated roads or trails, limit people’s ability to gather 

such products, and disproportionately impact protected groups. 

Currently under 36 CFR 261.6, removing any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as 

authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation is 

prohibited. 

Gathering special forest products requires written authorization by the Forest Service. Such 

permitted activities are exempt from the prohibition on cross-country travel in accordance with 

provisions of the permit (36 CFR 212.51 (8)). Such activities have been, and will continue to be, 

subject to separate, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis, before permits are 

issued. This proposal does not change that policy. Permits will continue to be issued in 

accordance with law, regulation and policy regardless of this proposal. Therefore, it is not 

expected that gathering special forest products would be affected by this proposal or that any 

protected groups would be disproportionately affected. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

70 Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy

Impacts on People with Disabilities and the Elderly

Throughout scoping, concerns have been raised about the impact of this travel management 

proposal on people with disabilities and the elderly. Commenters have asserted that the proposal 

unfairly discriminates against these groups because they are more dependent on motor vehicles to 

access and enjoy our national forests.

Comments from people with disabilities and the elderly, including references to specific sites or 

locations, were considered in the development of alternatives. Recreation opportunities and 

access needs for all users are some of the criteria used in the process of developing the selected 

alternative. 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, including the prohibition of crosscountry travel, is Forest-wide and applies to all Forest users equally. Changes to the National 

Forest Transportation System are largely limited to changes in vehicle class and season of use. 

Motorized access on NFS routes is expected to be enhanced by the addition of unauthorized 

routes and the addition of vehicle classes on routes where such use has been prohibited.

There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on 

trails, and in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are 

applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from 

designations for people with disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and 

other management objectives of travel management and would fundamentally alter the nature of 

the Forest Service's travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are 

battery-powered, that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion 

and that are suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are 

open to foot travel. 

Access by American Indians

Concerns were raised by American Indians and tribal representatives that this proposal would 

unduly restrict access to sacred sites or traditional gathering areas that are accessed through

motorized cross-country travel, including unauthorized routes. Elderly or infirm tribal members 

may be prevented from participating in tribal activities if motor vehicle access is denied. Such 

access has been traditionally granted as long as resource damage can be prevented. 

Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under 

Federal law or regulations is exempt from route designations (36 CFR 212.51 (8)). Therefore, 

motor vehicle access to sacred sites or gathering areas may be authorized by the Forest Service 

and would not be affected by this proposal. 

Impacts on People with Limited English Proficiency

In California, people of Hispanic origin make up a large part of the population and enjoy access 

to the National Forests for a variety of recreation and business pursuits. Many of these users 

speak English as a second language and therefore may have limited ability to read maps or other 

publications pertaining to travel management. In particular, the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) is a concern since the MVUM will be the basis for enforcing vehicle restrictions. 

NFTS routes that are open for public use will be designated on the MVUM and users that leave 

designated routes will be subject to fines. There is a concern that people with limited English 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Society, Culture, & Economy 71

proficiency would be more vulnerable to citation if they are unable to read or understand the 

MVUM.

We do not feel that printing the MVUM would limit non-English speaking public users from 

being able to effectively use the map. The letters and numbers on the maps will match the letter 

and numbers on road signs. The ability to match these numbers and read a map is all that is 

necessary to find your way around the Forest. We do not feel that printing the maps in English is 

discriminatory.

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 73

Recreation

Summary

The recreation assessment was conducted by an interdisciplinary team. Line officers and other 

knowledgeable employees, along with public input, contributed to this assessment. 

The recreation visitor use is the lowest of any national forest in the country. Our recreation 

program in terms of use, budget, staffing and infrastructure is very low compared to other 

national forests in California. The unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS) have mostly been in place for 40 years and are used by the 

local public. New unauthorized routes are not a common occurrence. We are proposing to add 

between 286 to 336 miles out of a total of 491 miles of surveyed unauthorized routes. This is 

between 58 percent and 68 percent of the unauthorized routes. The addition of these routes would

provide and maintain a diversity of motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Approximately 

2/3 of the unauthorized routes are less than 1/4 mile in length and are considered extensions of 

the NFTS roads. 

Mixed use has been occurring on the Forest at a very limited scale over the last 10 years. There 

have been no accidents associated with OHV use on NFTS routes on the Forest. The amount of 

OHV use on our maintenance level (ML) 3 roads, based on recent vehicle count surveys, is 

approximately five OHVs per 800 motorized vehicles counted. Therefore, we are proposing to 

provide mixed use on our ML 3 routes so that use can continue by the public.

Introduction

Nearly all Forest visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, use the motorized 

transportation system to reach their destination. Making changes to the NFTS (e.g., adding 

facilities, prohibiting or allowing motor vehicle use by vehicle type or season of use) changes the 

diversity of motorized and non-motorized opportunities on the Forest. These visitors may be 

participating in motorized recreation, or using motorized vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, 

destinations, or geographic areas that are used for non-motorized recreational activities. This 

section of the Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

examines the extent to which alternatives respond to recreation management direction established 

in the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), The Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), the Travel Management (TM) Rule, and the diversity of 

opportunities and access available on the Forest.

The LRMP recreation direction was established under the implementing regulations of the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The NFMA requires the provision of a broad 

spectrum of forest and rangeland-related outdoor recreation opportunities that respond to current

and anticipated user demands. The LRMP satisfies this requirement through its use of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification system in the LRMP. In addition, 

specifically for off-highway vehicle” use, the NFMA requires that these motor vehicle

opportunities be planned and implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public 

safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses of the National Forest System (NFS) lands. The 

SNFPA amended portions of the MDF to prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off designated routes 

and trails. The Travel Management Rule requires that we examine the compatibility of motor 

vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas; the conflict between motor vehicle use 

and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands; and the 

provision of recreational opportunities and access needs. It also requires the production of a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that will be used along with the National Visitor Use Map to 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

74 Chapter 3—Recreation

designate the roads and trails available for public motor vehicle use on a national forest or ranger 

district.

The LRMP provides goals for the recreation resource and requires a broad range of developed 

and dispersed recreation opportunities in balance with existing and future demand. The 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is the basic inventory that was used to create recreationopportunity “zoning” in these plans. The intent is to provide for recreation opportunities within 

these zones to meet NFMA requirements for a broad spectrum of forest- and rangeland-related 

outdoor recreation opportunities that respond to current and anticipated user demands.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and 

Other Direction

Regulatory direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects recreation resources 

consists of the following:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

Specifically for off-highway vehicle management, NFMA requires that this use be planned and 

implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts 

with other uses of the NFS lands. NFMA also requires that a broad spectrum of forest- and 

rangeland-related outdoor recreation opportunities be provided that respond to current and 

anticipated user demands.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

The SNFPA established the direction to prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off designated routes, 

trails, and limited of-highway vehicle (OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current 

forest plans or other specific area standards and guidelines, cross-country travel by over-snow 

vehicles would continue. 

Travel Management Rule, Subpart B (36 CFR 212.50-57) 

The responsible official shall consider the effects of designated roads, trails and 

areas on the provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, and conflicts 

among uses of National Forest System lands. 36 CFR 212.55 (a)

The responsible official shall consider effects on the following: Conflicts between 

motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest 

System lands or neighboring Federal lands; conflicts among different classes of 

motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal

lands; and the compatibility of motor vehicle uses with existing conditions in 

populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors. 36 

CFR 212.55 (b).

Modoc National Forest LRMP

The LRMP provides goals for the recreation resource, and requires a broad range of developed 

and dispersed recreation opportunities in balance with existing and future demand. For 

management and conceptual convenience, possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, 

and probable experience opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This 

continuum is called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS); planning for recreation 

opportunities using the ROS is conducted as part of land and resource management planning. 

The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation the public might 

desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given national forest might be able to provide. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 75

ROS is divided into six classes: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive 

Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. Each class is defined in terms of its combination 

of activity, setting, and experience opportunities (ROS Users’ Guide, USDA Forest Service). The 

intent is to use ROS and its associated settings to provide recreation input into land resource 

management planning, which in turn may be incorporated into LRMP management prescriptions 

or used in project-level planning beyond the programmatic planning used to develop the LRMP. 

For the purposes of travel management actions, the term “off-highway vehicles” is applied to 

public wheeled motor vehicle use (highway-legal and non-highway legal). How ROS applies to 

the LRMP depends on how (or if) it was integrated into the management prescriptions and 

associated standards and guidelines in the Forest LRMP. On the Modoc National Forest, ROS is 

integrated into the management prescriptions and associated standards and guidelines in the 

Forest LRMP. It guides decisions and resource management activities. 

Impacts Relevant to Recreation 

1. The compatibility of proposed changes to the NFTS with LRMP recreation and OHV 

management prescriptions and ROS

2. The impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on non-motorized recreation (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

3. The amount of motorized recreation opportunity affected by alternative

4. The diversity of motorized access to dispersed recreation by alternative

Assumptions Specific to Recreation Analysis

1. The prohibition of cross-country travel is not a change to ROS (semi-primitive motorized,

for example), it is simply a prohibition within that ROS ‘zone’ to travel off designated 

routes. 

2. The change from an “open to cross-country travel” condition to a “cross-country travel 

prohibited” condition would reduce the availability of acreage for both motorized 

recreation as well as motorized access to dispersed recreation activities.

3. The change from “open to cross-country travel” to “cross-country travel prohibited” 

would increase the availability of acreage for non-motorized recreation, as well as nonmotorized access to dispersed recreation activities.

4. Proposed additions to the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on motorized recreation 

opportunities by providing a variety of road riding experiences and increasing the amount 

of motorized recreation opportunities (loops, connectors). 

5. Proposed changes and additions to the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on the amount 

of motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities available.

6. For this report, the area of influence for “quiet recreation” opportunity is considered to be 

1⁄2 mile beyond (ML) 3, ML 4, and ML 5 NFTS routes.The same applies to county and 

State routes. Sample field surveys were conducted on the ML 2 routes; the average motor 

vehicle use was determined to be one vehicle per 1.4 days. This amount of use is 

considered to be appropriate for quiet use. The area considered for elevated noise and dust 

is within this 1⁄2 mile zone of ML 3, 4, and 5 roads. Because of this very low motorized 

use, quiet use may also exist within the 1⁄2 mile zone from ML 3 roads.

7. There has only been limited use analysis of the unauthorized routes, and only a very small 

amount of data exists (traffic counts, etc). However, historic data and personal accounts 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

76 Chapter 3—Recreation

by Forest personnel who have been on the Forest for over 15 years, indicate extremely low 

use. There is no reason to believe that this use will change in the future. 

8. The majority of the motorized public use occurring on NFS land is occurring on the 

existing NFTS, based on observation and NVUM data. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

The Modoc National Forest is best known for its remote location and low use recreation 

opportunities. Most visitors enjoy hunting, fishing, and camping, while others participate in 

touring, hiking, horseback riding, swimming, picnicking, and gathering firewood. These activities 

are enhanced by the abundance of wildlife, variety of landscape settings, and sparsely populated 

conditions. 

The Forest currently hosts a wide range of motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences 

that occur year-round. Motorized recreation involves the use of highway-licensed cars, sedans, 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), dual-sport motorcycles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), motorcycles, 

all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, and four-wheel-drive vehicles (4WDs). Nonmotorized recreational activities include hiking, camping, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, 

wildlife viewing, picnicking, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, 

snow camping, and snow play (National Visitor Use Monitoring Results For Modoc National 

Forest, August 2001, USDA Forest Service Region 5).

Recreation Visitor Use

Visitor use estimates for the Forest were generated based on the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) survey that was conducted from January 1 through December 31, 2000. Recreation use 

on the Modoc National Forest for calendar year 2000 was 146,155 national forest visits and 

175,206 site visits. The survey was designed to assess existing recreation demand on the Forest

by asking visitors what they did during their visit; visitors could check multiple activities. This 

resulted in two categories of visitor use: activities that users participated in, and the main activity. 

It highlighted the fact that the two may or may not be related. For example, 67 percent of Forest

visitors reported participating in the viewing of natural features, but only 23 percent reported that 

as their main activity. During their visit to the Modoc National Forest, the top five recreation 

activities of the visitors were viewing scenery, general relaxation, sightseeing, fishing, and 

driving for pleasure. Each visitor also picked one of these activities as his or her primary activity 

for the current recreation visit to the Forest. The top primary activities were viewing natural 

features, driving for pleasure on Forest roads, fishing, general (relaxing, hanging out, and 

escaping noise), and sightseeing (Table 3-21).

The second-most popular activities were picnicking, hiking and walking, and off-highway vehicle

travel, respectively. Of those activities, the primary activities reported were picnicking, hiking,

and walking, while OHV use was measured less than one percent of the primary activity (Table 

3-21).

Table 3-21. Highest Percent Visits, by Participation and Primary Activity

Activity Percent Participation Percent Saying it was Favorite 

Activity

Viewing natural features such as 

scenery, flowers, etc. on NFS lands

67.44% 23.09%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 77

Activity Percent Participation Percent Saying it was Favorite 

Activity

General & other: relaxing, hanging 

out, escaping noise & heat, etc.

57.67% 11.72%

Sightseeing 51.02% 5.6%

Fishing—all types 47.43% 34%

Driving for pleasure on roads 41.45% 17.92%

Table 3-22. Second-Highest Percent Visits, by Participation and Primary Activity

Activity Percent Participation Percent Saying it was Primary 

Activity

Picnicking and family day gatherings 

in developed sites (family or group)

24.52% 8.05%

Hiking or walking 20.29% 2.03%

Off-highway vehicle travel (4-

wheelers, dirt bikes, etc.)

16.9% .79%

Data Sources

1. MDF LRMP for distribution of ROS classes

2. The Forest’s NVUM report for most popular non-motorized recreation activities

3. Recreation, law enforcement and other resource staff observations

4. Engineering report on mixed-use analysis (available in the project record)

5. Field Surveys of motorized use for ML 3 and ML 2 routes

Recreation Measurement Indicators 

Indicator measures are intended to address how each alternative, as the sum total of its proposed 

actions, responds to the LRMP and Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule: whether the 

motorized recreation opportunity conflicts with other recreation opportunities, specifically nonmotorized opportunities; the proximity of motor vehicle use to populated areas or neighboring 

private and Federal lands; the quality of the motorized recreation experience; and the quality of 

motorized access to dispersed areas for both motorized and non-motorized uses. It also responds 

to the diversity of motorized access available on the unit. Conflicts with other resources 

(including air quality) are examined in other resource sections. Public safety is addressed in the 

transportation section of this document. 

For analyzing the effects of changes to the NFTS by vehicle class and season of use, as well as 

the addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads, indicator measures were used. Mileage 

available for each class of vehicle is useful in analyzing the ability of Forest users to not only 

travel around the Forest and enjoy motorized recreation opportunities, but also to access nonmotorized recreation opportunities, such as trailheads, hunting, and dispersed recreation sites for 

activities such as fishing and camping. The Forest has determined these are important based on 

both NVUM data and public scoping for this project. Mileage for motorized recreation is an 

indicator of the number and types of experiences available for motorcycles, ATVs, and 4WDs in 

each alternative. The changes to motorized mileages can be used to interpret the level of change 

in opportunities for motorized and non-motorized users. The details of the proposed seasonal 

closures relate to both the months that motorized recreation would not be allowed to use 

designated roads, trails or areas and, conversely, the time of year that conflicts between motorized 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

78 Chapter 3—Recreation

and non-motorized uses would be minimized. Number of acres located 1⁄2 mile away from ML 3, 

ML 4 and ML 5 roads, are used to analyze the opportunity for non-motorized and ‘quiet’ 

recreation on the Forest, along with the ROS acreages available in each class. Standard and 

Guideline G in the Modoc LRMP gives the following guidance (p. 4-20, #4): “Design resource 

management activities to complement the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes 

delineated on the ROS map and referred to in each prescription.”

The following map shows the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) on the Modoc National 

Forest.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 79

Figure 3-5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum on the Modoc National Forest
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

80 Chapter 3—Recreation

Measurement Indicator 1: ROS Consistency with the LRMP

Description

This measurement indicator looks at the possible effects of proposed changed to the MDF on 

ROS classes. These are the standards and guides in the LRMP related to ROS class:

“3C. Use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum system to guide decisions.”

Table 3-23. Acres by ROS Class on the Forest

ROS Class Acres

Primitive Non-motorized 81,763

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 89,842

Semi-Primitive Motorized 160,072

Natural Roaded 1,344,558

Total Acres 1,676,235

Table 3-24. Miles of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Addition in Each ROS Class, by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Primitive Non-motorized 0 0 0 0 0

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 0 0 0 0 0

Semi-Primitive Motorized 0 10 0 4 10

Natural Roaded 0 326 0 282 326

Total Miles 0 336 0 286 336

The Forest is best known for its remote location and uncrowded recreation opportunities. This is 

due to the small population in Modoc County and because tourism is not a primary economic 

base for the area. The total Forest Service acres available for use are 1,676,235. Of this total, 

89,842 acres are designated for Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Use and 81,763 acres are 

designated for Primitive Non-motorized. The additions proposed in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 

would not affect the non-motorized use areas. The additions in Alternative 2 and 5 equal 

approximately 611 acres. The additions in Alternative 4 equal approximately 521 acres, and 

would not change the characteristics of the motorized use ROS classes.

Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

Description 

The number of acres 1⁄2 mile outside of ML 3, ML 4, and ML 5 routes 

This measurement indicator looks at the possible effects of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

non-motorized recreation (dust, noise, use conflicts). It also addresses the “quiet recreation” 

issue. The standards and guidelines in the LRMP related to this indicator are as follows:

C. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized: 

Provide opportunities for such recreation activities as hiking, fishing, and tent 

camping in predominantly natural environments with low incidence of interactions 

between users. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 81

Prohibit motorized recreation; eliminate and prevent OHV use.

Apply the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Dispersed Recreation Prescription to 

specified areas (generally at least 2,500-acre units).

6. (G) Provide off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation where OHV activities will not 

cause resource damage or conflict with other uses. 

This acreage is the same for all alternatives because all of the added routes are ML 2 routes. 

Although we used 1⁄2 mile as distance from ML 3, 4, and 5 roads to indicate where quiet use is 

available, this distance is based on studies that are most likely different in geographical 

characteristics than the Modoc National Forest. On this Forest, it is highly likely that a quiet use 

experience can occur within that 1⁄2 mile boundary and beyond, because of the geography and the 

low likelihood of encountering other vehicles. ML 2 routes are used so infrequently that we did 

not consider their use to be an impact on quiet recreation. Readers can find survey information on 

Forest use numbers in the transportation section of this document.

Table 3-25. Number of ROS acres Available for Quiet Use (Buffered by 1⁄2 mile on ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 )

Primitive Non 

Motorized

Semi-Primitive NonmotorizedSemi-Primitive 

Motorized

Natural Roaded

Acres 79,104 85,891 151,524 1,063,178

Of these acres, 1,379,697 acres are available for quiet recreation (see Table 3-25). Additionally, a 

quiet recreation experience can be found in almost every area of the Forest due to low use. A 

count of users on ML 3 roads, which are roads that receive higher use on the Forest because they 

are connector roads, showed that on any day of the week, the average use was 1.8 cars per hour. 

Field surveys of ML 2 routes showed that the use was 1 vehicle per 1.4 days. It is not uncommon 

for recreationists using the NFTS to not encounter another Forest user during their visit. 

The National Recreation Use Monitoring results display how recreation visitors rated their 

perception of how crowded the general forest area felt to them. General forest areas or “dispersed 

areas” are defined as areas that are not developed for intense recreation use. Primitive roads 

access vast areas where it is possible to experience nature for days without seeing other humans 

(LRMP 3-21). More than 80 percent of the recreation use on the Forest occurs in dispersed 

recreation areas. This information is useful because it displays a direct relationship to the Forest’s 

low visitor use and the vast opportunity for quiet recreation despite the number of miles of NFTS 

existing on the Forest. Table 3-26 summarizes the public perception of crowding on a scale of 1 

to 10. One indicates that hardly anyone was there, and a 10 means the area was perceived as 

overcrowded. 

Table 3-26. Perception of Crowding by Forest Visitors

Perception of Crowding (Rated 1 to10) Percent of People Rating General Forest Areas

10 overcrowded 0%

9 0%

8 0%

7 0%

6 0%

5 7%
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

82 Chapter 3—Recreation

Perception of Crowding (Rated 1 to10) Percent of People Rating General Forest Areas

4 11%

3 36%

2 0%

1 hardly anyone there 46%

Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized Recreation Opportunity

Description 

This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to motorized 

recreation opportunities by alternative. The standards and guidelines from the LRMP related to 

this indicator are described below:

B. Semi-Primitive Motorized:

Provide opportunities for such recreation activities as off-highway vehicle touring, 

hunting, and camping in areas characterized by predominantly natural or naturalappearing environments with low concentrations of users.

6. (G) Provide off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation where OHV activities will not 

cause resource damage or conflict with other uses. 

Method

Number of miles available by vehicle class and season of use

The miles available in each maintenance level (ML) for each alternative were used to display the 

miles potentially available per vehicle class for comparison purposes. Maintenance levels are 

defined by the USDA Forest Service Handbook as the level of service provided by, and 

maintenance required for, a specific road. The levels range from ML 1 to ML 5, lowest service to 

highest service respectively. ML 1 is defined as intermittent service roads and closed to vehicle 

traffic. For comparative purposes in this report, ML 2 roads are open to use by motorcycles, 

ATV’s, and high clearance vehicles. ML 3, 4, and 5 roads are open to use by highway-legal

vehicles. Mixed use (non-highway legal and highway-legal vehicles) roads include ML 2 roads 

and some specific ML 3 roads. 

Table 3-27. Total NFTS Mileage by Vehicle Class and Maintenance Level

Vehicle Class Maintenance Level NFTS 

Existing 

Miles

Mileage

Highway-legal vehicles only ML 5 13

Highway-legal vehicles only ML 4 31

Highway-legal vehicles ML 3 531

Open to all vehicles ML 2 3,764

Total NFTS Miles (not 

including ML 1)

4,339
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 83

Table 3-28. Total Mileage Available for each Vehicle Type (Including Change in Vehicle Class and Mixed 

Use)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

(No Action) (Proposed 

Action)

(No CC Travel) (Resources) (Recreation & Resources)

NFTS only NFTS & 

Proposed

NFTS only NFTS & 

Proposed

NFTS & Proposed

Mileage %** Mileage %** Mileage %** Mileage %** Mileage %**

Proposed 

Additions

0 336 0 286 336

Highwaylegal

Vehicle 

Only (Level 

3, 4, 5)

575 13% 437 9% 575 13% 575 12% 44 1%

Open to All 

Vehicles 

(ML 2 and 

changes to 

ML 3)

3764 87% 4238 90% 3764 87% 4050 88% 4631 99%

Change in 

Vehicle 

Class 

(Mixed 

Use)

0 138 3% 0 0 531 11%

Seasonal 

Closure 

Miles

0 312 7% 0 425 9% 312 7%

** Percent of Total NFTS and Proposed Addition Miles

Measurement Indicator 4: Miles available to Access Dispersed 

Recreation

Description 

This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS to motorized 

access on dispersed recreation opportunities, by alternative.

Method

Miles of proposed routes accessing dispersed sites, by alternative

Quality of road or dispersed experience: number of facilities provided as surrogate for number of 

dispersed sites accessed. One site per route addition for the purposes of access to dispersed 

recreation will be used as a proxy (in some instances multiple sites are accessed through a single 

route addition).

Visitors selecting dispersed recreation areas, rather than developed areas, report they viewed 

developed areas as overcrowded, noisy, expensive, and too developed. These visitors preferred 

the characteristics of roaded or dispersed areas, including the lack of development and greater 

privacy. They prefer the freedom to engage in activities not appropriate in developed locations, 

such as OHV use, bringing along a noisy dog, and altering the site to meet their needs. In 

addition, dispersed sites provide large group members better opportunity to camp close to each 

other and away from others, than do most developed group campgrounds. 

More than 80 percent of the recreation use on the Forest occurs in dispersed areas (areas that are 

not developed for intensive recreation use) (LRMP 3-21). The table below shows, by alternative, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

84 Chapter 3—Recreation

the additional access to dispersed camping that becomes available by adding routes. These short 

spur roads can be used for a camping experience that is away from the concentrated use areas and 

provide a quiet use opportunity for those seeking this type of experience.

Table 3-29. Miles and Proposed Unauthorized Routes Available for Dispersed Recreation 

Opportunity, by Action Alternative

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Number of 

proposed routes

1,154 0 1,025 1,154

Miles of 

proposed routes

336 0 286 336

Alternative 1 was not included in the table above because with cross-country travel still allowed 

in this alternative, all roads and all of the acreage on the Forest, except for established Wilderness 

Areas, are available for motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities.

Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of Proposed Changes to the NFTS on 

Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)

Description 

This measurement indicator looks at the impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts), by alternative. 

Method 

Number of miles of new routes proposed within 1⁄2 miles of populated areas, neighboring Federal

land boundaries, wilderness boundaries, and private land boundaries. (This acts as a surrogate,

indicating how much conflict off NFTS may occur, by alternative).

The Forest is a very rural and sparsely populated area. Visitors could expect that the potential 

impacts to populated areas may differ among the alternatives, with those alternatives with fewer 

roads having a lower impact of noise, dust and physical presence in populated areas. The area of 

influence (dust, noise) of motorized use on populated areas is considered to be 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring private and Federal lands boundaries.

Table 3-30. Number of Miles of Routes Proposed for Addition to the NFTS, by Alternative, within 1⁄2 

Mile of Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (Included is NFTS Mileage for Comparison Purposes)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Miles of 

Proposed Routes

0 48 0 44 48

Miles of NFTS 1038 1038 1038 1038 1038

Total NFTS and 

Proposed Routes

1038 1086 1038 1084 1086

Percent Change 0% 4% 0% 4% 4%

Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on recreation on the 

Forest. This analysis is focused on the effects of three management actions: (1) the prohibition of 

cross-country motorized travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the National 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 85

Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and (3) changes to the existing NFTS (seasonal 

restrictions and mixed use). Nearly all Forest visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, use 

the motorized transportation system to reach their destination. Changes to traditionally accepted 

forest practices, such as cross-country motorized travel, alter the diversity of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities on the Forest. Visitors seeking a quiet, non-motorized experience often 

use motorized vehicles to access trailheads, facilities, destinations, or geographic areas for nonmotorized recreational activities.

Considerations for all Alternatives

Short-term time frame: 1 year

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: The Forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects 

associated with changes in the NFTS or season of use.

Rationale: The effects measurement indicators are based on NFMA and Travel Management 

Rule requirements, as well as significant issues raised during internal and public scoping.

Cumulative Effects Considerations for all Alternatives

The cumulative effects analysis for recreation considers the impact of the alternatives when 

combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events. The spatial boundary 

(Forest-wide) of the cumulative effects analysis was selected because impacts to the recreation 

system in one area of the Forest can affect the continuity of the system and public access 

opportunities in other parts of the Forest. The temporal scope is 20 years. It was selected because 

impacts to recreation and public access from present and reasonably foreseeable future activities 

may occur over this time frame. In analyzing cumulative effects of motorized travel management, 

the Modoc National Forest considered effects from all present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that may impact effects in this project. The actions affecting the recreation resource 

include new road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or adding roads to the Forest 

transportation system. These actions were selected because they have caused or have the 

potential to cause changes in recreation opportunities, public access, or the creation of routes on 

the ground. For a full list of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in 

this analysis, see Appendix E. The past activities, including the existing NFTS, have shaped the 

recreation opportunities and ROS settings available on the Forest. The effects of the present and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities listed in Appendix E would continue to shape the 

recreation opportunities and ROS settings available on the Forest. It is anticipated that the effects 

of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would meet ROS classifications for the 

management area in which they occur. This Forest does not anticipate any future actions that 

would cumulatively impact the effects of any of the actions in the alternatives.

Alternative 1: No Action

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country, Wheeled 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

Under this alternative, cross-country motorized vehicle travel would be allowed over most of the 

Forest. Although consistent with LRMP guidance for ROS, cross-country motorized travel may 

affect ROS class settings in the short and long term. Motorized use could inadvertently spread to 

non-motorized areas, changing areas with non-motorized ROS class settings, such as semiprimitive non-motorized, to ROS classes with motorized settings such as semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded natural, or rural. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

86 Chapter 3—Recreation

The short-term and long-term effects of cross-country motorized travel include the increased 

potential for conflicts with users seeking a “quiet” recreation experience, as well as increasing 

dust and noise on neighboring private and Federal lands. These effects are negligible because of 

low use on the Forest.

There would be no change in motorized recreation in this alternative. Dispersed recreation is 

outdoor recreation occurring over broad expanses of land or water and accounts for the majority 

of Forest recreation use. Access to dispersed recreation sites occurs on both the existing NFTS 

and unauthorized motorized routes. In both the short and long term, no change in motorized 

access to dispersed recreation activities would occur. 

Under the No Action Alternative, about 1,609,466 acres would continue to have unrestricted 

cross-country motorized travel. The unauthorized motorized routes would not experience any 

changes or use restrictions. No net change in motorized recreation opportunities would occur; as a 

result, there would be no short or long term direct or indirect effects to motorized recreation 

opportunities. However, potential creation and expansion of unauthorized routes may result in 

environmental harm. 

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS 

There would be no new routes added to the existing NFTS under this alternative; therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect effects from additions.

3. Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS, Including 

Identifying Seasons of Use and Vehicle Class 

There would be no changes to the existing NFTS; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect 

effects. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1

ROS Consistency with the LRMP

The continuation of cross-country motorized travel could affect consistency with ROS in the 

future as described above. However, it is anticipated that the effects of the present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix E would be consistent with the ROS 

classifications assigned to the management prescriptions in which the actions occur. 

Consequently, no cumulative effects are expected unless there is a rapid expansion of new 

unauthorized routes—which is not expected.

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative has the greatest potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings as 

it is difficult to predict where future cross-country motorized use would occur. Dust, noise, and 

motorized vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a “quiet” recreation 

experience. Cumulatively, under this alternative, 1,609,466 acres of the Modoc NF could possibly 

be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, the greatest 

amount of all the alternatives. The present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix E are 

typical management activities that occur on the Forest with the potential to produce noise, dust 

and use conflicts when they are in operation, due to machinery and equipment. The levels and 

duration of noise dust, and use conflicts they produce are temporary. They are not expected to 

have noticeable effects to the amount of overall quiet recreation experienced under this 

alternative.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity

With no proposed additions or changes to the use of existing NFTS roads or trails and no 

prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, this alternative results in no change to the existing 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 87

motorized recreation opportunities. Over time, with no prohibitions on cross-country motorized 

travel, more unauthorized motor vehicle access routes could be expected to develop, resulting in

more access or opportunity for motorized experiences, and motorized access to non-motorized 

experiences, including dispersed recreation. 

Ongoing road and trail maintenance is essential for creating and managing a cohesive motorized 

recreation system. The cumulative effects of increasing road use combined with the trend of 

deferred maintenance could be erosion and deterioration of roads, an increased risk of failure and 

subsequent loss of motorized recreation opportunity and quality. In the long term, a lack of 

maintenance could result in the closing of routes to prevent resource damage. 

Motorized Recreation Opportunity to Dispersed Camping

Although the present and future projects would result in a decrease, no net loss of NFTS routes 

that would equate under this indicator to access remaining the same for dispersed recreation. The 

overall effect of continued cross-country motorized use would be unlimited access (outside of 

wilderness areas) for motorized dispersed recreation.

Impact of Proposed Changes to NFTS on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

This alternative also has the greatest impact on neighboring private and Federal lands , with 1,038 

NFTS open roads and the potential for unlimited unauthorized motorized routes occurring within 

1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal lands, the highest amount when compared to all the 

alternatives. When compared to the other alternatives, this alternative has the highest potential 

cumulative impact on non-motorized recreation opportunities and neighboring Federal and 

private lands by creating more dust, noise and use conflict than is currently experienced. The 

present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix E are typical management activities that occur 

on the Forest with the potential to produce noise, dust and use conflicts when they are in 

operation, due to machinery and equipment. The levels and duration of noise dust, and use 

conflicts they produce are temporary, and not expected to have cumulative effects on neighboring 

private and Federal lands under this alternative. 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Wheeled 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country recreation opportunities would be prohibited. 

The prohibition of wheeled motor vehicle use off the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on 

non-motorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring 

Federal lands in the short and long terms by reducing noise, dust, and the presence of motorized 

vehicles. Access to dispersed recreation activities would be reduced to authorized routes. 

Prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel in alternative 2 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. The season of use restrictions may have a negative 

effect in the short and long terms to motorized opportunities by reducing area available for 

motorized opportunity during the closure, and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities 

by increasing the acreage available for non-motorized activities during the closure. This loss of 

available open acreage is somewhat offset, however, by the proposed addition of motorized 

routes to the NFTS and by changes in use type on some existing routes. Although motorized 

recreation opportunities on open acreage would be greatly reduced, other motorized recreation 

opportunities would be available.

Indicators referenced
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

88 Chapter 3—Recreation

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS

Adding presently unauthorized roads would be consistent with ROS as allocated in the LRMP. 

All routes proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated 

management area. All proposed route additions under this alternative would be located in semiprimitive motorized or roaded natural ROS classes. 

Adding presently unauthorized roads may have a negative effect in both short and long term 

context for non-motorized opportunities, due to an increase in noise, dust, physical presence, 

possible use conflicts and displacement. When compared to the other action alternatives, the 

proposed route additions under this alternative would have the same impact on the Forest’s 

“quiet” recreation opportunities (see Table 3-25) as Alternative 5.

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails would have a beneficial effect on motorized 

opportunities. The proposed route additions also contribute to the continuity of the motor-touring 

opportunities by increasing loop and connector opportunities, and providing access to a diversity 

of dispersed recreation activities, providing beneficial effects to motorized recreation 

opportunities.

The season-of-use restrictions on proposed road additions may have a negative effect in the short 

and long terms to motorized opportunities and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities 

by increasing the acreage available for non-motorized activities during the closure. 

Motorized roads and trails would be administratively defined and published on a Motor Vehicle 

Use Map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better plan recreational pursuits based on an 

individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of user conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the short and long terms.

As shown in Table 3-29, Alternative 2 provides motorized access to a total of 1,154 dispersed 

recreation sites, providing a beneficial effect to motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative 2 

and Alternative 5 provide the most motorized access to dispersed recreation sites when compared 

to the other action alternatives. 

Alternative 2 proposes 48 miles of road additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and 

Federal lands, potentially having noise, dust, and physical presence impacts on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (seeTable 3-30).

Indicators referenced

• Measurement Indicator 1: ROS consistency with LRMP

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 4: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

3. Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS, Including 

Identifying Seasons of use and Changes to Vehicle Class

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing mixed use on ML 3 

roads would benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities.

By contrast, changes in class that restrict motor vehicle on the NFTS would negatively affect 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 89

motorized recreation diversity. There would be a slight decrease in riding opportunities during 

seasonal closures affecting early- and late-season use. The impacts to adjacent land could increase 

slightly, but would be tempered by seasonal closures.

Alternative 2 proposes mixed use on about 138 miles of NFTS roads. This mileage would be 

available for all vehicle classes listed in Table 3-27. Alternative 2 proposes prohibiting mixed use 

on about 1.45 miles of NFTS ML 2 road (Glass Mountain Pumice Road 44N08). This mileage 

would only be available for highway-legal vehicle use. The prohibition of mixed use which 

restricts non-highway legal motor vehicles on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized 

recreation diversity in a very minimal way. However, the prohibition of mixed use on the 44N08 

road would protect non-highway legal vehicles from unsafe interaction with large haul trucks 

using the road from the Glass Mountain Pumice Mine.

Motorized roads would be administratively defined and published on a Motor Vehicle Use Map

(MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better plan recreational pursuits based on an 

individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of user conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the short and long terms. 

Dispersed recreation activities could be slightly impacted during seasonal closures occurring in 

early and late seasons of use. 

Indicator Referenced

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 4: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 2

ROS Consistency with LRMP

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not affect the ROS in the future. It is 

anticipated that the effects of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in 

Appendix E would be consistent with the ROS classifications assigned to the management 

prescriptions in which the actions occur, so no cumulative effects are expected. All additions to 

the NFTS would be consistent with ROS class requirements.

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative has the potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions. Dust, noise, and motorized vehicle presence may 

impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a “quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under 

this alternative, 18 percent of the Modoc NF would be affected by motorized use and would not 

be available for “quiet” recreation, less than the no action alternative, but the same as the other 

action alternatives (see Table 3-25). Future actions would not change the potential to alter nonmotorized recreation settings because this indicator was measured using ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 

NFTS roads. These roads are unlikely to change in the future.

Although Alternative 2 proposes route additions, these route additions are close enough to the 

existing NFTS that cumulatively their effect on “quiet” recreation is similar to Alternative 3. The 

present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix E are typical management activities that occur 

on the Forest with the potential to produce noise, dust and use conflicts when they are in 

operation, due to machinery and equipment. The levels and duration of noise dust, and use 

conflicts they produce are temporary and not expected to have cumulative effects on neighboring 

private and Federal lands under this alternative. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

90 Chapter 3—Recreation

Motorized Recreation Opportunity

Alternative 2 provides the second highest mileage available to all vehicle use, including 

motorcycles, ATV’s, and high clearance vehicles of all the action alternatives. The quality of 

motorized recreation use would be enhanced compared to Alternative 3 and 4, due to the 

designation of 138 miles of mixed use, the second highest of the action alternatives and a 3

percent change in the NFTS. The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel and would 

impose seasonal closures on 312 miles of NFTS roads slightly impacting motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

Proposed road additions and open NFTS roads would provide about 4,675 miles of motorized 

recreation opportunity, the same as Alternative 5, more than Alternative 4, and more than the 

current condition (see Table 3-28). Combined with the present and reasonably foreseeable future 

road actions about 4,675 miles of motorized recreation opportunity would be provided. 

Proposed mixed use, which adds vehicle classes to the NFTS, would benefit motorized recreation 

by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Alternative 2, when combined with the 

existing NFTS ML 2 roads, would provide for about 3,902 miles of mixed use motorized 

opportunity, more than the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and Alternatives 3 and 4, but 

less than Alternative 5 (see Table 3-28). 

Cumulatively, seasonal closures on 312 miles could benefit 7 percent of the NFTS and additional 

unauthorized roads in the future by reducing damage caused from erosion. Seasonal closures 

would have a slight negative impact on motorized recreation by limiting motorized activities in 

the early and late seasons. It is reasonable to consider that other areas of the Forest may be closed 

seasonally in the future for a variety of reasons, including wildlife and safety. However, these 

closures are short in duration and would not cumulatively affect the motorized recreation 

experience.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity to Dispersed Camping

This alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation by increasing 

NFTS mileage available for access to dispersed recreation. Proposed route additions contribute to 

a variety of riding experiences, as well as the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities. The 

route additions also provide loops, connectors, and access to a diversity of dispersed recreation 

activities which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by 

providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites, etc. Although present and future projects may 

result in a temporary closure of roads to meet project specifications, no net loss of NFTS routes 

that would equate to loss of access for the long term for dispersed recreation would occur. 

Impact of Proposed Changes to NFTS on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

This alternative, combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, also 

has the potential to impact neighboring private and Federal lands. About 1,086 miles of NFTS 

open roads and proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal

lands (see Table 3-30). The proposed route additions provide for a four percent increase from the 

current condition of open NFTS roads occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and 

Federal lands. This alternative has the same potential cumulative impact as Alternative 5 on nonmotorized recreation opportunities among the action alternatives, but less of an impact than the 

No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) or the current condition.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 91

Alternative 3

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Wheeled 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prohibit cross-country motorized travel with motorized recreation 

restricted to existing NFTS roads. The prohibition of wheeled motor vehicle use off the NFTS 

would have a beneficial effect on non-motorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in 

populated areas, and neighboring Federal lands in the short and long terms by reducing dust and 

noise from motorized vehicles. When compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative 

may provide slightly more quiet recreation opportunities because it does not add unauthorized 

routes (see Table 3-24). It also carries less potential impact to neighboring private and Federal

lands in the short and long terms (see Table 3-30). 

Prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel in Alternative 3 would result in a loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. Alternative 3 represents the current condition except 

for prohibiting cross-country motorized travel. Motorized use would no longer occur on 

unauthorized routes and all currently unauthorized routes would naturally rehabilitate. This 

alternative has fewer miles of motorized opportunity than the current condition, and provides the 

least amount of motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other action alternatives 

(see Table 3-24).

Alternative 3 provides the least amount of access to dispersed recreation sites. Some dispersed 

sites have been used by the same families for several generations. Forest visitors may find that 

their favorite dispersed site is no longer accessible by a motorized vehicle. Additionally, some 

dispersed sites with vistas and scenery viewing opportunities may no longer be easily accessible. 

As shown in Table 3-29, Alternative 3 provides motorized access to zero additional dispersed 

recreation sites. 

Indicators referenced

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 4: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS, including 

Identifying Seasons of Use and Vehicle Class 

There would be no new routes added to the existing NFTS under this alternative; therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect effects. 

3. Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS

There would be no changes to the existing NFTS under this alternative; therefore, there would be 

no direct or indirect effects. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3

Only the existing NFTS and other State, county, or private roads traveling through the Forest 

were considered for Alternative 3. About 1,038 miles of NFTS open roads occur within 1⁄2 mile of 

neighboring private and Federal lands (see Table 3-30), providing less potential cumulative 

impact on neighboring Federal and private lands than alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. This alternative, 

when compared to the other action alternatives and the current condition, has the same 

cumulative impact to non-motorized recreation opportunities.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

92 Chapter 3—Recreation

The open NFTS roads would provide about 4,339 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, less 

than the other action alternatives (see Table 3-28). Combined with the present and reasonably 

foreseeable future road actions, about 4,339 miles of motorized recreation opportunity would be 

provided. This alternative has the most potential cumulative impact on motorized users by 

providing fewer motorized recreation opportunities than the current condition. All cross-country 

travel would be prohibited, and no route additions or additional mixed use would be proposed. 

Mixed use on existing NFTS ML 2 roads would provide for about 3,764 miles of mixed use 

motorized opportunity, the least among the action alternatives (see Table 3-28.)

ROS Consistency with LRMP

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not affect ROS in the future. It is 

anticipated that the effects of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in 

Appendix E would be consistent with the ROS classifications assigned to the management 

prescriptions in which the actions occur, so no cumulative effects are expected. 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative has very little potential to alter non-motorized recreation settings. Dust, noise, 

and motorized vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists seeking a “quiet” 

recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 18 percent of the Modoc NF would be 

affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, the same as all of the 

other action alternatives (see Table 3-25). Future actions would not change the potential to alter 

non-motorized recreation settings because this indicator was measured using a 1⁄2 - mile buffer 

outside of ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 NFTS roads; these roads are unlikely to change in the future.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative does not have any proposed road additions. Combined with the present and 

reasonably foreseeable future road actions, about 4,339 miles of motorized recreation opportunity 

would be provided. Ongoing road and trail maintenance is essential for creating and managing a 

cohesive motorized recreation system, and would continue on the existing NFTS. By not adding 

any of the proposed unauthorized routes and by prohibiting cross-country travel, this alternative 

would have the most negative effect on motorized recreation alternatives. Alternative 3 does not 

provide any additional mileage outside of the ML 2 routes for use by all vehicle use, including 

motorcycles, ATV’s, and high-clearance vehicles. The quality of motorized recreation use would 

be negatively affected compared to Alternative 2, 4, and 5 due to restricting mixed use to existing 

ML 2 roads. The Forest would also be closed to cross-country travel. 

The lack of seasonal closures would have a slight positive impact on motorized recreation by 

extending use of motorized activities in the early and late seasons. This would, however, be offset 

by the potential for erosion and damage cause to roads from use during this time. This use could 

increase rutting and erosion and result in potential safety hazards. It is reasonable to consider that 

other areas of the Forest may be closed seasonally in the future for a variety of reasons including 

wildlife and safety. However, these closures are short in duration and would not cumulatively 

affect the motorized recreation experience.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity to Dispersed Camping

This alternative would have negative cumulative effects to motorized recreation by not allowing 

use on routes currently used for access to dispersed camping. This prohibition, along with the 

prohibition of cross-country travel, would limit dispersed camping opportunities on the Forest. 

This Alternative would not add proposed routes which contribute to a variety of riding 

experiences, as well as the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities. This limitation would

decrease the opportunity for loops, connectors, and access to a diversity of dispersed recreation 

activities which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 93

providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites, etc. Although present and future projects may 

result in a temporary closure of roads to meet project specifications, no net loss of NFTS routes 

equating to a gain in access for dispersed recreation would occur. 

Impact of Proposed Changes to NFTS on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

This alternative, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, also 

has the potential to impact neighboring private and Federal lands. About 1,038 miles of NFTS 

open roads and proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal

lands (see Table 3-30). There are no proposed route additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring 

private and Federal lands. This alternative has the same potential cumulative impact as all the 

other alternatives, but less of an impact than the No Action Alternative or the current condition. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 prohibits cross-country motorized travel and adds fewer routes to the NFTS in 

response to the concerns of cost, maintenance, wilderness, quiet recreation use, and natural 

resource impacts. This alternative adds about 286 miles (25 segments) of roads to the NFTS to 

access dispersed camping sites, allows no additional miles of mixed use, prohibits 1.45 miles of 

mixed use on ML 2 44N08 road (Glass Mountain Pumice Road), prohibits cross-country 

motorized travel and amends the LRMP with the prohibition. This alternative has the most roads 

affected by seasonal closures.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country, Wheeled 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country recreation opportunities would be prohibited. 

The prohibition of wheeled motor vehicle use off the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on 

non-motorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring 

Federal lands in the short and long terms by reducing noise, dust, and physical presence of 

motorized vehicles. Access to dispersed recreation activities would be reduced to authorized 

routes. 

Prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel in Alternative 4 would result in a net loss of 

acreage available for motorized recreation. The season of use restrictions may have a negative 

effect in the short and long terms to motorized opportunities by reducing area available for 

motorized opportunity during the closure and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities 

by increasing the acreage available for non-motorized activities during the closure. This 

alternative has the highest number of seasonal closures of all the alternatives. This loss of 

available open acreage is somewhat offset, however, by the proposed addition of motorized 

routes to the NFTS. Although motorized recreation opportunities on open acreage would be 

reduced, other motorized recreation opportunities would be available.

Indicators referenced

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

94 Chapter 3—Recreation

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized 

roads, trails, or areas) to the NFTS, including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails would be consistent with ROS as allocated in the 

LRMP. All routes proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the associated 

management area. All proposed route additions under this alternative would be located in semiprimitive motorized, roaded-natural, or rural ROS classes.

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails may have a negative effect in both short and long 

term context for non-motorized opportunities due to an increase in noise, dust, physical presence, 

possible use conflicts and displacement. When compared to the other action alternatives, the 

proposed route additions under Alternative 4 would have the same impact on the Forest’s “quiet” 

recreation opportunities as all of the other action alternatives (see Table 3-25). Alternative 4 

proposes 44 miles of road additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal lands, 

potentially having some noise, dust, and physical presence impacts on neighboring private and 

Federal lands. When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 4 would have slightly 

less impact on neighboring private and Federal lands than Alternatives 2 and 5, and slightly more 

impact than Alternative 3 (see Table 3-30). The season of use restrictions on proposed road 

additions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms to motorized opportunities by 

reducing mileage of motorized opportunity during the closure and a beneficial effect to nonmotorized opportunities by increasing the acreage available for non-motorized activities during 

the closure. 

Motorized roads would be administratively defined and published on a Motor Vehicle Use Map

(MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better plan recreational pursuits based on an 

individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of user conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the short and long terms.

Adding presently unauthorized roads would have a beneficial effect on motorized opportunities. 

The proposed route additions contribute to the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities by 

increasing connector opportunities, and providing access to dispersed recreation activities,

thereby providing beneficial effects to motorized recreation opportunities. As shown in Table 3-

29, Alternative 4 provides motorized access to a total of 1,025 dispersed recreation sites. Some 

dispersed sites with vistas and scenery viewing opportunities may no longer be easily accessible. 

When compared to the other action Alternatives, Alternative 4 provides slightly less motorized 

access to dispersed recreation than Alternatives 2 and 5, but more motorized access than 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 also provides 286 miles of road additions to the NFTS, presenting a beneficial effect 

on motorized recreation opportunities for a variety of vehicle classes and access to dispersed 

recreation. Fifteen miles of unauthorized road additions under Alternative 4 would have season of 

use restrictions.

Indicators Referenced

• Measurement Indicator 1: ROS consistency with LRMP

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 4: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 95

3. Direct and Indirect effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS 

(This can include deletions of facilities and changing the vehicle class and season of use.)

This alternative would have 425 miles of NFTS roads closed seasonally. The season of use 

restrictions on proposed roads and existing NFTS roads may have a negative effect in the short 

and long terms to motorized opportunities by reducing mileage of motorized opportunity during 

the closure, and a beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the acreage 

available for non-motorized activities during the closure. 

The amount of mixed use on the Forest would remain the same as the current situation; however 

with enforcement of the Travel Management Rule, 575 miles of ML 3, ML 4 and ML 5 routes 

would no longer be available for use by non-highway legal vehicles. This would have a short and 

long-term effect by reducing availability of motorized opportunities for non-highway legal 

vehicles. It would also reduce the availability of connector routes and loops.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4

ROS Consistency with LRMP

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not affect the ROS in the future. It is 

anticipated that the effects of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in 

Appendix E would be consistent with the ROS classifications assigned to the management 

prescriptions in which the actions occur, so no cumulative effects are expected. All additions to 

the NFTS would be consistent with ROS class requirements.

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative has the slight potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions, the existing NFTS, and other roads traveling through 

the Forest. Dust, noise, and motorized vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists 

seeking a “quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 18 percent of the 

Modoc NF would be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, 

which is the same as the other action alternatives. (see Table 3-25). Future actions would not 

change the potential to alter non-motorized recreation settings because this indicator was 

measured using a 1⁄2 - mile buffer outside of ML 3, ML 4, and ML 5 NFTS roads and these roads. 

These are unlikely to change in the future.

Although Alternative 4 proposes route additions, these route additions are close enough to the 

existing NFTS, that cumulatively their effect on “quiet” recreation is the same as Alternatives 2, 

3, and 5. The present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix E are typical management 

activities that occur on the Forest with the potential to produce noise, dust, and use conflicts when 

they are in operation, due to machinery and equipment. The levels and duration of noise dust, 

and use conflicts they produce are temporary and not expected to have cumulative effects on 

neighboring private and Federal lands under this alternative. 

Motorized Recreation Opportunity

The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel and would impose the highest number of 

miles (425) of seasonal closures of all the alternatives. These closures may have a slight negative 

effect on motorized use during the early and late season. However, the closures would reduce the 

amount of rutting and erosion on the roads, thus increasing the level of safety and road surface 

protection. Seasonal closures would have a slight negative impact on motorized recreation by 

limiting motorized activities in the early and late seasons. It is reasonable to consider that other 

areas of the Forest may be closed seasonally in the future for a variety of reasons, including 

wildlife and safety. However, these closures would be short in duration and would not 

cumulatively affect the motorized recreation experience.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

96 Chapter 3—Recreation

Proposed road additions and open NFTS roads would provide about 4,625 miles of motorized 

recreation opportunity, less than Alternatives 2 and 5, but more than Alternative 3 (see Table 3-

28). Combined with the present and reasonably foreseeable future road actions about 4,625 miles 

of motorized recreation opportunity would be provided. 

Alternative 4 provides the same availability to all vehicle use, including motorcycles, ATV’s, and 

high clearance vehicles as Alternative 3. The quality of motorized recreation use would be the 

same as Alternative 3 because there would be no change on ML 3 roads to allow for mixed use. 

Prohibiting mixed use on ML 3 roads would negatively affect motorized recreation by decreasing 

the diversity of motorized opportunities. Alternative 4 would allow mixed use only on existing 

NFTS ML 2 roads (see Table 3-28). Ongoing road and trail maintenance is essential for creating 

and managing a cohesive motorized recreation system. The cumulative effect of adding roads to 

the NFTS would provide for their maintenance and should reduce erosion and deterioration of 

roads, an increased risk of failure and subsequent loss of motorized recreation opportunity and 

quality. There would also be the beneficial effects of increased safety and decreased maintenance 

costs on roads due to less erosion and rutting.

Cumulatively, seasonal closures on 425 miles in the future could benefit nine percent of the 

NFTS and additional unauthorized roads by reducing damage caused from erosion. Seasonal 

closures would have a slight negative impact on motorized recreation by limiting motorized 

activities during the early and late seasons. It is reasonable to consider that other areas of the 

Forest may be closed seasonally in the future for a variety of reasons including projects, wildlife 

and safety. However, these closures are short in duration and would not cumulatively affect the 

motorized recreation experience.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity to Dispersed Camping

This alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation by increasing 

NFTS mileage (1,025 miles) available for access to dispersed recreation. This opportunity is 

slightly less than Alternatives 2 and 5. Proposed route additions contribute to a variety of riding 

experiences as well as the continuity of the motor-touring opportunities. The route additions also 

provide loops, connectors, and access to a diversity of dispersed recreation activities which can 

benefit both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by providing access to 

trailheads, dispersed campsites, etc. 

Impact of Proposed Changes to NFTS on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

This alternative, combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, also 

has the potential to impact neighboring private and Federal lands. About 1,084 miles of NFTS 

open roads and proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal

lands (see Table 3-30). The proposed route additions provide for a four percent increase from the 

current condition of open NFTS roads occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and 

Federal lands. This alternative has the same potential cumulative impact as Alternatives 2 and 5 

on non-motorized recreation opportunities among the action alternatives. But it has less impact 

than the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) or the current condition, because of continuation 

of cross-country travel.

Alternative 5

This alternative is based on public comments from local government, local residents, the tribes, 

local organizations, and the national motorized recreation community. It proposes additional 

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

alternative adds about 1,054 segments of roads to the NFTS to access dispersed camping sites, 

adds 336 miles of roads to the NFTS, allows 531 miles of mixed use, prohibits 1.45 miles of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 97

mixed use on ML 2 44N08 road (Glass Mountain Pumice Road). It prohibits cross-country 

motorized travel and amends the Forest Plan with the prohibition.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Wheeled 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

Under this alternative, cross-country motorized vehicle travel would be prohibited. This 

prohibition would result in a net loss of acreage available for motorized recreation. The 

prohibition of wheeled motor vehicle use off the NFTS would have a beneficial effect on nonmotorized recreation activities throughout the Forest, in populated areas, and neighboring Federal

lands in the short and long terms by reducing dust and noise from motorized vehicles. Prohibiting 

cross-country motorized travel would also curtail ongoing negative effects from motorized 

vehicles such as noise, dust, and physical presence in the short and long terms. 

The season of use restrictions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms to motorized 

opportunities by reducing area available for motorized opportunity during the closure and a 

beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the acreage available for nonmotorized activities during the closure.

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS, Including 

Identifying Seasons of use and Vehicle Class 

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails would be consistent with the ROS as allocated in 

the LRMP. All routes proposed for addition to the NFTS comply with the ROS class in the 

associated management area. All proposed route additions under this alternative would be located 

in semi-primitive motorized, and roaded natural ROS classes.

This alternative has the same number and miles of added routes as Alternative 2. It also has the 

highest motorized mileage available to motorcycles, ATV’s, and high clearance vehicles of all the 

action alternatives. This includes 336 miles added to the NFTS totaling 4,675 miles of roads. 

Adding presently unauthorized roads and trails may have a negative effect in both short and long 

term context for non-motorized opportunities due to a potential increase in noise, dust, physical 

presence, possible use conflicts, and displacement. The season-of-use restrictions on some road 

additions may have a negative effect in the short and long terms to motorized opportunities, and a 

beneficial effect to non-motorized opportunities by increasing the acreage available for nonmotorized activities during the closure.

Cumulatively under this alternative, 18 percent of the Modoc NF would be affected by motorized 

use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, less than the No Action Alternative, but the 

same as the other action alternatives (see Table 3-25). Future actions would not change the 

potential to alter non-motorized recreation settings because this indicator was measured using ML 

3, ML 4, and ML 5 NFTS roads. These roads are unlikely to change in the future.

Alternative 5 proposes 48 miles of road additions within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and 

Federal lands, potentially having noise, dust, and physical presence impacts on those lands. When 

compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 5 has slightly more impacts on neighboring 

private and Federal lands than Alternatives 3 and 4, and the same impacts as Alternative 2 (see 

Table 3-30). Motorized roads, trails, and areas would be administratively defined and published 

on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Recreationists would be able to better plan recreational 

pursuits based on an individual’s unique expectations. As a result, the frequency of user conflicts 

between non-motorized and motorized recreation users would likely decrease in the short and 

long terms.

Indicators referenced

• Measurement Indicator 1: ROS consistency with LRMP
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

98 Chapter 3—Recreation

• Measurement Indicator 2: Non-motorized recreation opportunity 

• Measurement Indicator 3: Motorized recreation opportunity

• Measurement Indicator 4: Type of motorized access to dispersed recreation

• Measurement Indicator 5: Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on neighboring 

private and Federal lands (dust, noise, use conflicts)

3. Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS 

(This can include deletions of facilities and changing the vehicle class and season of use.)

Changes to the NFTS that add vehicle classes to the NFTS by providing more mixed use would 

benefit motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Changes in 

vehicle class that restrict mixed use on the NFTS would negatively affect motorized recreation 

diversity. Level 3 connector routes would be available for use by all vehicles providing the most 

diverse riding experience; however, 312 miles of seasonal restrictions would be imposed on 

NFTS roads, slightly impacting riding opportunities during early and late seasons. The impacts to 

adjacent land could increase slightly, but would be tempered by seasonal closures. The increase in 

use of non-highway legal vehicles on the NFTS could slightly increase the frequency in which 

highway-legal vehicles encounter OHVs. There would be a slight decrease in riding opportunities 

during seasonal closures affecting early- and late-season use.

This alternative provides the highest motorized mileage available to motorcycles, ATV’s, and 

other high-clearance vehicles of all the action alternatives. This includes 4,630 miles of NFTS 

and additional unauthorized routes that would be designated for mixed use. It would provide the 

most diverse riding experience for OHV users, including loop opportunities, and would provide 

the greatest amount of access to dispersed recreation activities. This increase in use of nonhighway legal vehicles on the NFTS could slightly increase the frequency in which highway-legal

vehicles encounter non-highway legal vehicles. The frequency of encounters with other people 

on the Forest is low.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 5

ROS Consistency with LRMP

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not affect the ROS in the future. It is 

anticipated that the effects of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in 

Appendix E would be consistent with the ROS classifications assigned to the management 

prescriptions in which the actions occur, so no cumulative effects are expected. All additions to 

the NFTS would be consistent with ROS class requirements.

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity

This alternative has the potential to negatively alter non-motorized recreation settings when 

considering the proposed route additions, the existing NFTS, and other roads traveling through 

the Forest. Dust, noise, and motorized vehicle presence may impact non-motorized recreationists 

seeking a “quiet” recreation experience. Cumulatively under this alternative, 18 percent of the 

Modoc NF would be affected by motorized use and would not be available for “quiet” recreation, 

less than the No Action Alternative, but the same as the other action alternatives (see Table 3-25). 

Future actions would not change the potential to alter non-motorized recreation settings because 

this indicator was measured using ML 3, ML 4, and ML 5 NFTS roads. These roads are unlikely 

to change in the future.

Although Alternative 5 proposes route additions, these route additions are close enough to the 

existing NFTS that cumulatively their effect on “quiet” recreation is the same as Alternative 2, 3,

and 4. The present and foreseeable projects listed in appendix E are typical management activities 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Recreation 99

that occur on the Forest with the potential to produce noise, dust and use conflicts when they are 

in operation, due to machinery and equipment. The levels and duration of noise dust, and use 

conflicts they produce are temporary and not expected to have cumulative effects on neighboring 

private and Federal lands under this alternative. 

Motorized Recreation Opportunity

Alternative 5 provides the highest mileage available to all vehicle use, including motorcycles, 

ATV’s, and high-clearance vehicles, of all the action alternatives. The quality of motorized 

recreation use would be enhanced due to the designation of 531 miles of mixed use, the highest of 

the action alternatives. The Forest would be closed to cross-country travel and would impose 

seasonal closures on 312 miles of NFTS, roads slightly impacting motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

Proposed mixed use, which adds vehicle classes to the NFTS ML 3 routes, would benefit 

motorized recreation by increasing the diversity of motorized opportunities. Alternative 5, when 

combined with the existing NFTS ML 2 roads, would provide for about 4,631 miles of mixed-use 

motorized opportunity, more than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The change in vehicle class is 

anapproximately 11 percent change to the total NFTS. Proposed road additions and open NFTS 

roads would provide about 4,675 miles of motorized recreation opportunity, the same as 

Alternative 2, more than Alternative 4 (see Table 3-28). Combined with the present and 

reasonably foreseeable future road actions, about 4,675 miles of motorized recreation opportunity 

would be provided. 

Ongoing road and trail maintenance is essential for creating and managing a cohesive motorized 

recreation system. Adding these roads to the NFTS would bring them into the Forest maintenance 

system. The cumulative effect of this would be to reduce erosion, deterioration, and risk of 

failure. It would also prevent subsequent loss of motorized recreation opportunity and quality. 

There would also be the beneficial effects of increased safety and decreased maintenance costs on 

roads due to less erosion and rutting.

Cumulatively, seasonal closures on 312 miles could benefit seven percent of the NFTS and 

additional unauthorized roads in the future by reducing damage caused from erosion. This is the 

same as Alternative 2, more than Alternatives 1 and 3, and less than Alternative 4. Seasonal 

closures would have a slight negative impact on motorized recreation by limiting motorized 

activities in the early and late seasons. It is reasonable to consider that other areas of the Forest 

may be closed seasonally in the future for a variety of reasons including wildlife and safety. 

However, these closures are short in duration and would not cumulatively affect the motorized 

recreation experience.

Motorized Recreation Opportunity to Dispersed Camping

This alternative would have the same beneficial cumulative effects to motorized recreation by 

increasing NFTS mileage available for access to dispersed recreation as Alternative 2. Proposed 

route additions contribute to a variety of riding experiences as well as the continuity of the motortouring opportunities. The route additions also provide loops, connectors, and access to a 

diversity of dispersed recreation activities which can benefit both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities by providing access to trailheads, dispersed campsites, etc. Although 

present and future projects may result in a temporary closure of roads to meet project 

specifications, no net loss of NFTS routes that would equate to loss of access for the long term for 

dispersed recreation would occur. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

100 Chapter 3—Recreation

Impact of Proposed Changes to NFTS on Neighboring Private and Federal Lands (dust, noise, 

use conflicts)

This alternative, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, also has the 

potential to impact neighboring private and Federal lands. About 1,086 miles of NFTS open roads 

and proposed route additions occur within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal lands (see 

Table 3-30). The proposed route additions provide for a four percent increase from the current 

condition of open NFTS roads occurring within 1⁄2 mile of neighboring private and Federal lands. 

This alternative has the same potential cumulative impact as Alternative 5 on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities among the action alternatives, but less of an impact than the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative 1) or the current condition.

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Motorized Recreation 

Alternative 1 does not propose a change to the managed use of existing NFS roads, and crosscountry travel would not be prohibited. Alternative 2 provides the second-highest motorized 

mileage available of all the action alternatives, followed by Alternatives 5 and 4. Alternative 5 

provides the widest range of opportunity for motorized recreation of all the action alternatives,

and provides to most mixed use opportunities. Alternative 1 results in the lowest impact to 

motorized recreation followed by Alternative 5, 2, and 4 respectively. Alternative 3 is the most 

restrictive and provides the least amount of opportunity for motorized recreation. Although 

Alternative 2 and 5 have the same number of proposed additions of unauthorized routes, 

Alternative 5 offers an increased amount of mixed use opportunities.

Non-Motorized Recreation

Alternative 1 would allow cross-country travel to continue unabated; dust and noise from vehicle 

traffic could impact non-motorized recreation. Alternative 1 has the highest potential impact on 

non-motorized users. Alternative 3 is the most beneficial to non-motorized recreation of all the 

alternatives. This alternative does not add any unauthorized routes, eliminates cross-country 

travel, and provides for quiet recreation; therefore, users choosing to recreate away from the road 

system would no longer be impacted by motorized use. Alternative 3 is the most beneficial to 

non-motorized recreation, followed by Alternatives 4, 2, 5, and 1 respectively. However, the 

differences between Alternatives 2,3,4, and 5 are very slight considering the entire NFTS.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory 

Direction

Alternative 1 does not comply with the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of 

Decision because it allows wheeled vehicle travel off designated routes and trails. The action 

alternatives do not comply with the LRMP because unless amended, it states that 87 percent of 

the Forest should be left open to cross-country travel.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 101

Visual Resources

Introduction

This section of the motorized travel management environmental analysis examines the extent to 

which alternatives respond to visual resources management direction established in the 1991

Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the Travel 

Management (TM) Rule. The LRMP visual resources direction was established under the 

implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). 

In the development of the Modoc National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan, the 

Forest’s visual resources were inventoried to determine the landscape’s scenic attractiveness

(Variety Class inventory) and the public’s visual expectations (Sensitivity Level inventory). 

Based upon these inventories, Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) were established for all Forest

land areas. The VQO’s establish minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations from 

an otherwise natural-appearing Forest landscape. For example, areas with a Retention VQO are 

expected to retain a natural appearance; areas with a Partial Retention VQO may have some 

alterations, but they remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape; areas with a Modification 

VQO can have alterations that do not look natural appearing.

Roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that can be mitigated through sound 

design. Unmitigated, they present uncharacteristic line qualities in Forest landscapes. 

Landscapes with a dense canopy cover have the capability of masking these linear alterations; 

sparsely covered landscapes have less capability. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, 

particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, can adversely affect the Forest’s visual resources.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction 

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects visual resources includes the following:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required the 

inventory and evaluation of the Forest’s visual resource, addressing the landscape’s visual 

attractiveness, and the public’s visual expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive 

lands areas of the Forest are to include Visual Quality Objectives. 

Travel Management Rule 

The TM Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the designation trails or areas, the 

Responsible Official must consider effects on Forest resources, with the objective of minimizing 

effects of motor vehicle use. 

Modoc National Forest LRMP, as Amended

The LRMP contains Forest-wide management direction in the form of Visual Quality Objectives 

and specific management area direction for visual resources. The visual standards and guidelines 

in the LRMP applicable to motorized travel management include the following:

20. Visual Resources (Forest Standards and Guidelines)

(G) Manage visual resources to prevent unacceptable alteration of landscapes 

by designing and implementing management activities to meet or exceed 

adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

102 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

(G) Allow temporary departures of less than ten years and one VQO class to 

protect long-term visual values, such as in timbered areas highly susceptible to 

insect or disease epidemics.

(G) Capitalize on opportunities to achieve rehabilitation of unacceptable 

modification conditions during management activities with other resources.

(G) Meet assigned VQOs when activities are planned within the foreground zone 

of State Highways 139 and 299. Specific objectives are to:

Minimize the visual impact of all existing human-made structures. Locate new 

structures out of view, or mitigate the impact of them.

Blend treated vegetation with adjacent untreated areas for a natural appearance. 

No distinct edge between treated and untreated areas should be evident.

(Visual Resources standards and guidelines were not modified by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA) or by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Record of Decision.)

Visual Retention Management Prescription – 7 

p. 4-77 - Off-highway vehicle use is permitted, but with restrictions. 

p. 4-78 – Manage for roaded natural dispersed recreation opportunities as 

defined in the Forest-wide standards and guidelines. 

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. 

Areas with this prescription are open to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use if impacts cannot be seen 

from the primary roads. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Roads and trails can create a change in the natural-appearing landscape as measured in form, line, 

color, texture, and pattern. The visual effects of roads and trails can be described from different 

points of view: (1) the view of the surrounding landscape as seen by travelers on the route (the 

route is the viewshed); and (2) the view of the route by Forest visitors (hikers, campers, skiers, 

etc.) looking from other user areas. 

The type of visual experience differs whether the landscape is viewed from a motorized, a nonmotorized mode of travel (walking, hiking, skiing), or from a fixed viewpoint such as a user area. 

The speed of the traveler also has a direct relationship on the visual perception of landscape. The 

ability to identify and discern individual objects, and their relationship to the whole, become more 

difficult the faster you travel because you decrease the duration of the viewing period. Deviations 

from the natural landscape are hard to discern while driving in a vehicle at 35 to 65 mph. Those 

same deviations for a hiker on a trail become very evident because the viewing period increases 

dramatically. 

The proposed alternatives have the potential to affect both the visual resource itself, as well as the 

Forest visitor’s opportunity to view the resource. The degree of deviation from the naturalappearing landscape determines whether a route is in compliance with the VQO. The VQOs 

establish minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations from an otherwise naturalappearing Forest landscape. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 103

General Guidelines for Effects Analysis for Visual Resources

Spatial: The “viewshed” is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects on visual 

resources.

Effects Time frames: Short-term effects occur within one year. Long-term effects occur up to 20 

years.

Measurement Indicators and Rationale: The measurement indicators are intended to address how 

each action individually (direct and indirect effects), and each alternative as the sum total of its 

Proposed Actions (cumulative effects), respond to the LRMP and the TM Rule: whether the 

motorized recreation opportunity affects the natural appearance of the Forest landscapes. 

Measurement Indicator: Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention Visual Quality 

Objectives (VQOs) - For each alternative, determine the extent to which the proposed National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS) falls within the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs 

(number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to near-natural appearing in 

character). Field-check representative samples to verify VQO compliance).

Impacts Relevant to Visual Resources 

Non-characteristic line quality created by trail segments is the greatest impact to the visual 

resources—the location and design of these segments can significantly reduce their visual impact. 

Assumptions Specific to Visual Resources Analysis

Based upon the review of the Modoc NF LRMP, the basic measurement indicator for the visual 

resources is in compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. 

The Preservation VQO is not addressed as it occurs only in designated wilderness areas. 

Motorized access is not authorized in designated wilderness.

The Modification VQO is not addressed, since this VQO allows for areas that have alterations, 

such as roads and trails that do not look natural. 

The prohibition of cross-country, wheeled motorized vehicles should have a positive effect on the 

Forest’s visual resources. 

Sensitivity level 1 roads and trails include all roads classified as “scenic highways”, and roads 

and trails leading directly to major areas of interest such as national parks, wilderness areas, 

major recreation areas, historic sites, recreation sites, and concentrated recreation areas.

All areas with a Semi-Primitive Recreation management prescription meet the direction for visual 

resources to meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQO. 

For classification, analysis, and inventory of the visual resource landscape, viewing is identified 

by the distance zones of foreground (300 feet to 1/2 mile), middle ground (1/2 to 4 miles), and 

background (4 miles to the horizon). 

Agriculture Handbook Number 462 (USDA Forest Service, 1974) provides a description of the 

VQOs used for the visual management of lands administered by the Modoc National Forest.

Preservation – Only allows for ecological changes and all other management 

activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited.

Retention – Provides for management activities that are not visually evident and 

landscape character appears unaltered with only minimal deviations. Activities 

may only repeat form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

104 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should 

not be evident.

Partial Retention – Provides for management activities that remain visually 

subordinate to the landscape and landscape character may appear slightly 

altered. Activities may repeat form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic 

landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, 

pattern, etc. should remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found 

infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape but still remain 

subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape.

Modification – Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic 

landscape. Activities such as roads should borrow naturally established form, 

line, color, and texture so completely and at such scale that its visual 

characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings.

Data Sources

The Modoc LRMP data set was used to intersect route segments with the areas visual quality 

objectives of Partial Retention or Retention. 

The Forest’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report determined that 75 percent of 

those who visited the Forest participated in viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc.

on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Thirty-seven percent of those participated in driving for 

pleasure on roads, and 30 percent participated in viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc.

In 2008 the Forest received a “Landscape Character Description” report, written by Nicole Hill. 

This report was developed to support LRMP revision activities for the Modoc National Forest. 

The report found that “Travel management activities often provide the platform for viewing 

scenery. Most travel management activities make the landscape appear slightly altered. The 

activities, although noticeable, generally remain visually subordinate to the landscape character 

being viewed.” 

Visual Resources Indicators

The extent to which the proposed additional roads falls within the Retention and Partial Retention

VQOs as measured in the (number of miles traversing landscapes that are to remain natural to 

near-natural appearing in character). 

Visual Resources Methodology, by Action

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country 

Motorized Vehicle Travel 

The prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicles should have a positive effect on the Forest’s 

visual resources because it would remove the chance of continued route proliferation and the 

impact to visual resources. 

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to location within Retention and Partial 

Retention VQO

Rationale: Any increase in the number of closed routes as measured against the No Action 

Alternative would lead to a general trend of improving visual resources in areas identified with a 

Retention and Partial Retention VQO. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 105

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

Large-scale uplift and faulting and volcanic activity have dominated the recent geologic history 

of the Modoc Plateau. Virtually the entire Forest landscape has evolved during the last five 

million years, and a significant portion of it during the last 0.75 million years from volcanic 

activity. These recent geologic processes have created a distinct landscape of mountain vistas, 

wide valleys, high-desert rocky plateaus, volcanic landscapes, and lakes. 

The quality of the Modoc National Forest’s scenic resources can be described as distinctive (30 

percent), Typical (68 percent), and Indistinctive (2 percent) (2008 visual analysis). 

Over the last 100 years, the visual quality of the Modoc Plateau has declined somewhat as power

lines and pipelines with the associated ground disturbance have encroached on the natural 

environment. Surveys of Modoc National Forest recreation visitors found 58 percent were “very

satisfied” with the general Forest scenery with 42 percent being “satisfied.” Viewing natural 

features was the third-most popular activity for visitors on the Modoc National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service, 2001). 

The Modoc National Forest is a recreation destination for California residents as 

well as visitors from neighboring states. The 1.6 million acre Forest is located in 

northeastern California along the southernmost portions of the Cascade 

Mountains, and on the western edge of the Great Basin. People are drawn to the 

area for its open spaces, remoteness, tranquility, beautiful scenery, and spirit of 

the west. Known as Modoc Country, a land “where the west still lives,” the 

scenery is diverse, including mountains, pine Forests, meadows, lakes, streams, 

rugged canyons, wetlands, lava beds, and high-desert plateaus. This spectrum of 

contrasts provides for sweeping, expansive views and sparsely populated

spaces. The variety of historic elements is rich in character and culture. 

Excellent wildlife and waterfowl viewing and hunting opportunities are found 

throughout the landscape. As part of the Pacific Flyway, migratory birds provide 

a spectacular show at specific locations in the Forest. Winding through various 

parts of the Forest, travelers enjoy viewing scenery and reliving history on scenic 

byways and auto tours, including the Modoc Volcanic Scenic Byway and 

Emigrant Trails Scenic Byway. (USDA, Modoc NF, 2008 Landscape Character 

Description)

Scenery

The pictures below are all from the “Landscape Character Description” of the Modoc National 

Forest prepared in August 2008 by Nicole Hill, Landscape Architect, in support of the 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report being developed to initiate the revision of our LRMP. These 

photos depict the landscapes found on the Modoc National Forest. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

106 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

Figure 3-6. Typical Landscape of Medicine Lake Lava Flows; View from Modoc Volcanic Historic 

Loop near Lava Beds National Monument

Figure 3-7. Homestead Flat viewed from South Warner Auto Loop Tour
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 107

Figure 3-8. Devil’s Garden North of Big Sage Reservoir

Figure 3-9. View West From Hwy 139 (Highway fence prevented unauthorized routes.)

Figure 3-10. View of Highway 139 Corridor just inside the Forest Boundary Looking North (Emigrant 

Trails Scenic Byway). Note that highway fencing prevented unauthorized routes from developing along this 

corridor.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

108 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

Figure 3-11. Fandango Valley Viewed from North Warner Auto Loop Tour

Figure 3-12. Warner Mountain Uplift Viewed from Surprise Valley Barrel Springs Backcountry Byway

Figure 3-13. Vegetation on Western Warner Mountain in North Parker Creek Drainage
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 109

Figure 3-14. Regeneration Harvest along Hunters Ridge Road

Figure 3-15. Vegetation and Landform Features near the Dibble Place on Ash Valley Road

Figure 3-16. Utility Corridor Viewed from Highway 139

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Roads and trails can create a change in the natural-appearing landscape as measured in form, line, 

color, texture, and pattern. As shown above in the photos of common landscapes of the Modoc 

National Forest system, authorized and unauthorized roads are generally not apparent in the 

middle or distance views of the Forest. As seen in Figure 3-7, the system maintenance level two 

road fits into the landscape, and is hardly noticeable. In Figure 3-14, the old regeneration harvests 

make some roads more apparent but they are subordinate in form, line, color, texture, and pattern 

to the regeneration harvest alone. The roads to and from the regeneration harvest in the uncut 

areas are not apparent. 

As shown in Figures 3-14 and 3-16, vegetation manipulation (short-term visual impacts) and 

power lines (long-term visual impacts) are the main detractors from visual integrity on the Modoc 

National Forest. Authorized and unauthorized roads generally fit into the landscape and are 

accepted by the public as common and not seen as visual detractors. Scenery satisfaction was 

rated as good (65 percent) to very good (45 percent) for visitors at day use developed sites, and a 

satisfaction rating of very good (100 percent) for visitors at Overnight Developed Sites. Visitors 

of the general Forest areas rated scenery at good (42 percent) and very good (58 percent), (2001 

National Visitor Use Monitoring results).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

110 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

In her evaluation of twelve distinct ecological landscapes, landscape architect Nichole Hill found 

for each of the landscapes that “Travel management activities often provide the platform for 

viewing scenery. Most travel management activities make the landscape appear slightly altered. 

The activities, although noticeable, generally remain visually subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed.”

Highway fencing along State Highways 139 and 299 has prevented the development of 

unauthorized routes to or from these highways. Thus, all alternatives meet the standard and 

guideline that requires all activities to meet the assigned VQO along these routes. 

Typical Views of Roads being added to the System

From a visual standpoint, the impact of new roads is not easily to detect. The foreground views 

are visible from the current road system only at the junction of the roads, and many small 

unauthorized roads are even difficult to find.

Figure 3-17. View of Unauthorized Spur Road from Level 3 Road. ML2054 is beginning to be hidden by 

vegetation.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 111

Figure 3-18. Approaching Unauthorized Road ML1300 from System Road 42A61A. The unauthorized 

road appears smaller and less used than the System road, which turns to the left. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

112 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

Figure 3-19. Approaching unauthorized road ML2046; the road is not visible. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 113

Environmental Consequences

Prohibition of Cross-country Travel

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (2-5)

Direct and Indirect Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel

Closing the Forest to cross-country travel would stop the creation of additional unauthorized 

routes by recreation users, thus preserving the visual character of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel

There would be limited cumulative effects of stopping cross-country travel. Over time stopping 

cross-country travel would allow tracks left by recreation users in the past to grow over and 

become more natural in appearance, thus adding to the roadless character of the areas. 

Changes to NFTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of changes in NFTS

There would be no direct or indirect effects on the visual characteristics of the Forest. Seasonal 

use does not change the roadless characteristics of an area. Change in vehicle class will not affect 

visual characteristics of the Forest.

Cumulative Effects of changes in NFTS

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects on the visual character, there would be no 

cumulative effects when season of use or change in vehicle class is instituted in any of the 

alternatives. 

Additions to NFTS

All alternatives have the potential to affect the existing landscape in any of the scenic integrity 

objectives (Table 3-31). All alternatives would retain 993 miles of existing system routes in the 

Partial Retention VQO and 208 miles in the Retention VQOs. Alternative 1 would not prohibit

cross-country travel which would include the use of 491 miles of unauthorized routes within areas 

with Partial Retention and Retention VQOs and therefore this alternative has the highest impact 

on visual resources. Alternatives 2 and 5 would add 80.81 miles of unauthorized routes to the 

existing transportation system within the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs, and Alternative 

4 would add 70.14 miles. Alternative 3 would have no additional routes available for use and 

would have the least amount of miles in each class, which reflects the existing system routes and 

the elimination of cross-country travel. 

Table 3-31. Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS, by VQO Class

Indicators – Visual Resources

Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the 

NFTS, by Alternative

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

(Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)

Inventoried Unauthorized Routes in Partial Retention 

VQO

0 65.69 0 58 65.69

Inventoried Unauthorized Routes in Partial Retention 

VQO

0 15.12 0 13 15.12

Total 0 80.81 0 71 80.81
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

114 Chapter 3—Visual Resources

Table 3-32. Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized Routes, by VQO Class

Indicators – Visual Resources

Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized 

Routes

Alt 1

(Miles)

Alt 2

(Miles)

Alt 3

(Miles)

Alt 4

(Miles)

Alt 5

(Miles)

NFS & Unauthorized Routes in Partial Retention VQOs 963 1028.69 963 1021 1028

NFS & Unauthorized Routes in Retention VQOs 208 223.12 208 221 223

Total 1171 1251.81 1171 1242 1251

On the one hand, roads within Retention or Partial Retention areas provide viewing opportunities 

for a greater number of people. Reciprocally, limiting roads within these areas would be more 

beneficial to the scenery. The views in areas where there are fewer roads may be of a greater 

quality because of less dust and congestion. Furthermore, limiting roads, especially unauthorized 

routes that are not built and maintained to Forest Service standards will also reduce erosion which 

contributes to visual integrity.

Alternative 1 would provide the most opportunity for public travel cross-country which includes 

utilizing the unauthorized roads that currently exist. The quality of the scenic resources would not 

be as high as in Alternative 4 because cross-country travel would not be prohibited. Alternative 3 

would prohibit cross-country travel and add no routes to the system. Therefore, it would have 

potential for the highest quality of scenic resource because unauthorized routes are no longer used 

and will eventually revegetate. 

Alternative 4 emphasizes natural resource and habitat values, which are essential to the scenic 

management system’s underlying ecological aesthetic. Under the scenic management system, 

activities that improve Forest health also improve Forest aesthetics in order to reach the long-term 

desired condition stated in the LRMP. The alternative that best protects natural resources would

thus best protect scenic resources, although fewer people would have access to the scenery. 

Given the terrain and vegetation cover of the Modoc National Forest, adding the small percentage 

of roads within the Retention or Partial Retention categories would not have an adverse effect on 

the scenic values of the Forest. 

Cumulative effects 

Management of multiple resources has altered the natural landscape character, creating the 

existing condition of the landscape. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources 

are from vegetation and landform alterations. Multiple-resource management that has altered 

scenic resources includes, but is not limited to: timber management, mining, recreational facility 

development (including roads and trails, campgrounds and picnic grounds), utility corridors, fire 

management (suppression and prescribed burning), and livestock grazing. 

A wide variety of use occurs on the Forest. This use, as well as new uses; are expected to 

continue in the future. Sightseeing and driving outdoors for pleasure are examples of activities 

that directly use roads as part of the recreational experience. The character of, and access to 

scenic views; will directly depend on the road system in place. Increasing the recreational use of 

areas may provide scenery benefits to more people. Alteration of road systems can disrupt longestablished access and use patterns. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Visual Resources 115

Placement, scale, class, and setting of roads can also greatly affect the quality of scenic views and 

access to outstanding scenic vistas. It is important to be aware of the indirect effects that roads

have on the scenic resource. As demand for Forest recreational opportunities continues to grow, 

the use of Forest roads will likely increase in congestion, and thus lower the quality of scenery. 

However use on the Modoc National Forest is expected to remain static and therefore use will 

continue to be low.

Given time, all actions within these alternatives are reversible; this includes the decommissioning 

of roads. The continued reduction of visual quality may be an irretrievable loss until full recontouring and revegetation of decommissioned roads occur.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives currently meet the objectives and standards and guidelines of the LRMP as 

amended. However, Alternative 1 could affect the foreground views in heavily used areas if 

unrestricted travel was to allow more roads and access to be created than the visual environment 

could absorb. 

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 117

Cultural Resources

Introduction

The Congress in 1966 declared it to be our national policy that the Federal Government 

“administer Federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a 

spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations” (National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470-1(3)). This need was made more explicit when 

the National Historic Preservation Act was amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to 

expand and underscore Federal agency responsibility for identifying and protecting historic 

properties and avoiding unnecessary damage to them. Many historic properties are fragile and 

once damaged or destroyed; they cannot be repaired or replaced.

Section 106 of the NHPA compels Federal agencies to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Historic Properties). The 

Travel Management Rule requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the 

objective of minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use 

on National Forest lands (36 CFR 212.55(a), 212.55(b)(1)).

Cultural resources provide information on the Forest’s unique prehistoric and historic ethnic 

heritage, including evidence of several American Indian groups (the Pit River Tribe, ModocKlamath, and Northern Paiute) and their predecessors. In addition to providing archaeological 

evidence of past life ways and adaptation to the environment, cultural resources also lend a 

historic perspective on today’s technological and sociological change.

Cultural resources are buildings, sites, areas, architecture, memorials, and properties having 

scientific, historic, and cultural importance. Cultural resources comprise an irreplaceable and nonrenewable resource relating to past human life. Physical remains of over 11,000 years of human 

history are found throughout the Modoc National Forest (Gates 1983). Except for the last 180 

years of written history, the only record of this long, unwritten history are the abandoned villages, 

camps, and other remains left by the native prehistoric peoples and their descendants. 

Paleo-Indians were the earliest inhabitants of the Forest who lived 10,000 to 11,000 years ago at 

the end of the last Ice Age. Using fluted projectile (spear or dart) points, they hunted big game 

such as mammoth, bison, ground sloth and other extinct animals. Little evidence of this period 

has been found.

Indian peoples who lived in this area about 8,000 years ago left abundant evidence of their 

habitation. Most prehistoric archaeological sites contain surface materials (chipping debris and 

projectile points) spanning the last 4,000 to 6,000 years. During this period, various native 

cultures specialized in their adaptations to locally available resources.

Today, the Modoc-Klamath, Northern Paiute, and Pit River Indian tribes are the principal 

occupants of the area. All followed a “hunting and gathering,” semi-sedentary existence. Groups 

seasonally inhabited settlements, and generally returned to the same village sites and camping 

spots year after year. Food resources were used on a seasonal basis whenever and wherever they 

occurred. These groups still use the Forest area today for the collection of various plant resources 

for basketry, food, and medicines, and continue to access and use certain locations for continuing 

traditional cultural and religious practices (Allison 1994, Roybal-Evans 1982, USDA Forest 

Service 2007).

Prehistoric site types on the Forest range from winter village complexes to scattered hunting 

stations, tool-manufacturing sites, and plant processing areas. They also include petroglyphs, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

118 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

pictographs, bedrock mortars, rock shelters, caves and obsidian and basalt tool stone quarries. Of 

particular significance are the well-know obsidian quarries in the Medicine Lake Highlands and 

the Warner Mountains, and the numerous rock art sites within the Devil’s Garden area.

Hudson’s Bay Company fur trappers, who came in the late 1820s, were the first Euro-American 

explorers in the area, In the 1840s and 1850s, explorers made topographic and railroad surveys. 

Throngs of emigrants streamed toward Oregon and California farmlands and gold fields on their 

way into or through Modoc County.

By the 1860s, white settlers in Oregon and California wanted the Klamath and Modoc Indians 

moved to a reservation and the rest of their traditional territory opened for settlement. The treaty 

of 1864 established the Klamath Indian Reservation for the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin 

(Northern Paiute) Indians. The Modoc War (1872-1873) effectively ended Indian and white 

hostilities in the area.

Settlement of the area rapidly increased in the 1870s and 1880s. Sawmills, mining operations, and 

ranching businesses were soon in full operation. Ranching and limited logging activities continue 

to be the major economic focus of Modoc County.

The most common historic sites on the Forest are homesteaders’ cabins and ranchers’ line shacks; 

mining-related sites; logging railroads and camps and dumps; and emigrant trails and wagon 

roads (i.e., Applegate, Lassen and Burnett emigrant trails). Of particular importance are several 

sites associated with the Modoc War of 1872-1873 located in the northwestern portion of the 

Forest outside of the Lava Beds National Monument. An intense period of Indian-white hostilities 

is also represented by reputed massacre sites at Fandango Valley and Bloody Point.

Historic ethnic groups – American Indian, Basque, Euro-American, and Chinese – made 

significant contributions to the local ranching, dairy, logging and mining industries. Ethnic sites 

include American Indian religious, cultural and resource gathering sites, Basque aspen carvings 

(dendroglyphs), and Chinese occupation sites. The Civilian Conservation Corps has left its unique 

legacy on the Forest in the form of roads and trails, fire lookouts, administration sites, recreation 

facilities, former camp locations and wildlife and fisheries projects. In addition, the Forest was 

the scene of an early twentieth-century gold rush in the High Grade Mining District in the Warner 

Mountains.

Collectively, all of the Forest’s heritage and cultural resources form a valuable part of the history 

of this area and the nation as a whole. These non-renewable resources are an irreplaceable part of 

the fabric of the nation.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and Other Direction

Direction relevant and specific to the Proposed Action as it affects cultural resources includes the 

following:

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties 

by several laws. However, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

470 et seq.) (NHPA), provides comprehensive direction to Federal agencies about their historic 

preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the identification and consideration of 

historic properties in Federal land-management decisions. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 

1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to include resources that are of state and local 

significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and establishes the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 119

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers. NHPA 

Section 106 directs all Federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions, 

financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National 

Register. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations (36 CFR 800) 

implements NHPA Section 106. NHPA Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, and 

preservation responsibilities for Federally-owned historic properties. 

The Forest Service’s policy for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in travel management 

with respect to route designation for motor vehicle use, was issued in 2005: USDA Forest Service 

Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for 

Motor Vehicle Use (2005). This policy was developed in consultation with the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation. It outlines minimal requirements for considering possible effects to 

historic properties that may be associated with designating routes and areas as part of a national 

Forest’s transportation system. This policy statement recognizes that Forests with programmatic 

agreements for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will follow the terms of those 

agreements. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHP’s implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that Federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide 

alternative procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Region 5 has such an agreement: 

Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 

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

Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on the national forests in 

California (2006) (Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement (PA)). This agreement defines 

the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.4(a)(1)) and includes a strategy outlining the 

requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of historic properties, and effect 

determinations; it also includes protection and resource management measures that may be used 

where effects may occur.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 

13, 1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to 

nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the 

criteria, to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to 

assure that Federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of nonFederally owned properties. 

According to the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1991) the 

following standards (S) and guidelines (G) are designed to facilitate proper identification and 

management of the Forest’s cultural resources:

1. (S) Inventory to identify cultural resource properties prior to any project, activity or license 

which may affect significant cultural resources consistent with the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and other pertinent laws and regulations. Adjustments 

will be made to projects to comply with cultural resource laws.

2. (S) Evaluate cultural resources to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility.

3. (S) Conserve properties that have been designated on, or are eligible for designation to, the 

National Register of Historic Places. (Eligibility is assumed if evaluation is incomplete.)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

120 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

4. (G) Provide for the use and enhancement of cultural resources for educational, scientific, 

recreational, and other public purposes to the extent consistent with management 

requirements.

a. Interpret significant cultural resources through signing, brochures, displays, self-guided 

tours, and programs. Treat and interpret significant cultural resources appropriate to their 

assessed value and associated level of public interest.

b. Continue cooperative efforts with local groups such as the Modoc County Historical 

society.

5. (S) Protect access and use of sites and locations important to traditional American Indian

religious and cultural practices consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act

of 1978.

6. (G) Protect cultural resources largely by directing activities or use away from sensitive areas, 

by maintaining confidentiality, and by informing Forest users of cultural resource protection 

requirements.

The Forest LRMP had listed as program goals for 1990-1999 the following for cultural resources:

• Protect and manage cultural resources as a non-renewable resource.

• Complete an inventory and evaluation of the Forest’s cultural resources by 2050.

• Provide information for public education and enjoyment of the Forest’s cultural 

resources.

• Protect access and use of sites and locations important to traditional American Indian

religious and cultural practices.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Each individual route was assessed by either undertaking actual new on-the-ground inventories or 

using data from prior adequate archaeological surveys. In some instances the actual inventories 

have been deferred as per specifications within the Motorized Recreation Programmatic 

Agreement (2006) with the State Historic Preservation Office. Deferred inventory routes are 

known or believed to receive light use of fewer than 25 vehicles per week. Generally, the overall 

use of most unauthorized, routes on the Forest; fall within the light use category with overall 

average use of fewer than 10 vehicles per week on average throughout the year. Many of these 

roads are simply not drivable during some fall, winter, and spring months due to snow cover or 

muddy conditions. Their main periods of use most likely are from May to November.

For the purposes of this strategy, all cultural resources within route APEs are considered historic 

properties, even if they have not been formally evaluated using National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) Criteria (36 CFR 60.4), unless they already have been determined not eligible in 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or through other agreed on 

procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800; CARIDAP, etc.). If designation of off-highway vehicle

(OHV) routes and specifically defined areas may diminish historic property prospective NRHP 

values, Forests shall follow the provisions of 36 CFR 800 regarding evaluation and determination 

of effects, except as provided below.

NRHP 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 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 121

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.

General Guidelines for Effects Analysis for Cultural Resources

The following factors were considered, in part, in making our effects determinations:

1. Spatial: The location of the historic property is the unit of spatial analysis when considering 

effects in action alternatives. For some historic properties (e.g., Traditional Cultural 

Property), the setting beyond the historic property’s location must also be considered when 

determining whether an adverse effect will occur.

2. Effects Time Frames:

• Short-term effects occur within one year. 

• Long-term effects occur up to 20 years. 

• Cumulative effects should be analyzed at a 20-year interval.

3. Measurement Indicator and Rationale: All cultural resources identified within the APE for all 

alternatives adding facilities to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) are 

considered historic properties for the purposes of this undertaking (Motorized Recreation 

PA), unless they already have been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or 

through other agreed on procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800). When assessing direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects, base assessments on a historic property possessing at least 

one of the following NRHP values (36 CFR 60.4(a – d)) unless specific information already 

exists:

• Prehistoric archaeological site: Criterion D 

• Historic archaeological sites: Criterion D

• Historic structures: Criterion C

4. Identify any Additional Prospective NRHP Values Where Needed (36 CFR 60.4(a)(b)). Use 

of NFTS roads and trails within historic properties can be approved where such use is 

recommended by a professional archaeologist (i.e., there is no additional impact to the 

property expected through managed use of the route or area). Information about past effects 

can be used in determining whether continued use would cause additional effects.

When assessing effects under Section 106 of the NHPA, an undertaking can have no effect, no 

adverse effect, or an adverse effect. An adverse effect to a historic property can occur when an 

undertaking directly or indirectly causes alterations in its character or use. An adverse effect on a 

historic property occurs when an undertaking alters its important characteristics and is measured 

by the degree to which it diminishes its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling 

or association (Integrity Measures) (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)). These integrity measures can also be 

used to characterize the nature of any potential effects, whether they are direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects; and their severity, whether they are negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

The degree to which historic property values are diminished will be used to measure the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects of motorized vehicle use on the NFTS.

A direct effect is caused by motorized vehicle uses, or the consequences of such use, including 

physical damage resulting in or from erosion, down-cutting, rutting, or displacement or damage to 

cultural features. 

Indirect effects are associated with motorized vehicle uses but occur outside designated routes 

and areas, such as adjacent dispersed camping areas or areas where motorized travel off 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

122 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

designated routes or areas may occur. The proximity of sensitive cultural resources, such as rock 

art, rock shelters, historic structures, and Traditional Cultural Properties, to designated routes or 

areas is important when determining where resources could be susceptible to greater threats or 

risks. Indirect effects could include those listed for direct effects, but also include destructive 

actions like vandalism and looting.

For the purposes of this project and the assumption of NRHP eligibility for all properties, it is not 

clearly known what the actual effects are from past and continuing use of the proposed OHV 

routes. It is the professional opinion of the Forest Archaeologist that, while many routes do 

directly pass through many archaeological sites, and so there is an effect, it is unclear if that effect 

is “adverse” or not. For most properties the apparent effects are relatively minor, some are 

negligible and a few, possibly moderate in nature. None has been clearly identified that would 

significantly lessen potential NRHP values. Therefore, it is proposed to implement the Motorized 

Recreation PAs recommendation where “effects are ambiguous and monitoring is prescribed” to 

get a more realistic idea of the nature of the actual effects. Again, given the overall “light” use of 

these routes by vehicles, it is unlikely that the actual direct use effects are significant. 

In determining whether the proposed alternatives could have a direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effect on historic properties, the following factors were considered:

• Defined route or area. Is use restricted or confined to the established prism? (Road 

prisms are defined as the archaeological survey "corridor" examined adjacent to the 

actual road. The Modoc NF archaeological survey (ASR 05-09-1437: Off-Highway 

Vehicle Corridors. Gates, 2008) covers an area of 30 meters to either side of the 

physical road.) Is the road well defined with established tracks vs. interweaving, 

multiple tracks, or otherwise confined to established imprint by vegetation or other 

limiting physical features?

• Stability of ground surface. Are soils loose or friable and subject to erosion, or stable 

consisting of natural pavement or other hardened surface?

• Potential subsurface cultural deposits. Does the archaeological or historical site have 

known subsurface cultural deposits, or is it a type that is likely to have such deposits?

• Public use. Is there evidence of parking on the archaeological or historic site, or people 

visiting or walking on the site?

• Visibility or public attraction. Is the archaeological or historic site visible to the public,

or does it possess cultural or natural features attractive to the public?

Table 3-33. Comparison of Effect Categories under NEPA and NHPA

NEPA NHPA Severity

None No Effect None – Negligible

Direct Effect No Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

Indirect Effect No Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

Cumulative Effect No Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

Adverse Effect Minor – Moderate – Major

If designation or use of routes could diminish the known or prospective values of a historic 

property, then there is a direct or indirect effect. The protection and management measures in 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 123

Appendix C, Monitoring Plan of the Motorized Recreation PA should be used where applicable 

and feasible to lessen or diminish identified effects. 

Their use would result in the historic property not being affected (i.e., equivalent of no adverse 

effect). The protection and management measures in appendix B of the Motorized Recreation 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) should be used where applicable and feasible to lessen or 

diminish identified effects. Direct or Indirect effects that cannot be treated using measures in 

appendix B of the Motorized Recreation PA may have an adverse effect on historic properties and 

require consultation with the SHPO. (A copy of the Motorized Recreation PA is available in the 

project record.) Where these measures are not applicable or feasible, consultation with SHPO is 

necessary to identify other alternative protection measures, or evaluation and determination of 

effects must comply with 36 CFR 800. Where there is uncertainty about possible direct or indirect 

effects to properties within or in proximity to the APE, including at risk properties described in 

the Motorized Recreation PA, monitoring may be prescribed. 

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources Analysis

1. Unauthorized, user-created routes have already affected historic properties within road 

prisms. 

2. Under the action alternatives, use will continue at current levels or possibly slightly increase 

over time on the designated system, with the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. 

Data Sources

1. Site-specific cultural resource inventories from adequate “prior coverage” inventories or from 

the OHV route designation project-specific inventory (ASR 05-09-1437: Off-Highway 

Vehicle Corridors. Gates, 2008).

2. Existing information from cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial 

layers 

Cultural Resources Indicators

Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished

Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use

Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if new routes or areas are created

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action

1. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country 

Motorized Vehicle Travel

The prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated NFTS roads would have a beneficial effect 

on cultural resources throughout the Forest in the short and long terms. It would curtail ongoing

effects and reduce the risk and threat to cultural and historic properties that would occur if use 

were to continue on all unauthorized roads. It would also help eliminate potential effects resulting 

from the creation of any new routes if cross-country motorized vehicle use were not prohibited. 

Under this prohibition, most if not all future permitted or other authorized motorized vehicle 

travel off designated NFTS roads would be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance, and 

potential effects to cultural and historic properties could be identified at that time.

Short-term time frame: 1 year

Long-term time frame: 20 years
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

124 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

Spatial boundary: Forest scale where motor vehicle use is not already prohibited by law (e.g., 

wilderness)

Indicator(s): (1) Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing 

use, and (2) Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if new routes or areas are 

created

Methodology: GIS analysis to identify (1) the number of historic properties at risk within existing 

unauthorized routes (estimate of ongoing direct and indirect effects curtailed), and (2) the average 

number of historic properties per acre that would be protected from any new routes created in the 

future without a prohibition (estimate of indirect effects). 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA

2. Direct and indirect Effects of Adding Facilities 

(adding presently unauthorized roads to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and 

vehicle class)

Short-term time frame: 1 year

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Location of historic property.

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site 

record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of 

unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects.

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS 

(This can include deletions of facilities and changing the vehicle class and season of use)

None of these actions is considered an undertaking subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance 

(USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005)). Motorized vehicles can already use NFTS 

roads. Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle use would have no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect on cultural resources.

4. Cumulative Effects

Short-term time frame: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest administrative boundary (outside of designated wilderness). The 

geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis is the project boundary. It was selected 

because impacts to cultural resources accumulate at the specific location of the cultural resources, 

irrespective of actions in surrounding areas. Due to this fixed nature of cultural resource sites, the 

geographical scope is limited to the Forest’s administrative boundary (outside of designated 

wilderness). 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 125

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association

Methodology: The cumulative effects of each alternative (all actions) will describe the additive 

impact of the alternatives to the existing Forest situation. Under the No Action Alternative, we 

would expect adverse impacts to be higher than under the action alternatives. Future actions –

policy is to avoid effects. Stochastic effects (effects involving chance or probability), such as fire, 

may have impacts. However, each alternative, when added to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions is not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural 

resources and historic properties 

Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

As of 2008, about 7,000 archaeological (prehistoric and historic) properties have been located and 

recorded on the Modoc National Forest as a result of over 1,500 primarily project-related 

archaeological surveys in compliance with provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Over 350,000 acres have been adequately inventoried for archaeological properties in this 

process. At present, it is estimated that the Forest contains about 35,000 or more archaeological 

sites, primarily prehistoric, but with numerous historic sites as well. There are currently seven 

archaeological properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, portions of three 

major emigrant trails (Applegate, Lassen and Burnett) that are part of the congressionally 

designated California National Historic Trail and Oregon National Historic Trail systems. 

Additionally, more than 900 archaeological sites have been determined to be eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places, including a major portion of the Medicine Lake Highlands

and several archaeological districts, and a thematic class of prehistoric archaeological site (small 

prehistoric “foraging and logistic locations; Gates 2007) that have potential to yield significant 

archaeological information. Other locations important to the past and ongoing traditional cultural 

(including resource gathering and collection) and religious practices of local American Indian

tribes are also major cultural locations.

All of these cultural resources are in varying states of integrity – some have been severely 

degraded by natural processes, livestock grazing, past timber operations and other projects across 

the landscape, including general use of the Forest by the public for hunting and dispersed 

recreation activities. Existing roads bisect sites or allow unrestricted access to sites and locations 

containing recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites and locations of concern for American 

Indians. 

No systematic monitoring on a Forest-wide basis has been undertaken, so there is a lacking of 

good baseline data for the overall condition of most of the known and recorded archaeological 

resources on the Forest. Project-specific monitoring does occur to assure that ongoing projects are 

not significantly or adversely affecting known archaeological resources. Generally, however, 

most prehistoric archaeological sites appear to be in good condition, with most effects being 

related to natural weathering processes, and secondarily by effects from livestock grazing and 

man-made actions.

On an “as-needed” basis in support of various undertakings, as per Section 106 direction, 

numerous archaeological sites have been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places and either protected from undertaking effects, or have had the effects mitigated. In 

the past this has been primarily for third-party related undertakings such as natural gas pipelines, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

126 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

electrical transmission lines, and a military defense installation. However, within the past few 

years there has been a significant increase in Section 110 evaluations for the NRHP.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences for the unauthorized user-created routes have been identified 

and analyzed based on the nature of the effect that the routes have, or are believed to have, on the 

associated archaeological sites. The nature of 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 (hunters’ camp) associated with it, it may have past wood-cutting 

activity present, etc. Table 1 in Appendix F, Environmental Consequences of Unauthorized 

Routes to Cultural Resources, 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, such as a hunters’ camp, and is directly on the site. An “indirect effect” means 

that the site is adjacent to the road and that there may be signs that users of the road are somehow 

affecting the site (“pot hunting” or looting); and “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.

As a note, 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 using the road in muddy conditions 

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

and other vehicles 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 and/or maintenance roads for power lines (e.g., 

COTP, BPA Malin-Warner, WAPA), natural gas transmission lines (e.g., PGT-PG&E and 

Tuscarora), and the OTH-B Radar Installation. All of the associated sites, if directly affected by 

these routes, have been subjected to evaluation for the National Register of Historic Places and 

were either determined to be ineligible and therefore, not affected, or they were determined 

eligible and had data recovery undertaken as mitigation for the affect. 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 in appendix F, we have used negligible, minor, moderate, or 

major. Only the “major” category has the potential to significantly affect potential NRHP 

eligibility criteria to the point that the eligibility status may be jeopardized. Major effects may 

include severe rutting and erosion, exposing archaeological deposits; direct camping on sites, 

resulting in surface disturbances, digging of privy pits or campfire pits; direct collection of

surface artifacts; and excavation or other direct signs of vandalism. 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 appendix F, 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 PA 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.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 127

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

See the effects methodology section above regarding how this analysis was conducted.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects under this alternative would result in a “status quo”, in that any effects occurring at 

present to cultural and archaeological resources would persist into the future. The creation of new 

unauthorized roads cross-country would result in the potential for effects on additional cultural 

and archaeological resources as new areas are opened up and made accessible by the routes. New 

roads would continue to run across archaeological sites resulting in surface disturbances, some 

possible erosion activity, establishment of new camping locations on sites and the illegal 

collection of surface artifacts, woodcutting activities, and threats to cultural and archaeological 

features and historic structures, etc. At present there are 374 archaeological sites associated with 

347 of the total of 1,660 unauthorized routes. One year and 20-year effects would be similar, with 

some user-created effects continuing on some of the archaeological sites.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of this action would result in the continuation of the creation of new 

unauthorized routes. This would continue to open up new areas that may subject cultural and 

archaeological resources to potential impacts and vandalism that are now relatively protected by 

their present inaccessibility by motor vehicle. Thus, the lessening of cultural and archaeological 

values by public impacts would continue at its present pace, and more resources would continue 

to be placed in jeopardy. It is estimated that one out of every five “user-created” routes is likely to 

affect a cultural resource site.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This action would allow for the reduction in impacts to cultural and archaeological resources by 

prohibiting cross–country travel which includes the use of some unauthorized routes that are

affecting resources. When effects on sites are currently considered to be negligible or minor; 

monitoring done for a period of three years on a random sample of sites, will be used for the 

identification of any further effects. Possible effects might be looting, rutting, or those caused by 

camping on the sites. The information gathered from monitoring will be the basis for the design 

of measures used to lessen those effects. Possible measures to lessen the effects might be closing 

the route, rerouting the road or closing the area to camping. Additionally the closure of FS RD 

46B29HB would help to lessen the known negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. 

Specifying periods of use for certain roads may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” of the roads 

through archaeological sites and lessen some amount of artifact displacement and disturbance. 

There may be some increase in effects to the archaeological sites associated with the routes being 

added to the NFTS as a result of increased use due to the ban on cross-country travel and the 

creation of new routes. Overall, however, this alternative should reduce negative effects on 

cultural and archaeological resources across the Forest and limit the creation of new effects to 

sites not currently associated with a route due to the ban on cross-country travel. At present there 

are 234 archaeological sites associated with 195 of the total of 1,168 unauthorized routes 

proposed for adding to the NFTS. One-year and 20-year effects would be similar, with effects 

continuing on some of the archaeological sites associated with designated routes; those sites 

associated with routes not designated for use should have reduced effects.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

128 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

Cumulative Effects

This action would allow for the continued reduction of potential impacts to cultural and 

archaeological resources by banning cross-country travel. Additionally, the closure of FS RD 

46B29HB would help to lessen the known negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. 

By specifying periods of use for certain roads, this action may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” 

of the roads through archaeological sites and lessen some amount of artifact displacement or 

disturbance. Overall, this alternative should reduce negative effects on cultural and archaeological 

resources across the Forest. Table 3-34 below compares effects of Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 on 

archaeological sites.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 129

Table 3-34. Effects to Known Cultural Resources: Summary Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 5 (which authorize the same routes), with Alternative 4

Type of Effects Nature of Effects Severity of Effects

# of 

Routes 

Proposed

# of 

Sites 

Affected

None Direct Indirect None Rutting Camping Looting Woodcutting Bladed 

Road 

None Negligible Minor Moderate

Alt 2 

& 5

195 234 17 213 262 61 157 37 41 8 52 46 27 207 1

Alt 4 181 209 14 184 229 54 129 34 36 6 51 43 22 178 1 

Note: Some routes affect more than one site. Some large sites are affected by more than one route. Some sites have multiple types, natures, and severity of effects due to this.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

130 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative cross-country travel would be prohibited which includes the use and creation of 

unauthorized roads. At present there are 374 archaeological sites associated with 347 of the total of 

1,660 unauthorized routes. This action would allow for the reduction of potential impacts to cultural 

and archaeological resources associated with these routes. This alternative does not close FS RD 

46B29HB, therefore the known negative effects to cultural resources would continue in that vicinity. 

Cumulative Effects

This action would reduce potential impacts to cultural and archaeological resources by banning crosscountry travel which includes the use of unauthorized routes. Additionally, keeping FS RD 46B29HB 

open for public use would perpetuate the known negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. 

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This action would allow for the reduction in impacts to cultural and archaeological resources by 

prohibiting cross-country travel which includes the use of certain routes that are affecting resources. 

When effects on sites are currently considered to be negligible or minor; monitoring done for a period 

of three years on a random sample of sites, will be used for the identification of any further effects. 

Possible effects might be looting, rutting, or those caused by camping on the site. The information 

gathered from monitoring will be the basis for the design of measures used to lessen those effects. 

Possible measures to lessen the effects might be closing the route, re-routing the road or closing the 

area to camping. Additionally the closure of FS RD 46B29HB would help to lessen the known 

negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. By specifying periods of use for certain roads,

this action may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” of the roads through archaeological sites and 

lessen some amount of artifact displacement or disturbance. Overall, this alternative should reduce 

negative effects on cultural and archaeological resources across the Forest. At present there are 209

archaeological sites associated with 181 of the total of 1,024 unauthorized routes to be added to the 

NFTS. One-year and 20-year effects would be similar, with some user-created effects continuing on 

some of the archaeological sites associated with designated routes; those sites associated with routes 

not designated for use should have reduced effects. See table 3-34 (above) for comparison of effects 

for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.

Cumulative Effects

This action would allow for the continued reduction of potential impacts to cultural and 

archaeological resources by banning cross-country travel. Additionally, the closure of FS RD 

46B29HB would help to lessen the known negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. By 

specifying periods of use for certain roads, this action may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” of the 

roads through archaeological sites and lessen some amount of artifact displacement or disturbance. 

Overall, this alternative should reduce negative effects on cultural and archaeological resources across 

the Forest

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This action would allow for the reduction in impacts to cultural and archaeological resources by 

prohibiting cross-country travel which includes the use of certain routes that are affecting resources. 

When effects on sites are currently considered to be negligible or minor; monitoring done for a period 

of three years on a random sample of sites, will be used for the identification of any further effects. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Cultural Resources 131

Possible effects might be looting, rutting, or those caused by camping on the site. The information 

gathered from monitoring will be the basis for the design of measures used to lessen those effects. 

Possible measures to lessen the effects might be closing the route, re-routing the road or closing the 

area to camping. Additionally, the closure of FS RD 46B29HB would help to lessen the known 

negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. By specifying periods of use for certain roads,

this action may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” of the roads through archaeological sites and 

lessen some amount of artifact displacement or disturbance. There may be some increase in effects to 

the archaeological sites associated with the routes being added to the NFTS as a result of increased 

usage. Overall, however, this alternative should reduce negative effects on cultural and archaeological 

resources across the Forest and limit the creation of new effects to sites not currently associated with 

a route due to the ban on cross-country travel. At present there are 234 archaeological sites associated 

with 195 of the total of 1,168 unauthorized routes proposed for adding to the NFTS. One-year and 20-

year effects would be similar, with some user-created effects continuing on some of the 

archaeological sites associated with designated routes; those sites associated with routes not 

designated for use should have reduced effects. See table 3-34 (above) for comparison of effects for 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.

Cumulative Effects

This action would allow for the continued reduction of potential impacts to cultural and 

archaeological resources by banning cross-country travel. Additionally, the closure of FS RD 

46B29HB would help to lessen the known negative effects to cultural resources in that vicinity. By 

specifying periods of use for certain roads this action may reduce or prevent serious “rutting” of the 

roads through archaeological sites and lessen some amount of artifact displacement or disturbance. 

Overall, this alternative should reduce negative effects on cultural and archaeological resources across 

the Forest.

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Based upon the ranking of alternatives and their potential to affect cultural and archaeological 

resources it appears that both the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 5 have equal 

ranking. The alternative with the most continuing effects on cultural and archaeological resources is 

the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative 3 could have been ranked higher if it actually 

“closed” all of the unauthorized routes. This alternative does not include these routes on the MVUM 

for the Forest. The assumption is that these routes will no longer be used by the public. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

132 Chapter 3—Cultural Resources

Figure 3-20. Number of Unauthorized Routes to be Added, by Alternative

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

One Two Three Four Five

Alternatives

# of Routes

Routes

Figure 3-21. Comparison of Number of Potentially Affected, Known Sites Across all Alternatives

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

One Two Three Four Five

Alternatives

# of Sites

Sites

Compliance with the LRMP and Other Direction

All proposed alternatives would be in compliance with LRMP standards and guidelines and existing 

historic preservation law, policy and regulation to the extent that the Forest is in current compliance 

with those regulatory directions. As with all compliance-related measures, funding is a key factor in 

the Forest’s ability to fully comply with direction.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 133

Soils and Water

Introduction

A healthy and functional watershed relies on an equilibrium, or balance, in the soil productivity, soil 

quality, water quantity, and water quality. The soil resource provides many essential functions for 

national forest lands. It sustains plant growth that provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat, and 

watershed protection. It absorbs precipitation, stores water for plant growth, and gradually releases 

surplus water which attenuates runoff rates. It sustains microorganisms which recycle nutrients for 

continued plant growth. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other acts recognized the 

fundamental need to protect, and where appropriate improve, the quality of soil.

Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service 

(Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2007 to 2012, July 2007). Management activities on national forest 

lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, 

including the volume, timing, and quality of stream flow. The use of roads, trails, and other areas on 

national forests for public operation of motor vehicles has potential to affect these hydrologic 

functions through interception of runoff, compaction of soils, and detachment of sediment (e.g., Foltz, 

2006). Management decisions to eliminate cross-county motorized travel, add new routes and areas 

to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and make changes to the existing NFTS must 

consider effects on watershed functions.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and 

Other Direction 

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects the soil resource includes the following:

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Renewable Resource Program. “(C) Recognize the 

fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air 

resources.”

National Soil Management Handbook: The Soil Management Handbook (USDA 1991) is a 

national soils handbook that defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, establishes 

guidance for measuring soil productivity, and establishes thresholds to assist in forest planning. 

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement: The Forest Service Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1) establishes regional soilquality analysis standards. The analysis standards address three basic elements for the soil resource: 

(1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity, and organic matter), (2) soil hydrologic function, 

and (3) soil buffering capacity. The analysis standards are to be used for areas dedicated to growing 

vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed campgrounds, 

administrative facilities, or in this case, the actual land surface authorized for travel by the public 

using various kinds of vehicles. 

The Regional Forester’s Letter (dated Feb 5, 2007): This letter provided clarification to Forest 

Supervisors on the appropriate use of the R5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH 

Supplement 2509.18-95-1). It states, in part—

Analysis or evaluation of soil condition is the intended use of the thresholds and 

indicators in R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1.They are not a set of mandatory 

standards or requirements. They should not be referred to as binding or mandatory 

requirements in NEPA documents. Standards and guidelines in Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans provide the relevant substantive standards to comply 

with NFMA. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

134 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

The thresholds and indicators represent desired conditions for the soil resource. Use of the thresholds 

and indicators provides a consistent method to analyze, describe, and report on soil conditions

throughout the region. 

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes federal policy for the control 

of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control of water 

pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by national forests in California is achieved under 

state law (see below).

Non-point source pollution on national forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000), which relies on 

implementation of prescribed best management practices (BMPs). The Water Quality Management 

Plan includes one BMP for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (4-7) and 28 BMPs related to road 

construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28) (See Appendix D, Water Quality Management Plan). All 

NFTS roads and trails open to OHV use are required to comply with these BMPs. 

Of particular relevance for motorized travel management, BMP 4-7 requires each forest to (1) identify 

areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water quality, (2) identify appropriate 

mitigation and controls, and (3) restrict OHV use to designated routes. This BMP further requires 

forests to take immediate corrective actions if considerable adverse effects are occurring or are likely 

to occur. 

The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws 

related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to 

water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at 

protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the Proposed Action is section 

13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.

The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water 

Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the state Water Resources Control 

Board and the regional water quality control boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) includes standards 

and guidelines that apply to the six forests included entirely or partially within the Northwest Forest

Plan. The ACS standards and guidelines require that a watershed analysis be completed that 

determines the influence of each road on ACS objectives, and that roads be designed to minimize 

impacts on riparian and aquatic resources. Construction of new roads in wetlands is prohibited. 

Adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS in meadows or wetlands constitutes road construction, and 

should be avoided. Stream crossings are required to be designed to pass a 100-year flood and allow 

for passage of aquatic fauna. 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

2004 SNFPA includes standards and guidelines that apply to the 10 Sierra Nevada forests for 

construction and relocation of roads, and for management of riparian conservation areas (RCAs). 

These standards and guidelines (S&Gs) require the Forest Service to avoid road construction, 

reconstruction, and relocation in meadows and wetlands (SNFPA S&G 70). Reconstructing 

unauthorized routes to bring them to National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) standards in 

meadows or wetlands should therefore be avoided. Only routes that already meet NFTS standards in 

meadows and wetlands should be proposed for addition to the NFTS. SNFPA S&G 92 requires that 

the Forest Service evaluate new management activities within RCAs and critical aquatic refuges

(CARs) during environmental analysis to determine consistency with riparian conservation objectives 

(RCOs) at the project level and the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals for the landscape. 

Adding an unauthorized route to the NFTS is a new management activity and must comply with S&G 

92. SNFPA S&G 100 requires the Forest Service to maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity 

of streams, meadows, and wetlands by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 135

flows paths and implementing corrective actions. SNFPA S&G 102 requires that the Forest Service 

determine if stream characteristics are within the range of natural variability prior to taking actions 

that could adversely affect streams. 

There is a small portion of the Modoc National Forest covered by the NWFP ROD, as well as areas of 

the Forest that are exempt form the SNFPA ROD. Where that situation exists, the appropriate 

standard and guideline would be based on the Modoc National Forest (MDF) Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) prior to 2004.

The Modoc National Forest LRMP provides for standards and guidelines for management areas. The 

general forest management area includes areas for multiple use; soil and water standards and 

guidelines have been developed for it. These S&Gs are as follows:

MDF LRMP Soils and Watershed Standards and Guidelines for 

General Forest

Soils

Maintain soil productivity by applying guidelines to areas where management prescriptions are 

applied.

Monitor for implementation and effectiveness. Areas not meeting guidelines will be rehabilitated. As 

a minimum, 85 percent of areas affected by soil-disturbing activities will not exceed soil property 

thresholds.

• Soil porosity is at least 90 percent of its natural conditions.

• During wet soil conditions, limit mechanical or heavy equipment and other soil-disturbing 

activities to designated routes.

• The mineral organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil should be at least 85 percent of its 

natural conditions.

• Design management activities not to exceed an average allowable soil loss of one ton per 

acre per year.

• During project planning, verify areas where soil productivity has been degraded.

• Complete a soil resource inventory order 2 or field-verify an SRI Order 3 during the 

planning phase of each site-disturbing or vegetation-manipulating project. (An SRI order is 

the soil resource inventory. It describes the level of intensity of a soil survey. For example, 

an SRI order of 3 is a broader-level soil survey than an SRI order 2.) Develop specific soil 

mitigation measures and soil conservation management practices for each project site as 

needed. 

Water

1. Implement best management practices (BMPs) to meet water quality standards and maintain and 

improve the quality of surface water on the Forest

2. Identify methods and techniques for applying BMPs during project-level analysis and incorporate 

into project plan.

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in attaining standards and protecting beneficial uses through 

on-site inspection, field observation, and water data collection on a case-by-case basis.

4. To minimize the risk of off-site cumulative impacts from management activities on stream 

channel conditions and water quality, conduct a cumulative watershed effects analysis of each 

land-disturbing activity on the appropriate second- or third-order watershed prior to undertaking.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

136 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

Effects Analysis Methodology

Direct and indirect effects

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 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

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. 

Cumulative Effects

Analysis for cumulative effects uses the same high-risk factors as the analysis for direct and indirect

effects. Analysis begins on a 6th-field hydrological unit code (HUC—a type of watershed). If the 

high-risk factors exceed 20 percent of the acreage of that HUC, a detailed cumulative watershed 

effects (CWE) analysis is done, using the Region 5 ERA-TOC (equivalent roaded acre - threshold of 

concern) methodology. A detailed CWE analysis consists of identifying the amount of compaction in 

that HUC, based on existing conditions, the Proposed Action, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The 

Forest hydrologist then identified a threshold of concern for each HUC. A threshold of concern is a 

point at which more compaction would likely result in a synergistic change to the amount of rainfall 

that would likely run off from a hillside during a 10-year storm event.

If the thresholds described in the numbered list above were not exceeded, and less than five percent of 

the acreage of the HUC contained NFTS existing and proposed routes, a modified cumulative 

watershed effects (CWE) analysis would be called for. In this project, the modified CWE analysis 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 137

consisted of comparing the bulk density of soil samples taken from proposed routes in the area, to soil 

samples taken adjacent to the routes.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

The Modoc National Forest is covered by three unique settings that have greatly influenced the 

development of the soils. These unique settings are as follows:

1. Basalt plateau and lava fields: The soils over the majority of the Doublehead and Devils Garden 

Ranger Districts are derived of volcanic deposits. They are coarse-textured soils for the most part,

due to the high amount of surface and subsurface rock content with a low percentage of finely

textured clays. For the most part, the slopes are relatively gentle (5 to 20 percent), the water 

runoff potential is very slow to moderate, maximum soil erosion hazard rating is low to 

moderate, and slope stability hazard and watershed sensitivity are low to moderate. The Tionesta 

area of the Devils Garden Ranger District is composed of moderately deep to deep volcanic 

overburden. These are very porous soils that are well drained, have rapid to extremely rapid 

permeability, and do not easily compact under a heavy load. The occasional presence of rock 

outcrop causes the water runoff potential to increase to rapid, but this accounts for generally less 

than 5 to 10 percent of the area.

2. Undulating hillsides: The soils on the majority of the Big Valley Ranger District are moderately 

deep with gentle to undulating slopes (5 to 25 percent). The water runoff potential is very slow to 

moderate, maximum soil erosion hazard rating is low to moderate, and slope stability hazard and 

watershed sensitivity are low to moderate. Isolated patches of soils have a high and very high 

maximum erosion hazard rating based on steeper hillsides. But this generally does not constitute 

more than 10 percent of the district.

3. Steep mountainsides: the soils associated with the Warner Mountains are moderately deep, and 

fragile. The slopes of the Warner Mountains are steeper than at any other location on the Forest, 

with more acreage of slopes greater than 40 percent than on the other two land forms. The erosion 

hazard rating is moderate to high and very high on approximately on 40 to 60 percent of the soils, 

the water runoff potential is rapid to very rapid, and the slope stability and watershed sensitivity 

are moderate to high on more than 25 percent of the hillsides.

Table 3-35. Soils with High Risk Factors, by District

Ranger District Acreage Miles of Routes on Soils with High Risk 

Factors

Big Valley 494,307 0

Devils Garden & 

Doublehead

1166,638 0

Warner Mountain 361,564 20.1

Totals 2,022,509 20.1

These same land forms have greatly influenced the water quantity and quality across the national 

forest.

Doublehead and Devils Garden Ranger Districts

The Doublehead and Devils Garden Ranger Districts generally have a lack of hydrologic connectivity 

of their stream networks. There are few if any perennial streams, but a relatively large amount of 

seasonally flowing streams that drain into a reservoir, stock pond, or other depression in the ground 

that act to recharge the groundwater table. The basalt plateau is a highly fractured substrate that is not 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

138 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

prone to holding surface waters unless there is a subsurface hardpan present. These areas on the basalt 

plateau over geologic time have been subject to lava flows. The reservoirs on the districts have a 

tendency for seasonally wet bodies of water that have a tendency to dry out in August and September,

with the exception of the larger bodies of water like Clear Lake and Big Sage Reservoirs. 

Big Valley Ranger District

The Big Valley Ranger District has hydrologic connectivity of its stream network to the Pit River. 

These perennial streams (most notably Rush Creek, Ash Creek, and a few lesser-known streams), and

a relatively large amount of seasonally flowing streams drain into the Pit River. In the northwestern 

portion of the district there are sizeable areas of lava flows, rock outcrops, and rubble lands with

depressions formed by the lava flows. These depressions seasonally store water that acts to recharge 

basins for the groundwater table. 

Lava tubes that have collapsed, support riparian areas in the northwestern portion of the district in and 

around the Long Bell and Hollenbeck Butte areas. But generally these tubes do not have hydrologic 

connectivity to other streams; eventually the water either evaporates to the atmosphere or recharges 

the groundwater table in the late summer. The reservoirs on this district have a tendency to be 

seasonally wet bodies of water that dry out in August and September. 

The topography of the Big Valley Ranger District has gently sloping hillsides with moderately deep 

to deep soils. These hillsides are generally in the slope range of 5 to 25 percent, with a noticeable lack 

of inner gorges, steep slopes, or unstable hillsides. The soils on these hillsides are a coarse-textured 

soil with a relatively high amount of rock content in the subsoil and on the surface. There is a general 

lack of soils that have either a high to very high maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR) or rapid to 

very rapid water runoff potential (WROP).

Warner Mountain Ranger District

The Warner Mountain Ranger District has hydrologic connectivity of its stream network to the North 

and South Fork of the Pit River and Goose Lake (slope break westward), Alkali Lakes (Upper, 

Middle, and Lower), and the Fort Bidwell Indian Reservation (slope break eastward). The district has 

the largest amount of perennial streams on the Forest. They drain from the slope break of the Warner 

Mountains westward (most notably Parker Creek, Joseph Basin Creek, Fitzhugh Creek, and a few 

lesser-known perennial streams) into the North Fork of the Pit River. There is a series of seasonally 

flowing streams associated with the perennial streams on both sides of the slope break of the Warner 

Mountains. There is a series of fens, meadows, and other special aquatic features all up and down 

both sides of the slope break of the Warner Mountain Range.

Davis Creek, Lassen Creek, and a few lesser-know perennial streams located in the northeastern

portion of the districts drain into Goose Lake. Goose Lake appears on the map to drain into North 

Fork of the Pit River, but in reality is a closed basin with no hydrologic connectivity or outlet. It adds 

water to the North Fork of the Pit River only when it overtops its dam during an extremely wet year. 

In essence it is a giant sediment retention pond. In the southeastern portion of the district there is a 

perennial lake known as Blue Lake. It supports a year-round fishery, but is a closed basin. 

Bidwell Creek, Cedar Creek, and Emerson Creek are the most notable perennial streams located on 

the east side of the slope break of the Warner Mountains. Bidwell Creek and its tributary flow into the 

Fort Bidwell Indian Reservation, into storage basins, then eventually into Upper Alkali Lake. Cedar 

Creek flows through the community of Cedarville, into irrigation ditches, then eventually into Middle 

Alkali Lake. Emerson Creek drains south of Eagleville into irrigation ditches, then eventually into 

Lower Alkali Lake.

The land forms of the Warner Mountains on both sides of the slope break have portions of steep, 

unstable hillsides with inner gorges and down-cut stream channels. Depending on which side of the 

slope break you are on, the soils associated with the Warner Mountains are moderately deep to deep, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 139

and fragile. On approximately 40 to 60 percent of the land base of the Warner Mountains, the MEHR 

is high to very high; the remaining acreage in the Warner Mountains is moderate. These soils within 

the Warner Mountains have a water runoff potential of rapid to very rapid, and a slope stability and 

watershed sensitivity of moderate to high on more than 25 percent of the hillsides.

The stream channels of the Warner Mountains sustained a disturbance from the warm rain on cold 

snowpack event in 1997. In many places across the district with Cedar Creek being the most notable, 

the main stems sustained elevated bulk stream flow of an event similar to a 100-year event. As a 

result, many streams that had a Pfankuch rating of good to excellent now have a rating of good to fair,

with a few having a rating of poor. (The PFC rating also went from fully functional—PFC rating of 

proper—to functional at risk). (Pfankuch rating is a standardized methodology used in the Forest 

Service to evaluate the hydrologic and geologic stability of stream courses.) These streams are 

recovering over time as the natural healing processes are occurring.

There are no known municipal watersheds located on the district or Forest. The Fort Bidwell Indian 

Reservation uses a sub-watershed located within T 46N, and Range 15/16E as a public water source. 

It is a capped well and not a surface water resource.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, no unauthorized routes would be added to the road system. There would be no 

seasonal closure of system roads, and mixed use would officially be allowed only on existing level 2 

roads. Mixed use would continue on Level 3 roads as well. The Boles road would not be closed, and 

the pumice mine roads would not be closed to OHV use. 

Under Alternative 1, there would be no unauthorized routes added to the transportation system, and 

these routes would continue to be used. No OHV trail monitoring (red-yellow-green) has been 

completed on the mixed-use roads. (The red-yellow-green system establishes priorities for 

maintaining OHV routes.) Routes that were identified as having high to very high maximum erosion 

hazard were field-checked to determine if they were actively eroding. One route in the Warner 

Mountains was identified as actively eroding (See Alternative 2). It should be noted that under 

Alternative 1, unauthorized routes on the Forest would continue and there would be no change to the 

potential for additional unauthorized routes to be created. There would be no ban on cross-country

travel.

Existing routes would be subject to maintenance and erosion control as specified under BMPs 2.7 

(Control of Road Drainage), 2.22 (Maintenance of Roads), 2.23 (Road Surface Treatment to Prevent 

Loss of Materials), and 2.24 (Traffic Control During Wet Periods). 

No riparian conservation area (RCA) analysis was completed on Alternatives 1, as there was no 

action to analyze.

Conclusion: Cross country travel, which includes all of the existing unauthorized routes (491 miles) 

would not be prohibited. It was determined by the Forest hydrologist that under Alternative 1, it is 

unlikely that the selection of Alternative 1 would result in an adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effect to soil or water quality beyond what is occurring now. BMPs would continue to be applied. 

This Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Alternative 2, The Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, 1,154 unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the transportation system. 

The average road length to be added would be less than a third of a mile. These routes add 

approximately 336 miles and constitute approximately 616 acres of roadways, with a disturbance 

coefficient of 110.9 to 166.4 compacted acres, or approximately 0.01 percent of the Forest land base.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

140 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

This alternative has the largest number of miles and routes (the same as Alternative 5) to be added to 

the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). This alternative also has the most grounddisturbed sites being added to the transportation system. A total of 6.3 percent of the number of routes 

(approximately 5.9 percent of the total miles) proposed to be added to the transportation system 

would have some form of seasonal closure. The Boles Road would be closed to all use and the 

pumice mine road would be closed to OHV use.

Other features of Alternative 2—

• Approximately 78.9 percent of these additions to the transportation system are located on 

soils with a low to moderate MEHR, very slow to slow WROP, and low to moderate SSH 

and WSS. 

• Approximately 20.1 percent of these additions to the transportation system are located on 

soils with a high to very high MEHR, rapid to very rapid WROP, and high or greater SSH 

and WSS. These are predominately located in the Warner Mountain Ranger District and 

were field-checked by the Forest hydrologist during the summer of 2008.

• Approximately 0.3 percent of these additions to the transportation system are located within 

the RCAs for perennial streams and lakes. Approximately 5.1 percent are located within the 

RCAs for seasonally flow streams and seasonally wet lakes. These are predominately 

located in the Warner Mountain Ranger District and were field-checked by the Forest 

hydrologist during summer of 2008. 

• The routes in the Warner Mountains are predominately old skid trails or pre-existing 

temporary roads that have functional water bars, and are generally not actively eroding. 

These routes did not display either diversion potential or hydrologic connectivity to the 

stream courses. In addition, the routes near the higher elevations are generally located on 

very rocky ground with a high concentration of surface rock that is cobble sized.

• No OHV trail monitoring (red-yellow-green) has been completed on the mixed-use trails. 

The Modoc NF does not have any motorized trails. Those routes that were identified as 

having high to very high maximum erosion hazard were field-checked to determine if they 

were actively eroding.

• It should be noted from past project level analysis across the Forest that the consistency of 

the MDF Order 3 Soil Survey has been field-checked. The order 3 SRI has demonstrated a 

high level of accuracy.

Within the Warner Mountain Ranger District, approximately 40 to 60 percent of the land base 

contains soils that have a high to very high MEHR and rapid to very rapid WROP. This was 

estimated from review of the MDF Soil Survey and Home Camp Soil Survey Soil Map Units, and 

estimating the acres of soils and the range of slopes. This included both 1802 and 1808 HUCs.

During field visits, no evidence was observed of cross-country travel occurring. As discussed under 

Alternatives 1 and 3, the OHV use on the Forest is generally associated with other Forest recreational

activities and predominately consists of ATVs and other OHVs, with a small percentage of 

motorcycles.

Currently there are approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes that may be used for OHV travel. 

This alternative proposes to add 336 miles of those routes; 20 miles or 5.9 percent would receive 

seasonal closure for resource protection. Most routes were left over from timber harvest activities, 

stock drives, utility access roads, railroad and utility corridor access, cow trails, or cowboy trails. The 

most typical condition is the trail tread having a strip of grass on both sides with a strip in the middle. 

This is characteristic of use by ATVs or pickup trucks, rather than motorcycles. OHV use on the 

forest is highest during hunting season.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 141

Currently there are 3,761 miles of existing level 2 system roads designated for mixed use. This 

alternative proposes to change vehicle class to allow an additional 138 miles of level 3 system roads 

for mixed use. There is no additional effects expected on Level 3 roads as a result of allowing mixed 

use..

A high level of long-term, sustained OHV use is not expected as a result of adding unauthorized OHV 

routes to the NFTS. This is because near the population centers (i.e., towns and cities near the Lassen, 

Klamath, and Fremont-Winema National Forests and adjacent BLM lands), there are already OHV 

use areas. Occasionally there is OHV use on the Forest, but it is generally in association with other 

activities, (e.g., camping, woodcutting, hunting or other forest recreational use). The typical OHV use 

on Forest is generally restricted to ATVs and other four-wheel-drive vehicles, with limited 

motorcycle use. These users tend to use system roads and skid trails or temporary roads.

The majority of the unauthorized routes existing on the Doublehead and Devils Garden (DH and DG) 

Ranger Districts are open year-round due to the nature of the landscape. In general terms, this area of 

the Forest has the tendency to receive rainfall rather than snowfall. During the field review, no 

evidence was observed that cross-country travel was occurring on the DH and DG Ranger Districts. 

On these districts there are approximately seventy-seven 6th field sub-watersheds with approximately 

1.2 million acres of NFS lands, or 58 percent of the Modoc National Forest land base.

The soils in the Tionesta 6th field sub-watershed are generally deep soils that consist of volcanic 

overburden that has a rapid permeability and does not have the tendency toward compaction even 

when wet. A long-term soil productivity (LTSP) study was completed on these soils; findings of the

research are incorporated into the analysis by reference (Powers, Robert and et al., The North 

American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research, Journal 

of Forest Ecology and Management 220 pages 31-50, 2005.). During 2008, BMPEP monitoring of 

skid trails, temporary roads and landings was completed on these soils. It was observed that even 

without the use of water bars, these temporary roads, skid trails, and landings are not prone to surface 

runoff. There was no evidence that these soils are prone to rilling, rutting, or erosion from overland 

water movement or runoff.

Eastward from Cedar Pass to the Forest boundary (east side of the Warner Mountains) and north to 

the Oregon state line and south to the forest boundary, there is a lack of an SRI Order 3 that identified 

maximum erosion hazard or slope stability. The land forms are steep with presence of inner gorges, 

down-cut channels and unstable slopes. These soils on the east side of the Warner Mountains are 

more sensitive, have a higher clay content, have less rock content, and are presumed to be more prone 

to higher erosion rates. Past land management activities have shown a lighter touch on the ground due 

to the sensitivity of these soils and the associated land forms.

For the purpose of this analysis it was presumed that on slopes greater than 30 percent the MEHR was 

high to very high, WROP was rapid to very rapid, and WSS and SSH were high or greater. This 

extends eastward approximately eastward from Cedar Pass campground to the Forest boundary. 

Approximately 20.1 miles of unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the transportation

system are on soils with a high to very high MEHR and rapid to very rapid WROP.

The remaining routes are spread out across the Warner Mountain Ranger District (thirty six 6th field 

sub-watersheds with approximately 18 percent of the Forest land base) and Big Valley Ranger 

District (fifty 6th field sub-watersheds with approximately 24 percent of the Forest land base). 

However, these unauthorized routes are not totally consistent with BMP 2.26 (Obliteration or 

Decommissioning of Roads). While these unauthorized routes are hydrologically stable and are not 

actively eroding. They were not closed to low-level casual use, as identified under explanation of 

BMP 2.26. Most of these routes have been in existence for over 40 years and considered extensions of 

the system roads.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

142 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

The results of the field review done in 2008 showed that only one route on the Forest in the Warner 

Mountain District was actively eroding. This was proposed route SS563. The remaining routes would 

fully comply with BMPEP T02 (Skid Trails) and E14 (Temporary Roads). Even the route that was 

actively eroding was only eroding from the water bar to the system road. The eroding treadway was 

less than 25 feet long and 15 feet wide. It was located on a steep pitch of the hillside, and the roadway 

of the system road was not hydrologically connected to a perennial or seasonally flowing stream.

Under BMPEP T02, this road would have received a minor departure based on presence of rills but 

occurrence on less then 20 percent of the skid trail surface and no evidence of transport into the 

streamside management zone (SMZ).

Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil and Water Quality

Alternatives 2 and 5 contain the largest amount of acreage of unauthorized routes to be added to the 

NFTS on NFS lands. Of approximately eighty 6th field HUCs on the Modoc National Forest, only 

nine HUCs, or 11.5 percent, have soils that have maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR) of high or 

very high. They are limited to the Warner Mountain Ranger District. 

There was no direct soil measurement to determine if the amount of soil loss was less than one ton per 

acre per year. However, the standard states an average allowable soil loss of one ton per acre 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 than 10 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 (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, but rather a minor departure from fully 

successful, it was reasoned that this skid trail (proposed route) did not meet the LRMP standard and 

guideline for allowable soil loss. 

The existing condition of trails was based on determining the effectiveness of erosion control on 

proposed routes or trails (BMPEP Form T02: Skid Trails). If a trail received a rating of fully 

successful with the following criteria, then it was presumed to fully comply with the LRMP standards 

and guidelines.

Big Valley Ranger District

While the Big Valley Ranger District (BVRD) has soils that have high to very high MEHR and 

WROP of rapid to very rapid, it has a very low number of routes that are proposed to be added. A 

total of 39.1 miles of unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the transportation system across 

494,307 acres, or 0.14 percent of the BVRD. There were no routes that are proposed to be added on 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 143

soils with a high or very MEHR, and none of these routes are hydrologically connected to perennial 

streams or lakes, or has diversion potential to streams or lakes. Approximately 90 percent of these 

routes are located in four 6th field HUCs.

Since none of these routes are located on soils that have either high to very high MEHR or high SSH, 

none of these routes were field-checked. No RCAs were field-checked by the Forest hydrologist, but 

were reviewed by the field crew during sampling for bulk density. No erosion or stream-diversion 

potential was identified during the field visits by the soil sampling crew.

Doublehead and Devils Garden Ranger Districts

Approximately 268.5 miles of the 336 miles are located on the Doublehead and Devils Garden 

Ranger Districts, or approximately 79 percent of the proposed routes on the Modoc National Forest. 

This accounts for approximately 0.04 percent of the NFS lands.

These routes are located on soils that have a low to moderate MEHR and a low to moderate SSH, and 

have either high rock content in the soil or rock on the surface. These routes are presumed to be 

compacted and are an average width of 15 feet with a disturbance coefficient of 0.18 to 0.27 acres per 

mile of unauthorized route. This is based on bulk density samples taken on 60-plus sites across the 

Forest. To put this in perspective, an acre of fully compacted soil would produce approximately 1.82 

acres per mile, and a cow trail would result in disturbance coefficient of 0.12 to 0.24 acres per mile of 

trail. A skid trail created by logging activity would, on the average, result in a disturbance coefficient 

0.27 to 0.55 acres per mile. This, of course, is dependent on soil type (deep sandy soil versus clayey 

soil, and high versus low rock content).

Since none of these routes is located on soils that have either high to very high MEHR or high SSH, 

none of these routes was field-checked by the Forest hydrologist. Approximately 50 routes were 

sampled for bulk density, and there was no evidence of erosion or of inconsistency with BMPs or 

Region 5 SQS standards noted. The field review was completed by archaeological technicians that 

were trained by the Forest hydrologist on soil sampling. The routes visited were picked at random by 

the Forest hydrologist. RCAs were selected at random and field-checked by the Forest hydrologist. 

Not all RCAs were field-checked by the Forest hydrologist; selected sites picked at random were field 

reviewed by the field crew during sampling for bulk density. No erosion or stream diversion potential 

was identified during the field visits by the soil-sampling crew.

Of the 268.5 miles, only 0.08 miles, or 0.15 acres, are located within the RCAs for perennial streams 

or lakes. There are approximately 32 acres within seasonally flowing RCAs created by the proposed 

routes. None of these routes were identified as being hydrologically connected to the stream network,

or has diversion potential to streams or lakes; therefore, they are not likely to have an adverse effect 

on water quality.

Warner Mountain Ranger District

The Warner Mountain RD has soils that have high to very high MEHR and WROP of rapid to very 

rapid. However, it has a very low amount of routes proposed to be added: 31.4 miles of unauthorized 

routes across 361,564 acres, or 0.02 of the WMRD. A total 31.4 miles of unauthorized routes are 

proposed to be added to the transportation system across 361,564 acres, or 0.02 percent of the district. 

Approximately 40 to 60 percent of the routes proposed to be added are on soils with a high or very 

high MEHR. They are old skid trails and temporary roads that have been made hydrologically stable 

by the installation of water bars. These skid trails are compacted, not eroding, and are consistent with 

BMP 1.17 (Erosion Control on Skid Trails) and BMP 2.26 (Obliteration of Temporary Roads), except 

that access to the road or skid trail is not blocked to low-level casual use.

All of the routes that are located on soils that have either high to very high MEHR or high SSH were 

field-checked. The results of the field review show that only one small section of a trail within the 

district is actively eroding. It was on a steep pitch of the hillside (a slope greater than 30 percent), the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

144 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

eroding portion was less than 25 feet, and it was connected to a system road. The system road was not 

hydrologically connected to a perennial stream or lake, and was not within the RCA.

There are 1.72 miles of unauthorized routes, or 3.1 acres within RCAs for perennial streams or lakes. 

The largest concentration is associated with Lassen Creek (0.5 miles, or less than 1 acre) and 

Northwest Shore Middle Alkali Lake (0.7 miles or 1.3 acres). While the routes are located within the 

RCAs for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically connected to the stream courses,

nor are they contributing sediment to the water column.

It is recommended that the following project design standards (PDS) be applied to Alternative 2:

BMPs 2.7 (Control of Road Drainage), 2.22 (Maintenance of Roads) and 2.23 (Road Surface 

Treatment to Prevent loss of Materials)

While these BMPs were designed to prevent unacceptable levels of road runoff and erosion of system 

roads, the same principles should be applied to the routes added to the transportation system. These 

routes would be added as ML 2 roads, not as trails. These are mostly preventive measures, but a key 

component of this BMP is the development of an erosion-control plan and maintenance of erosioncontrol structures.

BMP 2.24 (Traffic Control during Wet Periods)

The application of this BMP is a preventive measure, and is dependent on the changing effect of 

climate. As the authorized routes become saturated, the use of the roads should be restricted to times 

when rutting of the tread is not likely to occur. Under normal conditions, this is unlikely except for a 

few times during the year. It should be accomplished by coordination between the OHV manager and 

the Forest hydrologist. The final decision will be made by the line officer.

BMP 4.7 (Water Quality Monitoring of OHV Use According to a Developed Plan)

Under this plan, the OHV Soil Monitoring Protocol (green-yellow-red) was developed in Region 5 as 

a standardized, region-wide trail-monitoring methodology, and should be implemented. (The greenyellow-red system establishes priorities for maintaining OHV routes.) It is expected that all trails with 

a distance greater than 0.5 miles in length would be monitored by the OHV manager or his or her 

designated representative over the next ten years. The results of the monitoring would enable the 

OHV manager to prioritize the need for trail maintenance.

Conclusion

With the adoption of the above-referenced project design standards, it is unlikely that Alternative 2 

would result in a direct or indirect adverse effect to soil or water quality.

Cumulative Effects to Soil and Water Quality

Of the 120-plus 6th field HUCs on the Modoc National Forest, approximately 80 sub-watersheds 

contain unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the transportation system under 

Alternative 2. Of these nearly 80 affected sub-watersheds, all but nine had over 80 percent of their

land base acreage with low risk factors that would make them likely to have an occurrence of a 

cumulative effect to soil or water quality. These risk factors are as follows:

• Maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR) of high to very high

• Slope stability hazard rating (SSH) of high to very high

• Water runoff potential (WROP) of rapid to very rapid

• Watershed sensitivity (WSS) of high to very high

• Slopes greater than 40 percent

The nine 6th field sub-watersheds that have more than 20 percent of the land base with the abovereferenced risk factors are located within the Warner Mountain Ranger District and are included in 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 145

both the 1802 and 1808 HUCs. These 1802 HUCs, or sub-watersheds, drain predominately into 

Goose Lake with little or no hydrologic connectivity to the Pit River. The 1808 HUCs drain into the 

alkali lakes to the east of the Forest boundary, and do not have hydrologic connectivity to perennial 

waters downstream.

Modified CWE Process

Of the 120-plus 6th field HUCs on the Modoc National Forest, approximately 80 contain 

unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the transportation system under Alternative 2.

Of these eighty affected sub-watersheds, all but nine had more than 80 percent of their land-base 

acreage with low risk factors that would make them unlikely to lead to the occurrence of a cumulative 

effect to soil or water quality.

Bulk density is a direct field measurement that includes air space, as well as soil volume; thus, these 

measurements are related to soil porosity. Excessive trampling by grazing animals, use of heavy 

machinery, and intensive recreational use or disturbance while soils are wet will increase bulk 

density, particularly of finely textured soils (Pritchett, William L., Properties and management of 

Forest Soils, John Wiley and Sons, 1979). The change of bulk density shows how the roadway has 

changed or altered the soil porosity. 

It is expected that on the Big Valley, Devils Garden, and Doublehead Ranger Districts, there would

be a relatively low amount of change of the bulk density (0 to 15 percent) of the OHV routes. This is

due to the low amount of fines (clay content) in the soil, and the high amount of coarse material (rock, 

gravel, and cobbles on the soil surface and in the subsoil) in the soil. Within the Warner Mountain 

Ranger District, there should be a relatively higher amount of change in the bulk density (15 to 30 

percent) of the soil in the OHV routes, mainly due to the higher amount of fines (clay content) and a 

lower amount of coarse material in the soil and subsoil.

Bulk density was sampled across the Forest on sites that were picked at random that sampled a wide 

range of soils and watershed conditions. The results were as follows.

• The results of the sampling across the Modoc National Forest show that of the 62 routes 

that were sampled, 23 routes, or 37.1 percent, showed no discernable change in soil

compaction on the routes, as compared to the undisturbed areas of the Forest. Twenty-five 

routes had less than 20 percent increase in soils compaction of the undisturbed adjacent 

area, or 40.3 percent. Only 14 routes showed a soil compaction increase of 20 to 40 percent,

or 22.6 percent over undisturbed areas of the Forest. 

• Of the routes that showed an increase in soil compaction greater than 20 percent over the 

undisturbed areas, five samples were obtained in the Lassen Creek, Ross Creek, and Willow 

Creek sub-watersheds. Lassen and Ross Creek had more than 20 percent of the land base 

with high risk factors, and were analyzed under the Region 5 CWE TOC-ERA 

methodology. Willow Creek sub-watershed did not have more then 20 percent high risk 

factors. Less than five percent of the affected sub-watershed had roaded acres; it was 

analyzed under the modified CWE approach.

Assuming the worst-case scenario that 22.6 percent of the routes would have increased soil 

compaction over undisturbed areas by 20 to 40 percent, this would equate to approximately 113 to 

225 roaded acres that would have some form of soil compaction, but not be fully compacted. These 

acres are spread out across approximately 80 sub-watersheds, with less than one percent of the land 

base that would have an increase in the potential runoff. Since the routes are disconnected from 

stream crossings and these soils have either rapid permeability or a high percent of rock on the 

surface or rock content in the soil profile, this small increase of runoff would not adversely affect the 

sub-watershed process. These sub-watersheds have less than five percent of the land base in roaded 

acres, and do not have the high-risk factors present.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

146 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

Conclusion

None of the sub-watersheds, with the exception of the nine affected sub-watersheds within the 

Warner Mountain Ranger District, has a high risk factor of WROP, SSH, or WSS. The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network, and the runoff potential 

increased by the soil compaction levels of the routes is generally less than 1 percent over adjacent 

undisturbed areas. Based on these facts, it has been determined that under Alternative 2, the addition 

of the proposed routes to the NFTS is unlikely to result in an adverse cumulative effect to soil or 

water quality.

Region 5 Cumulative Watershed Effects Process

Nine of the 80 identified 6th field sub-watersheds (see following table) were analyzed under the 

ERA-TOC methodology. The threshold of concern (TOC) was developed by determining the amount 

of acreage in each sub-watershed of the above-referenced high risk factors. The identified TOC was 

established at 12 percent, and ERAs for the sub-watersheds were identified based on grounddisturbing activities that have occurred over the past 30 years. The proposed routes were originally 

skid trails and pre-existing temporary roads associated with past harvest activities. The ERAs created 

by them were originally incorporated as an infrastructure associated with harvest activities, and part 

of the disturbance coefficient.

The following are the result of the ERA-TOC Methodology CWE Analysis completed on the nine 

affected sub-watersheds that are not covered under the Modified CWE Process. Please refer to Table 

3-36, below.

Table 3-36. Summary of Results of ERA-TOC CWE Analysis

6th Field HUC # 6th Field HUC Name 2008 % TOC 2013 % TOC 2018 % TOC

180200010305 Lassen Creek 32.4 27.4 24.3

180200010306 Ross Creek 28.5 26 24.8

180200010307 Davis Creek 31.1 27.9 25.4

180800010102 Bidwell Creek 21.9 21.5 21.3

180800010103 Upper West Shore 

Upper Alkali Lake

27.4 23.1 20.2

180800010104 Lower West Shore 

Upper Alkali Lake

28.3 25.2 22.3

180800010201 Northwest Shore 

Middle Alkali Lake

42.2 40.4 33.7

180800010202 West Shore Middle 

Alkali Lake

15.4 14.2 13.1

180800010303 Bare Creek 23.2 20.1 17

The results of the ERA-TOC R5 CWE methodology displayed above show that none of the subwatersheds above is approaching 80 percent of TOC. Over the next 10 years, the 6th field subwatersheds will recover and the percent of TOC will drop into the 20 to 30 percent range. In addition, 

the routes are hydrologically stable and are not connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream

courses. Therefore, it has been determined that under this action alternative, it is unlikely that an 

adverse cumulative effect to soil or water quality would occur.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Devils Garden and Doublehead Ranger Districts: Over the next 10 years, fuels reduction and 

plantation thinning are proposed to be implemented across the Devils Garden Ranger District. One 

could presume that approximately 1,000 to 2,000 acres could be potentially treated by hand, and the 

same amount of acres could be treated mechanically. This would most likely occur in the Taylor 

Creek 5th field sub-watersheds (1802000211). Since these sub-watersheds do not have the occurrence 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 147

of high risk factors, it is not likely that they would add to the risk of a cumulative effect. These 

projects would be analyzed for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soil and water quality during 

a separate NEPA process. The effects to soil and water quality would be minimized through the 

application of MDF LRMP S&G, BMPs and Region 5 SQSs.

Big Valley Ranger District: A fuels reduction project is being analyzed in the Ash Creek 5th field 

watershed. However, there are no unauthorized routes proposed within its affected sub-watershed. 

These projects would be analyzed for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soil and water quality 

in a separate NEPA process. The effects to soil and water quality would be minimized through the 

application of MDF LRMP S&G, BMPs and Region 5 SQSs.

Warner Mountain Ranger District: At this time, the Lassen Creek and Cedar Pass projects are being 

planned. The Lassen Creek fuels reduction project encompasses areas of Lassen Creek, Willow 

Creek, Davis Creek, and Ross Creek. This project is most likely to contain mechanical activity that 

could create additional soil compaction. The Lassen Creek project is planned for 2010 and beyond. 

Little is know on the exact treatment acres, treatment type (mechanical thinning versus precommercial thinning by hand) and fuels reduction (mastication or underburning). The past grounddisturbing activities have been identified, and this information was incorporated into the CWE-ERATOC analysis for the FEIS. The guidance to the silviculturist on the Lassen Creek Project is to 

develop acres and treatment plans based on not exceeding 80 percent of the TOC. Once project-level 

activities become defined, they will be analyzed under the R5 CWE analysis, and any ERAs created 

by this project will be incorporated into the CWE analysis for Lassen Creek.

The Cedar Creek fuels reduction encompasses areas of Cedar Creek has been completed and the 

environmental assessment has been signed. This project contains mechanical activity that could create 

additional soil compaction. The result of project-level CWE Analysis was incorporated into the CWE 

ERA-TOC analysis.

At this time, no other projects are known that could create additional soil compaction. Both of the 

above-referenced projects would be consistent with MDF LRMP standards and guidelines, BMPs,

and Region 5 SQS.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, no new routes would be added to the road system. There would be no seasonal 

closure of system roads, and mixed use of approximately 3,764 miles of maintenance level 2 (ML 2) 

would continue. The Boles Road would not be closed, and the pumice mine roads would not be 

closed to OHV use. There would be no additional seasonal closures.

Since only the existing road system would be used for motorized use, and these routes would conform 

to the BMPs as identified under Alternative 1, it is unlikely that a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect 

to soil or water quality would occur.

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,025 unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the 

transportation system. The average road length to be added would be less than a third of a mile. 

These routes would add approximately 286 miles and constitute approximately 521 acres of 

roadways, with a disturbance coefficient of 110.9 to 166.4 compacted acres across the Modoc 

National Forest. The Boles road would be closed to all vehicles, and the pumice mine road would be 

closed to OHV use. There are more seasonal closures on the transportation system under this action 

alternative than all of the other Alternatives.

This alternative has fewer miles and number of routes to be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) than does Alternative 2. There are no routes proposed to be added to 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

148 Chapter 3—Soils & Water

the transportation system that were not analyzed under Alternative 2. The analysis that was completed 

for Alternative 2 applies here.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil and Water Quality

There are fewer routes, acres of NFS lands disturbed, and miles of routes across the Modoc National 

Forest under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 (286 miles versus 336). No routes would be added that 

were not analyzed under Alternative 2. The same project design standards would be applied as 

discussed under Alternative 2. Therefore, it is unlikely that this action alternative would result in an 

adverse direct or indirect effect to soil or water quality.

Cumulative Effects to Soil and Water Quality

There would be fewer acres of NFS lands disturbed under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 (521

versus 617). No routes would be added that were not analyzed under Alternative 2, and the same 

project design standards would be applied as discussed under Alternative 2. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that this action alternative would result in an adverse cumulative effect to soil or water quality.

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5, 1,154 unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the transportation system,

the same as Alternative 2. Average length of roads to be added would be less than a third of a mile. 

These routes would add approximately 336 miles, and constitute approximately 617 acres of 

roadways with a disturbance coefficient of 110.9 to 166.4 compacted acres. The Boles Road would be 

closed to all vehicles, and the pumice mine roads would be closed to OHV use. The seasonal closures 

to the transportation system under this action alternative are the same as Alternative 2, except that 

there are two versus four different closure dates. There are nearly four times as many miles of mixed 

use (Alternative 5-531 miles versus Alternative 2-138 miles). 

These routes would add approximately 336 miles and constitute approximately 616 acres of roadways 

with a disturbance coefficient of 110.9 to 166.4 compacted acres, or approximately 0.01 percent of 

the land base of the Forest. 

This alternative has same amount of miles and routes to be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) as Alternative 2. No routes are proposed to be added to the 

transportation system that were not analyzed under Alternative 2. The analysis completed for 

Alternative 2 also applies here.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil and Water Quality

Since there is the same number of routes, acres of NFS lands disturbed, and miles of routes under 

Alternative 5 as Alternative 2, no routes are being added that were not analyzed under Alternative 2, 

and since the same project design standards are applicable as discussed under Alternative 2, it is 

unlikely that Alternative 5 would result in an adverse direct or indirect effect to soil or water quality.

Cumulative Effects to Soil and Water Quality

There is the same number of routes, acres of NFS lands disturbed, and miles of routes under 

Alternative 5 as under Alternative 2. No routes are being added that were not analyzed under 

Alternative 2, and the same project design standards would be applied as discussed under Alternative 

2. Therefore, it is unlikely that Alternative 5 would result in an adverse cumulative effect to soil or 

water quality.

Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) developed a “State of Knowledge” paper that 

outlines what is known and what is uncertain about global climate change. The following elements of 

climate change are known with near certainty: 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Soils & Water 149

1. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of 

greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are 

well-documented and understood. 

2. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human 

activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 

3. An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7 F occurred from 1906 to 2005. Warming 

occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

4. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods 

ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric 

concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 

5. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. 

According to EPA (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that 

warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system, including 

precipitation patterns. 

Given what is and is not known about global climate change, the following discussion outlines the 

cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and effects of climate change on forest 

resources. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) emissions generated by public 

motorized vehicle travel on NFTS facilities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of 

greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air 

temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, 

and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The 

intensity and severity of these effects are expected to vary regionally and even locally, making any 

discussion of potential site-specific effects of global climate change on forest resources speculative. 

Because greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse 

gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other 

greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a 

practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate 

change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global 

climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on 

global climate from emission associated with this project. In summary, the potential for cumulative 

effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because none of the alternatives would result in 

measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global climatic patterns.

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 151

Botanical Resources

This section describes the affected environment for rare, threatened, and endangered plant species, as 

well of the effects of the alternatives. It will describe the area potentially affected by the alternatives 

and existing resource conditions within that area. Measurement indicators are used to describe the 

existing conditions for the Modoc National Forest. The measurement indicators will be used in the 

analysis to quantify and describe how well the proposed action and alternatives meet the project 

objectives and address resource concerns.

Summary

The Modoc National Forest has a wide diversity of native plant species, with approximately 1100 

known species recorded within the Forest as of July 2009. Of these, one species is federally listed as 

Endangered, one species if federally listed as Threatened, 30 species are Forest Service listed as 

Sensitive, and 68 species are listed on the Modoc National Forest Watch List for rare plants. 

Motorized vehicle use on the Forest can impact rare plant species both directly and indirectly. 

Vehicles driven over plants can impact them directly through smashing, uprooting, and killing them. 

Vehicles can also impact plants indirectly by covering them with dust, and by introducing invasive 

noxious weeds which can destroy rare plant habitats and squeeze out existing rare plant occurrences. 

The greatest threat to these rare plant species from motorized vehicle use comes from cross-country 

vehicle traffic. Therefore, by banning cross-country motorized vehicle use, all of the action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) provide a large measure of protection for rare plant species 

relative to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 provides 

the greatest protection for rare plants by not adding any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 vary slightly in their potential impacts on rare plants, with slightly higher risk 

of negative impacts under Alternative 5 relative to Alternative 2, and slightly lesser risk of negative 

impacts under Alternative 4 relative to Alternative 2.

Introduction

Of the Forest Service regions, the Pacific Southwest Region contains the largest assemblage of 

sensitive plant species in comparison to its land base. Of the more than 8,000 vascular plant species 

occurring in California, well over half are known to occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

This is due to topography, geography, geology and soils, climate and vegetation, the same factors that 

account for the exceptionally high endemic flora of the state. Over 100 plant species are found only 

on Forest Service (FS) lands and nowhere else in the world (Powell 2001). 

Management of plant and fungi species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of plant 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 

1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on NFS lands must be 

planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species, or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive 

species. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for 

rare plants and natural communities to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established 

in each Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Key parts include developing and 

implementing management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered 

because of FS actions; maintaining viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, 

fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on NFS lands; and 

developing and implementing management objectives for populations and habitats of rare species. 

The Pacific Southwest Region has over 425 rare plant species to manage for.

In addition to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant list, the Modoc National Forest maintains a 

Watch List of plant species. Watch List plants are species that do not currently meet the criteria to be 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

152 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive list, but are of sufficient concern that they should be 

considered in the planning process (Regional Forester letter to Forest Supervisors, 07/27/2006). The 

Watch List species list may include species that are locally rare, are of special interest, are widely 

disjunct from the main distribution of the species, are largely endemic to the Forest, or species for 

which very little, if any, information is available, but existing information may indicate some cause 

for concern. Watch List species are typically represented by more individuals, more occurrences, or a 

wider overall distribution than most Sensitive species; however, in general, there is less information 

on specific locations of occurrences and on habitat requirements for Watch List species than for 

Sensitive species.

The majority of the proposed unauthorized routes are very short in length and have been inexistence 

for over 40 years. New impacts along these routes are not likely to occur because of the nature of the 

geology and in most cases, no further impact to plants should occur if the public remains within the 

road prism. That said, if it is discovered that damage is occurring and threatens a plant community, 

immediate action will be taken to remedy the situation. Management decisions related to motorized 

travel can affect plant and fungi species, their habitats, and natural communities. Effects include, but 

are not limited to, death or injury to plants and habitat modification, habitat fragmentation, and 

habitat quality including increased risk of weed introduction and spread, change in hydrology, 

increased erosion, compaction, and sediment, risk to pollinators, loss of vegetation, over-collection, 

or other factors reducing or eliminating plant growth and reproduction (Trombulek and Frissell 2000). 

The FS provides a process and standard through which rare plants receive full consideration 

throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts on species and enhancing opportunities 

for mitigation by developing and implementing management objectives for populations and habitats 

of sensitive species. It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to soils and vegetation, avoid 

harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for 

motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM (Forest Service Manual) 2353.03(2)). Therefore, 

management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to plant 

species, fungi species, and their habitats.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Modoc LRMP, and 

Other Direction 

Direction Relevant to the Proposed Action as it Affects Botanical 

Resources 

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a Federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible Federal agency to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. 

It is Forest service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities are not be 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is 

documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and is summarized or referenced in this chapter.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999): to prevent and control 

the introduction and spread of invasive species

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670): Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are 

plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The 

Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals 

do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on national Forests. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 153

create a significant trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in 

a Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this chapter.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following direction applicable to motorized 

travel management and botanical resources:

Noxious weeds management (Management Standards & Guidelines 36-49)

Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 70): See Water Resources section.

Riparian Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 92): See Water Resources section.

Bog and Fen Habitat (SNFPA ROD page 65, S&G #118): Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing 

activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or 

water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on 

these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs 

and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled 

vehicles. 

Sensitive Plant Surveys (Corrected Errata, April 19, 2005): Conduct field surveys for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TEPS) plant species early enough in project planning 

process that the project can be designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. 

Conduct surveys according to procedures outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 

2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted as part of project implementation, 

survey results must be documented in the project file (Management Standard & Guideline 125). 

The standards and guidelines provide direction for conducting field surveys, minimizing or 

eliminating direct and indirect impacts from management activities, and adherence to the 

Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plant (MDF LRMP): Guidelines for 

Sensitive plant management are enumerated on page 4-21 of the Modoc LRMP (USDA Forest 

Service 1991). Our direction is to “manage and conserve sensitive plant species and their habitats to 

ensure that viable populations are maintained.” To these ends, we are to

Conduct inventories prior to project implementation if potential habitat or known populations are 

identified, in accordance with FS Handbook procedures.

Allow no new disturbance of identified sensitive plant habitat without an environmental analysis.

To help the Forest meet its LRMP guideline requirements, several conservation strategies and 

conservation assessments have been developed:

Draft Updated Conservation Strategy for Rorippa columbiae (Columbia cress): This strategy provides 

proposed management actions for maintaining and restoring habitat for known populations, and 

guidelines for monitoring (Cavaille et al. 2007). 

Gratiola heterosepala Conservation Strategy: This strategy provides guidelines for maintaining longterm species viability (Corbin et al. 1994). 

Conservation Assessment for Ptilidium californicum (Aust.) Underw.: Conservation guidance for the 

species (Harpel and Hoover 2006).

Conservation Assessment for Meesia triquetra (L.) Aongstr. (three-ranked hump-moss) and Meesia 

uliginosa Hedwig (broad-nerved hump-moss) in California with a focus on the Sierra Nevada 

Bioregion: Conservation guidance for these species (Dillingham 2005).

Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum: Conservation 

guidance for these species (Kaye and Cramer 2005).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

154 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Conservation Assessment for Buxbaumia viridis (DC.) Moug. & Nestl.: Conservation guidance for 

this species (Harpel and Hoover 2006).

Draft Interim Management Prescription: Management guidelines for TES plant species (Modoc 

National Forest 2009).

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Area of Effect for Botanical Resources

Three geographic areas were chosen to analyze the effects of the proposed routes on botanical 

resources:

• The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which allows for cross-country travel, was 

assessed using the entire Modoc National Forest, except for the South Warner Wilderness. 

This analysis area was also used to analyze cumulative effects to rare species for all 

alternatives.

• Direct and indirect effects to Sensitive and Watch List plant species were assessed using the 

area within 100 feet of existing or proposed routes. In general, direct effects are most likely 

to occur within a zone of 30 feet on either side of the route, due to the need for parking and 

pulling off to allow another vehicle to pass. Indirect effects are most likely to occur within a 

zone of 100 feet, or an additional 70 feet beyond the 30-foot zone.

• Direct and indirect effects to federally listed species were assess using the area within 300 

feet of existing or proposed routes. This buffer was used to meet the criteria established by 

USFWS in its programmatic consultation agreement with Region 5 USFS, Route 

Designation: Project Design Criteria for “No effect” or “May Affect Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect” Determination for TE Species (USFWS 2006). This buffer meets the 

250-foot buffer designated by USFWS, with additional buffer space to accommodate the 

average distance from road center (baseline for the buffer) to the road edge plus potential 

mapping error. This 300-foot distance is also used as the default buffer to assess impacts to 

the vernal pools providing habitat for the two federally Listed species, Tuctoria greenei and 

Orcuttia tenuis.

Analysis of Methodology

The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a two-step process. In the first step, all listed or 

proposed rare species that were known or were believed to have potential to occur in the analysis area

were identified. This list was developed by reviewing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife List for the Modoc 

National Forest (USFWS 2008), Region 5 Sensitive Plant List (USDA FS 2006), Modoc National 

Forest rare plant records, TEPS and Watch List GIS plant layers (2008), as well as California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB) records (2008). The Watch List plant species included are those 

submitted for the 2008 Modoc Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Revision.

All of this information was used in step two of the analysis—conflict determination. Data were 

imported into a geographical information system (GIS) data base and used to analyze potential 

habitat, identify proximity of known TES and Watch List plant occurrences to routes, and analyze 

effects.

Assumptions for Botanical Resource Effects Analyses

• Vehicle use on and off established routes has affected or has the potential to affect rare 

plant populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants from motor 

vehicles (stem breaking, crushing, etc.), or indirectly by altering the habitat through soil 

disturbance, changes in hydrologic functioning, or by the introduction of non-native, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 155

invasive plant species that can out-compete sensitive species for water, sunlight, and 

nutrients. 

• Motor vehicle use is unlikely to impact certain rare plant habitats due to the steep or rocky 

nature of the surrounding terrain; motor vehicle use is more likely to impact other rare plant 

habitats, such as meadows and lava caps, which exist on gentle slopes or flat terrain with 

little or no vegetation or natural barriers to motor vehicles.

• Without specific prevention and control measures, invasive non-native plants (weeds) will 

continue to spread along and within surfaced and unsurfaced motor vehicle roads and trails.

• Motor vehicle use of unsurfaced vehicle roads and trails will increase sediment production 

and erosion. As use increases, sediment production and erosion will increase.

• Change of vehicle class on NFTS roads has no impact to rare plants or their associated 

habitats.

• Seasonal closures of NFTS roads have no impact to rare plants or their associated habitats.

Data Sources

1. Route inventories collected in Step 1 of the Travel Management project

2. Existing botanical records within the Modoc National Forest GIS databases. These botanical 

records include the following: 

• Occurrences of Threatened, Sensitive, and Watch list (TESW) plant populations which have 

been surveyed and delineated by Modoc NF Botany staff

• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) rare plant data 

• Vernal pools delineated by Dr. Robert Holland (2006)

• Fens and wet meadows, delineated by Dr. Robert Holland (2006) and partially updated by 

the Modoc National Forest Botany staff

• Soils mapped to the level of Great Groups 

• Maps of existing vegetation (EVeg)

• Modoc National Forest Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) data 

• Previous botany surveys. No road-specific surveys were performed for this project, 

although some proposed roads pass through previously surveyed areas.

• Botany surveys conducted in July 2008 for Orcuttia tenuis in all previously unsurveyed 

vernal pools within 300 feet of proposed routes.

GIS Data Analysis Assumptions

For the purposes of GIS analysis, the following assumptions were made for determining effects of 

routes on TES and WL plant species and their habitats:

• Roads are assumed to be 12 feet wide, and the road inventory lines demarcating roads to be 

added are assumed to be center lines.

• Nine feet of error in delineating plant population occurrences is assumed, based on typical 

Garmin GPS accuracy (http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/). Garmin GPS units were most 

commonly used for collecting rare plant occurrence data on this Forest; otherwise, more 

accurate Trimble GPS units have sometimes been used as well.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

156 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

• Thirty-six feet of error in delineating vernal pools and fen and wet meadow habitats is 

assumed, based on typical accuracy of digitizing polygons based on paper maps or, in this 

case, digital aerial photos.

• Vernal pools and swales delineated by Dr. Robert Holland (2006) are potential habitat for 

the Threatened vernal pool plant species Orcuttia tenuis and the Sensitive vernal pool plant 

species Mimulus evanescens and Phacelia inundata. They also provide habitat for three 

Modoc National Forest Watch List plant species: Gratiola heterosepala, Pogogyne 

floribunda, and Potentilla newberryi. All unsurveyed vernal pool habitats are assumed to be 

occupied by these species for the purposes of analysis.

• Fens and other wet meadow habitats delineated by Dr. Robert Holland (2006) and updated 

by the Modoc National Forest Botany staff are potential habitat for the Sensitive plant 

species Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Buxbaumia viridis, Meesia triquetra, and M. uliginosa. Again, all unsurveyed 

fen habitats are assumed to be occupied by these species for the purposes of analysis.

• For Sensitive and Watch List plants that are neither fen nor vernal pool species (or at least, 

not exclusively such), the Forest botany GIS layer was overlain with the Forest soils GIS 

layer, the Forest existing vegetation GIS layer, and Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory

(TEUI) (Smith and Davidson 2003) ecological region GIS layer. Using existing Sensitive 

and Watch List plant occurrences, and their locations within certain soil, vegetation, and 

eco-region types (TEUI 2003), predictions were made for the locations of potential habitats 

that might exist across the Forest for these plant species. This methodology provides a 

coarse filter for potential TES plant habitat. Although limited in its predictive accuracy, it 

provides our best available method for estimating potential habitat across the Forest, based 

on available information. These were broken down into barren, forested, riparian, and sage 

steppe habitats, in addition to the vernal pool-swale and fen-wet meadow-seep habitats 

mentioned above.

Please note that GIS data are derived from a variety of different sources (e.g., remote sensing, GPS 

data, data digitized from hardcopy maps and aerial photos), which will have differing levels of 

accuracy. The amount by which these approximations of natural phenomena (such as soil type, 

habitat type, TES plant occurrence boundaries, and ecological unit boundaries) differ from nature is 

extremely difficult to quantify. However, we have used the best available data for our analyses. 

Therefore, although the numbers presented as a result of GIS analysis can appear very precise, please 

understand that they are only approximations; which, however, are still useful as estimates. Using 

our best professional judgment, we have ensured that our analyses are meaningful and can reasonably 

account for mapping errors.

Botanical Resources Indicators

The following indicator measures related to motorized routes located in or near rare plant occurrences 

or habitats, were used to assess the impacts of the alternatives.

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to sensitive plant sites or within suitable 

sensitive plant habitat

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to fens or wet meadows

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to vernal pools

• Acres of potential habitat within 100 feet of routes, to address the effects on potential 

habitat for rare plants

• Miles of routes and areas open for motor vehicle use within riparian habitat, including lake 

margins and stream banks
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 157

Botanical Resources Methodology, by Action

For all the actions described below, botanical resources will be analyzed for short-term impacts (one

year) and long-term impacts (20 years). Indicators are described for each action below.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle

Travel

Indicators: (1) miles of unauthorized routes within 100 feet of rare plant sites or within or adjacent to 

suitable rare plant habitat, (2) the number of acres of potential habitat for rare plants within 100 feet 

of unauthorized routes, and (3) the number of known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of 

unauthorized routes.

Spatial boundary: Forest

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes within or adjacent to rare plant sites or 

potential habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized roads 

and trails) to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), Including 

Identifying Seasons of Use and Vehicle Class

Indicators: (1) miles of routes open for motor vehicle use within or adjacent to sensitive plant sites, 

(2) miles of routes open for motor vehicle use within riparian habitat, including lake margins and 

stream banks, (3) number of vernal pools and fens within 100 feet of routes, and (4) number of known 

rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of routes

Spatial boundary: Forest. Direct and indirect effects will be analyzed using a 100-foot buffer along 

roads.

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes with or adjacent to rare plant sites or 

potential habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS—Mixed Use on Level 

3 Roads, and Seasonal Closures

Indicators: (1) miles of NFTS roads open for motor vehicle use within or adjacent to sensitive plant 

sites, (2) miles of NFTS roads with seasonal closures within or adjacent to sensitive plant sites, (3) 

number of vernal pools and fens within 100 feet of NFTS level 3 roads open to mixed use, (4) number 

of vernal pools and fens within 100 feet of NFTS level 3 with seasonal closures, (5) number of known 

rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of NFTS level 3 roads open to mixed use, and (6) number of 

known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of NFTS level 3 roads with seasonal closures

Spatial boundary: Forest. Direct and indirect effects will be analyzed using a 100 foot buffer along 

roads

Methodology: GIS analysis of NFTS roads within or adjacent to rare plant sites or potential habitat

Cumulative Effects

Short-term time frame: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the longterm time frame.

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest 

Indicators: (1) miles of routes open for motor vehicle use within or adjacent to sensitive plant sites, 

(2) miles of routes open for motor vehicle use within riparian habitat, including lake margins and 

stream banks, and (3) number of TES plant occurrences and acreage of TES habitat within 100 feet of 

routes. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

158 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Miles of routes within rare plant habitats was used for analysis rather than number of routes. Because 

many of the routes are short road segments of less than one mile, while others are several miles in 

length, the total mileage of routes potentially impacting rare plant habitats provides a more accurate 

indicator value than does the number of routes.

Methodology: GIS analysis of all routes and sensitive plant sites and habitat

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

The Modoc National Forest is located in the extreme northeastern corner of the State of California. 

Federally owned lands within the proclaimed Forest boundary amount to over 1.6 million acres. 

Elevations range from 4,000 to almost 10,000 feet. A coarse overview of the landscapes and 

vegetation of the Forest shows five major landscapes: the Warner Mountains, the Devil’s Garden 

sage-steppe plateau, yellow pine forest, the Big Valley Mountains, and the Medicine Lake Highlands.

The Warner Mountains are generally steep, rather cold and moist, and well forested with yellow pine, 

fir, and high-elevation pine species such as lodgepole and western white pine, with whitebark pine at 

the highest elevations. Because of its variety of elevations, temperature regimes, precipitation 

regimes, and its complex topography, the Warner Mountains are home to many of the Forest’s 

Sensitive plant species. Fens, although very rare throughout the Forest, are most common in the 

Warner Mountains.

The central and northwest areas of the Forest are a sage-steppe plateau, called the Devil’s Garden or 

Clear Lake Plateau. It is relatively warm and dry, and is characterized by extensive sage steppe scrub 

and woodland communities of varying densities. Vernal pools, vernal playas, and other vernally wet 

places are the principle rare plant habitats in this area. The only federally listed Threatened plant 

species on the Forest is a vernal pool endemic.

The Big Valley conifer Forest covers a large area in the southwestern portions of the Forest. The Big 

Valley Mountains are mostly mixed white fir and ponderosa pine, and contain special shallow, 

gravelly flats which constitute a special habitat for a suite of local endemic Sensitive plant species. 

Affected Environment and Existing Conditions

The Modoc National Forest encompasses a diversity of floristic regions, including the Modoc Plateau

and Warner Mountain regions of the Great Basin Province, extending into the Southern Cascades 

Province. The Warner Mountain Ranger District encompasses the highest elevations on the Forest, 

rising to 9,892 feet on Eagle Peak. Vegetation ranges from sagebrush, grading into ponderosa pine 

and mixed conifer Forest, and extending up through whitebark pine subalpine Forest into alpine ridge 

tops. This is the most botanically diverse district on the Forest. The Devil’s Garden Ranger District 

encompasses the Modoc Plateau, and is largely vegetated with sagebrush interspersed with juniper 

woodlands; this is known as the sage steppe. This district is rich in vernal pools. Big Valley Ranger 

District consists primarily of low-elevation mountains covered with mixed conifer forests, 

interspersed with sagebrush flats and vernal pools. The Doublehead Ranger District encompasses the 

Medicine Lake Highlands, a vegetatively diverse area which includes mixed conifer forests, 

sagebrush flats, lava flows, and chaparral.

Rare Species (Federally Listed, Sensitive Species, Watch List Species)

The Modoc National Forest provides habitat for 1,087 vascular plant taxa (Modoc National Forest 

Plant List, 2007), which represents approximately 17 percent of the California Flora (Hickman 1993). 

Of these, 98 are considered rare plants (S and WL) on the Modoc NF. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 159

There are currently two federally listed plant species within the analysis area: Tuctoria greenei 

(awnless spiralgrass, an Endangered species) and Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass, a Threatened 

species).

Tuctoria greenei, awnless spiralgrass, is federally listed as Endangered and state listed as Rare; no 

critical habitat on the Modoc National Forest has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

service. It is a small annual grass which can be identified by its distinctive spikelets, which resemble 

those of Orcuttia tenuis but have more numerous yet smaller, less regular and more ragged teeth on 

the lemma. It inhabits vernal pools or similar habitats with clayey soils. The only known occurrence 

on the Modoc National Forest is 33 acres contained within a vernal pool, with small patches of this 

plant dispersed throughout this area in favorable micro sites. Although potentially affected by 

unmanaged cross-country travel, no known unauthorized routes have been identified within or nearby 

this occurrence. No routes proposed for addition in any alternative are within or nearby the 

occurrence.

Orcuttia tenuis, slender Orcutt grass, is federally listed as Threatened and state listed as Endangered; 

currently, no critical habitat for this species has been designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

the Modoc National Forest. It is a small, annual grass distinguishable from other grasses by its fivetoothed lemma. It is limited to drying and dried beds of relatively deep vernal pools or vernal pooltype habitat with clay soils. On the Modoc NF it is known from fifteen occurrences totaling 

approximately 284.33 acres, and all of these occurrences are found within areas currently open to 

cross-country travel.

Rare plant species, as referred to in this analysis, include federally listed, as well as Sensitive and 

Watch List species. Sensitive plant species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for 

which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward 

trends in population numbers or density, significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat 

capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution, or such low numbers or limited 

distribution that special management consideration is required to maintain their presence and 

viability, regardless of current trend (FSM 2670.5, FSH 2609.25, 1.31). A viable population is 

defined as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure 

the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range within the planning area (FSM 

2670.5).

In addition to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant list, the Modoc National Forest maintains a 

Watch List of plant species that are of special interest. Watch List plants are species that do not 

currently meet the criteria to be included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive list, but are of sufficient 

concern that they should be considered in the planning process (Regional Forester letter to Forest 

Supervisors, 07/27/2006). Watch List species are not addressed in the Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan and are not bound by guidelines in that plan. The Watch List species list may 

include species that are locally rare, are of special interest, are widely disjunct from the main 

distribution of the species, are largely endemic to the Forest, and species for which very little, if any, 

information is available but existing information may indicate some cause for concern. Watch List 

species are typically represented by more individuals, more occurrences, or a wider overall 

distribution than most Sensitive species; however, in general, there is less information on specific 

locations of occurrences and on habitat requirements for Watch List species than for Sensitive 

species.

So currently, there are one federally listed Endangered, one federally listed Threatened, 30 Region 5 

Sensitive, and 68 Modoc NF Watch List plant species designated on the Forest. A majority of these 

have known occurrences on the Forest; however, some are only suspected to occur at this point, as 

potential habitat may exist, but no occurrences have been documented. For most species, an 

occurrence refers to a relatively discreet group of individuals, separated from the next nearest group 

of the same species, by at least 1/4 mile. Of the 99 species designated as rare on the Forest, one 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

160 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Endangered, one Threatened, 24 Sensitive, and 29 Watch List species (53 total) are known to occur 

within the analysis area for this project. There are 276 mapped occurrences of TES species, and 191 

mapped occurrences of Watch List plant species within the project boundary (Table 3-37). Table 3-37

lists all federally listed, Region 5 Sensitive, and Modoc National Forest Special Interest plant species 

that are known on the Modoc National Forest. Also included are the listings, number of Modoc 

National Forest occurrences, and habitat groupings (described below) for each species.

A few species are omitted from this analysis because they grow in aquatic habitats and are 

inaccessible to off-highway vehicles (OHVs). These unanalyzed aquatic species are Alisma

gramineum, Potamogeton filiformis, Potamogeton zosteriformis, Riella americana, and Utricularia 

intermedia. All are Special-Interest species. 

In addition, those Sensitive and Watch List plant species that have no known occurrences on the 

Forest were also dropped from the analysis because it is unknown if these species exist on the Forest, 

and the location of potential habitat is undetermined. See the Biological Evaluation and Watch List 

Botanical Report for a complete list of these species and why they were dropped from the analysis.

Table 3-37. Species Considered in Analysis, Status, Known Occurrences, and Habitats

Species Status1 Number of 

mapped 

occurrences in 

Project Area

Habitats2

Tuctoria greenei (Greene’s tuctoria) E, CR 1 VP

Orcuttia tenuis (Slender Orcutt grass) T, CE 9 VP

Astragalus anxius (Ash Valley milkvetch) S 4 B in sage steppe

Astragalus lemmonii (Lemmon’s milkvetch) S 1 R

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis (Crown milkvetch) S 15 SS, F

Botrychium ascendens (Upswept moonwort) S 1 R, FE

Botrychium crenulatum (Scalloped moonwort) S 8 R, FE

Botrychium lunaria (Moonwort) S 5 MS, R

Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort) S 1 MS, R, FE

Botrychium montanum (Western goblin) S 1 R, FE

Botrychium pinnatum (Northwestern moonwort) S 1 FE, R

Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s candlemoss) S 2 R, FE

Buxbaumia viridis (Bug-on-a-stick) S 8 On rotting logs in

R, FE

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus (Long-haired star tulip) S 91 Meadows in F

Cypripedium montanum (Mountain lady’s-slipper) S 34 F

Eriogonum prociduum (Prostrate buckwheat) S 19 B, SS

Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum (Green buckwheat) S 6 SS, F

Galium glabrescens ssp. modocense (Modoc bedstraw) S 17 B in sage steppe

Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense (Warner Mountain bedstraw) S 12 B, R, F

Ivesia paniculata (Ash Creek mousetail) S 32 B, SS, F

Lupinus latifolius var. barbatus (Bearded lupine) S 1 R, F

Meesia triquetra (Three-ranked hump-moss) S 5 FE

Meesia uliginosa (Broad-nerved hump-moss) S 1 FE

Mimulus evanescens (Ephemeral monkey-flower) S 5 VP, R

Phacelia inundata (Playa phacelia) S 3 VP, R

Rorippa columbiae (Columbia yellow-cress) S 3 R
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 161

Species Status1 Number of 

mapped 

occurrences in 

Project Area

Habitats2

Arnica fulgens (Hillside arnica) WL 8 SS

Betula pumila var. glandulosa (Bog birch) WL 3 FE

Carex halliana (Hall’s sedge) WL 11 Openings in F

Carex vallicola (Valley sedge) WL 1 MS

Carex petasata (Liddon sedge) WL 1 F, FE

Cordylanthus capitatus (Yakima bird’s-beak) WL 6 SS

Delphinium stachydeum (Spiked larkspur) WL 10 SS

Dimeresia howellii (Doublet) WL 11 F

Drosera anglica (English sundew) WL 3 FE, FE

Erigeron acris ssp. debilis (Snowy fleabane) WL 1 FE, B

Gratiola heterosepala (Boggs lake hedge-hyssop) WL, CE 17 VP, R

Hulsea nana (Little hulsea) WL 4 B

Iliamna bakeri (Baker’s globemallow) WL 44 especially postfire in SS, B

Ivesia baileyi var. beneolens (Owyhee ivesia) WL 1 F

Lomatium foeniculaceum var. macdougalii (MacDougal’s lomatium) WL 3 SS

Mertensia longiflora (Long bluebells) WL 2 SS

Nemophila breviflora (Great Basin nemophila) WL 2 FE, R, F

Phacelia sericea var. ciliosa (Blue alpine phacelia) WL 9 SS, B

Phlox hoodii ssp. muscoides (Moss phlox) WL 13 B, SS

Pogogyne floribunda (Profuse-flowered pogogyne) WL 51 VP, RA

Potentilla newberryi (Newberry’s cinquefoil) WL 7 VP, R

Ribes hudsonianum var. petiolare (Western black currant) WL 1 R

Salix bebbiana (Gray willow) WL 2 R

Scutellaria galericulata (Marsh skullcap) WL 2 FE, R

Silene oregana (Oregon campion) WL 1 SS, F

Sphagnum spp. (Sphagnum) WL 3 FE, F

Stenotus lanuginosus (Woolly stenotus) WL 2 SS, FE

Triteleia grandiflora ssp. howellii (Howell’s triteleia) WL 2 SS

1 Status: E – federally listed Endangered, T – Federally listed Threatened, S – Forest Service Sensitive, 

WL—Forest Service Watch List, CR – State listed Rare, CE – State listed Endangered

2 Habitats: B–Barren; FE – Fens, Wet Meadows, and Seeps; F – Forest; R – Riparian Areas; SS—Sage Steppe; VP—Vernal 

Pools and Swales

Aggregating Rare Species for Analysis of Effects

As many of these species occur in the same or similar habitats, and the effects of motor vehicle use 

may vary by habitat, the rare plant species being considered in this analysis have been grouped into 

different habitats, based on habitat requirements. The following habitats have been selected to 

represent the species being addressed: 

Habitat Descriptions

The following describes the six habitats and lists the rare plant species assigned to each group. Each 

of the habitats includes one or more vegetation types identified in the Terrestrial Ecological Unit 

Inventory (TEUI) Land Type Associations Modoc National Forest (Smith and Davidson 2003), or are 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

162 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

in existing Modoc National Forest GIS data layers for fens and vernal pools. Each of the species may 

occur in one or more habitats; e.g., crown milkvetch occurs in Sage Steppe (SS) and Forest (F) 

habitats. There are also several species which occur in edge habitats, sites where two habitats come 

together. For these species, elements of two different habitat types are important. The project record 

for this analysis contains additional information on the species contained within each habitat, and the 

vegetation types assigned to each habitat.

• Barren (B) – includes species found in talus, rocky gravel, scree, rock outcrops and lava 

flows.

• Fens, Wet Meadows, and Seeps (FE) – includes species found in wetland sites sub-irrigated 

by cold water, with substantial accumulations of peat, as well as meadows with more or less 

dense grasses, sedges, and herbs that grow under moist or saturated conditions. 

• Forested (F) – includes those species found in ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, 

white fir, or mixed conifer forested communities, generally montane to subalpine.

• Riparian Areas (R) – includes species found along the margins of perennial or intermittent 

streams, natural lakes, reservoirs, playas, or stock ponds.

• Sage Steppe (SS) – includes species found in Great Basin and montane woodland and shrub 

communities, e.g., western juniper, big sagebrush, silver sage, low sage, greasewood, and 

bitterbrush.

• Vernal Pools and Swales (VP) – includes species found in depressions and swales with 

relatively impermeable soils that accumulate rainwater during winter and spring, and dry up 

during warm weather.

Barren (B)

This plant habitat embraces a wide variety of rocky habitat types. It includes alpine scree and talus 

fields, which occur only at the highest points within the Forest. It also includes rock outcrops, open 

gravelly hill slopes, bare road cuts, and lava beds and talus fields occurring at all elevations 

throughout the Forest. These sites provide harsh growing conditions for plants, with little soil, 

although cracks and shallow basins within the rocks can capture and hold water for plants. These sites 

provide specialized niches for several rare plant species. 

The single Modoc National Forest Sensitive species occurring in Barren sites is Galium serpenticum

ssp. warnerense. Modoc National Forest WL species occurring in Barren habitats include Erigeron 

acris ssp. debilis, Hulsea nana, Ivesia baileyi var. beneolens, Phacelia sericea var. ciliosa, and Phlox 

hoodii ssp. muscoides.

There are currently no known Barren species occurring within 100 feet of existing 

unauthorized routes, and no routes within Barren habitats. 

Fens and Wet Meadows (FE)

Fens are groundwater-fed wetland ecosystems that develop where perennially saturated soils and cool 

temperatures slow the decomposition of plant material, allowing it to accumulate and form organic 

soils, called peat (Cooper, Chimner, and Wolf 2005). Fens are considered significant resources due to 

their unique hydrologic characteristics (USDA Forest Service 2004a); ability to support high levels of 

biodiversity, including rare species (USDA Forest Service 2004a); relative rarity across the Sierra 

Nevada (Bartolome, Erman, and Schwarz 1990); and ability to remain relatively stable for long 

periods of time, storing plant and climatic data over millennia (Chimner, Cooper, and Parsons 2002). 

Fens are thought to be one of the most sensitive wet habitats in the Sierra Nevada region (Rundel, 

Gordon, and Parsons 1977). They are inherently tied to hydrological processes, and it has been 

demonstrated that small-scale disturbances caused by water diversions, channels, trails, and other 

management actions can have substantial impacts on their hydrologic and biotic integrity (Chimner 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 163

and Cooper 1998, Weixelman 2007). They support a suite of plants, many of which occur only in 

fens, as well as other species which may occur in wet meadows as well. 

There were 132 mapped fens within the Warner Mountains Ranger District from the fen mapping 

project completed by Dr. Robert Holland in 2006. However, only 21 percent of these were ground 

verified, and based on ground-verified results, Dr. Holland estimates approximately 60 true fens are 

present in the Warner Mountains outside of the South Warner Wilderness Area (Holland 2006). The 

remaining 72 sites mapped by Dr. Holland are classified as wet meadows. Because these sites have 

not all been analyzed to determine whether they are true fens or wet meadows, and because many of 

these plants grow in both habitats, these sites are grouped together as a habitat. As a result, this 

habitat type includes open areas vegetated with more or less dense grasses, sedges, and forbs that 

prefer seasonally moist or saturated conditions, as well as moist areas surrounding small seeps. 

Sensitive species that occur in Fens and Wet Meadows are Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, Bruchia bolanderi, Buxbaumia viridis, Meesia 

triquetra, and M. uliginosa. Modoc National Forest WL species occurring in fens and wet meadows 

are Betula pumila var. glandulosa, Drosera anglica, and Sphagnum spp.

The following Fen and Wet Meadow species are found within 100 feet of existing unauthorized 

routes: Botrychium lunaria, B. pinnatum, Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, and 

Sphagnum spp.

Forested (F)

The Forest habitat includes mixed conifer forests and white fir forests. They may include any possible 

canopy mix of white fir, Douglas fir, Shasta fir, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, Washoe pine, whitebark 

pine, sugar pine, western white pine, lodgepole pine, knobcone pine, mountain hemlock, and incense 

cedar. These range from relatively dense forests with high canopy covers in the Warner Mountains

and the Medicine Lake Highlands, to relatively open yellow pine forests. These forests extend from 

the sagebrush and chaparral zones up to subalpine Forest, ranging in elevation from approximately 

4,000 to over 9,500 feet. Understory plant communities are often sparse, ranging from communities 

of annual and bunch grasses, and forb species in yellow pine forests, to almost no understory plants 

under dense white fir canopies.

Modoc National Forest Sensitive species that occur in forest habitat are Astragalus pulsiferae var. 

coronensis, Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum 

umbellatum var. glaberrimum, Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Ivesia paniculata, and Lupinus 

latifolius var. barbatus. Modoc National Forest WL species that occur in Forest habitat are 

Cordylanthus capitatus, Dimeresia howellii, Ivesia baileyi var. beneolens, Nemophila breviflora, and 

Silene oregana.

The following Forest species are found within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes: Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, Carex halliana, Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum umbellatum

var. glaberrimum, and Dimeresia howellii.

Riparian Areas (R)

These are areas immediately bordering the edges of streams, rivers, lakes, or other water sources. 

Forested riparian areas include stream banks under dense forest canopies in mixed conifer forests, but 

they also occur in aspen, yellow pine, and lodgepole pine forests. More open riparian areas range 

from montane meadows with willows, alders, and dense sedges, to alkaline playas adjacent to lakes, 

as well as borders of reservoirs and stock ponds. Riparian vegetation along streams helps to maintain 

the water table by holding stream banks in place, and shades the water to keep stream temperatures 

cooler. It is also critically important for preventing erosion and sedimentation in streams and other 

water bodies. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

164 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Modoc National Forest TES species that occur in Riparian Areas are Botrychium ascendens, B. 

crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, Bruchia bolanderi, Buxbaumia 

viridis, Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Lupinus latifolius ssp. barbatus, Mimulus evanescens, 

and Phacelia inundata. Modoc National Forest WL species occurring in Riparian Areas are Gratiola 

heterosepala, Nemophila breviflora, Pogogyne floribunda, Potentilla newberryi, Ribes hudsonianum

var. petiolare, Salix bebbiana, and Scutellaria galericulata.

The following Riparian species are found within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes: Botrychium 

lunaria, B. pinnatum, Buxbaumia viridis, Gratiola heterosepala, Pogogyne floribunda, Potentilla 

newberryi, Ribes hudsonianum var. petiolare, and Salix bebbiana.

Sage Steppe (SS)

This habitat type includes typical Great Basin sagebrush habitats, such as big sagebrush, silver 

sagebrush habitat, and low sagebrush flats. Soils are commonly shallow heavy clays, resting on basalt 

bedrock. Sites are often rocky, with sagebrush shrub communities frequently forming mosaics with 

juniper woodlands and yellow pine forests of varying tree densities. Sage steppe habitats are also 

common surrounding vernal pool sites. Much of the Devil’s Garden District consists of this habitat 

type. In the Warner Mountains, sagebrush habitat is more mesic (charcterized by or requiring a 

moderate amount of moisture) and occurs at higher elevations, often grading into yellow pine and 

white fir Forests. Southwest of the Medicine Lake Highlands, is an area that includes sagebrush but 

grades into manzanita and Ceanothus chaparral. Because there are no Modoc National Forest TES or 

WL species that occur exclusively or even primarily in this habitat, it is included with the sage steppe

habitat type for the purposes of this analysis.

Modoc National Forest Sensitive species that occur in sage steppe habitats are Astragalus anxius, A.

pulsiferae var. coronensis, Eriogonum prociduum, E. umbellatum var. glaberrimum, and Ivesia 

paniculata. Modoc National Forest WL species occurring in sage steppe sites are Arnica fulgens, 

Carex petasata, Cordylanthus capitatus, Delphinium stachydeum, Iliamna bakeri, Lomatium 

foeniculaceum var. macdougalii, Mertensia longiflora, Phacelia sericea var. ciliosa, Phlox hoodii

ssp. muscoides, Stenotus lanuginosus, and Triteleia grandiflora ssp. howellii.

The following sage steppe species, a watch list plant, is found within 100 feet of existing 

unauthorized routes: Cordylanthus capitatus.

Vernal Pools and Swales (VP)

These are depressions or swales with relatively impermeable soils that fill with water in the winter 

and during spring snowmelt, and gradually dry out as summer progresses. This group includes vernal 

pools as well as other vernally wet areas, such as low sage and silver sage communities that hold 

water early in the season. They areas are dominated by low-growing species of annual grasses and 

forbs adapted to germination and early growth under water. On the Modoc National Forest these areas 

and associated species can be found primarily upon sage steppe in the Devil’s Garden Ranger 

District, but are also common within yellow pine Forests of the Big Valley and parts of the 

Doublehead Districts. A vernal pool study completed by Dr. Robert Holland in 2006 delineated 660 

vernal pools within the Devil’s Garden and Doublehead Ranger Districts based on aerial photography 

with partial ground-verifying to test accuracy. However, many of these have been negatively affected 

by livestock or wildlife management activities (Holland 2006). Range management activities have 

been responsible for hydrologically altering natural vernal pools by digging them out, making the 

pools deeper but sometimes removing the underlying hardpan and allowing the pools to drain more 

easily in spring, drying them out earlier in the year and thus not permitting them to maintain the same 

flora as previously. Also, vernal pool outlets have sometimes been dammed, flooding the pool to 

depths that create a perennial pond instead of one that slowly dries out over the course of the warm 

seasons. This flooded rare plant habitats and pushed rare plants to the new edge of the pool, which in 

some cases is former upland that is not necessarily suitable and perhaps not sustainable as rare plant 

habitat. Some of these reservoirs, stock tanks, and naturally occurring vernal pools had been given 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 165

over to nesting island construction. These roughly circular piles of aggregate, which often harbor 

invasive weeds such as Canada thistle, are intended as nesting sites for migratory birds. If they are 

successful, they may serve as an attractant to cross-country vehicle travel by bird hunters. If built 

atop rare plant habitat, they prevent light from reaching the plants. The effect of their weight upon 

the topography and the soils underlying vernal pools is as yet unknown. Constructing the islands 

(sometimes referred to as “goose bumps”) caused disturbance to vernal pool environs in the past, in 

some instances degrading rare plant habitat by compacting the soil with heavy machinery.

Currently the Modoc National Forest has two federally listed plant species. One, Tuctoria greenei, is 

Endangered, and the other, Orcuttia tenuis, is Threatened; these only occur in vernal pool habitat. 

Modoc National Forest Sensitive species occurring in vernal pools and swales are Mimulus 

evanescens and Phacelia inundata. Modoc National Forest WL species occurring in vernal pools and 

swales are Gratiola heterosepala, Pogogyne floribunda, and Potentilla newberryi.

The following Vernal Pool and Swale species are found within 100 feet of existing unauthorized 

routes: Gratiola heterosepala, Pogogyne floribunda, Potentilla newberryi, and Orcuttia tenuis.

Environmental Consequences

General Types of Impacts

Impacts to rare plants and their habitats vary across all alternatives, and no alternative completely 

eliminates potential adverse affects to rare plants, considering the entire NFTS. In general, 

alternatives with fewer miles of routes open for public wheeled motor vehicle use show reduced 

effects to rare plants and their habitats. 

Direct Effects

Direct effects occur when individual plants are broken, crushed, or trampled by vehicles traveling or 

parking off road surfaces, or their habitat is physically impacted by disturbing or compacting the soil. 

Vehicles traveling on or parking off the route surface can result in death, altered growth, or reduced 

seed set through physically breaking, crushing, or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley, and Nakata 

1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993). Root exposure and direct root damage may occur due to vehicle 

passes over vegetation, particularly in loose soils, or in wet soils susceptible to rutting; these impacts

can affect plant vigor and survival success.

Direct effects are dependent upon the intensity and timing of disturbance. Effects are also dependent 

upon the number of plants at a specific location and the proportion of the occurrence impacted. 

Repeated damage of this type weakens the compensatory capabilities of rare plants, which can lead to 

degradation of habitat and eventually to the replacement of native plants species with non-native 

species more adapted to frequent disturbances, such as invasive weeds.

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts to rare plants can occur from soil erosion or compaction, 

dust fugitives, or from the potential displacement of rare and native species with non-native or 

invasive species. Indirect impacts to soil from repeated off-road vehicle use can lead to the 

degradation of habitat for rare plants and other native plant communities. Soil compaction, erosion, 

and modification of soil properties can affect the distribution, abundance, growth rate, reproduction, 

and size of plants (Ouren et al. 2007). Wilshire and Nakata (1976) report that initial use by OHVs 

results in a loss of cohesion and lateral displacement of soils, while repeated use leads to compaction. 

The effects of soil erosion on plants can include undercutting of root systems as routes are enlarged 

by erosion; creation of new erosion channels in areas not used by vehicles; wind erosion of adjacent 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

166 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

destabilized areas; burial of plants by debris eroded from areas of use; and reduction of the biological 

capability of the soil by physical modification and stripping of fertile layers (Wilshire et al.1978).

Soil compaction and the subsequent decrease in infiltration and distribution of water through the soil 

profile can lead to decreased moisture available for plant growth (Snyder et al. 1976). Compaction 

caused from repeated off-highway vehicle use, can result in reduced seed germination (Williams 

1967 in Davidson and Fox 1974), seedling survival, soil water infiltration (Wilshire, Shipley, and 

Nakata 1978), plant and root growth (Phillips and Kirkham in Davidson and Fox 1974). Meadows are 

particularly susceptible to compaction due to the fact that most meadows remain wet into August, 

with many staying wet year-round. In rare plant habitat, soils subjected to vehicular traffic that 

become compacted and eroded due to wheel ruts may become unsuitable for seedling development 

and the sustainability or expansion of that rare plant population could be affected. 

Compaction by vehicles also contributes to roadside invasions of exotic plant species by reducing 

native plant vigor and creating areas of competition-free space that are open to invasion (Ouren et al.

2007, Munger et al. 2003, Trombulak & Frissell 2000, Wilshire et al. 1978a). Trombulak & Frissell 

(2000) report the spread of exotics by vehicles through habitat alteration, stress on native species, and 

creation or maintenance of movement corridors. Repeated damage to rare plant species can lead to 

the degradation of habitat and eventually to the replacement of native plant species, with species more 

adapted to frequent disturbance, such as invasive weeds. Off-highway vehicles have been shown to 

accelerate plant invasions (von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007) by reducing native plant vigor and 

cover (Brooks and Lair 1995), creating a competition-free habitat open to invasion (Frenkel 1970), 

and acting as a vector for seed dispersal. For a more detailed discussion of the effects of roads and 

vehicles on weed invasion, and the effects of weeds on native vegetation, refer to the effects section 

for invasive plant species. 

Dust from motor vehicle use has also been shown to decrease native plant cover and vigor by 

reducing rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration (Spellerberg and Morrison 1998 in Ouren 

et al. 2007), and water-use efficiency. Dust can block photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration, 

and may even be sufficient in some cases to alter community structure (Trombulak & Frissell 2000). 

Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect can result from the incremental impact of the action when added to the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are considered part of the 

existing conditions and are discussed within the Affected Environment section above. This is because 

the existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that 

have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. By looking at current 

conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, 

regardless of which particular action or event contributed to those effects.

The Forest boundary outside of the South Warner Wilderness Area, and excluding private inholdings 

within the proclaimed Forest boundary, was chosen as the cumulative effects analysis area for all rare 

species within this analysis. Ongoing or future actions on private lands within the Forest boundary 

may also have cumulative impacts on these species, but since survey requirements and mitigations for 

rare plant species are not known, the type and extent of the potential impacts to rare plant species on 

private lands cannot be quantified.

The existing condition of rare plants on the Modoc National Forest is the result of multiple past 

disturbances on multiple scales across the landscape, including volcanic activity, erosion, and fire, as 

well as human-caused disturbances, which have created a diversity of plant habitats on both spatial 

and temporal scales. Knowledge of rare plants, their locations on the Forest, and their habitat needs 

have increased over the years, but remains incomplete. Botanical surveys for Modoc National Forest 

projects are conducted with a primary focus on known potential habitat for TES and WL plant 

species. They do not cover entire project areas due to lack of available staff for intensive surveying. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 167

Also, many species of concern are very small in stature and are easily overlooked during surveys. 

Therefore, it is possible that isolated populations are overlooked during surveys. It is probable that 

documented occurrences of TES and WL plant species are a very incomplete representation of 

occurrences actually present on the Forest. Scientific understanding of rare plant ecological needs has 

increased with time, but for most rare plant species little is known about specific ecological 

requirements and responses to different types of disturbances. Overall, there is no way to determine 

what impact past activities have or have not had on each species and their potential habitat, due to a 

lack of historical knowledge and detailed habitat requirements for these species. 

Present and future activities that are associated with the proposed route system could impact rare 

species growing along or in the vicinity of a designated trail. These activities may include routine 

maintenance, such as clearing brush, posting signs, cleaning, or clearing of debris, or increased levels 

of dispersed camping or recreation along and near routes. Future projects in timber harvest and 

vegetation treatments, range management, fuel treatments, dam construction and maintenance, 

recreation, reforestation, railroad rights-of-way vegetation management, road decommissioning, and 

special uses may also contribute impacts to rare plant species. Monitoring of road and trail conditions, 

which is required (see appendix C), will detect if resource damage is occurring to sensitive species, 

and will instigate the development of species-specific mitigations or route closure. The effects of 

other types of future projects (e.g., vegetation management) would likely be minimal or similar to 

those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of 

known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.

Effects of Alternatives on Rare Plant Species

The following sections provide a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each 

alternative to and rare plant species and their habitats. Only those rare plant species with the potential 

to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project (those within 100 feet of a proposed route) 

are discussed in detail in this document. The remainder of the discussion is focused on the general 

effects to rare species and habitats from motor vehicle use. 

Addendum to Effects Analysis

Note: After this effects analysis was completed, (July 9, 2009) Alternative 5 was adjusted to remove 

unauthorized routes from consideration for addition that potentially affect the three remaining 

sensitive species (Buxbaumia viridis, Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, and Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. longebarbatus). The very minor effect of this change is reflected in the revised 

Monitoring Plan and in the Record of Decision. It did not justify the added work that would have 

been necessary to make these corrections throughout the entire botany section. 

Alternative 1–No Action

Alternative 1 has the greatest negative effect on rare species and habitats. The largest impact of this 

alternative is from cross-country travel, which has the potential to affect all but the most inaccessible 

rare species and habitats. Cross-country travel by merely one vehicle has the potential to crush or 

grind up rare plants. Kellomaki and Saastmoinen (1975, in Yorks et al. 1997) noted that the initial 

use of a trail creates the greatest deterioration; even as few as 1 to 20 passes have been shown to 

reduce plant cover by stunting plants (Adams et al. 1982 in Ouren et al. 2007). Vehicles traveling 

through mud easily alter surface hydrology, potentially blocking water from Sensitive plant habitat, or 

conversely, potentially flooding it.

Under this alternative, it is impossible to quantify when and where rare plant species and habitats 

would be impacted by motor vehicles; therefore, the analysis below uses the 490.5 miles of 

unauthorized routes as a representation of current motor vehicle use on the Forest. Due to the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

168 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

potential scope of these effects, the analysis of this alternative also focuses on a discussion of effects 

to plant groups, rather than to individual species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Of the 676 mapped occurrences within the project area, there are 23 Sensitive, and 40 Special-Interest

plant occurrences currently documented within 100 feet of the 490.53 miles of unauthorized routes on 

the Modoc National Forest. In addition, there are currently five occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis, found 

within 100 feet of unauthorized routes within the analysis area. This represents approximately nine 

percent of the rare plant occurrences on the Forest.

With the implementation of the No Action Alternative, cross-county travel would continue on the 

Forest, which would continue the threat of impacts to known and potential rare plant habitat across 

the Forest. As a result, this alternative has the greatest negative effect on all habitats and their 

associated species. 

Under this alternative, there would be no seasonal closures of NFTS roads. Seasonal closures could 

potentially provide a minimal reduction in impacts to adjacent rare plant occurrences. Under this 

alternative, there would continue to be no mixed use allowed on NFTS level 3 roads, which may 

provide a minimal reduction in noxious weed risk for adjacent rare plant occurrences. However, 

potential negative and positive effects from no seasonal closures and no mixed use on NFTS roads are 

miniscule relative to the direct and indirect effects resulting from continued cross-country motor 

vehicle use.

Barren Habitats

Barren habitats have not been heavily impacted by off-road travel on the Modoc National Forest. 

There are no unauthorized routes currently present within the Barren habitat, so there are no known 

impacts to rare plants within this habitat from off-road vehicle use. It is possible that rare plant 

occurrences growing in barren habitats could be impacted in the future with continued cross-country 

travel under the No Action Alternative. However, there is no evidence of negative impacts to rare 

plant species in barren habitats at this time.

Fen and Wet Meadow Habitats

With the implementation of the No Action Alternative, cross-county travel would continue on the 

Forest, which would continue the threat of impacts to fen and wet meadow habitats and their 

associated rare plant species. Fens and wet meadows can also be degraded by long-term OHV use, 

directly or indirectly, by de-watering, rutting, changing the drainage patterns to these systems, or by 

moving sediments into these areas. Species within open, wet habitats are the most susceptible to 

continued long-term impacts from use of these areas. Fens are particularly susceptible to impacts 

from OHV use within them as motor vehicle use has the potential to disrupt key hydrological 

processes essential to maintaining the integrity of the fen system. With continued use, there is the 

potential to remove or kill vegetation, which can de-water the fen, and oxidize the peat.

Currently, there are three fen and meadow species, with a total of four occurrences that are found 

within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes across the Forest (Table 3-38). Both true fen and 

perennially wet meadow sites are susceptible to impacts from cross-country travel.

Table 3-38. The number of Fen and Meadow Species Occurrences Known Within 100 Feet of 

Unauthorized Routes, by Alternative

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Botrychium lunaria 1 0 0 0 0

Botrychium pinnatum 1 0 0 0 0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 169

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Sphagnum spp. 2 0 0 0 0

Total number of rare plant occurrences 4 0 0 0 0

Roads within these habitats can be detrimental to the functionality of the hydrologic process, due to 

the fact that wet meadows and fens remain wet year-round. Routes that pass through or along edges 

of fens and wet meadows cause long-term adverse impacts to rare plant habitat and individuals, which 

can include impacts such as a loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology, accelerated erosion, and soil 

compaction. Soil compaction can influence drainage patterns as well as cause ruts in these welldefined soils. In either case, water infiltration into fens and wet meadow soils is slowed or drainage 

patterns altered. These effects can permanently convert rare fen and wet meadow habitats into dry 

meadows. In addition, these habitats can be highly susceptible to invasion from noxious weed species 

that thrive in wet conditions such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense).

Currently there are 13.71 miles of unauthorized routes located within 100 feet of fen and wet 

meadows habitats on the Modoc National Forest. There are currently 10.45 acres located within 100 

feet of existing unauthorized roads that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the 

No Action Alternative (Table 3-39). 

Table 3-39. Approximate Number Of Miles and Acres of Habitat of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) or Proposed 

(Alts. 2-5) Routes Within 100 Feet of Fens and Wet Meadows Habitat1

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes 0 0.09 0 0.09 0.09

Miles of Unauthorized Routes 13.71 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 13.71 0.09 0 0.09 0.09

Acres of Potential Habitat 2 10.45 0.10 0 0.10 0.10

1 Analysis includes mapped fens (Holland) combined with CalVeg types HJ and HM.

2 Calculated within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes and proposed routes, within fen and wet meadow habitats

Forested Habitats

Currently, there are five species living principally within Forest habitats, with a total of 20 

occurrences that are found within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes across the Forest (Table 3-

40), making this one of the habitats most vulnerable to cross-country motor vehicle travel. This 

habitat encompasses a variety of Forest types. Some areas have dense timber stands and are not 

amenable to cross-country vehicle travel, while other areas are in relatively open yellow pine stands 

where cross-country travel has a greater risk of damaging rare plant potential habitats. Meadow 

openings within Forests are important habitats for Carex halliana and Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus.

Table 3-40. The Number of Forest Species Occurrences Known Within 100 Feet of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) 

or Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Carex halliana 5 1 0 1 1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

170 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Calochortus longebarbatus var.

longebarbatus

12 4 0 2 4

Cypripedium montanum 1 0 0 0 0

Dimeresia howellii 1 1 0 0 1

Eriogonum umbellatum var. 

glaberrimum 

1 1 0 1 1

Total number of Rare plant occurrences 20 7 0 4 7

Currently there are 64.53 miles of unauthorized routes located within Forest habitat on the Modoc 

National Forest. There are currently 1,709 acres of Forest rare plant habitat located within 100 feet of 

existing unauthorized roads that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the No 

Action Alternative (Table 3-41). 

Table 3-41. Approximate Number of Miles and Acres of Habitat of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized 

Routes Within Forest Habitat Type1, and Acres of Potential Habitat Within 100 Feet of Routes

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes within 

Potential Habitat

0 55.62 0 42.47 55.62

Miles of Unauthorized Routes 

within Potential Habitat

64.48 0 0 0 0 

Total Miles 64.48 55.62 0 42.47 55.62

Acres of Potential Habitat 2 1,709.10 1,472.25 0 1,126.22 1,472.25

1 Calveg types used in analysis include EP, JJ, MF, WF.

2 Calculated within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes, within forested habitats.

Riparian Habitats

The Riparian habitat has the greatest number of rare plant species and occurrences potentially 

affected by cross-country travel in the No Action Alternative. Like the Fen and Wet Meadow habitats, 

Riparian areas occurring along both streams and lake shores can also be permanent impacted by 

cross-country travel. Species can be impacted by long-term use in their habitats. Currently there are 

eight species, with a total of 26 occurrences, found within 100 feet of unauthorized roads across the 

Forest (Table 3-42).

Table 3-42. The Number of Riparian Species Occurrences Known within 100 feet of Unauthorized (Alt. 1) 

and Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative 

Species Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5

Botrychium lunaria 1 0 0 0 0

Botrychium pinnatum 1 0 0 0 0

Buxbaumia viridis 4 0 0 0 0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 171

Species Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5

Gratiola heterosepala 9 4 0 3 4

Pogogyne floribunda 8 3 0 3 3

Potentilla newberryi 1 0 0 0 0

Ribes hudsonianum var.

petiolare

1 0 0 0 0

Salix bebbiana 1 0 0 0 0

Total number of Rare plant 

occurrences

26 7 0 6 7

Currently there are 12.29 miles of unauthorized routes located within 100 feet of Riparian habitats on 

the Modoc National Forest. There are 312.74 acres of Riparian habitats located within 100 feet of 

existing unauthorized roads that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the No 

Action Alternative. 

Table 3-43. Approximate Number of Miles and Acres of Potential Habitat of Proposed Routes and

Unauthorized Routes within 100 Feet of Streams and Lake Shores

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes 0 4.85 0 3.68 4.85

Miles of Unauthorized Routes 12.29 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 12.29 4.85 0 3.68 4.85

Acres of Potential Habitat1 686.74 262.56 0 208.87 262.56

1 Calculated within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes, within riparian habitats

Sage Steppe Habitats

Although the sage-steppe habitat type is one of the most common and extensive habitat types on the 

Forest, there currently is only one known rare plant species occurring within 100 feet of unauthorized 

routes (Table 3-44). This habitat is particularly vulnerable to invasion by weedy annual grasses, 

particularly cheatgrass and Medusahead, which have the potential to severely alter ecological 

functions of the sage steppe. This is also a relatively open habitat type, which is vulnerable to crosscountry motor vehicle travel.

Table 3-44. The Number of Sage Steppe Species Occurrences Known within 100 Feet of Unauthorized 

(Alt. 1) and Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Cordylanthus capitatus 2 0 0 0 0

Total number of Rare plant 

occurrences

3 1 0 1 1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

172 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Currently there are 22.14 miles of unauthorized routes located within sage steppe habitat on the 

Modoc National Forest. There are currently 574.99 acres located within 100 feet of existing 

unauthorized roads that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the No Action

Alternative (Table 3-45). 

Table 3-45. Approximate Miles and Acres Adjacent to Habitat of Potential Habitat of Proposed Routes 

and Unauthorized Routes within Sage Steppe Habitat Type

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes within Potential Habitat 0 11.24 0 6.75 11.24

Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Potential Habitat 22.14 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 22.14 11.24 0 6.75 11.24

Acres of Potential Habitat 1 574.99 292.27 0 178.27 292.27

1 Calculated within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes, within sage steppe habitats

Vernal Pools and Swales Habitat

The Vernal Pools and Swales habitat supports the greatest number of TES species on the Forest, 

including the single federally listed Endangered plant species, Tuctoria greenei, and the single 

federally listed Threatened plant species on the Forest, Orcuttia tenuis. At the same time, this is one 

of the most vulnerable habitat types to disturbance.

With the implementation of the No Action Alternative, cross county travel would continue on the 

Forest, which would continue the threat of impacts to vernal pool and swales habitats and their 

associated rare plant species. Vernal pools and swales can also be degraded by long-term OHV use, 

directly or indirectly, by rutting, changing the drainage patterns to these systems, or moving 

sediments into these areas. Species within open, wet habitats are the most susceptible to continued 

long-term impacts from use of these areas. Vernal pools and swales are particularly susceptible to 

impacts from OHV use within them, as motor vehicle use has the potential to remove or kill 

vegetation, which consists largely of ephemeral annual species. Damage to plants prior to seed set can 

interfere with reproductive capability of plants and, over time, deplete the soil seed bank. 

Currently, there are five Vernal Pool and Swale species, including one federally listed Endangered 

and one federally listed Threatened species, with a total of 22 occurrences that are found within 100 

feet of existing unauthorized routes across the Forest (Table 3-46).

Table 3-46. The Number of Vernal Pool and Swale Species Occurrences Known within 100 Feet of 

Unauthorized (Alt. 1) or Proposed (Alts. 2-5) Routes, by Alternative

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Orcuttia tenuis (federally

Threatened)

6 2 0 0 2

Gratiola heterosepala 9 3 0 0 3

Pogogyne floribunda 8 3 0 0 3

Potentilla newberryi 1 0 0 0 0

Total number of rare plant 

occurrences

24 8 0 0 8
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 173

Currently there are 21.81 miles of unauthorized routes located within 100 feet of Vernal Pools and 

Swales habitat on the Modoc National Forest. There are currently 454.31 acres located within 100 

feet of existing unauthorized roads that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the 

No Action Alternative (Table 3-47). 

Table 3-47. Approximate Miles of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized Routes within 100 Feet of Vernal 

Pools and Swales

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes within 

Potential Habitat

0 6.89 0 3.99 6.89

Miles of Unauthorized Routes within 

Potential Habitat

21.81 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 21.81 6.89 0 3.99 6.89

Acres of Potential Habitat1 454.31 75.75 0 50.74 75.75

1 Calculated within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes, within vernal pools and swales habitat

Orcuttia tenuis

Because Orcuttia tenuis is a federally listed Threatened species, it is analyzed here separately from 

other vernal pool rare plant species. There are seven known occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis located in 

vernal pools within 300 feet of unauthorized routes, inside the analysis area (Table 3-48). The 300-

foot analysis buffer is being used for this species analysis to facilitate compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Table 3-48. The Number of Federally Listed, Threatened Orcuttia Tenuis Occurrences Located in Vernal 

Pools within 300 Feet of Presently Proposed, Unauthorized Routes

Species Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Total number of Orcuttia tenuis

occurrences

7 6 0 0 6

Off-highway vehicle use on unauthorized roads is currently impacting vernal pool plants directly by 

driving on plants and rutting vernal pool habitats, or indirectly by impacting the sites with sediments 

and potentially changing the hydrology of the pool. There are currently 1152.57 acres of Vernal Pool 

habitat located within 300 feet of 30.78 miles of unauthorized routes across the Modoc National 

Forest (Table 3-49).

Table 3-49. Approximate Miles And Acres Of Habitat of Proposed Routes and Unauthorized Routes 

within 300 Feet Of Vernal Pools 

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of Proposed Routes 0 12.04 0 6.78 12.04

Miles of Unauthorized Routes 30.78 0 0 0 0

Total Miles 30.78 12.04 0 6.78 12.04
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

174 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Measure Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Acres of Potential Habitat 1 1152.57 273.60 0 168.50 273.60

1 Calculated within 300 feet of existing unauthorized routes, within Vernal Pool habitats 

Cumulative Effects

The implementation of Alternative 1 would not improve conditions for rare plant species or their 

habitats. Cross-country vehicle travel would continue, and the proliferation of routes would increase 

within the project area. Unmanaged motor vehicle use on the Modoc National Forest has the potential 

for negative direct and indirect effects to all of the rare species known to occur within the project area 

(Table 3-50).

Under this alternative, motor vehicles traveling on and off unauthorized route would continue to 

trample, kill, and uproot rare species. Indirect effects to rare species and their associated habitats 

described in the general effects section could apply to all occurrences and species found within the 

project analysis area. However, the potential impacts would most likely occur to those species within 

100 feet of existing unauthorized routes. Habitats which are open and accessible, such as the Fens and 

Wet Meadows and the Riparian habitats, are most susceptible.

One of the largest potential impacts from cross-country motorized use is the increased risk of noxious 

weed introduction and spread. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of native (including rare plant) 

habitat by displacing native species, altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading soil structure, and 

decreasing the quality and availability of forage for wildlife (Bossard, Randall, and Hoshovsky 2000). 

Noxious weeds are spread by roads, recreational activities (such as camping, hiking, horseback riding, 

and hunting), and ongoing land management activities such as road maintenance and range 

management. Under this alternative, all but the most inaccessible habitats are at risk of noxious weed 

invasion and spread from cross-country motor vehicle travel, due to the potential for all roads within 

the project area to spread weeds.

Ongoing and foreseeable future actions, such as grazing and range management, dam construction 

and maintenance, timber harvest, fuels management, wildfires and prescription burns, and 

woodcutting activities, have also created temporary roads and skid trails that often contribute to crosscountry travel and the creation of unauthorized routes. Under this alternative, these negative impacts 

would continue to occur. For a complete list of ongoing and foreseeable future actions for the Modoc 

National Forest, refer to the Modoc National Forest Travel Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), appendix E.

Negative direct and indirect impacts to rare plants and their habitats from Forest management 

activities are minimized by conducting botany surveys prior to project implementation, with flagging 

and avoidance of all rare plant occurrences. Compliance with the Modoc National Forest weed 

management strategies (USDA Forest Service 2005) during all management activities minimizes the 

risk for introduction and spread of noxious weeds.

Action Alternatives

Detailed discussions of potential effects on rare plant species for the action alternatives are found 

below (Table 3-50). When data are available, acres of affected habitat and species are provided. 

Many of our Sensitive and Watch List plant species on the Forest, however, were not mapped 

accurately, and the exact acres for these occurrences are estimates based on the original discovery 

documentation. Also, many of these occurrences have not been revisited since their initial discovery, 

some as long as 20 years ago, and the current status of these populations is unknown. Analysis is 

based on available records. No field surveys were conducted specifically along proposed routes.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 175

Impacts to rare plants from the action alternatives would be similar to those from those discussed 

within the No Action Alternative above; however, with the prohibition of cross-country travel, and 

the closure of many of the unauthorized routes within the Proposed Action, impacts to rare plant 

species would be far fewer. Over the short term there would be little difference between any of the 

alternatives, as it takes time for roads to heal. However, over the long term (20 years) unauthorized 

roads not designated would begin to re-vegetate, and could potentially become re-colonized by rare 

species. As a result, any negative impacts would be decreased with time. 

Table 3-50. Rare Plant Species Located Within 100 Feet of Unauthorized Routes (Alt. 1) or Proposed 

Routes (Alts. 2, 4, 5)

Species (Habitat) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Route 

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Botrychium lunaria (R) Sensitive 1 BA436 X

Botrychium pinnatum (R) Sensitive 1 BA419 X

Buxbaumia viridis (R) Sensitive 1 BA473

BA474

X X X X

Buxbaumia viridis (R) Sensitive 4 BA406

BA407

X X X X

Buxbaumia viridis (R) Sensitive 6 BA419 X

Buxbaumia viridis (R) Sensitive 7 BA472 X X X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F) 

Sensitive 10 ML414 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 11 ML444 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F) 

Sensitive 12 / A, B, C ML444 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 20 TR310 X X X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 70 / A ML2099

ML2100

X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 77 JW2135 X X X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 78 / A BA143 X X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 79 ML459 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 82 ML432 X X X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (F)

Sensitive 85 / A BA2300 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 86 ML422 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus (FE, F)

Sensitive 89 ML414 X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

176 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Species (Habitat) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Route 

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 4 BA2212 X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 5 BA2211 X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 7 BA2204

BA2050

X X X X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 9 BA2190

BA2191

X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 10 BA2192 X

Cordylanthus capitatus (SS) Watch List 4 BA436 X

Cordylanthus capitatus (SS) Watch List 6 SS741 

SS748

X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 11 ML2089 X

Dimeresia howellii (F) Watch List 2 BA497 X X X

Eriogonum umbellatum var. 

glaberrimum (F)

Sensitive 6 SS551 X X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 1 SS72 X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 2 SS73 X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 4 SS54

SS55

X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 6 ML476 X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 9 BA173 X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 13 ML584 X X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 16 BA55 X X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 17 ML290 X

Gratiola heterosepala (R, VP) Watch List 18 BA2217 X X X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS) Watch List 7 / A, E, O, P ML327

ML328

ML329

ML330

ML336

ML343

ML344

ML404

ML405

ML406

ML1300

ML1304

ML1305

ML1306

ML1307

X X X X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 177

Species (Habitat) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Route 

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

ML1308

ML1310

ML2018

PK6

PK8

PK9

PK10

PK11

PK13

PK14

PK15

Iliamna bakeri (SS) Watch List 35 SS238 X X X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS) Watch List 44 PA39 X X X X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 1 ML450

ML451

X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 4 ML440 X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 11 ML461 X X X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 12b ML474 X X X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 13 SS330 X

Orcuttia tenuis (VP) Threatened 17 ML460 X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 1 SS72 X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 3 SS73 X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 4 BA71 X X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 6 ML122 X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 9 BA49 X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 10 ML299 X X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP) Watch List 29 SS312 X X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (R, VP Watch List 34 ML450,

ML45

X

Potentilla newberryi (R) Watch List 4 / A, B ML277

ML280

X

Ribes hudsonianum var. petiolare (R) Watch List 1 SS943

SS945

SS947

X

Rorippa columbiae (R) Sensitive 1 ML268 X

Rorippa columbiae (R) Sensitive 2 ML280 X

Rorippa columbiae (R) Sensitive 3 ML277 X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

178 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Species (Habitat) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Route 

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Salix bebbiana (R) Watch List 1 SS943

SS945

SS947

X

Sphagnum spp. (FE) Watch List 1 BA418 X

Sphagnum spp. (FE) Watch List 2 BA417 X

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action 

Direct and indirect Effects: Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor vehicle Travel and the 

Addition of Unauthorized Roads to the NFTS

Sensitive and Special-Interest Plant Species and Associated Habitats

Alternative 2 prohibits cross-country travel, and adds approximately 336 miles of roads to the NFTS. 

This alternative has the second-highest level of impact to rare plant species and their associated 

habitats, equivalent to that of Alternative 5, and lower in impact only to Alternative 1. 

Table 3-51. Summary of Indicator Measures for the Analysis of Effects to Rare Plant Species for the 

Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel and the Addition of Routes Under Alternative 2

Measure Total*

Miles of proposed routes within 100 feet of rare plant sites, or within or adjacent to 

suitable rare plant habitat.

125.80 miles

The number of acres of potential habitat for rare plants within 100 feet of routes. 2,840.43 acres

Total number of plant occurrences within 100 feet of proposed routes. 21

There are currently eight known species of rare plants documented within 100 feet of routes proposed 

for addition under Alternative 2, found within the Riparian, Fen and Wet Meadows, Forest, Sage 

Steppe, and Vernal Pool habitats. These species will be discussed below. If species are found in more 

than one habitat, they will be discussed in the habitat that is perceived to have the highest potential 

(most open) for impacts from off-road vehicles.

Riparian Habitat

Currently there is one rare plant species, Buxbaumia viridis, within Riparian habitat, found along 

routes proposed for addition that may be directly or indirectly impacted with the implementation of 

Alternative 2. In addition, there are currently 4.85 miles of routes, with a total of approximately 

122.56 acres, within Riparian habitats that have the potential to be impacted by the implementation of 

this alternative.

Buxbaumia viridis (Bug-on-a-stick)

There are currently three occurrences of Buxbaumia viridis within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 2. All three occurrences are in the Warner Mountains.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 179

Table 3-52. Potential Impacts to Buxbaumia viridis from Alternative 2

Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Route Individuals 

with Potential 

for Impact

Total Size of 

Occurrence 

(Individuals)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

Affected

1 BA473

BA474

12 plants 12 plants 100

4 BA406

BA407

2 plants 2 plants 100

7 BA472 9 plants 9 plants 100

This is a minute moss species found only on decaying logs within and adjacent to streams, and 

populations have been documented with numbers of individuals rather than acreages. It occurs only 

on decaying logs within or adjacent to streams. 

Occurrence #1: This occurrence was discovered in 2004, and is located near routes BA473 and BA 

474, at the head of Mill Creek. 

Occurrence #4: This occurrence had two individuals when it was discovered in 2005, and is located 

near routes BA406 and BA407, at the headwaters of Goose Creek.

Occurrence #7: This occurrence had nine individuals when it was discovered in 2007, and is located 

near route BA472, also at the head of Mill Creek. 

Alternative 2 has the potential to both directly and indirectly affect Occurrences #4 and #7, and to 

indirectly affect Occurrence #1. Potential impacts include removal or damaging of riparian logs 

which provided required habitat. Because of low population sizes and stringent habitat requirements, 

damage to or loss of a single log could potentially eliminate an entire occurrence. This unique habitat 

of rotting logs in streams makes Buxbaumia viridis unlikely to suffer direct impacts from being driven 

over. However, hydrologic alterations diverting water away from habitat logs, or drying up the 

springs and streams that keep habitat logs moist, are potential indirect impacts. 

Fens and Wet Meadows Habitat

Currently there are no known rare plant species within the Fens and Wet Meadows habitat found 

within 100 feet of proposed route additions under Alternative 2. However, there are currently 13.71 

miles of routes, with a total of approximately 10.45 acres, within Fens and Wet Meadows habitats that 

have the potential to be impacted by the implementation of this alternative.

Vernal Pool Habitat

Currently there are two rare plant species, Gratiola heterosepala and Pogogyne floribunda, that are 

within Vernal Pool habitat, found along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or 

indirectly impacted with the implementation of Alternative 2. In addition, there are currently 21.81 

miles of routes, with a total of approximately 454.31 acres, within Vernal Pool habitats that have the 

potential to be impacted by the implementation of this alternative.

Gratiola heterosepala (Boggs lake hedge-hyssop)

This is a Watch List species known from 17 occurrences on the Forest. This member of the 

snapdragon family inhabits vernal pools and similar wet clay habitats. There are currently four 

occurrences of Gratiola heterosepala within 100 feet of unauthorized routes proposed for addition 

within Alternative 2 (Table 3-53). Occurrence #9 had an estimated population of 10,000,000 plants 

when it was discovered in 1993, and is located in the Mowitz buttes area, near Williams Reservoir. 

Occurrence #13 had an estimated 300 plants when it was discovered in 1994, and is located in the 

Devil’s Garden District near Lower Cummings Reservoir. Occurrence #16 had approximately 100 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

180 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

plants when it was discovered in 1997, and is located near a small, unnamed vernal pool in the 

vicinity of Quaking Aspen Spring. Occurrence #18 had 2 plants when it was discovered in 1997, and 

is located in the Medicine Lake Highlands east of Alcohol Crater. 

Gratiola heterosepala habitat ranges from moist to submerged during the months when vehicles can 

access the Forest. This makes the habitat subject to hydrologic alteration. Also, the dry upland 

surroundings of Devil’s Garden vernal pools can be very dusty beginning in early summer, so motor 

vehicle use in the vicinity may spread dust over adjacent plants. However, this is a relatively 

widespread species across the Forest, and addition of the proposed routes would not impact the 

viability of this species, particularly combined with the prohibition of cross-country travel, which is 

the much greater threat to vernal pool species.

Table 3-53. Potential Impacts to Gratiola heterosepala from Alternative 2

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

affected

9 BA173 0.18 357 <1%

13 ML584 0.06 51.4 1%

16 BA55 0.38 0.5 76%

18 BA2217 1.63 1.6 102%1

1 This percentage exceeds 100%, probably due to rounding error of reported total site acreage.

Pogogyne floribunda (Profuse-flowered pogogyne)

This Watch List species is known from 42 occurrences across the Forest. A member of the mint 

family, it grows in vernal pools and similarly vernally wet areas. There are currently three 

occurrences of Pogogyne floribunda within 100 feet of unauthorized routes proposed for addition 

within Alternative 2. Occurrence #4 had approximately 75 plants when it was discovered in 1988, and 

is located east of Lone Pine Lake. Occurrence #10 had approximately 2,000 plants when it was last 

visited in 1998, and is located adjacent to the OTHB radar installation. Occurrence #29 had 

approximately 50 plants when it was discovered in 2001, and is located in the Mowitz Buttes area, 

about 1 1/2 miles northeast of Knobcone Butte. This species appears to tolerate moderate disturbance 

well. With the number and size of occurrences on the Forest, addition of the proposed routes would 

not impact the viability of this species.

Table 3-54. Potential Impacts to Pogogyne floribunda from Alternative 2

Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

affected

4c BA71 0.47 1.6 29%

10 ML299 0.12 8.2 2%

29 SS312 0.80 24 3%

Forest Habitat

Currently there are four rare plant species, Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, Carex halliana, and Dimeresia howellii, which are within the 

Forest habitat, found along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or indirectly 

impacted with the implementation of Alternative 2. In addition, there are currently 64.48 miles of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 181

routes, with a total of approximately 1,709.10 acres, within Forest habitats that have the potential to 

be impacted by the implementation of this alternative.

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus (Long-haired star tulip)

There are currently four occurrences of Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus within 100 

feet of unauthorized routes proposed for addition within Alternative 2 (Table 3-55).

Table 3-55. Potential Impacts to Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus from Alternative 2

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

affected

20 TR310 0.61 1.3 47%

77 JW2135 4.3 186 2%

78A BA143 0.16 31 1%

82 ML432 0.24 3.3 7%

Occurrence #20: This occurrence is located near route TR310, 0.5 mile west of Mud Springs. 

Occurrence #77: This is a large occurrence which surrounds the proposed route, JW2135, west of 

Ambrose Station. It also surrounds Vernal Pool #301.

Occurrence #78A: This occurrence is located near route BA143, southeast of Hog Lake. 

Occurrence #82: This small occurrence is located near route ML432, west of Duncan Lake and 

County Road 10.

This species occurs in meadows openings within forests. Alternative 2 has the potential to impact 

three occurrences of Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus both directly and indirectly, and 

to impact a fourth occurrence indirectly. Potential impacts include trampling of plants and associated 

compaction and erosion of the meadow habitats, as well as the potential introduction of noxious 

weeds into these sites. Since this is a meadow species, its habitat can be very susceptible to 

degradation due to repeated and continued use, especially during the spring months when these areas 

are wet. Occurrence #20 is the most vulnerable due to its relatively small size and percentage of the 

population potentially impacted. For the other three occurrences, due to the large sizes of the 

occurrences, any impacts would be confined to only a portion, so the viability of these occurrences 

would be maintained. This species is known from 138 occurrences across the Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). Due to the size and number of occurrences, and stability of the species on the Forest, 

addition of the proposed routes would not impact the viability of Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus within the project area or throughout the Forest. 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum (Green buckwheat)

This sensitive species is known from six occurrences on the Forest. There is currently one known 

occurrence of Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 2 (Table 3-56). This occurrence is located at the north end of 

the Warner Mountains, near County Road 2. It had 20 plants when it was last monitored in 2003.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

182 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Table 3-56. Potential impacts to Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum from Alternative 2.

Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

affected

6 SS551 0.09 1 9%

Carex halliana (Hall’s sedge)

This Watch List species is known from 11 occurrences across the Forest. There is currently one 

occurrence of Carex halliana within 100 feet of unauthorized routes proposed for addition within 

Alternative 2 (Table 3-57). This occurrence is located west of the Glass Mountain Geologic Area, and 

had approximately 4,000 plants when it was discovered in 1997.

Table 3-57. Potential impacts to Carex halliana from Alternative 2

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

Potential for 

Impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

Affected

7 BA2204

BA2050

0.71 29.2 2%

Dimeresia howellii (Doublet)

This Watch List species is known from 11 occurrences on the Forest. It is a diminutive member of the 

sunflower family, inhabiting gravelly, dry volcanic soils. Because of its small size, growing to about 

the size of a quarter, driving over the plant can readily crush and grind it into the volcanic gravel 

where it grows. There is currently one occurrence of Dimeresia howellii within 100 feet of 

unauthorized routes proposed for addition within Alternative 2 (Table 3-58). This occurrence is 

located in steep volcanic scree, west of Cedarville, in a site not readily accessible to OHVs. It had 

approximately 100 plants when it was discovered in 1987.

Table 3-58. Potential Impacts to Dimeresia howellii from Alternative 2

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

Potential for 

Impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

Affected

2 BA497 0.0003 0.6 <1%

Sage Steppe Habitat

Currently there is one rare plant species, Iliamna bakeri, which is within the sage steppe habitat, 

found along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or indirectly impacted with the 

implementation of Alternative 2 (Table 3-59). In addition, there are currently 22.14 miles of routes, 

with a total of approximately 574.99 acres, within sage steppe habitats that have the potential to be 

impacted by the implementation of this alternative.

Iliamna bakeri (Baker’s Globe-Mallow)

This Watch List species is known from 61 occurrences across the Forest. There are currently three 

occurrences of Iliamna bakeri within 100 feet of unauthorized routes proposed for addition within 

Alternative 2 (Table 3-59). One of these occurrences includes five sub-populations potentially 

impacted by proposed route additions. Occurrence #7 consists of a collection of 17 sub-populations 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 183

with a total estimated population of 1,000,000 plants. Sub-populations were discovered between 1999 

and 2003. This occurrence is located in the Damon/Long wildfire site, south of Tionesta, where 

23,398 acres burned in August 1996. Occurrence #35 had approximately 3,600 plants when it was 

discovered in 2002. It is located near route SS238, within the 2001 Bell wildfire, 20 miles northnorthwest of Canby. Occurrence #44 had approximately 150 plants when it was discovered in 2002, 

and 42 plants when it was revisited in 2003. It is located on the east side of Timber Mountain, an area 

which burned in the 1992 Timber wildfire. Iliamna bakeri is a species which thrives in recently 

burned sites, and not only tolerates but thrives with disturbance. Addition of the proposed routes 

would not affect the viability of this species within any of the known occurrences or across its range.

Table 3-59. Potential Impacts to Iliamna bakeri from Alternative 2

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

Potential for 

Impact

Total Size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

Affected

7, 7O, 7P ML327

ML328

ML329

ML330

ML336

ML343

ML344

ML404

ML405

ML406

ML1300

ML1304

ML1305

ML1306

ML1307

ML1308

ML1310

ML2018

PK6

PK8

PK9

PK10

PK11

PK13

PK14

PK15

219.74 23,571.4 <1%

35 SS238 7.24 53.1 14%

44 PA39 1.52 137.8 1%

Federally listed Plant Species

Orcuttia tenuis
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

184 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

There is one known occurrence of Orcuttia tenuis located within 100 feet of proposed route additions, 

located in the Devil’s Garden Ranger District (Table 3-60).

Table 3-60. Potential impacts to Orcuttia tenuis from Alternative 2

Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

potentially 

affected

11 ML461 0.4 0.6 67%

Occurrence #11: This population is located in vernal pool #217 near route ML461. Population size 

was estimated at approximately 5,000 plants in 2008. Although the proposed route addition, ML461, 

is located within 100 feet of this occurrence, it is not likely to affect the occurrence. Forest Road 

40N06 separates ML461 from the vernal pool where Occurrence #11 is located, and the proposed 

route runs south from Road 40N06, and away from the vernal pool. 

There are four known Orcuttia tenuis occurrences located in vernal pools that are within 300 feet of 

proposed route additions, all within the Devil’s Garden Ranger District. 

Occurrence #4: This population is located in the eastern half of Hackamore Reservoir, with an 

estimated population of 2,000,000 plants in 2003. The proposed routes within 300 feet of the pool are 

ML372, ML374, and ML375, all located at the western end of the reservoir more than 2,000 from the 

mapped Orcuttia tenuis occurrence. No impact to Orcuttia tenuis is expected from adding the 

proposed routes, because the routes access Hackamore Reservoir dam, do not impact the vernal pool, 

and are more than 0.5 mile from the known population. 

Occurrence #12: This occurrence is located in Duncan Reservoir near route ML488. Population size 

was estimated at approximately 10,000 plants in 2008. Addition of route ML488 is not like to impact 

the Orcuttia tenuis occurrence here, because it is more than 1,500 feet from the closest Orcuttia 

tenuis population. It is an existing route that does not affect the vernal pool habitat.

Occurrence #14: This occurrence has two sub-populations, located in Williams Reservoir. Population 

A is located along the southwestern shoreline, with an estimated population of 18,500,000 plants. 

Population B is located on the eastern shoreline, and has an estimated population of 75,000 plants. 

Both sub-populations were discovered in 2008. No effect is expected from adding the proposed route, 

BA173, because this established road accesses the lake shoreline more than 1,000 feet from either 

Orcuttia tenuis sub-population, and does not impact the occurrence or its habitat. 

Occurrence #15: This occurrence is located along the northeastern shorelines of Vernal Pool #264, in 

the central pool south and east of Henski Reservoir. This occurrence was found in 2008, and the 

population size was estimated at 500,000 in the main population on the eastern shoreline of this 

middle pool, and approximately 50 plants in the southern edge of this pool. No impacts to Orcuttia 

tenuis are expected from adding proposed routes BA2289 and BA2290, because these routes access 

the dam area and are more than 0.5 mile from the populations.

All of the known occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis have persisted since the user-created, non-system 

routes became established. Most are located more than 1,000 feet from proposed routes, in large 

vernal pools expanded by artificial earth-fill dams. There would be no effect on the Orcuttia tenuis

due to addition of the routes that are more than 1,000 feet from occurrences. All of these proposed 

routes currently exist, and would not result in any new ground disturbance or disturbance to the vernal 

pool hydrology or habitats for Orcuttia tenuis.

The occurrence with proposed routes closer than 1,000 feet will not be impacted by adding proposed 

routes, since the closest route leads away from the pool habitat with an established NFTS road 

between it and the pool habitat.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 185

Changes to the Existing NFTS

Sensitive and Watch List Plant Species and Associated Habitats

In addition to the prohibition of cross-country travel and addition of unauthorized routes, Alternative 

2 also proposes to enact seasonal closures on 312 miles of NFTS roads, and to allow mixed use on an 

additional 138 miles of NFTS roads. Seasonal closures occurring during the months when roads are 

wet and muddy may potentially slightly reduce impacts to rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of 

the affected roads, as a result of reduced ground damage along and adjacent to muddy roadways. 

There are currently 30 known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of NFTS roads scheduled for 

seasonal closures under Alternative 2 (Table 3-61).

Table 3-61. Rare Plant Species Located within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed for Seasonal Closures, 

for all Alternatives

Species (Guild) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Road

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 1 43N47

43N48

43N56

X X X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 2 43N47A X X X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 9 43N47 X X X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 10 43N47B X X X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 11 43N47A X X X

Cordylanthus capitatus (SS) Watch List 6 46N06A X

Gratiola heterosepala (VP, R)) Watch List 1 47N10

46N05C

46N05

46T05CA

X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (VP, R) Watch List 2 46N05 X X X

Gratiola heterosepala (VP, R)) Watch List 4 46B02B

46B02JB

46B02J

X X X

Hulsea nana (B) Watch List 1 44N53 X X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 4 46N02 X X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 5 46N02

46N02E

X X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 6 42N31 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 20 39N01 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 28 39N01 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 32 42N43 X X X

Meesia triquetra (FE) Sensitive 4 46N06 X X X

Phacelia sericea var. ciliosa (SS, 

B) 

Watch List 1 42N43 X X X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

186 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Species (Guild) Status Occurrence or 

Suboccurence

Road

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Phlox hoodii ssp. muscoides (B, 

SS) 

Watch List 1 42N43 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 1 47N10

46N05C

46N05

46T05CA

X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 2 46N05 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 3 46N05 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 13 46N05 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 24 46N02

46B02J

X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 25 45N06 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 26 46A02Y

46N02A

46N02

X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 27 46N02 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 28 46N02 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 32 45N28 X X X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Sensitive 33 45N28 X X X

Vernal pool and fen habitats are both vulnerable to changes in hydrology, which can be impacted by 

roads. Although effects of seasonal closures on NFTS roads would likely be minimal, these are the 

two rare plant habitat types most likely to experience potential positive effects from seasonal closures 

during winter and early spring months. Therefore, the number of vernal pools and fens located within 

100 feet of proposed NFTS seasonal road closures was considered (Table 3-62). 

Table 3-62. Vernal Pools and Fens Within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed for Seasonal Closures, for 

all Alternatives

Habitat Type Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Number of Vernal Pools within 100 feet of roads 0 35 0 35 35

Number of Roads within 100 feet of vernal pools 0 29 0 29 29

Miles of Roads within 100 feet vernal pools 0 8.16 0 8.16 8.16

Number of fens within 100 feet of roads 0 0 0 2 0

Number of roads within 100 feet of fens 0 0 0 3 0

Miles of Roads within 100 feet of fens 0 0 0 0.33 0

Allowing mixed use on NFTS roads would probably have no direct effects on rare plant occurrences. 

However, it could have negative indirect effects resulting from increased risk of noxious weed 

propagule spread and introduction, since OHVs might be more likely to have traveled through weedinfested sites than passenger vehicles prior to entering the Forest. This potential for increase weed 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 187

risk may be partially mitigated by routine maintenance along level 3 roads, which includes noxious 

weed treatment. Overall, this potential increased risk would be minute relative to impacts from crosscountry travel or travel on level 2 roads which do not receive annual maintenance. There are currently 

three known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of NFTS level 3 roads proposed for mixed use

under Alternative 2 (Table 3-63).

Table 3-63. Rare Plant Species Located Within 100 Feet of Level 3 NFTS Roads Proposed for Mixed Use, 

for all Alternatives

Species (Guild) Status Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Road

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Astragalus anxius (B) Sensitive 1 38N04 X

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis

(SS, JW, F)

Sensitive 1A 38N04 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 5 42N56 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 19 40N13

41N11

X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 21 41N11 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 23 39N17 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var.

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 24 41N11 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 33 41N11 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 36 41N11 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 37 41N11 X

Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebaratus (F)

Sensitive 68 41N44 X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 1 43N48 X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 4 43N21 X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 9 43N47B X

Carex halliana (F) Watch List 10 43N47B X

Cordylanthus capitatus (SS) Watch List 6 46N06A X X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 1 40N12 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 3 41N11

40N37

X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 7 40N05 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 9 40N05 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 10 40N05A X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 11 41N44 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 12 40N05 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 13 40N05 X
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

188 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Species (Guild) Status Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Road

Number

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 20 40N11 X

Cypripedium montanum (F) Sensitive 30 40N11 X

Gratiola heterosepala (VP, R)) Watch List 12 46N10 X

Gratiola heterosepala (VP, R)) Watch List 14 46N10 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS, B) Watch List 6 42N31 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 7 44N77 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 7 42N56 X X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 20 39N01 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 28 39N01 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 33 46N10 X

Iliamna bakeri (SS,B) Watch List 35 46N10 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 1 37N11 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 2 38N04 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 3 38N04 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 4 38N04

37N11

X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 9 38N46 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 15 37N11 X

Ivesia paniculata (B, SS, F, JW) Sensitive 19 38N04 X

Meesia triquetra (FE) Sensitive 4 46N06 X X

Mertensia longiflora Watch List 2 40N37 X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Watch List 20 45N09 X

Pogogyne floribunda (VP, R) Watch List 29 44N11 X

Potentilla newberryi (VP,R) Watch List 4 47N06 X

Because of available moisture, fen and vernal pool habitats adjacent to NFTS roads could also be 

potentially more vulnerable to weed infestations than other rare plant habitats. They are also 

important for many rare plant species on the Modoc National Forest. Therefore, the number of vernal 

pools and fens located with 100 feet of NFTS level 3 roads proposed for mixed use was considered 

(Table 3-64). As for known rare plant occurrences, allowing mixed use would likely have only a 

minimal indirect effect of slightly increased risk of noxious weed introduction.

Table 3-64. Vernal Pools and Fens within 100 Feet of NFTS Roads Proposed For Mixed Use, for all 

Alternatives

Habitat Type Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Number of vernal pools within 100 feet of roads 0 2 0 0 11

Number of roads within 100 feet of vernal pools 0 2 0 0 8
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 189

Habitat Type Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Miles of roads within 100 feet vernal pools 0 0.08 0 0 0.79

Number of fens within 100 feet of roads 0 2 0 0 2

Number of roads within 100 feet of fens 0 4 0 0 4

Miles of roads within 100 feet of fens 0 0.38 0 0 0.38

Federally Listed Plant Species

The same potential factors apply to the federally listed species, Orcuttia tenuis, as are described 

above for Sensitive and Special-Interest plant species. However, there are no known occurrences of 

Orcuttia tenuis located within 100 feet of any NFTS roads proposed for either seasonal closures or 

mixed use under Alternative 2. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects from seasonal 

closures or mixed use classification of level 3 NFTS roads under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of Alternative 2 would improve conditions for rare plant species and their habitats by 

prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel and limiting the number of currently existing 

unauthorized routes to be added to the NFTS. It would discontinue the proliferation of unauthorized 

routes across the project area, and compared with Alternative 1, the probability of negative direct 

effects on rare plants is drastically reduced. Over the long term (20-plus years) this would have a 

positive indirect effect on rare plant species by reducing the cumulative negative effect from motor 

vehicle traffic. Designation of routes would have a small cumulative effect on rare plants, because 

these routes are already present and in use by motor vehicles across the Forest. Placing these routes 

on the MVUM as part of the route designation process could potentially increase the amount of motor 

vehicle use on these routes, which would in turn increase the potential for negative direct and indirect 

effects on rare plants. However, overall recreational use on the Modoc Forest is relatively light, in 

comparison with other Region 5 forests, and increases on newly designated routes are expected to be 

small.

Under Alternative 2, the highest risk of weed introduction and spread by motor vehicles would be 

reduced to NFTS roads, including the proposed route additions. Locating and treating these weeds 

would be more efficient, and occurrences along roads (as opposed to those in the Forest interior) 

might be easier to locate and treat before becoming large infestations threatening rare plant habitats. 

The prohibition of travel on unauthorized roads, along with maps guiding the public, would insure 

that road-like disturbances due to timber harvesting or fire-line construction would not become de 

facto new roads, allowing those trails and temporary roads to recover rare plant habit qualities over 

time (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). The Sage Steppe Restoration Projects may benefit rare plant 

species which grow in this habitat type; these benefits would be augmented by implementing 

Alternative 2 compared with Alternative 1, since any benefits would not be counteracted by the 

possibility of cross-country damage to the plants or their habitats.

As described under Alternative 1 cumulative effects, ongoing Forest management activities may 

contribute to impacts on rare plant species, but are protected by standard botany surveying, flagging 

and avoidance of occurrences, and weed-prevention measures. For a complete list of ongoing and 

foreseeable future actions for the Modoc National Forest, see appendix E. Alternative 2 is expected to 

have a low contributory effect on the cumulative effects from Forest management activities.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

190 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel and the addition of 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS

Sensitive and Watch List Plant Species and Associated Habitats

Alternative 3 prohibits cross-country travel, and does not add any new roads to the NFTS. Under this 

alternative, the Boles Road would remain open to motor vehicles, and the pumice road would remain 

open to OHV use.

Alternative 3 would have the fewest direct and indirect effects on rare plants. The banning of crosscountry motor vehicle use would have the same effects for Alternative 3 as for Alternative 2, and 

these effects are described in greater detail in the Alternative 2 effects discussion. In summary, 

banning cross-country motor vehicle use would prevent direct and indirect negative effects to rare 

plant occurrences caused by trampling, dust, erosion, and invasive noxious weeds. Because no routes 

would be added to the NFTS, all of the rare plant occurrences currently within 100 feet of 

unauthorized routes would be protected from future motor vehicle disturbance. This alternative would 

provide the greatest benefit to rare plants and their habitats.

Federally Listed Plant Species

Alternative 3 would have no negative effect on the federally listed Threatened species, Orcuttia 

tenuis. Because no new routes would be added to the NFTS, and because cross-country motor vehicle

traffic would be prohibited, Alternative 3 could have an indirect positive effect on this species by 

removing motor vehicle use from areas adjacent to vernal pool habitats.

Changes to the Existing NFTS

Sensitive and Watch List Plant Species and Associated Habitats

Under Alternative 3, there would be no proposed changes to the existing NFTS; there would be no 

direct or indirect effects on Sensitive and Special-Interest plant species or on their associated habitats.

Federally Listed Plant Species

Because there are no proposed changes to the existing NFTS, there would be no direct or indirect 

effects on the federally listed Threatened species, Orcuttia tenuis.

Cumulative Effects

For a complete list of ongoing and foreseeable future actions for the Modoc National Forest, refer to 

the Modoc National Forest Travel Management FEIS, chapter 3, appendix E). There would be no 

negative direct or indirect effects to rare plant species under Alternative 3, so there would be no 

cumulative negative effects under this alternative. The prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle use 

could potentially have an indirect positive effect on rare plant species. However, the prohibition of 

cross-country travel does not eliminate the presence of unauthorized routes currently on the ground. 

Therefore, any benefits would be minor in the short term and would occur only over the long term (20 

or more years) as routes heal over naturally.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel and the addition 

of unauthorized roads to the NFTS

Sensitive and Watch List Plant Species and Associated Habitats

Under Alternative 4, a total of 286 miles of unauthorized roads would be added to the NFTS, 53 miles 

fewer than would be added under Alternatives 2 and 5. Of these roads, 57.79 miles would be within 

100 feet of 16 rare plant sites, and would be within 100 feet of 1,452.29 acres of potential rare plant 

habitat (Table 3-65). Alternative 4 has the second-lowest impact of the five alternatives the rare plant 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 191

species. There are currently seven rare plant species with known occurrences located within 100 feet 

of proposed routes under this alternative: Buxbaumia viridis, Calochortus longebarbatus var. 

longebarbatus, Carex halliana, Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, Gratiola heterosepala, 

Iliamna bakeri, and Pogogyne floribunda .

Alternative 4 prohibits cross-country travel, and adds approximately 286 miles of roads to the NFTS. 

This alternative has the second lowest level of impact to rare plant species and their associated 

habitats, higher in impact only to Alternative 3. 

Table 3-65. Alternative 4: Summary of Indicator Measures for the Analysis of Effects to Rare Plant 

Species for the Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel and the Addition of Routes 

Measure Total

Miles of unauthorized routes within 100 feet of rare plant sites, or within or adjacent 

to suitable rare plant habitat

57.79 miles

Number of acres of potential habitat for rare plants within 100 feet of routes 1452.29 acres

Total number of plant occurrences (NFTS) within 100 feet of unauthorized routes. 16

There are currently seven known species of rare plants documented within 100 feet of routes 

proposed for addition under Alternative 4, found within the Riparian, Fen and Wet Meadows, Forest, 

Sage Steppe, and Vernal Pool habitats. These species are the same as for Alternatives 2 and 5, with 

the exception that there are no occurrences of Dimeresia howellii within 100 feet of any Alternative 4 

proposed routes. Species will be discussed by habitats below. As for Alternative 2, if species are 

found in more than one habitat, they will be discussed in the habitat that is perceived to have the 

highest potential (most open) for impacts from off-road vehicles. Because there is considerable 

overlap and similarity in effects for Alternative 2 and Alternative 4, the discussion will focus on 

differences between these two alternatives.

Riparian Habitat

Currently there is one rare plant species, Buxbaumia viridis, within Riparian habitat, found along 

routes proposed for addition that may be directly or indirectly impacted with the implementation of 

Alternative 4. In addition, there are currently 3.68 miles of routes, with a total of approximately 96.87 

acres, within Riparian habitats that have the potential to be impacted by the implementation of this 

alternative. 

Buxbaumia viridis (Bug-on-a-stick)

There are currently three occurrences of Buxbaumia viridis within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 4, which are identical to those affected under Alternative 2 

(Table 3-52). Refer to the Alternative 2 discussion for full details.

Fens and Wet Meadows Habitat

Currently there are no rare plant species within Fens and Wet Meadows found along routes proposed 

for addition with the implementation of Alternative 4. There are currently 0.9 miles of routes, with a 

total of approximately 0.18 acres, within Fens and Wet Meadows habitats that have the potential to be 

impacted by the implementation of this alternative.

Vernal Pool Habitat

Currently there are two rare plant species, Gratiola heterosepala and Pogogyne floribunda, that are 

within Vernal Pool habitat, found along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

192 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

indirectly impacted with the implementation of Alternative 4. In addition, there are currently 3.99 

miles of routes, with a total of approximately 50.74 acres, within Vernal Pool habitats that have the 

potential to be impacted by the implementation of this alternative. 

Gratiola heterosepala (Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop)

There are currently three occurrences of Gratiola heterosepala within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 4 (Table 3-66). This is one less occurrence than those 

affected under Alternative 2.

Table 3-66. Potential Impacts to Gratiola heterosepala from Alternative 4

Occurrence or

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

potential for 

impact

Total size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

affected

13 ML584 0.06 51.4 1%

16 BA55 0.38 0.5 76%

18 BA2217 1.6 1.6 100%

Pogogyne floribunda (Profuse-flowered pogogyne)

There are currently three occurrences of Pogogyne floribunda within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 4. These are identical to those affected under Alternative 2. 

Refer to Alternative 2 for a complete discussion of these occurrences.

Forest Habitat

Currently there are three rare plant species, Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum and Carex halliana, which are within Forest habitat, found 

along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or indirectly impacted with the 

implementation of Alternative 4. This is one less species than is impacted within Forest habitat under 

Alternative 2. There are only two occurrences of Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus

located within 100 feet of proposed routes under this alternative, compared to three occurrences under 

Alternative 2 (Table 3-50). For details of these rare plant occurrences, refer to the Alternative 2 

discussion. 

Table 3-67. Potential Impacts to Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus from Alternative 4

Occurrence or 

Suboccurrence

Route Acres with 

Potential for 

Impact

Total Size of 

Occurrence 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Occurrence 

Affected

20 TR310 0.61 1.3 47%

77 JW2135 4.3 186 2%

In addition, there are currently 42.47 miles of routes, with a total of approximately 1,126.23 acres, 

within Forest habitats that have the potential to be impacted by the implementation of this alternative. 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum (Green buckwheat)

There is currently one occurrence of Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum within 100 feet of 

unauthorized routes proposed for addition within Alternative 4 (Table 3-50). Refer to Alternative 2 

for a complete discussion of this occurrence. 

Carex halliana (Hall’s sedge)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 193

There is currently one occurrence of Carex halliana within 100 feet of unauthorized routes proposed 

for addition within Alternative 4 (Table 3-50). This is the same occurrence potentially affected under 

Alternative 2, and a complete discussion of this species can be found under Alternative 2.

Sage Steppe Habitat

Currently there is one rare plant species, Iliamna bakeri, which is within the Sage Steppe habitat, 

found along routes proposed for addition, and potentially directly or indirectly impacted with the 

implementation of Alternative 4 (Table 3-44). In addition, there are currently 6.75 miles of routes, 

with a total of approximately 178.27 acres, within Sage Steppe habitats that have the potential to be 

impacted by the implementation of this alternative. 

Iliamna bakeri (Baker’s globe-mallow)

There are currently three occurrences of Iliamna bakeri within 100 feet of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition within Alternative 4. One of these occurrences includes five sub-populations 

potentially impacted by proposed route additions. These occurrences are identical to those under 

Alternative 2; refer to Alternative 2 for a detailed discussion of effects.

Federally Listed Plant Species

Orcuttia tenuis

There are no known occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis within 100 feet of any proposed routes under 

Alternative 4. There are no known vernal pools containing Orcuttia tenuis within 300 feet of any 

proposed routes under this alternative. Therefore, there would be no effect to Orcuttia tenuis under 

this alternative.

Changes to the Existing NFTS

Sensitive and Special-Interest Plant species and associated Habitats

Under Alternative 4, there would be seasonal closures on the same 312 miles of existing NFTS roads 

as under Alternative 2, plus an additional 112 miles of NFTS roads in the Warner Mountains. A total 

of 424 miles of NFTS roads would have seasonal closures under Alternative 4. Relative to Alternative 

2, this alternative would provide a slight increase in seasonal protections from road closures for four 

known rare plant occurrences, one occurrence of Cordylanthus capitatus and three occurrences of 

Iliamna bakeri. It would also provide the minimal increase in protection from seasonal road closures 

for two fens in the Warner Mountains. 

Under Alternative 4, no level 3 NFTS roads would be opened to mixed use. Therefore, there would be 

no effect from mixed use of NFTS roads on rare plants under this alternative. The Boles Road would 

be closed to motor vehicles and the pumice road would be closed to OHVs, the same as in Alternative 

2 and Alternative 5. 

Federally Listed Plant Species

There are no known occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis located within 100 feet of any NFTS road 

proposed for seasonal closures under Alternative 4. Therefore, there would be no impact on federally 

listed plant species.

Cumulative Effects

The implementation of Alternative 4 would be very similar to implementation of Alternative 2, so the 

discussion here will focus on the differences in cumulative effects between Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 4. For a more detailed discussion of the identical cumulative effects, refer to the 

cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would add 53 fewer miles of roads to 

the NFTS than Alternative 2, which would reduce both direct and indirect effects to rare plants. 

Specifically, Alternative 4 would have direct and indirect effects on 16 known rare plant occurrences, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

194 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

while Alternative 2 would have direct and indirect effects on 22 known plant occurrences. Alternative 

4 would also have lesser potential direct and indirect effects on the federally listed Threatened 

species, Orcuttia tenuis, since it would not add any routes occurring within 100 feet of any known 

Orcuttia tenuis occurrence and would add only 26 routes located within 100 feet of vernal pools. By 

contrast, Alternative 2 would add routes occurring within 100 ft of one known Orcuttia tenuis

occurrence, and 41 routes passing within 100 feet of vernal pools. Because several routes near rare 

plant occurrences and important rare plant habitats would be excluded from the NFTS under 

Alternative 4, this alternative would have fewer negative direct and indirect effects on rare plants and 

their habitats. 

As described under Alternative 1 cumulative effects, ongoing Forest management activities may 

contribute to impacts on rare plant species, but are protected by standard botany surveying, flagging 

and avoidance of occurrences, and weed-prevention measures. For a complete list of ongoing and 

foreseeable future actions for the Modoc National Forest, refer to the Modoc National Forest Travel 

Management FEIS, Chapter 3, appendix E. Alternative 4 is expected to have a low contributory effect 

on the cumulative effects from Forest management activities.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel and the addition 

of unauthorized roads to the NFTS

Note: After this effects analysis was completed (July 9, 2009), Alternative 5 was adjusted to remove 

unauthorized routes from consideration for addition that potentially affect the three remaining 

sensitive species (Buxbaumia viridis, Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, and Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. longebarbatus). The very minor effect of this change is reflected in the revised 

Monitoring Plan and in the Record of Decision. It did not justify the added work that would have 

been necessary to make these corrections throughout the entire botany section. 

Sensitive and Watch List Plant Species and Associated Habitats

Under Alternative 5, the routes proposed for addition to the NFTS are identical to those proposed 

under Alternative 2, as well as the closure of Boles Road to all motor vehicles and the closure of 

pumice road to OHVs. The direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle

travel and the addition of unauthorized roads to the NFTS on Sensitive and Watch List plant species 

and associated habitats under Alternative 5 would be identical to those effects under Alternative 2. 

They are described under Alternative 2, above.

Federally Listed Plant Species

The direct and indirect effects of prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel and the addition of 

unauthorized roads to the NFTS on Orcuttia tenuis and its associated Vernal Pool habitat under 

Alternative 5 would be identical to those effects under Alternative 2, and are described under 

Alternative 2 above.

Changes to the Existing NFTS

Sensitive and Special-Interest Plant Species and Associated Habitats

In addition to the prohibition of cross-country travel, and addition of unauthorized routes, Alternative 

5 also proposes to enact seasonal closures on 312 miles of NFTS roads, and to allow mixed use on 

531 miles of level 3 NFTS roads. The proposed seasonal closures are for the same roads as in 

Alternative 2, but the seasons of closure are for only two seasons of use, as opposed to four seasons of 

use under Alternative 2. The difference in effects of the differences in closure dates would be 

minimal, since both closure schedules would close roads during the muddy season. Therefore, the 

effects of seasonal closures on rare plants under Alternative 5 would be similar to those under 

Alternative 2. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 195

Alternative 5 would allow mixed use on the same 138 miles of NFTS level 3 roads as in Alternative 

2, plus an additional 392 miles of level 3 roads. As with Alternative 2, allowing mixed use on NFTS 

roads might potentially increase the risk of noxious weed propagule introduction, since OHVs might 

be more likely to have traveled through weed-infested sites than passenger vehicles prior to entering 

the Forest. However, as described under Alternative 2, this risk is partially mitigated by routine road 

maintenance along level 3 roads, which includes weed treatment. The comparatively small indirect 

effect of increased weed risk could potentially affect a total of five Sensitive plant species and six 

Watch List species located within 100 feet of roads, with a combined total of 47 rare plant 

occurrences. The Sensitive species are Astragalus anxius, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, Cypripedium montanum, and Ivesia paniculata. The 

Watch List species are Carex halliana, Gratiola heterosepala, Iliamna bakeri, Mertensia longiflora, 

Pogogyne floribunda, and Potentilla newberryi. In addition, there are 11 vernal pools located within 

100 feet of proposed mixed-use roads which could also receive potential indirect effects from 

increased weed introduction risk. There are also two fens located within 100 feet of proposed mixeduse roads, the same as in Alternative 2. Alternative 5 would overall have the greatest negative effect 

from changes in the NFTS of the four action alternatives. However, this effect would still be small 

relative to the effects from continued cross-country travel under Alternative 1.

Federally Listed Plant Species

There are no known occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis located within 100 feet of any NFTS roads 

proposed for seasonal closures or mixed use under Alternative 5, so there would be no effects from 

these actions on federally listed plant species.

Cumulative Effects

The implementation of Alternative 5 would have similar direct and indirect effects as implementation 

of Alternative 2, except for minimally greater potential indirect effects from allowing mixed use on 

all NFTS level 3 roads. Therefore, cumulative effects would also be similar for both of these 

alternatives. For a complete discussion of cumulative effects, refer to the Alternative 2 cumulative 

effects section. The only difference under Alternative 5 would be a slightly greater risk of negatively 

impacting rare plants and vernal pool habitats with noxious weed introductions due to addition of 

OHV traffic on NFTS level 3 roads.

Summary of Determinations 

Alternative 2

With the restriction of cross-country travel and the addition of 336 miles of new system roads, the 

Modoc National Forest Travel Management Project implementation of Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on any currently known occurrences of the following species: Astragalus anxius, Astragalus 

lemmonii, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, 

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium pinnatum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum prociduum, Galium glabrescens ssp. modocense, 

Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Ivesia paniculata, Lupinus latifolius var. barbatus, Meesia 

triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Mimulus evanescens, Phacelia inundata, and Rorippa columbiae. The 

implementation of Alternative 2 may have effects on Buxbaumia viridis, Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, but would not lead toward a trend 

to Federal listing (the rationale may be found in the effects discussions above). Because none of the 

routes proposed for addition was surveyed, there is a potential that currently unknown occurrences of 

these species and their habitat may be impacted. Implementation of Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on any occurrence of the federally listed Threatened species, Orcuttia tenuis.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

196 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

Alternative 3

With the restriction of cross-country travel, the Modoc National Forest Travel Management Project 

implementation of Alternative 3 would have no effect on the following species: Astragalus anxius, 

Astragalus lemmonii, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium 

crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium 

pinnatum, Bruchia bolanderi, Buxbaumia viridis, Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, 

Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, Galium 

glabrescens ssp. modocense, Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Ivesia paniculata, Lupinus 

latifolius var. barbatus, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Mimulus evanescens, Phacelia inundata, 

and Rorippa columbiae. Implementation of Alternative 3 would not affect the federally listed 

Threatened species, Orcuttia tenuis.

Alternative 4

With the restriction of cross-country travel and the addition of 286 miles of new system roads, the 

Modoc National Forest Travel Management Project implementation of Alternative 4 would have no 

effect on any currently known occurrences of the following species: Astragalus anxius, Astragalus 

lemmonii, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, 

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium pinnatum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum prociduum, Galium glabrescens ssp. modocense, 

Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Ivesia paniculata, Lupinus latifolius var. barbatus, Meesia

triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Mimulus evanescens, Phacelia inundata, and Rorippa columbiae. The 

implementation of Alternative 4 may have effects on Buxbaumia viridis, Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, but would not lead toward a trend 

to listing (the rationale may be found in the effects discussions above). Because none of the routes 

proposed for addition was surveyed, there is a potential that currently unknown occurrences of these 

species and their habitat may be impacted. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not affect the 

federally listed Threatened species, Orcuttia tenuis.

Alternative 5

With the restriction of cross-country travel and the addition of 336 miles of new system roads, the 

Modoc National Forest Travel Management Project implementation of Alternative 5 would have no 

effect on any currently known occurrences of the following species: Astragalus anxius, Astragalus 

lemmonii, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, 

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium pinnatum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Cypripedium montanum, Eriogonum prociduum, Galium glabrescens ssp. modocense, 

Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense, Ivesia paniculata, Lupinus latifolius var. barbatus, Meesia 

triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Mimulus evanescens, Phacelia inundata, and Rorippa columbiae. The 

implementation of Alternative 5 may have effects on known occurrences Buxbaumia viridis, 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, and Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum, but 

would not lead toward a trend to listing (the rationale may be found in the effects discussions above). 

Because none of the routes proposed for addition was surveyed, there is a potential that currently

unknown occurrences of these species and their habitat may be impacted. Implementation of 

Alternative 5 would not affect the federally listed Threatened species, Orcuttia tenuis.

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Alternative 1, which allows continued cross-country motor vehicle use, would affect the greatest 

number of rare plant species and occurrences, as well as the greatest amount of rare plant habitats,

including fens and vernal pools, and would have the greatest risk of noxious weed spread. 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would provide the greatest protection for rare plants and their 

habitats, since it would ban cross-country travel and continued travel on unauthorized routes. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Botanical Resources 197

Alternative 4 would be the second-most favorable alternative for rare plants. While it is similar in 

effect to Alternatives 2 and 5, it would provide greater protection to vernal pool species, and would 

affect fewer known rare plant occurrences. Alternatives 2 would have marginally lower impacts to 

rare plants than Alternative 5, and Alternative 5 would offer the lowest protections for rare plants. 

However, because all of the action alternatives ban cross-country motor vehicle use, they all provide a 

significant level of protection for rare plant species and their habitats across the Forest.

Table 3-68. Effects Summary for Rare Plants, Habitats, and Noxious Weeds

Measure Alt 12 Alt 23 Alt 33 Alt 43 Alt 53

Number of plant occurrences1 within 30 

feet (direct and indirect effect)

Occurrence 48 16 0

12 16

Number of additional plant occurrences 

and routes between 30 and 100 feet 

(indirect effect) Occurrence

14

6 0 4 6

Total number of plant occurrences (NFTS) within 100 

feet of routes

62 22 0 16 22

Percent of known occurrences (NFTS) within 100 feet 

of routes

13.2% 4.7% 0% 3.4% 4.7%

Number of vernal pools within 30 feet of routes 48

(206.65 

acres)

29

(25.07 

acres)

0

(0 

acres)

18

(18.84 

acres)

29

(25.07 acres)

Number of vernal pools within 100 feet of routes 59

(454.31 

acres)

41

(75.75 

acres)

0

(0 

acres)

26

(50.74 

acres)

41

(75.75 acres)

Number of vernal pools within 300 feet of routes 81

(1152.57)

59

(273.60)

0

(0 

acres)

40

(168.5 

acres)

59

(273.60)

Number of fens within 30 feet of routes 1

(4.49 

acres)

0

(0 acres)

0

(0 

acres)

0

(0 

acres)

0

(0 acres)

Number of fens within 100 feet of routes 3

(10.45 

acres)

1

(0.09 

acre)

0

(0 

acres)

1

(0.09 

acre)

1

(0.09 acre)

Miles of weed infested roads (weeds within 100 feet of 

routes)

28.78 16.09 0 14.19 16.09

Acres of weed infestations within 100 feet of routes 79.71 71.86 0 71.61 71.86
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

198 Chapter 3—Botanical Resources

1 Occurrences affected by more than one route were counted only once. Occurrences counted within 0 to 50 feet of a route 

were not counted again within 50 to100 feet of route.

2 Impacts related to continued use of unauthorized routes

3 Impacts related to changes to the NFS system, including additions of roads to the NFS, changes to season of use, and 

changes in vehicle class.

Compliance with the Modoc LRMP and Other Direction

No Action—Alternative 1

Alternative 1 does not accomplish with the SNFPA’s goal to maintain and restore springs, seeps, 

vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes, because it allows cross-country motor vehicle use throughout 

the Forest, including within these special aquatic habitats. Alternative 1 does not comply with section 

2670 of the Forest Service Manual (FSM),which requires the Forest Service to develop and 

implement management practices to ensure that rare plants do not become threatened or endangered, 

and to ensure their continued viability on National Forests, because it allows indiscriminant use of 

motor vehicles through rare plant populations and habitats. Alternative 1 does not comply with the 

directives of Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999), because it 

allows a known, high-risk vector of noxious weeds (OHVs) to operate off established roads 

throughout the Forest.

Action Alternatives—Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

By prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle traffic, and not adding routes that would negatively 

impact any Threatened or Sensitive species, Alternatives 3 and 4 comply with the MDF LRMP, the 

SNFPA, Executive Order 13112, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Forest Service 

Manual and Handbook. The greatest threat to rare plant species from motorized vehicle use comes 

from cross-country vehicle traffic. Therefore, the banning of cross-country motorized vehicle use, 

present in all of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) provides a large measure of 

protection for rare plant species relative to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1. Of the action 

alternatives, Alternative 3 provides the greatest protection for rare plants by not adding any 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 vary slightly in their potential impacts on 

rare plants, with slightly higher risk of negative impacts under Alternative 5 relative to Alternative 2, 

and slightly lesser risk of negative impacts under Alternative 4 relative to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest protections for rare plant species, while Alternative 4 would 

provide compliant, but reduced protection. Alternatives 2 and 5 would provide the lowest levels of 

protection.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 199

Noxious Weeds

Introduction

Because vehicle travel is a major factor and vector in the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, 

this project may affect the distribution and abundance of these species across the Modoc National 

Forest. Additionally, the Chief of the Forest Service has determined that invasive species are one of 

four significant threats to Forests and rangelands. Because the presence of these invaders affects 

many other resources such as soil, wildlife habitat, and sensitive plants, it is important to analyze and 

understand the effects of the project on noxious weed populations.

This section describes the affected environment for invasive plant species (weeds). It will describe the 

area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. 

Measurement indicators are used to describe the existing conditions for the Forest, and to quantify 

and describe the extent to which the proposed action and alternatives meet project objectives and 

address resource concerns. Each alternative is then evaluated and compared using these measurement 

indicators.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and 

Other Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action that is relevant to the management and prevention of 

noxious weeds includes the following:

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2081.03 requires that a weed risk assessment be conducted when 

any ground disturbing activity is proposed. A weed risk assessment determines the risk of 

introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the Proposed Action. Projects having 

moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds must identify noxious weed control 

measures that must be undertaken during project implementation.

Executive Order 13112 of Feb. 3, 1999 directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control such species, not authorize, fund, or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such 

actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified standards and guidelines applicable to motorized 

travel management and noxious weeds, which will be considered during the analysis process. 

Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (MDF LRMP): The 1991 Modoc 

LRMP Standards and Guidelines direct the Forest to control noxious weeds and perform annual 

monitoring of noxious weed population levels.

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Noxious Weed Species Considered

The eighteen noxious weed species being considered in this analysis are invasive, non-native plants 

that possess one or more of the characteristics of an invasive weed and are undesirable on Modoc 

National Forest lands (Table 3-70). Based on Executive Order 13112, issued in 1999, a species is 

considered invasive if it (a) is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration, and (b) its 

introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health 

(USDA Forest Service 2004). This analysis includes invasive plant species from the California 

Department of Food and Agriculture list of noxious weeds (CDFA 2008) and the Cal-IPC California 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

200 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2008). All weed species identified on the Forest are of concern 

with regard to their potential to spread and threaten native ecosystems. The Forest, however, has 

prioritized weed infestations for tracking based upon the aggressiveness of the weed species, the 

degree of regional concern, and feasibility of control. While some species listed in statewide 

inventories are not identified as a high priority for control efforts and are not specifically addressed in 

this analysis (i.e., cheatgrass, bull thistle, Russian thistle, Medusahead), it remains a priority to 

prevent the further spread of these species via management activities. However, control of all known 

infestations of these lower-priority species is not currently feasible and they are likely to persist 

throughout the life of this project. 

A weed occurrence refers to a relatively discreet group of individuals, separated from the next nearest 

group of the same species by at least 1⁄4 mile. Many of the weed occurrences are immediately adjacent 

to existing travel routes, due to the disturbed habitat available along the road edges, and the vehicles 

acting as vectors for weed seeds or other propagules.

Geographic Area Evaluated

Direct and indirect effects to noxious weeds under each alternative will be analyzed within the 

geographic extents described below. Cumulative effects will be analyzed within the administrative 

boundaries of the Modoc National Forest, exclusive of the South Warner Wilderness Area.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

For the No Action alternative, which allows cross-country travel, the direct and indirect effects will 

be analyzed within the administrative boundaries of the Modoc National Forest, excluding the South 

Warner Wilderness Area, a total of 1,609,466 acres. The existing condition discussion below will 

focus on this analysis area, with some broader background information provided for context. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), 3 (Cross-Country Travel Prohibition), 4 (Resource Impact 

Reduction), and 5 (Expanded Recreational Mixed Use)

The geographic extent evaluated for direct and indirect effects will include lands within the 

administrative boundaries of the Modoc National Forest, excluding the South Warner Wilderness 

Area, but with particular emphasis on those areas of the Forest within 100 feet of proposed routes. 

This buffer encompasses the distance that vehicles are allowed to drive off roads for parking and 

camping. In general, weed infestations located near proposed routes will have a high risk of spread to 

areas along the route and to other parts of the Forest. 

Assumptions 

1. That new infestations will continue to occur with continued motorized use of routes.

2. That existing weed infestations will likely spread, and that the rate of spread will be increased 

by vehicular activity. Infestations located along routes where vehicles drive will spread further 

along the route. Motor vehicles will bring weed seeds and propagative parts from home areas 

and other areas where they traveled.

3. That routine road maintenance includes an obligation to identify and treat new noxious weed 

occurrences, thereby reducing the risk of noxious weed establishment. Maintenance level 3 

roads receive more frequent maintenance, and would therefore have a greater reduction in 

weed risk from road maintenance. Maintenance level 2 roads receive less frequent road 

maintenance, and would experience less of a weed risk reduction from maintenance than would 

level 3 roads.

4. For completing the risk assessments, the following categories of risk are assigned to determine 

risk level of noxious weed introduction or spread:

High risk: (1) presence of known weed populations along a route, (2) known A-rated weed 

populations within 100 feet of a route, or (3) a lack of inventory or survey of a route.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 201

Medium risk: known B- or C-rated weed populations within 100 feet of a route.

Low risk: route and vicinity surveyed and noxious weed populations not found

Noxious Weeds Effects Analysis Methodology by Action

Measurement indicators have been developed for each action to quantify the direct and indirect 

effects of this project upon noxious weed species. For all actions, a short-term time frame is defined 

as one year, a long-term time frame is defined as twenty years, and the spatial boundary is defined as 

the Modoc National Forest, excluding the South Warner Wilderness Area and privately owned inholdings within the proclaimed Forest boundary. These measurement indicators reflect research that 

identifies roads as a significant vector for weed establishment and spread.

Action: Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

1. Number of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to noxious weed sites

2. Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of unauthorized routes

3. Total number of weed sites within 100 feet of unauthorized routes

4. Number of unauthorized routes assigned “high risk” of noxious weed introduction or spread, 

defined as follows:

High risk: (1) presence of known weed populations along route, (2) known A-rated weed populations

within 100 feet of route, or (3) a lack of inventory or survey of route

Medium risk: known B- or C-rated weed populations within 100 feet of route

Low risk: route and vicinity surveyed and noxious weed populations not found

Action: Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, or 

areas) to the NFTS

1. Miles of routes added to the NFTS within or adjacent to noxious weed sites

2. Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of proposed routes

3. Total number of weed sites within 100 feet of unauthorized routes

4. Number of unauthorized routes assigned “high risk” of noxious weed introduction or spread, 

defined as follows:

High risk: (1.) presence of known weed populations along route, (2.) known A-rated weed 

populations within 100 feet of route, or (3.) a lack of inventory or survey of route

Medium risk: known B- or C-rated weed populations within 100 feet of route

Low risk: route and vicinity surveyed and noxious weed populations not found

Action: Direct and indirect effects of identifying vehicle class and season of use on the NFTS

1. Miles of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use within or adjacent to noxious weed sites

2. Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of NFTS road proposed for mixed use

3. Total number of weed sites within 100 feet of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use

4. Total miles of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use

5. Miles of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use within or adjacent to noxious weed sites

6. Acres of noxious weed sites within 100 feet of NFTS road proposed for mixed use

7. Total number of weed sites within 100 feet of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use

8. Total miles of NFTS roads proposed for mixed use
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

202 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Action: Cumulative Effects

Total miles of proposed routes available for public use

Data Sources

Data used for this analysis comes from the Modoc National Forest noxious weed inventory, which is 

a spatial database compiled from data collected through 2004, as well as the Modoc National Forest 

field noxious weed record sheets. There have been no systematic noxious weed surveys on the Forest

since 2004. No route-specific surveys for noxious weeds were conducted. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

On National Forest System lands as of 1999, an estimated 6-7 million acres were infested with weeds, 

and potentially increasing at a rate of 8 to12 percent per year (USDA Forest Service 1999). Similar 

trends have been observed on the Modoc National Forest, as the number of locations and extent of 

existing populations of species such as dyer’s woad, Dalmatian toadflax, Scotch thistle, knapweeds, 

Medusahead, and others have increased on the Forest over the past several years. There are currently 

539 mapped weed occurrences on the Forest, with a total of 7,941.19 mapped infested acres (Table 3-

69). The actual total infested area of the Forest is considerably higher, since widespread infestations 

of Medusahead, cheatgrass, bull thistle, and Russian thistle have not been documented at all, and 

other species such as dyer’s woad are not fully documented.

Table 3-69. Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Inventory within Affected Environment

Species Common Name CDFA

rating

Cal-IPC

rating

Number of 

Occurrences

Gross Acres

Cardaria chalapensis Lens-podded 

whitetop

B moderate 4 8.96

Cardaria draba Heart-podded 

hoarycress

B moderate 1 0.4

Cardaria pubescens Hairy whitetop B limited 2 0.17

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle A limited 1 0.1

Carduus nutans Musk thistle A moderate 12 6.87

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed A moderate 12 10.65

Centaurea stoebe ssp.

micranthos

Spotted knapweed A high 13 5.14

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle C high 10 2.3

Centaurea virgata ssp. 

squarrosa

Squarrose 

knapweed

A moderate 5 0.18

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B moderate 34 11.93

Crupina vulgaris Common crupina A limited 1 745.19

Hypericum perforatum Klamathweed C moderate 8 8.79

Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad B moderate 62 6069.94

Lepidium latifolium Tall whitetop B high 1 0.1

Linaria dalmatica ssp. Dalmatian toadflax A moderate 12 974.73
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 203

Species Common Name CDFA

rating

Cal-IPC

rating

Number of 

Occurrences

Gross Acres

dalmatica

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle A high 333 86.46

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean 

sage

B limited 27 11.61

Total 539 7941.19

Environmental Consequences

The following sections provide a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each 

alternative on noxious weeds. It is important to note that the analysis below represents what is known 

about motor vehicle impacts along unauthorized routes at this point in time. Designation of a route is 

expected to increase and concentrate motor vehicle use; this has the potential to increase the risk of 

noxious weed introduction and spread. Routes, infestations, and mitigations or control measures will 

need to be re-evaluated on a continual basis to assess and address the risk from noxious weeds.

General Types of Impacts: Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects to weed plants would include the crushing of plants by vehicle traffic. Of greater 

concern are the indirect effects of roads on noxious weed populations, which include reasonably 

foreseeable effects that are further removed in time or distance. These indirect effects are captured by 

research identifying roads as (1) disturbances providing suitable habitat for weeds, and (2) vectors for 

weed spread (Christen and Matlack 2008, Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Gelbard and Harrison 2003). 

Many studies have established a correlation between habitat disturbance and weed invasion (Sax 

2002, Sher et al. 2002). While some disturbances such as fire or flooding can be considered natural 

phenomena, anthropogenic (human-caused) alterations to habitat such as road construction may also 

create suitable habitat for weeds (Byers 2002). Belcher and Wilson (1989) found that 95 percent of 

leafy spurge infestations on a mixed-grass prairie were associated with disturbance from vehicle 

tracks, road construction, or fireguards. Noxious weeds may colonize disturbed sites such as roads 

because physical barriers that might otherwise keep them in check, such as unsuitable light, moisture 

or soil conditions, are removed (Parendes and Jones 2000). In addition, soil compaction caused by 

vehicle traffic may in some habitats favor colonization by fast-growing weed species over slowergrowing native perennials (Prose et al. 1987).

Roads function as vectors for weed spread as well. With human activities such as roads facilitating 

plant dispersal, noxious weeds may spread further and faster than average seed dispersal distances 

suggest (Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007, Mack and Lonsdale 2001, Frenkel 1970). A study of 

roadside floras found that seeds of the species found along roadsides are also found in mud on the 

vehicles that travel them (Schmidt 1989). Seeds and propagules may be translocated in this way from 

home areas or from existing weed populations on the Forest. A study conducted in Glacier National 

Park found that weed species richness was higher at roadsides and decreased with increased distance 

from roads, suggesting that weeds were invading from those roads outward into surrounding 

vegetation (Tyser and Worley 1992). A study of California foothill grassland communities found that 

increased distance from roads was associated with decreased exotic forb species richness and 

increased native grass species richness, and emphasized the importance of roadless areas as refugia

for native species (Gelbard and Harrison 2003). It follows that restricting motorized use to designated

roads would decrease the potential for the introduction of weed seeds and propagules, and would 

eliminate disturbance to soils from motor vehicle use.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

204 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Alternative 1 carries the highest risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. The largest impact of 

this alternative is from cross-country travel, which has the potential to introduce new noxious weeds 

to areas that are not currently infested and to facilitate the expansion of existing populations. Under 

this alternative, it is impossible to quantify when and where noxious weeds would be encountered, 

spread, or introduced by motor vehicles; therefore, the 491 miles of unauthorized routes are used as a 

proxy for current motor vehicle use on the Forest (aside from National Forest Transportation System

(NFTS) roads). Of the 1660 unauthorized routes mapped on the Modoc National Forest, 24 have 

weed populations documented within 100 feet of the route. There are a total of 21 noxious weed 

occurrences documented within 100 feet of unauthorized routes (Table 3-70), and a total of 28.78 

miles of unauthorized routes within 100 feet of a known weed occurrence.

Table 3-70. High-Priority Noxious Weed Populations Documented Within 100 Feet of an Existing 

Unauthorized Route

Species CDFA Rating # Occurrences Gross Acres

Cardaria chalepensis B 1 0.44

Carduus nutans A 1 0.19

Centaurea diffusa A 1 0.66

Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos A 1 1.00

Cirsium arvense B 5 0.28

Isatis tinctoria B 4 59.97

Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica A 2 8.52

Onopordum acanthium A 5 2.02

Salvia aethiopis B 1 0.01

Total 21 73.1

This alternative has the highest number of unauthorized routes considered at “high risk” for weed 

introduction and spread. Table 3-71 (below) summarizes the number of unauthorized routes 

considered at high risk of weed establishment and spread under Alternative 1, which would allow

continued motorized travel on these routes.

Table 3-71. Risk Ratings for Unauthorized Routes

Indicator (number of unauthorized routes) Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Known weed occurrences present 11

A-Listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 7

No inventory or survey 1635

B- or C-listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 7

Surveyed • 2001; no weeds found 0

Total 0 7 1635

Under this alternative, motor vehicles traveling on and off unauthorized routes would continue to 

create areas of disturbance that are vulnerable to weed invasion, and carry weed seeds and other 

propagules to new locations (Banks et al. 2004, Ouren et al. 2007, Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007). 

Noxious weeds would continue to reduce the quality of native plant communities by displacing native 

species, altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading soil structure and decreasing the quality and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 205

availability of forage for wildlife (Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky 2000). Under this alternative, all 

but the most inaccessible habitats would be at risk of noxious weed invasion and spread from crosscountry motor vehicle travel. 

OHVs interact directly and indirectly with noxious weeds primarily in these two general ways: (1)

OHVs introduce weed propagules to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and (2) OHVs alter 

the landscape by causing disturbance in various forms; for example, by altering local hydrology, 

compacting soil, raising dust, crushing plants not adapted to disturbance and promoting those which 

are, and suppressing native vegetation (Brooks and Lair 2005, Gelbard and Harrison 2005, Ouren et 

al. 2007). In this way, OHVs are capable of both introducing exotic weeds and simultaneously 

providing them with habitat (cf. Christen and Matlack 2008). 

Cumulative Effects 

Many Forest activities such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, recreational use, fuels treatments 

and fire suppression, road and railroad maintenance, and special uses also have the capabilities of 

introducing noxious weeds and providing them with disturbed habitats upon which they may gain 

footholds. For a complete list of present and reasonably foreseeable Forest activities, see appendix E. 

Mitigations for these management activities would consist of adherence to the Modoc National Forest 

Integrated Weed Management Strategy (2005). Specific actions under this strategy include preproject weed surveys, flagging and avoidance of noxious weed occurrences, washing of vehicles and 

equipment prior to entering the Forest, use of weed-free materials, minimizing of ground disturbance, 

and restoration of disturbed sites with native materials. Implementation of the Integrated Weed 

Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005) minimizes the risk of noxious weed introduction 

and spread associated with future foreseeable actions.

The additional effects of the No Action alternative for noxious weeds would be a net increase of 

disturbed habitat due to OHV use, the probability that habitat disturbed due to other Forest activities 

would remain disturbed for longer periods of time as OHV users drive in such areas, the augmented 

ability of weed propagules to travel quickly and distantly into and across the Forest, and the increased 

likelihood that whatever weeds do travel into or across the Forest would find amenable disturbed 

habitat into which they may be introduced. In sum, Alternative 1 compounds the negative effects of 

other Forest projects upon soils and native plant communities; intensifies, prolongs, and augments 

their creation of noxious weed habitat; and provides more opportunities for noxious weeds to be 

introduced and take advantage of these disturbed habitats. Under this alternative a total of 1,635 high 

risk unauthorized routes would continue to be used by OHVs, in addition to seven medium-risk 

routes. This would be combined with the 3,866 already established NFTS roads for a total of 5,508 

roads open to motor vehicle use under Alternative 1, combined with the high risk of continuing 

proliferation of new user created routes across the Forest.

Action Alternatives

The following sections discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each action alternative 

(Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) on noxious weeds. Effects analysis focuses on cross-country motor 

vehicle use and addition of routes to the NFTS. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 also include seasonal closures 

of some current NFTS roads, and re-classification of some existing roads for mixed use. It is possible 

that seasonal closures could slightly reduce the risk of noxious weed spread, and that allowing mixed 

use on established roads could minimally increase the risk of noxious weed spread. 

Effects analysis for proposed route additions focuses on presence of known weed occurrences. Table 

3-72 shows known noxious weed populations within 100 feet of proposed routes. More detailed 

discussion of each population will be found under each alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

206 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Alternative 2 (The Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel and Addition 

of Proposed Routes

Alternative 2 would prohibit cross-country travel off NFTS roads, add 339 miles of existing 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS, add seasonal use restrictions to approximately 313 miles of existing 

NFTS roads, allow non-street legal vehicle access on an additional 138 miles of existing NFTS roads, 

and close Forest Roads 46B29HB, 44N08, and 44N01. This alternative carries a much lower risk of 

noxious weed introduction and spread than does Alternative 1. The prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel would minimize the risk of weed establishment and spread along unauthorized 

routes not proposed for designation. Under Alternative 2, there are 15 routes that have weed 

populations documented within 100 feet of the route. There are a total of 15 noxious weed 

occurrences documented within 100 feet of unauthorized routes (Table 3-72), and a total of 16.09 

miles of routes within 100 feet of a known weed occurrence (Table 3-72).

Table 3-72. Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 Feet of an Alternative 2 Proposed Route

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence

Designation

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Route(s)

Number 

of 

Routes

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

Centaurea 

diffusa

A 4 ML327 yes 0.66

Centaurea 

stoebe ssp.

micranthos

A 8 ML181A yes 1.00

Cirsium 

arvense

B 2 BA431 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 4 BA200 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 10 SS421 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 11 SS421 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 17 BA203 no 0.15

Cirsium 

arvense

B 18 BA203 no 0.10

Isatis 

tinctoria

B 8 ML328 no 0.04

Isatis 

tinctoria

B 9 ML328 no 0.11

Isatis 

tinctoria

B 13 ML327

ML328

ML336

ML404

ML405

ML406

yes 59.81

Linaria 

dalmatica 

ssp.

A 3 BA368 yes 9.54
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 207

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence

Designation

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Route(s)

Number 

of 

Routes

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

dalmatica

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 58 ML373 yes 0.40

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 64 ML3 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 65 ML3 no 0.01

Total 15 15 71.87

Alternative 2 has a much lower risk of weed infestation and spread than Alternative 1. Under this 

alternative 1,166 unauthorized routes considered at “high risk” for weed introduction and spread 

would be added to the NFTS, as well as 4 routes with “medium risk”. Table 3-73 summarizes the 

number of unauthorized routes considered at high risk of weed establishment and spread under 

Alternative 2, which would permit continued motorized travel on these routes.

Table 3-73. Alternatives 2 and 5—Risk Ratings for Proposed Routes

Indicator (Number of Unauthorized Routes) Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Known weed occurrences present 9

A-Listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 1

No inventory or survey 1156

B- or C-listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 4

Surveyed • 2001; no weeds found 0

Total 0 4 1166

The addition of 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS road system would allow continued 

motor vehicle traffic within 100 feet of 15 documented occurrences of noxious weeds. Most of these 

occurrences have not been treated, and can be expected to have increased in size since they were 

initially documented. Of those that have been treated, most were treated only once, and without 

follow-up treatments are likely still present and growing. Several occurrences have incomplete 

documentation of population size, and their current status is unknown. Details on these individual 

occurrences are described below.

Diffuse Knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

There is one occurrence of diffuse knapweed (#4) which had approximately 50 plants in 2003. There 

is one occurrence of spotted knapweed (#8) which had more than 100 plants when it was treated by 

hand-grubbing in 2000. It was chemically treated in 2001 and 2002. Both of these knapweed species 

are deeply tap-rooted biennial to short-lived perennial species, which reproduce from their abundant 

seeds.

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)

There are five occurrences of Canada thistle, a rhizomatous perennial which reproduces primarily 

from its roots, but which can also reproduce from seed. Occurrence #2 was documented in 2001 with 

over 1000 plants. This site has not been treated. Occurrence #4 was documented in 2002 with 

approximately 20 plants, and has not been treated. Occurrences #10, #17, and #18 have not been 

treated.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

208 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Dyer’s Woad (Isatis tinctoria)

There are three occurrences of dyer’s woad (#8, #9, and #13), a deeply tap-rooted biennial species 

which reproduces from its copious seeds. None has been treated.

Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)

There is one occurrence of Dalmatian toadflax, a rhizomatous perennial which reproduces via its 

prolific seeds, its rhizomes, and by root fragmentation. Occurrence #3 has incomplete records, with 

no original sighting record or population record. It was chemically treated in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 

2002.

Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium)

There are three occurrences of Scotch thistle, a deeply tap-rooted biennial to short-lived perennial that 

reproduces from abundant and long-lived seeds. Occurrence #64 was chemically treated in 1998 . 

Occurrences #65 and #58 have not been treated.

The presence of noxious weed occurrences in proximity to proposed route additions would continue 

the currently present risk of vehicles spreading these weed species across the Forest. However, this 

risk is reduced by the prohibition of cross-country travel. Additional road closures of the Forest Road 

46B29HB and the Level 2 Pumice Road would provide a small further reduction in the risk of weed 

spread. Seasonal closures of 312 miles of existing NFTS roads might also reduce weed spread risk by 

reducing the overall amount of travel on these roads, although these effects would probably be 

minimal. The proposed seasonal closures occur primarily during the winter months, with some 

overlap into fall and spring. OHV use of these routes is often limited by snow conditions during 

winter months, regardless of an official closure. However, closures during spring months when routes 

are muddy could reduce weed risk, since sites are more vulnerable to disturbance and weed 

establishment when they are wet and muddy. Reclassification of existing NFTS roads to allow mixed 

vehicle use is not expected to have any effect on noxious weed risk, since there is no available 

evidence indicating that type of vehicle affects the risk of weed introduction or spread on established 

roads. The greatest reduction in weed risk in Alternative 2, relative to Alternative 1, would come from 

the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Mixed Use and Seasonal Closures on NFTS Roads

Motor vehicle use on established roads provides a vector for noxious weed spread within and adjacent 

to roads during all seasons and regardless of vehicle class. However, off-road vehicle tires may 

potentially carry more soil-bearing weed seed from one site to another than standard passenger 

vehicle tires, particularly during wet conditions. Since off-road vehicles are designed and intended for 

use off-road, these vehicles have a higher probability of having been driven through noxious weeds 

prior to entering Modoc National Forest than standard passenger vehicles, and therefore have a higher 

risk of transporting noxious weed propagules to the Forest. They also have a greater risk for entering 

known weed occurrences within the 30 foot buffer adjacent to NFTS roads, allowed for in the 

proposed Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), than do passenger cars, due to their greater capacity to 

go off-road. There are currently 11 known occurrences of noxious weeds located within 100 feet of 

seven Level 3 NFTS roads proposed for mixed-use classification under Alternative 2 (Table 3-74). 

Under this alternative, classification of these roads for mixed use would increase the risk of spreading 

weed propagules from these 11 known occurrences. It would also increase the risk of noxious weed 

introduction from off-Forest areas on all 138 miles of NFTS Level 3 roads proposed for mixed use.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 209

Table 3-74. Alternative 2—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 Feet of a Proposed NFTS 

Level 3, Mixed-Use Road

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence

Designation

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

Number 

of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

Centaurea 

diffusa

A 1 45N35 0.05 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 2 45N04 0.03 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 5 46N30 0.07 yes 0.23

Isatis 

tinctoria

B 9 43N18 0.05 no 0.01

Linaria 

dalmatica 

ssp.

dalmatica

A 3 46N30

46N63

0.72 yes

yes

14.37

Linaria 

dalmatica 

ssp.

dalmatica

A 4 46N06 0.05 no 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 15 46N06 0.07 yes 0.31

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 18 46N30 0.04 yes 0.23

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 51 45N35 0.06 yes 0.16

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 54 43N36 0.04 no 0.01

Centaurea 

solstitialis

C 3 43N36 0.05 yes 0.08

Total 11 1.23 7 15.44

Under Alternative 2, a total of 313 miles of existing NFTS roads would be subject to seasonal 

closures during the winter and early spring months, when roads are most likely to be wet and muddy. 

During these months, roads can be more vulnerable to rutting and damage from motor vehicle use. 

Seasonal closures would reduce the total annual motor vehicle use, particularly during months when 

ground disturbance is more likely to create conditions ideal for noxious weed establishment. There is 

currently one known noxious weed occurrence within 100 feet of an NFTS road which would be 

closed from December 1 through April 30 under this alternative (Table 3-75). Alternative 2 would 

slightly reduce the risk of spreading this weed occurrence, while also slightly reducing the risk of 

weed introduction on 313 miles of existing NFTS roads.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

210 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Table 3-75. Alternative 2—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of an NFTS Road with 

Proposed Seasonal Closures

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence

Designation 

Numbeer

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed 

Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

# of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 34 46B02J 0.05 yes 0.02

Total 1 0.05 1 0.02

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects from forest management and use activities are the same for the Alternative 2 

as for Alternative 1. For a complete discussion refer to the Alternative 1 cumulative effects section. 

For a complete list of present and reasonably foreseeable Forest management activities, refer to 

appendix E.

By limiting the number of existing routes to be added to the NFTS, travel through seven of these 

occurrences would be prohibited. More importantly, travel off of designated System roads would be 

prohibited, which would greatly reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread across the 

Forest. In combination with the effects of other Forest uses, the Proposed Action would greatly 

reduce the risk of weed spread from any new infestations that might occur with timber harvest, 

grazing, prescribed burning, or wildfire activities, as well as other Forest management and use 

activities impacting lands away from System roads. Future ground disturbing projects would also be 

less susceptible to the introduction of new weed propagules or to continued disturbance due to OHV 

use. Restriction of OHV travel cross-country would eliminate OHV disturbance off of system roads; 

whereas OHV disturbance favors such undesirable species as invasive exotic annual grasses, the lack 

of it would favor native perennial grasses and forbs and generally later-seral (late-stage ecological 

succession) native vegetation, which is better able to resist weed invasion (Gelbard and Harrison 

2005). Under Alternative 2 a total of 16.09 miles of routes infested with known noxious weed 

occurrences would be added to the NFTS. These 15 known occurrences have a total area of 71.87 

acres (Table 3-72). Under this alternative, a total of 5,033 roads would be open for motor vehicle use 

(Table 3-72).

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel and Addition 

of Proposed Routes

Alternative 3 prohibits cross-country travel off NFTS roads, adds no unauthorized routes to the Forest

road system, and does not change seasonal use restrictions or non-street legal vehicle use restrictions 

on access on existing Forest System roads. Under Alternative 3, potential spread by motor vehicles 

from existing noxious weed occurrences within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes would be 

eliminated. Under this alternative, motor vehicle traffic would be restricted from traveling off 

designated routes, which would greatly reduce the potential for creating noxious weed habitat through 

ground disturbance. It would also greatly reduce the potential for spread of noxious weeds from 

existing populations. Since no new routes would be added to the NFTS, there would be no effect from 

adding facilities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Mixed Use and Seasonal Closures on NFTS Roads

No level 3 roads would be open to mixed use, so there would be no change in weed risk from mixed 

use relative to Alternative 1, and a lower risk from mixed use than under Alternative 2. There would 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 211

be no seasonal road closures under this alternative, so the weed risk related to seasonal closures 

would be the same as for Alternative 1, and slightly higher than under Alternative 2. Forest Roads 

46B29HB, 44N08, and 44N01 would remain open to OHVs, but there are no known noxious weed 

occurrences along these roads.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects from Forest management and use are the same for Alternative 3 as for the No 

Action and Proposed Action Alternatives, and a complete discussion can be found in the Alternative 1 

cumulative effects section. The additional effect from Alternative 3 from the prohibition of crosscountry travel would be the same as for Alternative 2, described above. The difference in cumulative 

effects for Alternative 3 is that no non-system routes would be added to the Forest road system. This 

would eliminate vehicle travel through the 21 known noxious weed occurrences located along nonsystem routes. There are no known noxious weed occurrences along Forest Roads 46B29HB, 44N08, 

or 44N01. This alternative would therefore have the lowest risk of noxious weed introduction and 

spread. Under this alternative, no routes with known weed occurrences would be added to the NFTS, 

and the total number of roads open for motor vehicle use would be 3,866.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel and Addition 

of Proposed Routes

Alternative 4 would prohibit cross-country travel off NFTS roads. It would also add 286 miles of 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS road system, with seasonal closures. It would also place seasonal 

closures on the same 312 miles of existing NFTS system roads as in Alternative 2, with additional 

seasonal closures on 112 miles of NFTS roads in the Warner Mountains, for a total of 424 miles of 

roads with seasonal closures. It would not allow mixed vehicle use on any existing Level 3 NFTS

roads. Forest Roads 46B29HB, 44N08, and 44N01 would be closed to OHV use.

Table 3-75a. Alternative 4—Risk Ratings for Proposed Routes

Indicator (number of unauthorized routes) Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Known weed occurrences present 9

A-Listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 1

No inventory or survey 1012

B- or C-listed weed w/in 100 ft. of route 3

Surveyed • 2001; no weeds found 0

Total 0 3 1022

This alternative would add the same routes passing within 100 feet of the same noxious weed 

occurrences as would Alternative 2 (Table 3-72), with the exception of BA203, which passes within 

100 feet of two Canada thistle infestations. Direct and indirect effects in Alternative 4 would 

therefore be similar, but slightly lower than those of the Alternative 2. Fewer unauthorized routes 

would be added when compared with Alternative 2 (286 miles vs. 339 miles, or about 84 percent of 

the Alternative 2 roads). This would result in a reduced risk of weed introduction and spread into 

these areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Mixed Use and Seasonal Closures on NFTS Roads

No Level 3 roads would be opened to mixed use in Alternative 4, as opposed to 138 miles of Level 3 

roads opened to mixed use under Alternative 2. This would result in a lower risk of noxious weed 

introduction and spread from mixed use of Level 3 roads than under Alternative 2, and an equal weed 

risk from mixed use on existing NFTS roads as for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, a total 1.34 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

212 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

miles from 12 NFTS roads in and near 15.70 acres of known weed occurrences would be closed 

seasonally. Because this would reduce the total annual vehicle traffic through and adjacent to these 

weed occurrences, it would lower the overall weed risk under this alternative. 

Table 3-76. Alternative 4—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of an NFTS Road

with Proposed Seasonal Closures

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence

Designation

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

Number 

of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

Cardaria 

pubescens

B 2 42N31 0.06 no 0.10

Centaurea 

diffusa

A 1 45N35 0.05 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 1 42N79 0.05 yes 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 2 45N04 0.03 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 5 46N30 0.06 yes 0.23

Cirsium 

arvense

A 10 42N31 0.06 no 0.19

Linaria 

dalmatica

A 3 46N30

46N63

0.24

0.49

yes

yes

5.29

9.08

Linaria 

dalmatica

A 4 46N06 0.05 no 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 15 46N06 0.10 yes 0.49

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 18 46N30 0.07 yes 0.23

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 25 42N31 0.03 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 34 46B02J 0.05 yes 0.02

Total 12 1.34 8 15.70

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects from Forest management and use activities, and from neighboring lands, are 

the same for Alternative 4 as for Alternatives 1 and 2. For a complete discussion, see the Alternative 

1 cumulative effects section. The additional effects from Alternative 4 would be similar to the effects 

of Alternative 2. The only difference would be a slightly reduced risk of introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds due to the reduced number of proposed routes to be added to the Forest road system 

and the increase in the number of seasonal closures. Under this alternative, a total of 14.19 miles of 

routes known to be infested with noxious weeds would be added to the NFTS. The total of 13 known 

weed occurrences within 100 feet of these proposed routes have a total area of 71.62 acres. Under this 

alternative, a total of 4,888 roads would be open for motor vehicle use.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 213

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects: Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel and 

Addition of Proposed Routes

Alternative 5 is very similar to the Proposed Action. It would add 339 miles of unauthorized routes, 

with seasonal closures on 312 miles of roads during two seasons rather than four seasons. It would 

also allow mixed use on 4,291 miles of NFTS roads, 392 miles more than in Alternative 2. The direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 5 on noxious weeds are predicted to be slightly higher 

than those of Alternative 2, due to the slight reduction in length of seasonal closures and the increased 

number of mixed-use level 3 NFTS roads. 

This alternative would add the same routes passing within 100 feet of the same noxious weed 

occurrences as would Alternative 2 (Table 3-72). Direct and indirect effects from the prohibition of 

cross-country travel and addition of proposed routes in Alternative 5 would therefore be similar to 

those of Alternative 2. As with all of the action alternatives, the prohibition of cross-country travel 

would provide a reduction in weed risk relative to Alternative 1.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Mixed Use and Seasonal Closures on NFTS Roads

The proposed mileage of NFTS roads with seasonal closures would be identical to that of Alternative 

2, although the seasons of closure would be reduced. This difference would potentially create a 

minimal increase in weed risk relative to Alternative 2. Alternative 5 would allow mixed use on an 

additional 531 miles of existing NFTS roads, as opposed to 138 miles under Alternative 2. These 

mixed-use roads pass near or through a total 53.48 acres of known noxious weed occurrences along 

5.74 miles of roads. Overall, the direct and indirect effects and weed risk of mixed use and seasonal 

closures on NFTS roads under Alternative 5 would be slightly greater relative to Alternative 2. 

Table 3-77. Alternative 5—Noxious Weed Species and Occurrences Within 100 feet of a Proposed NFTS 

Level 3, Mixed-use Road

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence 

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

# of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

Cardaria 

pubescens

B 2 42N31 0.06 no 0.10

Carduus 

nutans

A 1 40N27 0.05 no 0.01

Carduus 

nutans

A 3 41N44 0.07 no 0.32

Carduus 

nutans

A BV4 40N27 0.05 no 0.02

Carduus 

nutans

A DH4 45N09 0.09 yes 0.88

Carduus 

nutans

A 5 44N11 0.06 yes 0.19

Carduus 

nutans

A 11 40N27 0.05 yes 0.02

Centaurea 

diffusa

A 1 45N35 0.05 no 0.01

Centaurea A 4 41N11 0.12 yes 1.57
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

214 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence 

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

# of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

diffusa

Centaurea 

solstitialis

C 3 43N36 0.05 yes 0.08

Cirsium 

arvense

B 1 42N79 0.05 yes 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 2 45N04 0.03 no 0.01

Cirsium 

arvense

B 5 46N30 0.07 yes 0.23

Cirsium 

arvense

B 10 42N31 0.07 no 0.19

Crupina 

vulgaris

A 1 40N22

40N33

0.17

1.08

yes

yes

2.36

19.20

Hypericum 

perforatum

C 1 38N54 0.02 no <0.01

Hypericum 

perforatum

C 2 41N11 0.05 yes 0.01

Hypericum 

perforatum

C 3 40N33 0.04 no 0.02

Isatis tinctoria B 4 40N22 0.01 yes 0.05

Isatis tinctoria B 5 48N70 0.05 no 0.01

Isatis tinctoria B BV6 40N22 0.01 no 0.04

Isatis tinctoria B DH6 48N70 0.05 no 0.01

Isatis tinctoria B 7 48N70 0.10 yes 0.28

Isatis tinctoria B 9 43N18 0.05 no 0.01

Isatis tinctoria B 11 40N41 0.05 no 0.01

Isatis tinctoria B 18 44N02 0.05 no 0.01

Isatis tinctoria B 19 40N22 0.02 yes 0.05

Linaria 

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

A 1 42N03 0.05 no 0.05

Linaria 

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

A 2 42N68 0.19 yes 3.50

Linaria 

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

A BV3 42N68 0.04 no 0.11

Linaria 

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

A WM3 46N30

46N63

0.24

0.49

yes

yes

5.29

9.08

Linaria A BV4 42N68 0.04 no 0.06
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 215

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence 

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

# of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

Linaria 

dalmatica ssp.

dalmatica

A WM4 46N06 0.05 no 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 15 46N06 0.49 yes 0.10

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 18 46N30 0.07 yes 0.23

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 23 38N54 0.05 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 24 38N54 0.02 no 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A WM25 42N31 0.03 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A BV25 38N54 0.04 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 40 44N77 0.06 yes 0.21

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 51 45N35 0.06 yes 0.16

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 54 43N36 0.04 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 56 38N54 0.05 no 0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 102 38N54 0.05 no 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 117 39N50 <0.01 no <0.01

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 146 40N33 0.04 yes 0.02

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 151 39N50 0.05 yes 0.03

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 153 39N50 0.06 yes 0.09

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 170 41N47 0.06 yes 0.09

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 198 42N68 0.05 no 0.04

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 219 38N47 0.01 no <0.01

Onopordum A 296 39N50 0.04 no 0.01
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

216 Chapter 3— Noxious Weeds

Species CDFA

Rating

Occurrence 

Number

Number of 

Occurrences

Proposed 

Mixed Use 

Road(s)

Miles 

within 

100 ft. 

of 

Weeds

# of 

Roads

Route 

intersects 

occurrence

Gross 

Acres

acanthium

Onopordum 

acanthium

A 298 38N54 0.05 no 0.02

Salvia 

aethiopis

B 1 41N11 0.10 yes 0.61

Salvia 

aethiopis

B 6 40N37 0.04 no 0.01

Salvia 

aethiopis

B 18 41N44 0.03 yes 0.18

Salvia 

aethiopis

B 19 41N44 0.87 yes 7.57

Salvia 

aethiopis

B 20 41N44 0.05 yes 0.01

Total 26 5.74 8 53.48

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects from Forest management and use activities, and from neighboring lands, are 

the same for Alternative 5 as for Alternatives 1 through 4. For a complete discussion, see the 

Alternative 1 cumulative effects section. The additional effects from Alternative 5 would be similar to 

the effects of Alternative 2. The only difference would be a slightly increased risk of introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds due to the reduction in seasonal closures on the Forest road system and the 

increased number of NFTS level 3 roads open to mixed use. Under this alternative, a total of 16.09 

miles of routes known to be infested with noxious weeds would be added to the NFTS. The total of 

15 known weed occurrences within 100 feet of these proposed routes have a total area of 71.87 acres 

(Table 3-70). Under this alternative, a total of 5,033 roads would be open for motor vehicle use.

Table 3-78. Summary of Effects Measures for all Alternatives

Effects Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Miles of Infested 

Routes1

28.78 16.09 0 14.19 16.09

Number of Weed

Infestations1

21 15 0 13 15

Acres of Weed 

Infestations1

73.1 71.87 0 71.62 71.87

Number of Routes & 

Roads with Seasonal 

Closures

0 213 0 270 213

Acres of Weed 

Infestations-Seasonal 

Closures2

0 0.02 0 15.70 0.02

Miles of Infested 

Routes-Seasonal 

Closures2

0 0.05 0 1.34 0.05

Number of Closure 

Dates

0 4 0 5 2

Miles of Roads Open to 3,764 3,899 3,764 3,761 4,292
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Noxious Weeds 217

Effects Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Mixed Use

Acres of Weed 

Infestations-Mixed Use3

0 15.44 0 0 53.48

Miles of Infested 

Routes-Mixed Use3

0 1.23 0 0 5.74

Total Number of Roads 

Open to Motorized Use

5,508 5,033 3,866 4,888 5,033

1 Calculated from known noxious weed infestations within 100 feet of proposed routes. 2 Calculated from known noxious weed infestations within 100 feet of NFTS roads with seasonal closures. 3 Calculated from known noxious weed infestations within 100 feet of Level 3 NFTS roads proposed for mixed use.

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

In summary, the lowest weed risk alternative is Alternative 3 (Table 3-79), which prohibits crosscountry motor vehicle travel and adds no unauthorized routes to the Forest road system. The highest 

weed risk alternative is Alternative 1, which allows continued cross-country travel throughout the 

Forest, except in the South Warner Wilderness Area. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 vary only slightly in 

their weed risks, since the greatest contributing factor in the risk analysis is cross-country travel,

which is prohibited under all of these alternatives.

Table 3-79. Risk Analysis for all Alternatives

Indicator – Noxious Weeds Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Risk of weed spread 1 3 5 4 2

In the table above, a score of 5 indicates that the alternative poses the least risk for noxious weed spread. A score of 1 

indicates that the alternative poses the greatest risk for noxious weed spread.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Alternative 1 does not prohibit cross-country travel and carries a high risk of noxious weed spread 

and introduction. This alternative is inconsistent with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2081.03) 

which requires the identification of noxious weed control measures when there is a moderate to high 

risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds. For the reasons discussed above in the effects 

analysis of Alternative 1 upon noxious weeds, a moderate to high risk exists, due to the unmanaged 

disturbance and increased potential for new weed introductions as a result of continued cross-country 

travel.

All action alternatives are consistent with the Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan. A 

noxious weed risk assessment has been completed for each alternative (FSM 2081.03 and SNFPA 

2004), the public has been informed of the risk and effects from motor vehicle travel and noxious 

weeds (SNFPA 2004), and under some of the alternatives, noxious weed control measures (i.e., route 

closure or restricted access) have been identified in areas of high risk (FSM 2081.03).

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 219

Terrestrial Wildlife

Introduction

Management of terrestrial species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal communities, 

is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National 

Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands are 

planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species, or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive 

species. In addition, management activities are designed to maintain or improve habitat for 

Management Indicator Species to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in 

each Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Management decisions related to 

motorized travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing 

behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, 

USDA Forest Service 2000). It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid 

harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for 

motorized use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to 

motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to wildlife and its habitat.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and 

Other Direction

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects terrestrial biota includes the following:

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a 

Federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) 

species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is 

determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible Federal agency 

to consult the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts 

to TE species to ensure management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is 

determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and is 

summarized or referenced in this chapter.

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks

Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern (Forest Service Manual 2670). The Forest Service develops and 

implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become threatened or 

endangered, and to ensure their continued viability on national Forests. It is Forest Service policy to 

analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation

(BE) and is summarized or referenced in this chapter.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

220 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the 

following standards and guidelines applicable to motorized travel management and terrestrial biota, 

which will be considered during the analysis process:

• Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 70): See Water 

Resources section.

• California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, 

off-highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to 

disturb nest sites (Management Standard & Guideline 82). 

• Fisher and Marten: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and 

recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites (Management 

Standard & Guidelines 87 and 89). 

• Riparian Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 92): See Water Resources section.

• Bog and Fen Habitat (SNFPA ROD page 65, Standard and Guideline #118): Prohibit or 

mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that 

maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen 

ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, 

survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as 

trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. 

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)

The NWFP includes specific requirements for Survey and Manage species and areas such as aquatic 

conservation areas. 

The Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(MDF LRMP)

The MDF LRMP includes specific requirements for wildlife species (p. 4-27 to 4-28 – 3).

C. Within designated golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, osprey, and prairie falcon habitat manage 

all currently active nest territories as directed in the following: 

o Golden Eagle – Such activities as OHV use and maintenance or construction of 

facilities, trails, and roads would be restricted within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the nest during the 

reproductive period, February to August, because they may be detrimental to nesting and 

fledging. 

o Swainson’s Hawk – Prohibit disturbing management activities with (sic) 1/4 mile of 

nest sites from March 1 through July 31. Disturbance from management activities include 

firewood cutting; range habitat improvements; and construction or maintenance of facilities, 

trails or roads. 

o Osprey – Disturbance from human activities, including foot traffic and OHV use 

within 1/8 to 1/2 mile of the nest, may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the 

reproductive period, March to August. Disturbing activities would be restricted. 

o Prairie Falcon - Disturbance from human activities, including foot traffic and OHV 

use within 1/8 to 1/2 mile of the nest, may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the 

reproductive period, March 1 to August 1. Disturbing activities would be restricted.

K. Within mule deer habitat:
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 221

On deer winter ranges where OHV use is demonstrated to adversely affect deer, institute OHV 

closures from December 1 to March 31. 

The following guidelines are part of the Raptor Management Prescription – 9 of the MDF LRMP:

o p. 4-85 - Off-highway vehicle use has seasonal restrictions. 

o p. 4-85 – 1. Within bald eagle nesting and wintering habitat: 

 b. New roads would not be constructed in winter roosts. Existing roads in 

winter roosts would be closed during the wintering period. New roads would not be 

constructed within primary zones of active nest territories. Construction within secondary 

zones would be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

 c. Seasonal or permanent road closures may be necessary to limit human 

disturbance during the reproductive or wintering period, depending on the area. 

o p. 4-86 – 2. Within goshawk habitat: 

 b. New roads should not be constructed within nest stands. 

 c. Roads may be maintained, constructed and reconstructed within 1⁄4 mile of 

nest stands from August through February. 

o p. 4-88 - Recreation. Refer to OHV map for seasonal closure areas. 

o p. 4-88 - Recreation. 1. Within bald eagle nesting and wintering habitat:

Motorized vehicles would be permitted September through December in nesting 

territories and April through October in wintering areas. Other times of the year these 

areas may be administratively closed. 

o p. 4-89 – 2. Within and near goshawk habitat: 

 Disturbance from recreational facilities may limit reproductive success. New 

or expanding facilities should be at least 1⁄2 mile from nest stands.

 Within 1⁄4 mile of nest stands, motorized vehicles would be permitted August 

through February. Other times of year these areas may be administratively closed. 

Species-specific standards and guidelines are identified below under “species effects analysis.”

Effects Analysis Methodology

This is a site-specific project, for which there are two levels of analysis. First, there is site-specific 

analysis of the individual routes proposed for addition. This detailed analysis is by route, and can be 

found in the project record. The Forest has documented that each discipline has assessed each 

individual route (currently unauthorized roads, trails, areas) proposed for addition to the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS) at a level sufficient to support its effects analysis and identify 

any necessary site-specific mitigations. 

Second, there is the analysis of each alternative as a whole, which is informed by the site-specific 

route analysis noted above and other information. The discussion of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of each alternative is in a summary form. For ease of understanding, the effects of 

the alternatives are described separately for three discreet actions, and then combined to provide the 

total direct and indirect effects of each alternative (see below). The combination of these discreet 

actions is then added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative effects 

analysis. The three discreet actions common to all action alternatives are (1) The prohibition of crosscountry motorized vehicle travel; (2) The addition of facilities (unauthorized routes or trails) to the 

National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), including identifying seasons of use and vehicle 

class; and (3) Changes to the existing NFTS . 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

222 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Impacts Relevant to Terrestrial Biota

Vehicle use on and off established routes has affected or has the potential to affect terrestrial species, 

including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, by increasing human-caused mortality, 

changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat. 

Assumptions specific to the terrestrial biota analysis

See the chapter 3 introduction for a list of common assumptions.

The focus of this analysis is on suitable habitat; suitable habitat is assumed occupied unless it has 

been surveyed to a standard that determines absence. Suitable habitat was defined using the California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system (see below for more information on the methodology 

used). Because the CWHR suitability may reflect slightly different definitions of suitability than more 

specific models of species habitat, the reader is cautioned that directly comparing acres of “suitable” 

habitat between this document and its CWHR-based definitions and other analysis documents that use 

other systems for defining suitability of habitat is inappropriate and may be misleading.

All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect to wildlife. 

Location of a trail or route is equal to disturbance effects from that trail or route (i.e., it is assumed all 

trails provide the same level of disturbance), unless local data or knowledge indicate otherwise.

Habitat is already impacted in the short term. In the long term, habitat would remain the same on 

added trails or routes, but would increase to at least some degree on non-added trails with ban of 

cross-country travel and subsequent passive restoration. Routes not added to the NFTS under 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would slowly re-vegetate and regain the conditions that exist on adjacent 

lands. The low levels of public non-motorized use, permitted use, or administrative use would be 

insufficient to overcome the natural in-growth of vegetation and accumulation of organic material 

into the unauthorized routes. 

For this analysis, all land managed by the Modoc National Forest was considered in the analysis of 

effects to habitat. Indexes and habitat analysis are specifically limited to habitat occurring on National 

Forest System lands. Habitat analysis is based on current vegetation data (USFS 2007) that was 

collected and processed in 2003. Earlier data sets are available that cover a more extensive area 

outside of the proclaimed national forest boundary, but these data sets are older (based in early 1990s 

imagery), and not as well assigned to vegetation groups matching the California Wildlife 

Relationships System vegetation groups. Occupancy and occurrence of species on adjacent lands is 

included in the qualitative, population, or cumulative effects portions of the analysis.

Data Sources

• The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships program (CWHR version 8.0; California

Deptartment of Fish and Game, 2002) was used to define suitability for the species analyzed 

by this document. Habitat conditions were considered as “suitable” if a particular size and 

stage class provided a combined rating of at least 0.75 for the three components of cover, 

feeding, and reproduction. This means any given stage had to provide at least one high 

rating and two medium ratings. This level was picked to select habitats that the biologist felt 

were key to persistence, while excluding marginal or peripheral habitats.

• GIS layers with the following information: route, habitats, and “designated” or important 

wildlife areas (e.g., PACs; bald eagle nests; deer herd critical areas) as stored in Forest and 

district files

• District and Forest information files and personal knowledge
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 223

Terrestrial Biota Indicators

From the sources of information listed above, GIS queries were used to calculate a variety of 

indicators. Not all indicators are applicable to all species. Some of the indicators used in this analysis 

include the following:

• Acres open to motorized use and miles of unauthorized routes within terrestrial biota habitat

• Miles of motorized routes at Forest-wide scale and within the habitat for each species group

• Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, nest sites, winter roost areas) within 1⁄4 

mile of an added route or area

• The proportion of a species (or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes

Terrestrial Biota Methodology, by Action

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized 

Vehicle Travel

Short-term time frame: 1 year

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicator(s): Acres open to motorized use and miles of unauthorized routes within terrestrial biota 

habitat

Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to habitat

Rationale: Studies have documented that motorized travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing 

human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 

2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000).

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS (presently 

unauthorized routes and trails), Including Identifying Seasons of use and 

Vehicle Class

Short-term time frame: 1 year

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicator(s): (1) Miles of motorized routes; (2) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, 

nest sites, winter roost areas) within 1⁄4 mile of an added route or area; (3) The proportion of a species 

(or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes 

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to habitat and important or sensitive terrestrial 

biota areas. 

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect terrestrial 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying 

habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). 

Changes to the Existing NFTS 

Short-term time frame: 1 year.

Long-term time frame: 20 years.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

224 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Spatial boundary: Forest.

Indicators: (1) Miles of motorized routes; (2) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, 

nest sites, winter roost areas) within 1⁄4 mile of an added route or area; (3) The proportion of a species 

(or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes

Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to habitat and important/sensitive terrestrial 

biota areas 

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect terrestrial 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying 

habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000)

Cumulative Effects

Short-term time frame: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term 

time frame.

Long-term time frame: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest

Indicators: (1) Miles of motorized routes; (2) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, 

nest sites, winter roost areas) within 1/4 mile of an added route or area; (3) The proportion of a 

species (or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes

Methodology: GIS analysis of past, current, added, and future routes in relation to habitat and 

important or sensitive terrestrial areas and in context of other past, current, and future management 

actions affecting terrestrial habitat

Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect terrestrial 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying 

habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment – General Wildlife

The Modoc National Forest provides habitat for over 350 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles (USFS 1991). One terrestrial wildlife species is currently listed as Endangered or Threatened 

under the ESA, and 15 species are listed as Forest Service Sensitive (Table 3-80). These species and 

their habitats on the Modoc National Forest are described in detail in the Modoc National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management FEIS Biological Evaluation and the Biological Assessment (BE and 

BA). It can be found in the project record, and is summarized in the next section. In addition, there 

are eight terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Modoc National Forest (Table 3-81). 

Table 3-80. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Terrestrial Species of the Modoc National Forest

Threatened or Endangered species

Birds

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina

Forest Service sensitive species

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern goshawk Accipter gentilis
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 225

Threatened or Endangered species

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Mammals

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

Marten Martes americana

Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator

Table 3-81. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) of the Modoc National Forest

Management Indicator Species

Birds

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Sooty grouse Dendragapus obscurus

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Mountain quail Oreotyx pictus

Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Mammals

Marten Martes americana

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans

Some of these species are currently being affected by cross-country motorized use of the Modoc 

National Forest. Literature describing the effects of motorized routes and trails upon wildlife has

often grouped or categorized species in various ways to describe effects (Knight and Gutzwiller, eds. 

1995, Gaines et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2000). Gaines et al. (2003) categorized species into six 

groups, based upon a combination of their biology and interactions with route- and motorized trailassociated factors. For this analysis the following groups are used: (1) late-successional Forest, (2) 

wide-ranging carnivores, (3) ungulates, (4) riparian, (5) cavity-dependent, (6) oak-woodland and oakconifer associated species, (7) wetland, and (8) sage steppe. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest 

Service Sensitive species (TES) and MIS with habitat likely to be affected by motorized route or trail

use, fall into these categories as shown in Table 3-82 (below).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

226 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-82. Wildlife Group and Focal Species Represented within Groups

Wildlife group Focal Species

Late-successional forest Northern spotted owl#, California spotted owl*, northern 

goshawk*, great gray owl*, American marten*+, sooty 

grouse+, northern flying squirrel+

Wide-ranging carnivores Black bear, wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fox*

Ungulates Mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep

Riparian Bald eagle*, willow flycatcher*, yellow warbler+, osprey

Cavity-dependent Pallid bat*, hairy woodpecker+, black-backed 

woodpecker+, pileated woodpecker, red-naped and redbreasted sapsuckers

Oak-woodland and oak-conifer Western gray squirrel, wild turkey, mountain quail+

Wetland Sandhill crane*, Canada goose, mallard

Sage Steppe Pronghorn, Swainson’s hawk*, greater sage-grouse*+, 

golden eagle

# = Listed as “Proposed”, “Threatened”, or “Endangered” under the Endangered Species Act

* = Listed as a “Sensitive” species in the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

+ = Listed as a Management Indicator Species for the Modoc National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects Setting

To understand the discussions of effects to species in this document, it is helpful to understand the 

codified definitions of what effects are. Direct effects are caused by the actions and occur at the same 

time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Direct effects may include mortality 

caused directly by vehicle use or loss of habitat. Indirect effects may include effects to food or cover 

that cause effects that occur later in time. For instance, trampling of a nest is a direct effect. Removal 

of cover necessary to hide a nest is an indirect effect. In order to determine how important an effect is 

on a species, it is also necessary to examine the intensity or severity of the effect (also see 40 CFR 

1508.27). In this analysis, intensity is compared to fluctuations within the environment. Changes to 

weather, changes in the availability of food, or changes in the amount of available cover may vary 

widely from year to year and over longer periods of time. Events such as heavy snowfalls or large 

wildfires are termed stochastic (random) events for their variable probability of occurrence. For 

example, wildfires occur every year on the Modoc Plateau, but large, extensive fire events are 

relatively rare. Figure 3-22 below shows the annual variation in precipitation at Alturas, California. 

Precipitation has varied between almost 21 inches and 6.5 inches. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 227

Figure 3-22. Annual Precipitation in Alturas, California

Inches of Precipitation at Alturas, CA

0

5

10

15

20

25

19051915192519351945195519651975198519952005

Year

Inches

Source: Western Regional climate Center Website: www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnca.html accessed 3/3/09.

As can be seen by the chart, rainfall some years is approximately three times that of other years. This 

directly affects the growth and quantity of forbs and grass. Indirectly, this can have other impacts to 

cover, prey abundance, and depending on timing and temperature mortality, from exposure. For 

example, winter weather can affect deer populations by impacting survival of female deer and the 

fertility of adult or prime-age female deer (Gilbert et al. 2007). Unseasonable weather after arrival or 

before departure from breeding areas may result in mortality to migratory birds (Newton 2007). The 

quantity and timing of rainfall may affect non-migratory birds as diverse as song sparrows (Chase et 

al. 2005) and California spotted owls (Steger et al. 2002).

Another major stochastic (random) event that regularly occurs in the project area is wildland fire. 

Almost 600,000 acres have been recorded as having burned on the Modoc National Forest since 1910. 

Although some of these areas have burned once and some multiple times, these fires can cause direct 

mortality to wildlife or cause changes to habitat that may be detrimental or, in some cases, (e.g., 

black-backed woodpecker), advantageous to wildlife (Hanson and North 2008). Figure 3-23 shows 

the wide variation in the amount of public land burned each year on the Modoc National Forest. In the 

last 50 years an average of 4,555 acres have burned each year. But there is a wide swing in annual 

amount, with the lowest year being 10 acres, and the highest year in excess of 232,000.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

228 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Figure 3-23. Acres Of National Forest Burned on the Modoc National Forest, by Year, With Five-Year 

Moving Average Plotted (Note: y-axis is logarithmic.)

Acres burned in wildlifires by year

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Year

Acres

Year 5 per. Mov. Avg. (Year)

Source: Modoc National Forest records.

Other stochastic events may also occur that have the potential to affect wildlife. These may include 

disease outbreaks such as pneumonia in bighorn sheep resulting in near 100 percent mortality 

(Schommer and Woolever 2008). Another is the West Nile virus in crows, resulting in mortality rates 

in excess of 65 percent (LaDeau et al. 2008).

These types of stochastic events operate in all habitats whether roaded or unroaded, actively 

managed, or wilderness. In order for the effects of this project to be of sufficient intensity to be 

significant, they must be sufficiently large as to either aggregate to significant level (a cumulative 

effect; see next section), or be sufficiently severe as to rise above or stand out through the background 

“noise” of these ongoing stochastic events
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 229

Cumulative Effects Setting

The impacts to habitat are summarized in the table below. Of primary importance to wildlife is the 

amount of ongoing vegetation manipulation that is occurring and is reasonably foreseeable. 

Additional vegetation manipulation is occurring on private lands adjacent to the lands managed by the 

Modoc National Forest. Extensive tree thinning, as well as stand regeneration, are occurring on 

adjacent and nearby private lands. Additional adjacent lands are affected each year by extensive 

livestock grazing and, in some cases, conversion to intensive agriculture. Analysis of cumulative 

effects considers these impacts that are likely to occur on private lands, as well as the foreseeable 

actions on public lands. Table 3-83 below details the reasonably foreseeable public land actions that 

may occur on or adjacent to the Modoc National Forest. 

Table 3-83. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation-Altering Actions on Public Land In and 

adjacent to the Modoc National Forest

Type of Vegetation Change Estimated average impact Land Manager

Prescribed fire 4,000 acres/year Modoc NF

Mechanical fuels treatment 6,000 acres/year Modoc NF

Timber harvest 2,500 acres for saw logs/year

3,000 acres for wood fiber/year

Modoc NF

Modoc NF

Sage-steppe restoration 15,000 acres first decade

19,000 acres second decade

Modoc NF & BLM

Modoc NF & BLM

Grazing 122,500 AUMs/year1

54,800 AUMs/year 

Modoc NF

BLM (USDI 2008)

Power transmission corridor 

maintenance

3,000 acres/decade Modoc NF

Road construction 0.95 mi/year (based on last 10 yrs.) Modoc NF

Road decommissioning 7.68 miles/year (based on last 10 yrs.) Modoc NF

1

AUM—animal unit per month

Because private landowners do not typically publish their long-term management plans, actions on 

private land are more difficult to analyze. Varying amounts of timber harvest and grazing do occur 

annually on lands adjacent to National Forest System lands managed by the Modoc National Forest. 

The quantity in any given year is variable and driven by market conditions and events such as fire and 

insect outbreaks.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human 

actions and natural events that have affected the environment, and might contribute to cumulative 

effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this 

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly 

costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century 

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would 

be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not 

be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited 

information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one can not reasonably 

identify each action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

230 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past 

natural events; these may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking 

at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping 

for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past 

actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 

24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions. It states, “Agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the 

historical details of individual past actions.” Also see CFR 220.4 (f). For these reasons, the analysis of 

past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Terrestrial Biota Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

See the effects methodology section above regarding how the environmental consequences analysis 

was conducted. 

Late-Successional, Forest-Associated Species: Affected Environment

Focal species within the group: northern spotted owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great 

gray owl, marten, sooty grouse, and northern flying squirrel

This species group is associated with mature to old forests that contain characteristics of latesuccessional stages. These characteristics include large trees for a given growing site, relatively high 

canopy closure, elevated amounts of decadence in the form of snags (standing, dead trees), downed 

logs, in-tree decay, and deformity. Table 3-84 displays the CWHR vegetation type, size, and stage 

classes that provide a cumulative habitat suitability value of at least 0.75 in the CWHR program. For 

this analysis, habitat conditions are considered as “suitable” if a particular size and stage class 

provides a combined rating of at least 0.75 for the three components of cover, feeding, and 

reproduction. This means any given stage had to provide at least one high rating and two medium 

ratings. This level was picked to select habitats that the biologist felt were key to persistence, while 

excluding marginal or peripheral habitats. Because special habitat elements that a species may require 

(e.g., large tree cavities) are not accounted for directly within the CWHR type, it was felt that 

constraining the model to having at least one component in the high category would compensate for 

overestimation that appeared to occur if only moderate level suitability was included for all three 

stages. Conversely, requiring at least two high suitability ratings constrained habitat for some species 

to levels below known occurrence.

Table 3-84. For the Late-Successional Group, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stages and the 

Acres of Potential Habitat Occurring on the Modoc National Forest

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of habitat on the Modoc National Forest*

Northern goshawk EPN: 4D, 5M, 5D

JPN: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

LPN: 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D

MHW: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

MRI: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

PPN: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

RFR: 5M, 5D

SMC: 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D

SCN: 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D

WFR: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

204,700
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 231

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of habitat on the Modoc National Forest*

Northern spotted owl MHW, 5M, 5D, 6

MRI: 5D, 6

PPN: 5M, 5D

RFR: 5M, 5D

SMC: 5M, 5D, 6

WFR: 5M, 5D, 6

9,210

California spotted owl MHW, 5M, 5D, 6

MRI: 5D, 6

PPN: 5M, 5D

RFR: 5M, 5D

SMC: 5M, 5D, 6

WFR: 5M, 5D, 6

10,350

Great gray owl LPN: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

RFR: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

SMC: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

WFR: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

74,820

Marten LPN: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

MRI: 5M, 5D, 6

RFR: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

SCN: 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

31,520

Sooty grouse EPN: 4 (ALL), 5 (ALL)

JPN: 4 (ALL), 5 (ALL)

LPN: 4 (ALL), 5 (ALL)

RFR: 4S, 4P, 5S, 5P

SMC: 4 (ALL), 5 (ALL), 6

WFR: 4 (ALL), 5 (ALL), 6

439,280

Northern flying 

squirrel

ASP: 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

JPN: 5M, 5D

LPN: 5M, 5D

MHW: 5D, 6

MRI: 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

PPN: 5D

RFR: 5M, 5D

SMC:4D, 5M, 5D, 6

SCN: 5M, 5D

WFR: 4D, 5M, 5D, 6

73,740

*acres are rounded to the nearest 10

These habitats provide conditions that support several species of public concern. The northern 

goshawk is well distributed across the Forest where aggregations of large trees with moderate to 

dense canopy cover provide suitable nesting and foraging conditions. Goshawks are managed through 

the provision of 200-acre protected activity centers around known territorial locations. Currently, 190 

polygons covering 25,280 acres are managed as goshawk protected activity centers (gPACs). 

The spotted owl (both the northern subspecies and the California subspecies) is found within 

mountaintop habitat islands on the west side of the Forest. There are at least three locations of known 

northern spotted owl occurrence and one location of California spotted owl occurrence. The northern 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

232 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

spotted owl subspecies is listed as “Threatened” by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The northern 

spotted owl is managed in accordance with the direction found within the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP, USDA 1992 as amended). The California spotted owl is a Forest Service “Sensitive” species 

and is managed under the guidelines found within the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ((USFS 

2004) and the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management plan (USFS 1991). The single 

known California spotted owl site is managed with a 300-acre protected activity center (soPAC) as 

the focus for habitat protection. An additional 700 acres are managed as a Home Range Core Area 

(HRCA). This location has also been used by barred owls, and has produced hybrid spotted/barred 

owl young. This one location is separated from the bulk of the California spotted owl population in 

the northern Sierras by large expanses of unsuitable habitat (sparse pine stands, juniper forest, open 

sage flats). The current status of California spotted owls on the Modoc can only be considered that of 

an outlier location that probably functions as a genetic sink for any individual found in the location.

American marten are also known to use late-successional conditions, particularly in the Medicine 

Lake Highlands on the northwest edge of the Forest. Marten within the Medicine Lake area are

protected by the provisions in the NWFP that provide for retaining canopy cover and the provision of 

decadence in the form of large downed logs and snags. Outside of the NWFP area marten are rare, but 

when located, den sites are protected. 

Other species using late-successional habitats include the sooty grouse, the northern flying squirrel, 

and the great gray owl. The sooty grouse uses fir trees with dense foliage for roosts (Zeiner1990). The 

northern flying squirrel uses cavities in large snags and trees for nesting and cover (Zeiner 1990). 

Both of these species have no specific management guidelines, but do benefit from other guidelines 

relating to snag retention, and guidelines that provide general vegetative diversity. Great gray owls 

have occasionally been observed within the Forest. There have been intermittent surveys for great 

gray owls but no breeding has been detected, and there are no confirmed observations of pairs of 

great gray owls within or adjacent to the MDF. 

Late-Successional, Forest-Associated Species: Environmental 

Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

Although occasional direct mortality may occur from collisions with off-road vehicles, this appears to 

be an exceedingly rare event for species in this group, and has not been reported to occur within the 

Forest. It is possible this could occur under this alternative; however, given existing use and mobility 

of the species within this group, such occurrences would remain rare and inconsequential to species 

population dynamics. At the long-term analysis point, assuming an increase of off-highway use, 

direct mortality events would occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate similar to the rate 

of increase of off-highway use.

A larger impact, both in the short term, and the long term, would be disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to focal 

species within this group. Table 3-85 displays the number of acres of habitat potentially available for 

cross-country travel under this alternative for each of the focal species within this group. Table 3-85

also displays the miles of route available for use that occur within habitat on the national forest. The 

California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in 

Table 3-84, above.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 233

Table 3-85. Alternative 1: The Potential Late-Successional Habitat that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on MDF 

open to cross-country travel

Northern goshawk 179,380 87.6%

Northern spotted owl 8,440 91.6%

California spotted owl 10,350 100.0%

Great gray owl 74,820 100.0%

Sooty grouse 418,500 95.3%

American marten 31,520 100.0%

Northern flying squirrel 63,140 85.6%

*Rounded to nearest 10 acres.

Included in cross-country travel are the effects from continuation of use on unauthorized routes. The 

linear effects of travel routes can include disturbance, displacement, microclimate changes, and 

increased mortality from hunting and trapping (Gaines et al. 2003). Disturbance can lead to 

physiological responses such as increased stress hormones (Wasser et al. 1997, as reported in Gaines 

et al. 2003). Table 3-86 displays the miles of routes available for use within habitats modeled to be 

used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-86. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on 

NF 

Combined Miles of 

NFTS and Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on 

NF 

Northern goshawk 46.9 713.1

Northern spotted owl 0.7 27.4

California spotted owl 0.8 23.5

Great gray owl 38.5 255.7

Sooty grouse 136.0 1,886.4

American marten 16.5 120.5

Northern flying squirrel 25.9 212.2

Northern goshawks actively defend nest sites during portions of the breeding season. Cross-country

travel could lead to disturbance that disrupts pair-bonding, causes exposure of eggs or young to 

inclement weather, and increases adult energy expenditures.

Goshawk habitat was examined in a manner similar to that used by Gaines et al. (2003) in order to 

assess the relative impact levels of routes on late-successional habitats; goshawk habitat was used as a 

proxy for the other late-successional species because goshawks are well distributed across the 

forested area of the Modoc NF. Goshawk habitat consists of a structure (closed canopy, mature forest

with adequate decadence) that incorporates most of the needs of the other late-successional species, 

making goshawk habitat a reasonable modeling tool. Goshawk habitat was examined at the level of 

6th-order watersheds (sixth order hydrological unit of classification, or HUCs). The relative amount of 

goshawk habitat within a HUC ranges from 72 percent of the National Forest within a HUC, to no 

goshawk habitat within a HUC. The mean proportion of goshawk habitat to national forest in HUCs 

that contain goshawk habitat is 18 percent.

The habitat influence index is calculated by buffering the available routes (both unauthorized and 

NFTS) by 50 meters on both sides. The sum of this route buffer is then divided by the total amount of 

goshawk habitat within the 6th-order watershed to determine the proportion of late-successional 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

234 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

habitats that could be influenced by available routes. A ranking was assigned that follows the 

rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003). The level of influence is as follows:

• Less than 30 percent within habitat influence buffer is a low level of human influence

• Thirty to 50 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a moderate level of human 

influence

• More than 70 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a high level of human influence

The acres and habitat influence index, and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix J. Only five 

of the HUCs had a moderate ranking. All other HUCs with habitat were ranked as low. The five 

HUCs with moderate rankings each had less than 100 acres of goshawk habitat within the watershed. 

This would indicate a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and 

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). Table 3-87 

below summarizes this information for this and the other alternatives.

A second index to evaluate the effects of displacement, avoidance, and disturbance is the security 

habitat index (Gaines et al. 2003). For this analysis, routes (both unauthorized and NFTS) are 

buffered by 200 meters. The area outside this buffer is referred to as security habitat. Thus, total 

habitat minus habitat within the buffer area equals security habitat. The security habitat is divided by 

the total habitat within the HUC to determine the proportion that is in security habitat and that may 

provide refugia for the species. A ranking was assigned that follows the rankings developed by 

Gaines et al. (2003). The level of influence of human activities on habitat ranking is as follows:

• Less than 50 percent security habitat is a high level of human influence

• Fifty to 70 percent security habitat is a moderate level of human influence

• More than 70 percent security habitat is a low level of human influence

The security index and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix I. In this alternative, 18 of the 

HUCs had a low ranking, 30 were ranked moderate and 53 were ranked high. When constrained to 

HUCs with at least 200 acres of goshawk habitat, 8 had a low rank, 23 moderate, and 37 high. A low 

ranking indicates a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, habitat loss 

and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors. A “high” ranking occurs where there is 

limited interior area that remains unaffected by route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). 

When combined with the results of the habitat influence analysis, the security habitat analysis 

describes late-successional habitat on the Modoc National Forest as being generally influenced by the 

presence of routes, but not highly impacted by the actions that occur closest to routes (e.g., edge 

effects, snag and downed log removal, habitat loss and fragmentation).

Another way to measure the impact of routes on goshawks is the miles of routes (both unauthorized 

and NFTS) within goshawk protected activity centers (gPACs). Under Alternative 1 there would be 

approximately 143 miles of routes within gPACs, of which approximately 10 miles is unauthorized 

routes. The unauthorized route mileage can be converted to equivalent-acres by assuming each mile 

of route is approximately 1.8 acres, based on a 15-foot wide impact. These unauthorized routes within 

PACs are equivalent to approximately 18 acres or 0.7 percent of the total acres within PACs.

Most of the effects revealed by the habitat influence analysis and the security habitat analysis are 

from the existing approved transportation system. Unauthorized routes constitute 491 miles, while the 

transportation system extends across approximately 4,580 miles. 

Spotted owls could be disturbed during the nesting season by cross-country travel. Disturbance could 

lead to reduced time on the nest, thereby threatening eggs, or young, with exposure. Disturbance from 

off-road travel would typically occur in daylight when owls are in the resting portion of the diurnal 

cycle. Off-road disturbance impacts are limited by the heavily timbered areas where spotted owls 

nest. In general, these impacts are possible but not likely. The minor possibility of off-road 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 235

disturbance impacts would have no measurable impact on long-term population parameters; therefore,

the effect on northern spotted owls of continued cross-country travel is negligible and discountable. 

California spotted owls would have even less impact from vehicle use because of limited California 

spotted owl occurrence on the Forest and the dense nature of occupied stands. There are no signs of 

recent cross-country vehicle use by the public within the HRCA or California spotted owl PAC. 

Impacts to spotted owls from on-route disturbance emanating from unauthorized routes appear to be 

so minor as to be discountable. The mean segment length for an unauthorized route within spotted 

owl habitat is 0.14 miles. These short spurs would receive little use during the breeding season when 

disturbance causes the most impact. The unauthorized routes within habitat equate to approximately 

0.01 percent of the modeled northern spotted owl habitat. The unauthorized routes within California 

spotted owl habitat make up about 0.01 percent of the modeled California spotted owl habitat. The 

potential impact to either subspecies of spotted owl is so small as to be discountable.

Great gray owls, if they occur, would be impacted by similar effects of disturbance to nesting birds as 

northern and California spotted owls. However, it does not appear that great gray owls regularly nest 

on the Modoc National Forest; therefore, impacts are minor to non-existent.

The marten could be affected by loss of dens, increased disturbance of individual martens, and by 

indirect impacts to prey. Vehicles have the potential to collapse den sites, resulting in the potential 

loss of adults or young. Vehicles can also increase disturbance, resulting in additional energy 

expenditures. Indirectly, vehicles can affect the squirrel populations that marten primarily feed on. 

Squirrel populations may be impacted by increased disturbance resulting in lowered energy reserves 

available for the production of young. If cross-country travel occurs to the extent that soil compaction 

were to occur, food resources for squirrels, particularly truffles, could be diminished. Reduced 

production of young and reduced production of food would reduce the size of squirrel populations 

available for marten to prey upon. The impacts to martens are limited by the limited amount of 

current cross-country use. Unauthorized routes within modeled marten habitat would equal 

approximately 30 acres. This is approximately 0.1 percent of the habitat on the Modoc National 

Forest. For marten, the continuation of use of existing routes is unlikely to contribute to direct 

mortality or generate sufficient disturbance to affect marten population parameters such as fecundity 

or mortality rates. 

The impacts to squirrels in general also apply to northern flying squirrels. Flying squirrels would 

probably not be affected by disturbance due to the diurnal nature of the disturbance and the nocturnal 

nature of flying squirrels. Because flying squirrels are arboreal (tree) nesters, they are unlikely to be 

disturbed or suffer from direct mortality from cross-country travel. However, flying squirrels heavily 

use truffles that occur in the Forest soil (Smith 2007). Changes to soils could affect truffle production 

and, if sufficiently widespread, result in reduced numbers of northern flying squirrels. Currently, soil 

changes due to cross-country recreational travel appear to be insufficient to impact truffle production 

at the level that flying squirrels would be impacted. Approximately 25.9 miles of unauthorized route 

would be available for use in this alternative. This would be equivalent to approximately 47 acres or 

0.06 percent of the modeled northern flying squirrel habitat on the Modoc NF. Flying squirrels have 

probably already adjusted to this existing use by establishing dens and nests away from the 

unauthorized (and NFTS) routes. It appears unlikely that the continued use of the unauthorized routes 

would have a discernable effect on northern flying squirrels. Thus these effects are so minor as to be 

imperceptible.

The sooty grouse is susceptible to direct mortality of chicks from cross-country travel. Sooty grouse 

nest adjacent to or under old logs. Trampling of logs has the potential to destroy nests. Close passage 

of vehicles may result in flushing of incubating females, potentially resulting in nest loss. This impact 

should be considered a possibility, but not a known impact. Sooty grouse would not be directly 

affected by the continuation of use. The short nature of the unauthorized routes does not appear to 

provide sufficient use as to constitute a measurable effect. Additionally, when transformed into an 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

236 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

acre equivalent, the unauthorized routes within sooty grouse habitat would affect an area equivalent to 

0.06 percent of the sooty grouse habitat on the Forest.

Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized roads and trails) to the NFTS

This alternative would not add any facilities to the NFTS.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

This alternative would not change any current season or class of use.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of this alternative would aggregate with the effects outlined above in table 3-84, above. 

Those effects include 2,500 acres of saw log removal and 3,000 acres of wood for fiber on national 

forest. There is also ongoing timber harvest and Forest regeneration on private lands within and 

adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic (random) events such as 

wildfires and catastrophic insect outbreaks. Removal of trees has the potential to impact species in 

this group. Generally, this group of species is affected negatively by actions that reduce the average 

tree size, or that reduce canopy closure. Long-term trends have generally been negative for this 

species group, as can be seen by the inclusion of the northern spotted owl, a species that is Federally 

listed as “Threatened” and includes Forest Service “Sensitive” species, such as northern goshawk, 

California spotted owl, great gray owl, and marten, for which viability has been a concern.

This alternative would continue cross-country travel, including continued public use of the 

unauthorized routes; therefore, the impacts to species in this group from vehicular travel would 

continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. Because the 

impacts from cross-country travel are estimated to be low, the continuation of cross-country travel 

under this alternative would add minimally to negative impacts from vegetation management 

activities. The continuation of public travel on the unauthorized routes would also continue to provide 

impacts. However, the size of the impact is small. The impact of the unauthorized routes can also be 

estimated by converting the miles of unauthorized route into equivalent acres by assuming each mile 

of route is approximately 1.8 acres based on a 15-foot wide impact. This means that the 47 miles of 

unauthorized route in northern goshawk habitat is equivalent to approximately 85 acres, or less than 

two percent of the area impacted annually by timber harvest for saw logs or fiber. For northern 

spotted owls, this equates to about one acre of unauthorized route, or 0.02 percent of the annual 

timber treatment. For sooty grouse, this equates to about 246 acres of unauthorized route, or less than 

five percent of the annual timber treatment. Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not constitute a 

change to habitats, but an existing condition whose vegetation-change impact has already occurred,

and whose current conditions would continue into the future. Thus, the unauthorized routes have less 

impact than an acre of new vegetation manipulation. Therefore, the impacts from the unauthorized 

routes and the cross-country travel are so minor, when aggregated with other impacts occurring on the 

landscape, that they are imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group from cross-country 

travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover from soil 

and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where unauthorized routes 

no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from crosscountry travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by disturbance, trampling, or 

indirect impacts to prey or food resources from cross-country vehicle travel.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 237

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add a total of 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Table 3-87 

displays the route mileage of both the existing system roads and the proposed unauthorized additions 

within habitats used by the focal species. The addition of 339 miles of unauthorized routes would 

affect the late-successional focal species. 

Table 3-87. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the 

NFTS within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Northern goshawk 35.1 701.1

Northern spotted owl 0.7 27.4

California spotted owl 0 22.7

Great gray owl 9.0 226.2

American marten 8.4 112.4

Sooty grouse 115.8 1,866.3

Northern flying squirrel 6.6 192.9

This alternative would reduce the route mileage within northern goshawk habitat by 2 percent

(approximately 12 miles) compared to Alternative 1. This alternative would contain 7 percent more 

routes than Alternative 3, which adds no unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and about 2 percent more 

routes than Alternative 4. The NFTS mileage would be the same for all alternatives, and the 

unauthorized routes added to the system would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 5. 

These small percentage differences between alternatives are essentially undetectable against the 

background fluctuations of weather and stochastic events such as fires. Alternative 2 would have 

approximately 139 miles of routes within the gPACs, of which about five miles are routes added to 

the NFTS. This compares to total miles within gPACs of 143, 134, and 137 for Alternatives 1, 3, and 

4 respectively. The difference of plus or minus five miles or 3 percent difference is also essentially 

undetectable.

The habitat influence index and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix J. Only five of the 

HUCs had a moderate ranking. All other HUCs with habitat were ranked as low. The five HUCs with 

moderate rankings each had less than 200 acres of goshawk habitat within the watershed. That all of 

the HUCs with more than 200 acres of habitat have low ranking would indicate a low level of impact 

from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from 

route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). There is no difference between this alternative and 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 in the number of HUCs with a habitat influence ranking of low. Alternative 1 

has one HUC with a rating of moderate, with all other HUCs at a low ranking (among HUCs with at 

least 200 acres of habitat). This is one more watershed than Alternative 2. 

When constrained to HUCs with at least 200 acres of goshawk habitat, 14 had a low security rank, 19 

moderate, and 35 high. A low ranking indicates a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and 

downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors. By 

contrast, a high ranking occurs where there is limited interior extent that remains unaffected by routeassociated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). This compares with Alternative 1, which had only eight HUCs 

with a low ranking, 23 with a moderate ranking, and 37 with a high human influence ranking (among 

HUCs with at least 200 acres of habitat). Alternative 3, which does not add any unauthorized routes to 

the NFTS, swings one additional HUC from the moderate to low category, resulting in 15 low, 18 

moderate and 35 high ranked HUCs with greater than 200 acres of goshawk habitat. This seems to 

validate the process whereby each individual route segment was evaluated by line officers and the 

Interdisciplinary Team for impacts. Even with adding 69 percent of the unauthorized routes in this 

alternative, almost all of the effect attained by not adding any unauthorized routes in Alternative 3, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

238 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

was achieved in Alternative 2. Alternative 4, which differs in miles of route in habitat by 

approximately five miles, has the same distribution of rankings as this alternative (Alternative 2). 

Alternative 5 would have the same ratings as this alternative because there is no difference in the 

physical route system between the alternatives. 

When combined with the results of the habitat influence analysis, the security habitat analysis 

describes late-successional habitat on the Modoc National Forest as being generally influenced by the 

presence of routes, but not highly impacted by the actions that occur closest to routes (e.g., edge 

effects, snag and downed log removal, habitat loss and fragmentation).

Most of the effects revealed by the habitat influence analysis and the security habitat analysis are 

from the existing approved transportation system. Routes that potentially could have been added to 

the NFTS constitute 491 miles, while the existing transportation system extends across approximately 

4,580 miles. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of routes. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities such as pair bonding and nest initiation may have less

disturbance. However, this is also the period when routes are often blocked by snowdrifts and 

unavailable for wheeled travel. Therefore, the impact is expected to be variable by year and minor to 

undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to provide the same magnitude of impact for 

this analysis. By allowing an additional 138 miles of mixed use, there may be some additional vehicle 

travel. But there are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation 

in total use. Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of this alternative would aggregate with the effects outlined above in table 3-83. Those 

effects include 2,500 acres of saw log removal and 3,000 acres of wood for fiber on national forest. 

There is also ongoing timber harvest and Forest regeneration on private lands within and adjacent to

the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic 

insect outbreaks. Removal of trees has the potential to impact species in this group. Generally, this 

group of species is affected negatively by actions that reduce the average tree size, or that reduce 

canopy closure. 

This alternative would add approximately 339 miles of routes to the NFTS, and would discontinue 

cross-country travel which includes continued use of unauthorized routes. Some impacts to species in 

this group would continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring 

elsewhere because of the additional 339 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. However, 

the impact would be small. The added 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. This means that the 35 

miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in northern goshawk habitat in this alternative is 

equivalent to approximately 64 acres, or about one percent of the area impacted annually by timber 

harvest for saw logs or fiber. For northern spotted owls, the area affected by adding routes to the 

NFTS equates to about one acre, or 0.02 percent of the annual timber treatment across the Forest. For 

sooty grouse, the added routes within habitat equate to about 211 acres, or less than four percent, of 

the annual timber treatment. These route additions are offset at the 20-year, long-term point by the 

amount of routes not added to the NFTS that would have begun to move towards habitat for latesuccessional species. For northern goshawks, this means an equivalent of approximately 22 acres. For 

northern spotted owls, there would be no habitat added because all of the current existing 

unauthorized routes would be added to the system. For sooty grouse, an equivalent of 36 acres would 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 239

begin moving toward late-successional conditions. All of these acres would have many decades of 

growth and recovery before they fully became suitable for the species in this group. Therefore, in this 

alternative the impacts from the route system are somewhat reduced compared to the impacts of 

Alternative 1, and countered additionally by the cessation of impacts from cross-country travel. 

Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor, that when aggregated with other impacts 

occurring on the landscape, they are imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel. The potential impacts 

discussed under Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not 

be affected by disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.

The linear effects of routes would still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS roads open for use. Table 3-

88 displays the amount of route mileage within habitats used by the focal species. The habitat 

influence index and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix J. The five HUCs with moderate 

rankings each had less than 200 acres of goshawk habitat within the watershed. This would indicate a 

low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction and habitat loss, and 

fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003).

The security index and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix I. When constrained to HUCs 

with at least 200 acres of goshawk habitat, 15 had a low rank, 18 moderate, and 35 high. A low 

ranking indicates a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction and habitat 

loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors. By contrast, a high ranking occurs 

where there is limited interior extent that remains unaffected by route-associated factors (Gaines et al.

2003). 

When combined with the results of the habitat influence analysis, the security habitat analysis 

describes late-successional habitat on the Modoc National Forest under Alternative 3 as being 

generally influenced by the presence of routes, but not highly impacted by the actions that occur 

closest to routes (e.g., edge effects, snag and downed log removal, habitat loss and fragmentation). 

All of the effects revealed by the habitat influence analysis and the security habitat analysis in this 

alternative, are from the existing NFTS. 

Table 3-88. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group

Species Miles Of Routes Added to the 

NFTS within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat On 

NF

Northern spotted owl 0 27.4

California spotted owl 0 22.7

Northern goshawk 0 701.1

Great gray owl 0 226.2

American marten 0 112.4

Sooty grouse 0 1,866.3

Northern flying squirrel 0 192.9
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

240 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

There would be no change of vehicle class in this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of this alternative would aggregate with the effects outlined above in table 3-83. This 

alternative would prohibit cross-country travel, including the continued use of approximately 491 

miles of unauthorized routes. The impacts to species in this group from cross-country travel and from 

unauthorized routes would cease, and may partially counter some of the effects from vegetation 

management occurring elsewhere. However, the size of the impact is small. The unauthorized routes

that would not be added to the NFTS can be converted to equivalent-acres. For the 47 miles of 

unauthorized routes in northern goshawk habitat in this alternative, the equivalent area would be 

approximately 86 acres, or less than 2 percent of the area impacted annually by timber harvest for saw 

logs or fiber, or 0.04 percent of the goshawk habitat on the Modoc National Forest. For northern 

spotted owls, the area affected by unauthorized routes equates to about one acre of roadway, or 0.02

percent of the annual timber treatment, or 0.01 percent of the habitat. For sooty grouse, the 

unauthorized routes equate to about 246 acres or less than 4 percent of the annual Forest timber 

treatment, or about 0.06 percent of the Forest’s sooty grouse habitat. The unauthorized routes’ impact 

would begin to decrease at the 20-year long-term point as the routes begin to develop vegetation and 

downed woody debris, and move towards habitat for late-successional species. For northern 

goshawks, this means an equivalent of approximately 86 acres. For northern spotted owls, there 

would be approximately 1 acre of additional habitat. For sooty grouse, an equivalent of 246 acres 

would begin moving toward late-successional conditions. All of these acres would have many 

decades of growth and recovery before they fully became suitable for the species in this group. 

Therefore, in this alternative, the impacts from cross-country use are reduced versus the impacts of 

Alternative 1, and reduced by the slow recovery toward suitability of the unauthorized routes. 

However, the low rate and intensity of impacts from cross-country travel do not appear to be 

sufficient to counter other impacts that are occurring from vegetation management and stochastic 

events such as insect outbreaks and stand-replacing fires. Overall, when aggregated with other 

impacts to the late-successional group, impacts from this alternative appear to be insufficient to alter 

the larger trends occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 4 

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 286 miles of routes to the NFTS. Table 3-89 (below) displays the route

mileage within habitats used by the focal species. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 241

Table 3-89. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the 

NFTS within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Northern goshawk 30.0 696.1

Northern spotted owl 0.7 27.4

California spotted owl 0 22.7

Great gray owl 8.2 225.4

American marten 7.2 111.1

Sooty grouse 95.2 1845.7

Northern flying squirrel 5.5 191.8

This alternative would contain five percent more route mileage than Alternative 3, and about one 

percent less route mileage than Alternatives 2 and 5 within goshawk habitat. These small percentage 

differences between alternatives are essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of 

weather and stochastic events such as fires. Alternative 4 would have approximately 137 miles of 

routes within the gPACs, of which about three miles are routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. 

This compares to total miles within gPACs of 143, 139, and 134 for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

respectively. Alternative 5 has the same route configuration as Alternative 2, and therefore the same 

mileage and acreage numbers. The difference of plus or minus five miles, or three percent difference,

is undetectable in impact.

The habitat influence index and rank for each HUC are displayed in appendix J. Only five of the 

HUCs had a moderate habitat influence ranking. All other HUCs with habitat were ranked as low. 

The five HUCs with moderate rankings each had less than 200 acres of goshawk habitat within the 

watershed. That all of the HUCs with more than 200 acres of habitat have low habitat influence 

ranking would indicate a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and 

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). There is no 

difference between this alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 in the number of HUCs with a habitat 

influence ranking of low. Alternative 1 has one HUC with a rating of moderate, with all other HUCs 

at a low ranking (among HUCs with at least 200 acres of habitat). 

The security index rank for each HUC is displayed in appendix I. When constrained to HUCs with at 

least 200 acres of goshawk habitat, 15 had a low security index rank, 18, moderate and 35 high. A 

low ranking indicates a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and 

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors. By contrast, a high ranking 

occurs where there is limited interior extent that remains unaffected by route-associated factors 

(Gaines et al. 2003). This compares with Alternative 1, which had only eight HUCs with a low 

ranking, 23 with a moderate ranking, and 37 with a high human-influence ranking. Alternative 3,

which does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, has the same number of HUCs in the low 

category as alternative 4 resulting in 15 low, 18 moderate and 35 high ranked HUCs with greater than 

200 acres of goshawk habitat. In this alternative, by not adding 43 percent of the unauthorized routes, 

the same general security index was achieved as in the alternative that does not add any unauthorized 

routes (Alternative 3). Alternative 5 would have the same ratings as Alternative 2 because there is no 

difference in the physical route system between those two alternatives. 

When combined with the results of the habitat influence analysis, the security habitat analysis 

describes late-successional habitat on the Modoc National Forest as being generally influenced by the 

presence of routes, but not highly impacted by the actions that occur closest to routes (e.g., edge 

effects, snag and downed log removal, habitat loss and fragmentation). Most of the effects revealed 

by the habitat influence analysis and the security habitat analysis are from the existing NFTS. 

Unauthorized routes to be added to the NFTS in this alternative total 286 miles (or 6 percent) of the 

approximately 4,580 miles of NFTS roads.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

242 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of route in this alternative. 

These areas would have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure 

periods cover winter and early spring, early breeding activities such as pair-bonding and nest 

initiation may have less disturbance. However, this is also the period when roads are often blocked by 

snow drifts and unavailable for wheeled travel. Therefore, the seasonal closure impact is expected to 

be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. There would

be no change in vehicle class proposed in this alternative. Changing the mix of use is not expected to 

have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the late-successional group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which includes 

approximately 213 miles of unauthorized routes. Some impacts to species in this group would 

continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere because of the 

additional 286 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. However, the size of the impact is 

small. The added routes in northern goshawk habitat for this alternative, when converted to 

equivalent-acres, convert to approximately 55 acres, or about one percent, of the area impacted 

annually by timber harvest for saw logs or fiber. For northern spotted owls, the area affected by 

adding routes to the system equates to about one acre, or 0.02 percent of the annual Forest timber 

treatment. For sooty grouse, the added routes equate to about 173 acres, or less than three percent of 

the annual Forest timber treatment. These NFTS additions are offset at the 20-year, long-term point 

by the prohibition of cross-country travel and the unauthorized routes that have begun to move 

towards habitat for late-successional species. For northern goshawks, this means an equivalent of 

approximately 31 acres would be moving towards suitability. For northern spotted owls, there would 

be no additional habitat because all of the current unauthorized routes within northern spotted owl 

habitat would be added to the system. For sooty grouse, an equivalent of 74 acres would be moving 

toward late-successional conditions. All of these acres, and those for the other late-successional 

species, would have many decades of growth and recovery before they became fully suitable for the 

species in this group. Therefore in this alternative, the impacts from cross-country use are reduced 

versus the impacts of Alternative 1, and further reduced by the slow recovery toward suitability of the 

213 miles of unauthorized routes. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor that 

when aggregated with other impacts occurring on the landscape, that they are imperceptible and 

discountable.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 243

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2, in that it would add the same 339 miles of unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS. The effects of these changes to the NFTS are the same as those listed above for 

Alternative 2. The miles of unauthorized routes added to the system in this alternative are displayed in 

Table 3-90 below for each of the focal species.

Table 3-90. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Late-Successional Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the 

NFTS within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Northern goshawk 35.1 701.1

Northern spotted owl 0.7 27.4

California spotted owl 0 22.7

Great gray owl 9.0 226.2

American marten 8.4 112.4

Sooty grouse 115.8 1,866.3

Northern flying squirrel 6.6 192.9

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities such as pair bonding and nest initiation may have fewer 

disturbances. However, this is also the period when routes are often blocked by snowdrifts and 

unavailable for wheeled travel. Therefore, the impact is expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to provide the same magnitude of impact for 

this analysis. By allowing an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle 

travel, but there are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation 

in total use. Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to late-successional species as compared to 

Alternative 2. This alternative has the same imperceptible and discountable cumulative effects as 

Alternative 2. 

Comparison of Effects on Late-Successional Species, by Alternative

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. Tables 3-84 through 3-86 display 

the impacts to the northern goshawk, the species selected as best representing all of the focal species 

within the late-successional species group.* UA = unauthorized route miles that could continue to 

receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or (for all other Alternatives) that 

would be added to the NFTS

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Table 3-94 displays a comparison of other habitat-change metrics for other focal species in the latesuccessional species group. In general, Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to the focal species and 

their habitats, and Alternative 3 the least.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

244 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-91 displays a comparison of Habitat Influence Rank ratings, by alternative. A Habitat 

Influence Rank rating of “low” indicates less than 30 percent of a HUC is within a influence buffer. A 

rating of “high” indicates that more than 70 percent of the HUC is within an influence buffer.

Table 3-91. Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative

Number of HUCs with each Habitat Influence Rank Rating, where each HUC contains some suitable habitat

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Low 95 96 96 96 96

Moderate 6 5 5 5 5

High 0 0 0 0 0

Number of HUCS with each Habitat Influence Rank Rating, where each HUC contains at least 200 acres of suitable 

goshawk habitat

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Al t5

Low 67 68 68 68 68

Moderate 1 0 0 0 0

High 0 0 0 0 0

* UA = unauthorized route miles that could continue to receive motorized use under continued crosscountry travel (Alt 1), or (for all other Alternatives) that would be added to the NFTS

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Table 3-94 displays a comparison of other habitat-change metrics for other focal species in the latesuccessional species group. In general, Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to the focal species and 

their habitats, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-92 displays a comparison of Security Index Rank Ratings, by alternative. A Security Index 

Rank rating of “low” would indicate more than 70 percent of a HUC is in an area outside of a 200-

meter disturbance zone. A rating of “high” would indicate less than 50 percent of a HUC is in an area 

outside of a 200-meter disturbance zone.

Table 3-92. Security Index Rank Ratings, by Alternative

Number of HUCs with each Security Index Rank Rating, where each HUC contains some suitable habitat

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Low 18 26 27 27 26

Moderate 30 26 26 26 26

High 53 49 48 48 49

Number of HUCS with each Security Index Rank Rating, where each HUC contains at least 200 Acres of suitable 

goshawk habitat

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Low 8 14 15 15 14

Moderate 23 19 18 18 19

High 37 35 35 35 35

* UA = unauthorized route miles that could continue to receive motorized use under continued crosscountry travel (Alt 1), or (for all other Alternatives) that would be added to the NFTS

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 245

Table 3-94 displays a comparison of other habitat-change metrics for other focal species in the latesuccessional species group. In general, Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to the focal species and 

their habitats, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-93 displays a comparison of other habitat-change metrics for goshawks. In general,

Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to goshawks and their habitats, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-93. Comparison of Other Goshawk Habitat-change metrics Between Alternatives

Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

% of HUCs with a 

low habitat 

influence index

94% (all)

99% (w 200ac)

96% (all)

100% (w 200ac)

95% (all)

100% (w 200ac)

95% (all)

100% (w 200ac)

96% (all)

100% (w 200ac)

% of HUCs with a 

low security index 

rating

18%(all)

12% (w >200ac 

habitat)

26%(all)

21% (w >200ac)

27%(all)

22% (w >200ac)

27%(all)

22% (w >200ac)

26%(all)

21% (w >200ac)

Area available for 

cross-country 

travel

179,380 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of routes in 

habitat

UA* : 47.0 miles 

UA + NFTS: 713 

UA: 35.1 

UA + NFTS: 701 

2%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA + NFTS: 666 

7%< A-1

5%< A-2

UA: 30.0

UA + NFTS: 696 

2%< A-1

0.7%<A-2

5%> A-3

UA: 35.1

UA + NFTS: 701 

2%< A-1

Miles of routes in 

PACs

UA: 9.8

UA + NFTS: 143

UA: 4.9 

UA + NFTS: 139 

UA: 0 

UA + NFTS: 134

UA: 3.0

UA + NFTS: 137 

UA: 4.9

UA + NFTS: 139 

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

UA: 85.5 (.04%) 

UA + NFTS:

1,298 (0.6%)

UA: 63.9 (.03%) 

UA + NFTS: 

1,276 (0.6%)

UA: 0 (0%) 

UA + NFTS: 

1,212 (0.6%)

UA: 54.6 (.03%) 

UA + NFTS: 

1,267 (0.6%)

UA: 63.9 (.03%) 

UA + NFTS: 

1,276 (0.6%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

PAC (% of MDF 

PAC acres)

UA: 17.8 (.07%) 

UA + NFTS:

260 (2.8%)

UA: 8.9 (.04%) 

UA + NFTS:

253.0 (1.0%)

UA: 0 (0%) 

UA + NFTS:

243.9 (1.0%)

UA: 5.5 (.02%) 

UA + NFTS:

249.3 (1.0%)

UA: 8.9 (.04%) 

UA + NFTS:

253.0 (1.0%)

* UA = unauthorized route miles that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or 

(for all other Alternatives) that would be added to the NFTS

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Table 3-94 displays a comparison of other habitat-change metrics for other focal species in the latesuccessional species group. In general, Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to the focal species and 

their habitats, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-94. Comparison of Selected Habitat-Change Metrics for Other Late-Successional Focal Species,

by Alternative

Species Metric Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Northern 

spotted owl

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

9,210 ac)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

8,441.6 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 

Miles of route 

in habitat

0.7 UA 

UA+NFTS: 

27.4 

0.7 UA 

UA+NFTS: 

27.4

0%< A-1

0 UA 

UA+NFTS: 

26.7

2%< A-1

2%< A-2

0.7 UA 

UA+NFTS: 

27.4

0%< A-1

0%< A-2
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

246 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Metric Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

2%> A-3

0.7 UA 

UA+NFTS: 

27.4

0%< A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

1.3 acres 

(0.01%)

1.3 acres 

(0.01%)

0 acres 

(0%)

1.3 acres 

(0.01%)

1.3 acres 

(0.01%)

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

49.9 acres 

(0.5%)

49.9 acres 

(0.5%)

48.6 acres 

(0.5%)

49.9 acres 

(0.5%)

49.9 acres 

(0.5%)

California 

spotted owl

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

10,350 ac)

MDF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

10,346 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route 

in habitat

UA: 0.8 

UA+NFTS: 24 

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 23 

3%<A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 23 

3%< A-1

0%< A-2

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 23

3%< A-1

0%< A-2

0%< A-3

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 23

3%<A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

1.5 ac (0.01%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%)

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

43.7 ac (0.4%) 41.9 ac (0.4%) 41.9 ac (0.4%) 41.9 ac (0.4%) 41.9 ac (0.4%)

Miles of route 

in PAC and 

equivalent 

acres

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 2.2

UA+NFTS: 4 

ac

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 2.2

UA+NFTS: 4 

ac

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 2.2

UA+NFTS: 4 

ac

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 2.2

UA+NFTS: 4 

ac

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 2.2

UA+NFTS: 4 

ac

Great gray 

owl

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

74,820 ac)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

74,820 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route 

in habitat

UA: 39.5 

UA+NFTS: 256 

UA: 9.0

UA+NFTS: 226 

12%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 217 

15%<A-1

4%< A-2

UA 8.2 

UA+NFTS: 225

12%< A-1

0.3%<A-2

4%> A-3

UA: 9.0

UA+NFTS: 226

12%< A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

71.9 ac (0.1%) 16.4 ac 

(0.02%)

0 ac (0%) 14.9 ac 

(0.02%)

16.4 ac 

(0.02%)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 247

Species Metric Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

465.9 ac 

(0.6%)

411.3 ac 

(0.5%)

394.9 ac 

(0.5%)

409.5 ac 

(0.5%)

411.3 ac 

(0.5%)

Marten

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

31,520 ac)

MDF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

31,520 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route 

in habitat

UA: 16.5 

UA+NFTS: 120

UA: 8.4

UA+NFTS: 112

7%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 104

14%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 7.3

UA+NFTS: 111

8%< A-1

1%< A-2

7%> A-3

UA: 8.4

UA+NFTS: 112

7%< A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of

MDF Habitat)

30.0 ac (0.1%) 15.3 ac 

(0.05%)

0 ac (0%) 13.3 ac 

(0.04%)

15.3 ac 

(0.05%)

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

218.4 ac 

(0.7%)

203.8 ac 

(0.6%)

189.3 ac 

(0.6%)

207.0 ac 

(0.6%)

203.8 ac 

(0.6%)

Sooty 

grouse

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

439,280 ac)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

418,500 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route 

in habitat

UA: 136.0

UA+NFTS: 

1,886

UA: 116.0

UA+NFTS: 

1,866 

1%< A-1

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 

1,750

7%< A-1

6%< A-2

UA: 95.9 

UA+NFTS: 

1,845

2%< A-1

1%< A-2

5%> A-3

UA: 116.0

UA+NFTS: 

1,866 

1%< A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

247.5 ac 

(0.06%)

211.1 ac 

(0.05%)

0 ac (0%) 174.5 ac 

(0.04%)

211.1 ac 

(0.05%)

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

3,432 ac 

(0.8%)

3,396 ac 

(0.8%)

3,185 ac 

(0.7%)

3,358 ac 

(0.8%)

3,396 ac 

(0.8%)

Northern 

flying 

squirrel

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

73,740 ac)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

63,138 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route 

in habitat

UA: 25.9

UA+NFTS: 212 

UA: 6.6 

UA+NFTS: 193 

9%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 186 

12%< A-1

3%< A-2

UA: 5.5 

UA+NFTS: 192 

10%< A-1

0.06%<A-2

3%>A-3

UA: 6.6 

UA+NFTS: 193 

9%< A-1

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

routes in 

habitat (% of 

47.1 ac 

(0.06%)

12.0 ac 

(0.02%)

0 ac (0%) 10.0 ac 

(0.01%)

12.0 ac 

(0.02%)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

248 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Metric Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

MDF Habitat)

Equivalent 

acres of UA 

+NFTS routes 

in habitat (% of 

MDF Habitat)

385.8 ac 

(0.5%)

351.3 ac 

(0.5%)

338.5% (0.5%) 349.4 ac 

(0.5%)

351.3 ac 

(0.5%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1) or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Threatened and Endangered Species Determinations

Northern Spotted Owl

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, a Biological Evaluation and 

Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest Motorized Travel 

Management Project and is hereby incorporated by reference. The analysis in the Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment concludes minor impacts from the limited cross-country travel and the 

approximately 0.01 percent of modeled habitat from the addition of routs to the NFTS. Therefore, the 

Biological Evaluation and Assessment made a determination that the Modoc Travel Management 

Project may affect individuals but would not adversely affect northern spotted owls.

Sensitive Species Determinations

California Spotted Owl

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42), a biological 

evaluation and assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect individual California spotted owls 

as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct effects that may cause impacts to 

breeding and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2 through 5 would have no impacts, as motorized 

cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited and no routes would be added to the NFTS within 

California spotted owl habitat. Alternatives 2 through 5 would therefore have no effects on California 

spotted owls or their habitats. 

Northern Goshawk

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect individual northern goshawks as 

cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding 

and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle 

travel but would add mileage (30 to 35 miles within habitat) to the NFTS. Because Alternatives 2, 4, 

and 5 add mileage to the NFTS there may be some disturbance effects to individual goshawks, but the 

quantity is small and discountable. Alternative 3 would have no impacts, as motorized cross-country 

vehicle travel would be prohibited and no routes would be added to the NFTS within northern 

goshawk habitat. Alternative 3 would therefore have no effects on northern goshawks or their 

habitats. Thus was the biologist’s determination that the Modoc Travel Management Project 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk. It was also the biologist’s determination that 

Alternative 3 would not affect northern goshawks or their habitat.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 249

Great Gray Owl

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project and is hereby incorporated by reference.

It does not appear that cross-country travel would directly affect great gray owls. Due to the lack 

of confirmed nesting, and the very low level of primary OHV use, it appears unlikely that great 

gray owls would be nesting at a time and place affected by cross-country travel. Disturbance 

would appear to be unlikely due to the low densities of great gray owls. Considering the low 

density of great gray owls, the limited opportunities for disturbance, and low quantity of habitat 

impacts from unauthorized routes (38.5 miles in Alternative 1, or 70 equivalent acres, or .09 

percent of modeled habitat), it appears that there would be no effects to great gray owl populations 

sufficient to contribute to a trend toward listing or impact viability of the species. Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5 would have less effect due to the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel, and the 

fewer or no routes added to the NFTS. In essence, the potential for effects to great gray owls is so 

low and discountable that it is essentially the same as no effect for any of the alternatives in this 

project. That some potential, regardless of how imperceptible, may exist for disturbance under 

alternatives 2,4, and 5 indicates individuals may be affected. Because the intensity and likelihood 

of such disturbance appears to be imperceptible and discountable due to the limited vehicle use 

and limited great gray owl occurrence on the Modoc National Forest, there would be no 

contribution toward a trend toward listing or a loss of viability. Therefore it is the wildlife 

biologist’s determination that Alternatives 1,2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. It is also the wildlife biologist’s 

determination that Alternative 3 would not affect great gray owls or their habitat.

Marten

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42), a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest Motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect individual marten as cross-country 

travel could contribute disturbance or direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding and 

reproductive activities. Alternatives 2 through 5 would have limited impacts above the existing NFTS 

route system as motorized cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited, and less than 15 acres of 

routes would be added to the NFTS within marten habitat. These 15 acres represent approximately 

0.05 percent of the modeled habitat for marten on the Modoc National Forest. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 

and 5 would therefore have extremely limited effects on marten that are imperceptible and 

discountable and no effects on their habitats. Thus it was the biologist’s determination that the Modoc 

Travel Management Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the marten. It is also the wildlife 

biologist’s determination that Alternative 3 would not affect marten or their habitat.

Wide-Ranging Carnivores: Affected Environment

Focal Species Within the Group: Black Bear

This species group is not associated with any one type of habitat, but is associated with a wide variety 

of conditions. These species include the Forest Service “Sensitive” species wolverine and Sierra 

Nevada red fox. The wolverine appears to have been absent from northern California for an extended 

time (Aubrey et al. 2007, Schwartz et al. 2007). Recently, a wolverine was observed on the Tahoe 

National Forest. Preliminary genetic information gathered at the observation area seems to indicate a 

single individual genetically similar to individuals in Idaho (USFS 2008b). The Sierra Nevada red fox 

is also a rare species with a disjunct limited distribution (Perrine 2005, Zielinski et al. 2005). There 

are no known observations from the Modoc National Forest in the last 20 years. Currently, the closest 

known population is located in the vicinity of Lassen Volcanic National Park, approximately 25 miles 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

250 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

southwest of the closest portion of the Modoc NF. Because of their scarcity and the paucity of reliable 

observational data, both wolverine and red fox are presumed absent and are not suitable for this 

analysis. Wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox are not considered further.

Marten have been observed on the Forest and also can be considered a wide-ranging carnivore. 

However, their habitat requirements align more closely with the species in the late-successional 

group; therefore, marten are discussed in the Late-Successional species group. 

Other wide-ranging carnivores that do occur within the Forest are black bears, mountain lions, and 

bobcats. All three of these species use a variety of habitat types (Zeiner 1990). Black bears are 

omnivorous (Zeiner 1990); mountain lions are primarily carnivorous and focus their diet on deer 

(Zeiner 1990); bobcats are also carnivorous but generally take smaller prey than deer, such as rabbits 

and rodents. Bobcats may consume fruits and grass (Zeiner 1990). There are no specific guidelines 

for managing black bears, mountain lions, or bobcats on the Modoc National Forest. Black bears were 

selected as the focal species for this group because they are present on the Forest, and their 

omnivorous diet does not tie their population fluctuations closely to another species of vertebrate.

Table 3-95 displays the CWHR vegetation type, size and stage classes that provide a cumulative 

habitat suitability value of at least 0.75 in the CWHR program. The reader should see the latesuccessional species section for information on the use of the CWHR suitability to determine suitable 

habitat. The acres of modeled habitat on the Modoc National Forest for the focal species in this group 

are also displayed.

Table 3-95. For the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stages 

Considered Suitable, and the Acres of Potential Habitat Occurring on the Modoc National Forest

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of habitat on National Forest

Black bear ASP: 4S, 5S, 5M

EPN: 4S, 5S, 5M

JPN: 4S, 5S, 5M

LPN: 4S, 5S, 5M

MHW: 4S, 5S, 5M, 6

MRI: 4S, 4P, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

PPN: 4S, 5S, 5M

RFR: 4M

SMC: 4S, 5S, 5M, 6

SCN: 4M

WFR: 4S, 5S, 5M, 6

60,840

*Rounded to nearest 10 acres.

Wide-Ranging Carnivores: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

Table 3-96 displays the acres of habitat potentially available for use under this alternative for the 

focal species (black bear) within this group. Table 3-97 also displays the route miles available for use 

within habitat on the Modoc National Forest. The California WHR sizes and stages that were 

considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in Table 3-95, above. Although occasional direct 

mortality may occur from off-road collisions with vehicles, this appears to be an exceedingly rare 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 251

event and has not been reported to occur within the Forest. It is possible that such an event could 

occur under this alternative; however, given existing use and mobility of the species, such 

occurrences would remain rare and inconsequential to species population dynamics. At the long-term 

analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase of off-highway use, direct mortality 

events would occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate similar to the rate of increase of 

off-highway use.

A larger impact, both in the short term, and the long term, would be the disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to the 

focal species within this group. Cross-country travel could impact black bear food sources such as 

berries and invertebrates by changing soil conditions and trampling of plants, downed logs, or insect 

nests. These impacts are infrequent because of the low quantity of cross-country travel on the Forest.

Table 3-96. Alternative 1: The Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group that Could be 

Impacted by Cross-Country, off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on 

MDF open to crosscountry travel

Black Bear 53,550 88.0%

*Rounded to nearest 10 acres.

Under this alternative, cross-country travel, which includes motorized use on 491 miles of 

unauthorized routes, would continue. Table 3-97 displays the unauthorized route mileage within 

habitats used by the focal species in this group. This alternative contains approximately 25 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes within modeled black bear habitat. This is approximately 11 percent

more miles available for use than in the alternative with the lowest route mileage (Alternative 3). 

Although black bears habituate to human presence (as every visitor to Yosemite National Park 

knows), bears appear to be generally wary and susceptible to disturbance on the Modoc National 

Forest. This may be because human contact is infrequent in the local area, and possibly due to hunting 

pressure. Disturbance to black bear activities could occur along routes causing increased energy 

expenditures, lowered fat reserves, and ultimately lower reproduction. However, the amount of 

disturbance is limited because of the low volume of traffic that occurs on the unauthorized routes.

Table 3-97 Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Route within Habitat on 

NF

Combined Miles of 

NFTS and Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat 

On NF

Black bear 24.7 253.8

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

particular route. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the wide-ranging carnivore group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83. Those effects include 2,500 acres of saw log removal, 3,000 acres of 

wood removal for fiber, 6,000 acres of mechanical treatment of vegetation, and 4,000 acres of 

prescribed fire annually on the Modoc National Forest. This is about 15,500 acres per year of 

vegetation treatments of varying intensity. There is also ongoing timber harvest and Forest

regeneration on private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as 

stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect outbreaks. Vegetation management and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

252 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

prescribed fire has the potential to impact species in this group by removing important habitat 

elements such as downed logs, snags, hollow trees, and mature shrubs that are used for cover, or that 

are important to the life histories of the prey of wide-ranging carnivores. Generally, this group of 

species is affected negatively by extensive mechanical and prescribed fire treatments that reduce these 

important habitat elements; although some elements, such as snags and downed logs, can be increased 

by the application of prescribed fire.

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which includes use of unauthorized routes. 

Therefore the impacts to species in this group, discussed above, would continue and aggregate with 

effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. Because the impacts from cross-country 

travel are estimated to be low, the continuation of cross-country travel under this alternative would 

add only minor impacts to negative impacts from vegetation management activities. The continuation 

of motorized use on unauthorized routes would also continue to provide negative impacts. However, 

the impact of the unauthorized routes would be small. The unauthorized route mileage can be 

converted to equivalent-acres by assuming each mile of route is approximately 1.8 acres based on a 

15-foot wide impact. This means that the 25 miles of unauthorized route in black bear habitat, in this 

alternative, is equivalent to approximately 45 acres, or about 0.3 percent, of the area impacted 

annually by various mechanical and prescribed fire vegetation treatments or about 0.07 percent of the 

modeled black bear habitat. Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not constitute a change to 

habitats, but rather are an existing condition whose vegetation change impact has already occurred,

and whose conditions would continue into the future. Thus, an acre of unauthorized route has less 

impact than an acre of new vegetation manipulation. Overall, vehicle-related impacts from this 

alternative appear to aggregate with other impacts occurring on the landscape. However, compared to 

the scope and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 

1 are imperceptible and discountable, and would not change existing trends to species habitat or 

distribution.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. Black bears would not be affected by 

disturbance, collision, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources due to off-road vehicle use.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of route to the NFTS. Table 3-98 (below) displays the route 

mileage in this alternative within habitats used by the focal species for this group. Alternative 2 would 

have approximately four percent fewer miles of route available for public use as compared to 

Alternative 1, and 6 percent more route mileage added to the NFTS than Alternative 3. There are 

approximately 16 miles of unauthorized routes in this alternative that would slowly regain 

characteristics of suitable habitat for black bears. Downed logs would accumulate, shrub species 

would re-occupy the sites, and eventually the sites would become suitable for bear foraging. The 16

route miles equates to approximately 27 acres of potential habitat. This is less than 0.05 percent of the 

modeled black bear habitat. The scope of impact is so small as to be undetectable.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 253

Table 3-98. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on 

NF

Black bear 15.7 244.8

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, they would have little impact especially since bears are hibernating during much of 

this period. This is also the period when roads are often blocked by snow drifts and unavailable for 

wheeled travel. Therefore, no impacts are expected to black bears from changes in existing season of 

use. Other wide-ranging carnivores may benefit from reduced vehicle travel through reduced snow 

compaction and reduced disturbance. Snow compaction may allow the movement of some species 

such as mountain lions and coyotes into areas otherwise inaccessible to these species during periods 

when snow is deep. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 138 miles of mixed use, there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

As in Alternative 1, the effects of Alternative 2 on the wide-ranging carnivore group would aggregate 

with the effects outlined above in table 3-83. Alternative 2 would discontinue cross-country travel and 

add approximately 339 miles of route to the NFTS. Impacts to species in this group would continue 

and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere because of the 

additional 339 miles of unauthorized route added to the NFTS. However, the impact of routes added 

to the NFTS would be small. The additional NFTS road mileage, when converted to equivalent-acres,

would be equivalent to approximately 29 acres or about 0.2 percent of the area potentially impacted 

annually by vegetation management and prescribed fire or approximately 0.05 percent of the modeled 

habitat. These NFTS additions are partially offset at the 20-year, long-term point by the amount of 

unauthorized routes in this alternative that have begun to move towards habitat for wide-ranging 

carnivore species. For black bears, this means an equivalent of approximately nine acres (or an 

additional 0.01 percent of the existing modeled habitat) would be moving towards suitability. These 

acres, 20 years after implementation, would have some attributes of suitable habitat including 

maturing shrubs and accumulating downed logs. Therefore, in this alternative, the impacts of road 

system use are somewhat reduced compared to the impacts of Alternative 1, and countered 

additionally by the cessation of impacts from cross-country travel. However, these impacts are still 

small compared to the impacts of ongoing vegetation treatments on the Forest and adjacent lands. 

Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor that when aggregated with other impacts 

occurring on the landscape, they would be imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel, including continued use of approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes. In the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

254 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover from soil and 

vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where unauthorized routes no 

longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from crosscountry travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by disturbance, trampling, or 

indirect impacts to prey or food resources. 

Table 3-99. Alternative 3: The Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group that Could be 

Impacted by Cross-Country, off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat*

Black Bear 10,220

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. However the linear effects of 

roads would still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS. Table 3-100 (below) displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-100. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Black bear 0 229.1

Alternative 3 would have approximately 11 percent less route mileage as compared to Alternative 1, 

and six percent less route mileage than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Disturbance would not occur along 

unauthorized routes, as cross-country travel would not occur. The approximately 24 miles of 

unauthorized routes that are within habitat and where motorized use would no longer occur under this 

alternative, would slowly regain characteristics of suitable habitat for black bears. Downed logs 

would accumulate, shrub species would re-occupy the sites, and eventually the sites would become 

suitable for bear foraging. This impact is limited in scope because of the limited amount of 

unauthorized routes within black bear habitat. The 24 miles equates to approximately 45 acres of 

potential habitat. This is less than 0.08 percent of the modeled black bear habitat. The scope of impact 

would be so small as to be undetectable in impact. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 on the wide-ranging carnivore group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83 and discussed in Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would discontinue crosscountry travel, which would include approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes that would no 

longer be available for motorized use. The impacts to species in this group from the prohibition of 

cross-country travel may partially counter some of the effects from vegetation management occurring 

elsewhere. However, the scope and intensity of the impact from ending cross-country travel would be

small. For example, the 25 miles of unauthorized route in black bear habitat in this alternative is 

equivalent to approximately 45 acres, or less than 0.3 percent of the area impacted annually on the 

Modoc NF by vegetation management and prescribed fire. The positive effects from prohibiting 

cross-country travel would begin to show at the 20-year, long-term point as unauthorized routes begin 

to move towards habitat for wide-ranging carnivores. For black bears, this means an equivalent of 

approximately 45 acres would be moving toward suitability. However, the low rate and intensity of 

impacts from reduced route use and the cessation of cross-country travel do not appear to be 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 255

sufficient to counter other impacts that are occurring from vegetation management and stochastic 

events such as insect outbreaks and stand-replacing fires. Overall, when aggregated with other 

impacts to the wide-ranging carnivore group, impacts from this alternative appear to be insufficient to 

alter the larger trends occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources from vehicle travel off the 

NFTS.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-101 displays the added routes within habitats used by the focal species in this group. 

Alternative 4 would have approximately four percent fewer miles of routes as compared to 

Alternative 1, and one percent fewer unauthorized route additions within habitat than Alternatives 2

and 5. Disturbance would not occur along the 10.5 miles of unauthorized routes included in the 

prohibition of cross-country travel. The approximately 10.5 miles of unauthorized routes under this 

alternative would slowly regain characteristics of suitable habitat for black bears. Downed logs would 

accumulate, shrub species would re-occupy the sites, and eventually the sites would become suitable 

for bear foraging. This impact is limited in scope because of the limited amount of unauthorized 

routes in black bear habitat not added to the NFTS. The 10.5 miles of routes equates to approximately 

19 acres of potential habitat. This is less than 0.04 percent of the modeled black bear habitat. 

Disturbance could still occur on the 14 miles of unauthorized route that would be added to the NFTS. 

The routes added to the NFTS would equate to approximately 26 acres. This additional disturbance 

area is so small in comparison to existing habitat as to be insignificant. When combined with the 

sporadic and limited nature of disturbance, the scope of impact is so small as to be undetectable in 

impact.

Table 3-101. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on 

NF

Black bear 14.2 243.3

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of road. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, they would have little impact, especially since bears are hibernating during much of 

this time period. This is also the period when roads are often blocked by snow drifts and unavailable 

for wheeled travel. Therefore, no impacts are expected to black bears from changes in existing season 

of use. Other wide-ranging carnivores may benefit from reduced vehicle travel through reduced snow 

compaction and reduced disturbance. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

256 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. There would

be no vehicle class changes proposed in this alternative. Changing the mix of use is not expected to 

have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the wide-ranging carnivore group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83. This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel and add 286 

miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Impacts from the added routes to species in this group 

would continue, and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. 

However, the impact of routes added to the NFTS would be small. For example, the 14 miles of 

unauthorized route in black bear habitat, added to the NFTS in this alternative, is equivalent to 

approximately 26 acres, or about 0.2 percent of the area impacted annually by vegetation 

management and prescribed fire, or about 0.04 percent of the modeled black bear habitat. These 

NFTS additions are partially offset at the 20-year, long-term point by the prohibition of cross-country

travel that includes unauthorized routes that would begin to move towards habitat for wide-ranging 

carnivore species. For black bears, this means an equivalent of approximately 16 acres would be 

moving towards suitability. These acres, 20 years after implementation, would have some attributes 

of suitable habitat, including maturing shrubs and accumulating downed logs. Therefore, in this 

alternative the impacts of road system use are countered by the cessation of impacts from crosscountry travel, and somewhat reduced in comparison to the impacts of Alternative 1. However, these 

impacts are still small compared to the impacts of ongoing vegetation treatments on the Forest and 

adjacent lands. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor that when aggregated with 

other impacts occurring on the landscape, they are imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-102 displays the route mileage to be added for use within habitats used by the focal species in 

this group. The California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each 

species in Table 3-95, above. This alternative has the same physical impact to habitat as Alternative 2,

because there is no difference in the routes system available for use.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 257

Table 3-102. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat On NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added 

Routes within Habitat On NF

Black bear 15.7 244.8

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, they would have little impact, especially since bears are hibernating during much of 

this time period. This is also the period when roads are often blocked by snow drifts and unavailable 

for wheeled travel. Therefore, no impacts are expected to black bears from changes in existing season 

of use. Other wide-ranging carnivores may benefit from reduced vehicle travel through reduced snow 

compaction and reduced disturbance. Therefore, the impact is expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 530 miles of mixed use, there may be some additional vehicle travel. But there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to wide-ranging carnivores as compared to 

Alternative 2. This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2, which are 

imperceptible and discountable.

Comparison of Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivores, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. Table 3-103 displays a comparison 

of habitat-change metrics for the focal species in the wide-ranging carnivore group. In general, 

Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to wide-ranging carnivores, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-103. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Black Bear

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF:

60,840 ac)

NF habitat 

available for crosscountry travel

53,550 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA*: 24.7 mi

UA+NFTS: 

254 

UA: 15.7 

UA+NFTS: 

245 4%< A-1

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 

229

10%< A-1

6%< A-2

UA: 14.2 

UA+NFTS: 

243 

4%< A-1

0.6%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 15.7

UA+NFTS: 

245

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

45.0 ac 

(0.07%)

28.6 ac 

(0.05%)

0 ac (0%) 25.8 ac 

(0.04%)

28.6 ac 

(0.05%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

462.3 ac 

(0.8%)

445.9 ac 

(0.7%)

416.8 ac 

(0.7%)

442.3 ac 

(0.7%)

445.9 ac 

(0.7%)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

258 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Habitat)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Ungulate Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species Within the Group: Elk, Mule Deer

This species group is not associated with any one type of habitat, but is associated with a wide variety 

of rangeland and brush-field habitats. Ungulate species that occur on the Modoc are pronghorn, wild 

horses, deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Pronghorn are considered with the sage-steppe species group. 

The bighorn sheep appears to be absent from the Modoc National Forest. Individuals are occasionally 

observed in the Warner Mountains, but these individuals are thought to have dispersed from the Hays 

Canyon Range or other locations along the California-Nevada border (Flores, 2008). Disease 

transmission and epizootics (an outbreak of disease affecting many animals of one kind at the same 

time) appear to be the primary factors affecting bighorn distribution in the Warner Mountains (Flores, 

2008). Wild horses occur on the Modoc, particularly on the Devil’s Garden and Doublehead Ranger 

Districts. Wild horses are managed in the Modoc LRMP as livestock, with a goal to maintain a Forest

population between 275 and 335 individuals (MDF LRMP, 1991. pg. 4-19).

Elk are a relatively recent arrival on the Modoc National Forest (Yamagiwa 2008). Elk distribution on 

the Forest is somewhat limited to the western portion of the Forest and the northern portion of the 

Warner Mountains (Yamagiwa 2008). Elk diets vary greatly geographically (Zeiner et al., 1991) but 

often contain a large herbaceous component. Elk are considered a focal species for the ungulate 

group. 

Deer are widely distributed on the Forest. Formerly the deer herds were much larger (USFS 1991). 

The estimated population in 1952 was 100,000 individuals in northeastern California. By 2004, the 

population estimate had dropped to 16,000 individuals (Modoc MIS report 2007). Mule deer are also 

considered a focal species for this group.

This species group is associated with vegetation types that contain characteristics of early 

successional stages. These characteristics include no or smaller trees and shrubs for a given growing 

site, relatively low canopy closure, and limited amounts of decadence in the form of decay or 

deformity. Sites have more forbs and young shrubs than older or more forested vegetation types. 

Table 3-104 displays the CWHR vegetation type, size, and stage classes that provide a cumulative 

habitat suitability value of at least 0.75 in the CWHR program. For this analysis, habitat conditions 

are considered as “suitable” if a particular size and stage class provides a combined rating of at least 

0.75 for the three components of cover, feeding, and reproduction. The high mobility of the species in 

this group means a much wider array of habitats may actually contain these species at any given time 

as they transit across or through less important or less desirable habitats. The habitats modeled here 

thus represent key habitats required for healthy herds. This section therefore refers to the modeled 

habitats as “key” habitats.

A zone of route influence was calculated to address edge effects, habitat impacts, and other human 

impacts associated with routes. Routes were buffered a distance that varied with each maintenance 

level of route, to model the impacts of different amounts of route use. Route buffer distances were 

obtained from Gaines et al. (2003) and cross-walked to maintenance level in lieu of data pertaining to 

actual vehicle use for each road segment. The buffer amount used for each maintenance level is as 

follows:

Maintenance Levels 1 and 0 300 meters

Maintenance Level 2 900 meters
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 259

Maintenance Level 3 1,000 meters

Maintenance Levels 4 and 5 1,300 meters

The area within the zone of influence was subtracted from the quantity of key habitat available within 

the 6th-order watershed (HUC) to determine the amount of habitat outside of the influence of the road 

system. The proportion of habitat outside the zone of influence to the amount of habitat in the 

watershed resulted in a habitat disturbance index. A ranking was assigned that follows the rankings 

developed by Gaines et al. (2003). The level of influence for each ranking is as follows:

• Less than 50 percent of ungulate key habitat outside the zone of influence is rated a high 

level of human influence

• Fifty to 70 percent of ungulate key habitat outside the zone of influence is rated a moderate 

level of human influence

• More than 70 percent of ungulate key habitat outside the zone of influence is rated a low

level of human influence

Calculation of the habitat influence rankings resulted in the same rankings between each of the 

alternatives. All five alternatives had the same number (five) of watersheds that were rated moderate,

and the same number of watersheds (116) that were rated high. One of the watersheds was rated as 

low human influence for ungulates.

Table 3-104. For the Ungulate Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes Considered 

Suitable

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Elk BBR: 2P, 2M, 3P, 4S, 4P

FEW: 1 (ALL), 2 (ALL)

MHW: 1, 2S, 2P, 2M, 3S, 3P, 4S, 4P

SGB: 2P, 2M, 3P, 4S, 4P

SMC: 1, 2S, 2P, 2M, 3S, 3P, 4S, 4P

WTM: 1 (ALL), 2 (ALL)

WFR: 1, 2 (ALL), 3S, 3P, 4S, 4P

153,550

Mule deer ASP: 2S, SP, 3P, 3S, 4M

CPC: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M, 4P

EPN: 2S, 2P, 3P, 3M

JPN: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M

JUN: 2P, 3P, 4P, 5P

LPN: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M

MCP: 2P, 2M, 2D, 3P, 3M

MHW: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M, 4M

MRI: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M, 4M

PPN: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M

RFR: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M,

SMC: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M, 4M

SCN: 2S, SP, 3S, 3P, 3M

WFR: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 3M, 4M

227,440
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

260 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Ungulate Group: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in 

Table 3-104, above. Direct mortality may occur from collisions with vehicles; however, collisions 

with vehicles operating off road appears to be an exceedingly rare event and has not been reported to 

occur within the Forest. Such an occurence is possible under this alternative; however, given existing 

use and mobility of the species in this group, such occurrences would remain rare and inconsequential 

to species population dynamics. At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an 

increase of off-highway use, direct mortality events would occur more frequently, probably 

increasing at a rate similar to the rate of increase of off-highway use.

A larger impact, both in the short term and the long term, would be the disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to the 

species within this group. Table 3-105 displays the number of acres of habitat potentially available for 

use under this alternative for the focal species (elk, mule deer) within this group. Cross-country travel 

has the potential to trample or masticate browse plants and to impact soil conditions, leading to other 

changes in vegetation that may reduce hiding cover for juveniles or adults. This impact appears to be 

very limited because of the low rate of cross-country travel.

Table 3-105. Alternative 1: Potential Key Habitat for the Ungulate Group that Could be Impacted by 

Cross-Country, Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Key Habitat* Percent of all habitat on MDF open to cross-country

travel

Elk 153,550 100.0%

Mule Deer 227,440 100.0%

*Acres rounded to the nearest 10

Cross-country travel includes the continuation of use on unauthorized routes. Table 3-106 displays 

the route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group. In this alternative, crosscountry travel would continue, along with use of the existing roads on the NFTS. This alternative 

would have the most impact on the ungulate group from disturbance associated with vehicles using 

routes. Deer and elk would have 10 percent and 8 percent more mileage in key habitat than the 

alternative with no added unauthorized routes (Alternative 3). As with the other alternatives, 98.6 

percent of the suitable acres (on a watershed basis) are rated as having a “high” level of habitat 

influenced by the effects of routes. In studies reported by Gaines et al. (2003), elk moved an average 

distance of 800 meters, and deer moved 400 meters when displaced by human activity (Gaines et al.

2003). These types of movements can be an impact on reproductive success, as seen in the reduced 

reproduction reported when disturbance occurred in elk caving areas (Phillips and Alldredge 2000, as 

reported in Gaines et al. 2003). The high level of habitat influence in almost all of the watersheds 

indicates that impacts to reproductive success from the existing route system (NFTS and all 

unauthorized routes) may be occurring. Hypothetically, this may be contributing to the long-term 

decline in deer numbers. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 261

Table 3-106. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes Within Potential key Habitat for the Ungulate Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Habitat 

on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized Routes 

Within Habitat on NF

Elk 40 471

Mule Deer 78 805

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

particular route. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the ungulate group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

table 3-83. Those effects include 4,000 acres of prescribed fire, 6,000 acres of mechanical fuel 

treatments, approximately 1,500 acres of treatments to improve sage-steppe, and 122,500 AUMs of 

grazing annually on the Modoc National Forest. This is about 11,500 acres per year of vegetation 

treatments, of varying intensity, potentially affecting ungulate forage and cover. There is also ongoing

juniper removal and grazing on private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the 

Forest, as well as stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect outbreaks. Vegetation 

treatments and grazing have the potential to impact species in this group by removing forage, 

impeding the growth of forage, or altering vegetative structure that provides cover. Past trends for this 

group have generally been negative for deer and somewhat positive for elk. 

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which would include continued use of 

unauthorized routes; therefore, impacts to species in this group from cross-country travel would 

continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. Because the 

impacts from cross-country travel are estimated to be low, the continuation of cross-country travel 

under this alternative would add only small negative impacts to the impacts from vegetation 

management activities. The impact of unauthorized routes available to public use is small. For 

example, the 38 miles of unauthorized routes in elk habitat, available to public use in this alternative, 

is equivalent to approximately 69 acres or about 0.6 percent of the area impacted annually by various 

mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments, or about 0.05 percent of the modeled elk 

habitat. The 78 miles of unauthorized routes in mule deer habitat, available to public use in this 

alternative, are equivalent to approximately 142 acres, or about 1.2 percent of the area impacted 

annually by various mechanical and prescribed fire vegetation treatments, or about 0.06 percent of the 

modeled deer habitat. Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not constitute a change to habitats, but 

an existing condition whose vegetation change impact has already occurred, and whose conditions 

would continue into the future. Thus, the unauthorized routes have less impact than an acre of new 

vegetation manipulation. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to aggregate with other 

impacts occurring on the landscape. However, compared to the scope and intensity of the other 

impacts occurring on the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 1 of continuing public crosscountry travel are very small. The use of 78 miles o unauthorized route within habitat would impact 

less than 0.06 percent of the mule deer habitat and less than 0.05 percent of the elk habitat on the 

Modoc National Forest. All of the alternatives would have the same number of HUCs with a rating of 

“high” indicating that the inclusion of all or none of the unauthorized routes would change the general 

level of disturbance. These impacts appear to be insufficient to change existing trends to species 

population size, habitat or distribution.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

262 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long term (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover from 

soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where unauthorized 

routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from 

cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by disturbance, indirect 

impacts to food resources, or impacts to cover.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of route to the NFTS. Table 3-107 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group. 

This alternative would not add approximately 11 miles of currently unauthorized routes within elk 

habitat that would continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel in 

Alternative 1. This alternative would add 27 miles (about six percent) more routes to the NFTS than 

Alternative 3, and add about 1 percent more routes (or two miles) than Alternative 4 would to the 

NFTS. The route system would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 5. Alternative 2 

would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for elk due to route-induced disturbance than 

Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Table 3-107. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential key Habitat for the Ungulate Group

Species Miles Of Routes Added To The NFTS Within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Elk 27 miles 460 miles 

Mule Deer 57 miles 784 miles 

The amount of routes added to the NFTS within mule deer habitat is less by three percent

(approximately 21 miles) than the unauthorized routes that would continue to receive motorized use 

under continued cross-country travel in Alternative 1. This alternative would contain 10 percent more 

added routes (57 miles) than Alternative 3, and about one percent more added route mileage than 

Alternative 4. The route system would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 5. 

Alternative 2 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for mule deer due to route-induced 

disturbance than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would result in less disturbance than Alternative 

1, and the same amount as Alternative 5. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, disturbance would be reduced during the period of high-energy use for temperature 

regulation and fetal growth. However, this is also the period when roads are often blocked by snow 

drifts and unavailable for wheeled travel. Therefore, the impact is expected to be minor to 

undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on the ungulate group. The 

source of disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By 

allowing an additional 138 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there 

are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. 

Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 263

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the ungulate group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

Table 3-83. This alternative would prohibit cross-country travel which includes approximately 152 

miles of unauthorized routes in this species habitat. Some impacts to species in this group would 

continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere, because of the 

additional 339 miles of unauthorized route added to the NFTS. However, the impact of routes added 

to the NFTS is small. The roadways can be converted to equivalent-acres by assuming each mile of 

route is approximately 1.8 acres based on a 15-foot wide impact. This means that the 27 miles of 

unauthorized route in elk habitat, added to the NFTS in this alternative, are equivalent to 

approximately 49 acres, or about 0.4 percent of the area impacted annually by vegetation 

management and prescribed fire, or about 0.03 percent of the modeled elk habitat. For mule deer, the 

57 miles of unauthorized route, added to the NFTS in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 

104 acres, or about 0.9 percent of the area impacted annually by these treatments, or about 0.05 

percent of the modeled mule deer habitat. These NFTS additions are offset at the 20-year, long-term 

point by the prohibition of cross-country travel which includes unauthorized routes that have begun to 

move towards habitat for wide-ranging carnivore species. For elk, this means an equivalent of 

approximately 20 acres are moving towards suitability; for mule deer approximately 38 acres are 

moving towards suitability. These acres, 20 years after implementation, would have many attributes 

of suitable habitat, including maturing shrubs and accumulating cover. Therefore, in this alternative 

the impacts of road system use are somewhat reduced compared to the impacts of Alternative 1, and 

reduced additionally by the cessation of impacts from cross-country travel. 

As with the other alternatives, 98.6 percent of the suitable acres (on a watershed basis) are rated as 

having a “high” level of habitat influenced by the effects of routes. The high level of habitat influence 

in almost all of the watersheds indicates that impacts to reproductive success from the existing route

system may be occurring. The impacts of the small percentage differences between this alternative 

and the other alternatives may be essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of 

variable traffic quantities, weather, and stochastic events such as fires.

The impacts of adding routes to the NFTS are small compared to the impacts of ongoing vegetation 

treatments on the Forest and adjacent lands, and the potential impacts of the existing NFTS system. 

Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor that when aggregated with other 

conditions and impacts occurring on the landscape, they would be imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to cover or food resources.

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. However the linear effects of 

roads would still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS roads open for use. Table 3-108 displays the 

amount of route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

264 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-108. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes 

within Habitat on NF

Elk 0 miles 433 miles 

Mule Deer 0 miles 727 miles 

With approximately 433 miles, this alternative would have the least amount of route mileage within 

elk habitat. This would be a reduction of eight percent (approximately 38 miles) compared to the total 

routes available for public travel in Alternative 1. This alternative would add about six percent fewer 

routes in key habitat than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Alternative 3 would thus cause the least energy 

expenditure for elk due to route-induced disturbance of any of the alternatives. The amount of 

disturbance difference between Alternative 3 and the other alternatives would appear to be less than 

the variability in traffic on the road system (see the recreation discussion). 

With approximately 727 miles, this alternative would have the least route mileage within mule deer 

habitat. This is a reduction of eight percent (approximately 38 miles), compared to the total in 

Alternative 1. This alternative would contain about 6 percent less mileage than Alternatives 2, 4, and 

5. Alternative 2 would thus cause the least energy expenditure for elk due to route-induced 

disturbance of any of the alternatives. However, the variability in traffic on the road system, as well 

as background fluctuations in weather and stochastic events, renders these differences undetectable in 

population response. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative would not have seasonal closures, and therefore would have no changes in season of 

use. There would be no effects to ungulates from this action under this alternative. This alternative 

would have no change to vehicle use class. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 on the ungulate group would aggregate with the effects from other 

activities and factors outlined above in table 3-83. This alternative would prohibit cross-country travel 

which includes approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes. The impacts to species in this group 

from the cross-country travel would cease and may partially counter some of the negative effects 

from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. However, the scope and intensity of the impact 

from ending cross-country travel is small. For example, by prohibiting cross-country travel, the 38 

miles of unauthorized route in elk habitat, and the 78 miles in deer habitat, in this alternative are 

equivalent to approximately 69 acres for elk and 142 acres for mule deer of habitat moving toward 

suitability. These amounts are less than 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, of the area impacted 

annually by vegetation management and prescribed fire. They are approximately 0.05 percent of the 

modeled elk habitat and 0.06 percent of the modeled deer habitat. The positive effects from not 

continuing cross-country travel, including use on the unauthorized routes, would begin to show at the 

20-year, long-term point as the unauthorized routes would be moving towards habitat for ungulates. 

For elk, this means an equivalent of approximately 69 acres would be moving toward suitability and 

142 acres for mule deer would be improving. This would be approximately 0.05 percent of the 

modeled elk habitat and 0.06 percent of the modeled deer habitat. As with the other alternatives, 98.6 

percent of the suitable acres (on a watershed basis) are rated as having a “high” level of habitat 

influenced by the effects of routes. The high level of habitat influence in almost all of the watersheds 

indicates that impacts to reproductive success from the existing route system may be occurring.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 265

The limited scope and low intensity of the reduced impacts from cessation of unauthorized route use,

and the cessation of cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient to counter other impacts that 

are occurring from vegetation management and stochastic events such as disease outbreaks and standreplacing fires. Overall, when aggregated with other conditions and impacts to the ungulate group, 

impacts from this alternative appear to be insufficient to alter the larger trends occurring on the 

landscape.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The ungulate group would not be affected 

by disturbance, trampling, or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-109 displays the amount of route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this 

group.

Table 3-109. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS Within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes 

Within Habitat on NF

Elk 26 miles 458 miles

Mule Deer 49 miles 775 miles

This alternative would reduce the amount of routes added to the NFTS within elk habitat by three 

percent (approximately 13 miles), compared to the total in Alternative 1. This Alternative would add

two miles fewer routes than Alternatives 2 and 5, or less than one percent. Alternative 4 would have 

about 25 miles (about 6 percent) more routes added to the NFTS than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 

would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for elk due to route-induced disturbance than 

Alternative 3, but less than Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. 

The amount of routes added to the NFTS within mule deer habitat would decline by 4 percent

(approximately 30 miles) in Alternative 4, as compared to the total in Alternative 1. This alternative 

would add 7 percent more route mileage (48 miles) to the NFTS than Alternative 3, and would add 

about 1 percent less route mileage to the NFTS than Alternatives 2 and 5. Alternative 4 would thus 

cause slightly higher energy expenditure for mule deer due to route-induced disturbance than 

Alternative 3, but less than Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, disturbance would be reduced during the period of high-energy use for temperature 

regulation and fetal growth. The impact of seasonal closures is expected to be minor to undetectable,

as considerable wintering occurs off the Modoc National Forest.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. Whether an auto, 

truck, or OHV is the source of disturbance, it is assumed to that the amount of disturbance is same for 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

266 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

this analysis. There would be no change to vehicle class in this alternative. Changing the mix of use 

is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the ungulate group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

table 3-104. This alternative would prohibit cross-country travel which would include the use of 

approximately 213 miles of unauthorized routes. Impacts to species in this group from the 286 miles 

of routes added to the NFTS would continue, and aggregate with effects from vegetation management 

occurring elsewhere. However, the impact of routes added to the NFTS is small. For example, the 25 

miles of unauthorized route in elk habitat, added to the NFTS in this alternative, is equivalent to 

approximately 45 acres, or about 0.4 percent of the area impacted annually by vegetation 

management and prescribed fire, or approximately 0.03 percent of modeled habitat. For mule deer, 

the 48 miles of unauthorized route, added to the NFTS in this alternative, are equivalent to 

approximately 87 acres, or about 0.7 percent of the area impacted annually by these treatments, or 

about 0.04 percent of the modeled deer habitat. These NFTS additions are offset at the 20-year, longterm point by the prohibition of cross-country travel which includes the use of unauthorized routes 

that would have begun to move towards habitat for ungulate species. For elk, this means an 

equivalent of approximately 24 acres would be moving towards suitability; for mule deer 

approximately 55 acres would be moving towards suitability. Therefore, in this alternative, the 

impacts are somewhat reduced by the cessation of impacts from cross-country travel. However, these 

impacts are still small compared to the impacts of ongoing vegetation treatments on the Forest and 

adjacent lands. As with the other alternatives, 98.6 percent of the suitable acres (on a watershed 

basis) are rated as having a “high” level of habitat influenced by the effects of routes. The high level 

of habitat influence in almost all of the watersheds indicates that impacts to reproductive success from 

the existing route system may be occurring.

Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be so minor, that when aggregated with other impacts 

occurring on the landscape, they are imperceptible and discountable.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-110 displays the amount of route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this 

group. This alternative has the same physical impact to habitat as Alternative 2, as there is no 

difference in the routes mileage or arrangement. Thus, the effects of adding unauthorized routes to the 

NFTS are the same in Alternative 5 as in Alternative 2.

Table 3-110. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Ungulate Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS Within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Elk 27 miles 460 miles 

Mule Deer 57 miles 784 miles 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 267

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road. Effects would be the 

same as those for Alternative 2.

By allowing an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel on the 

NFTS, but there are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation 

in total use. Whether an auto, truck, or OHV is the source of disturbance, it is assumed to that the 

amount of disturbance is same for this analysis. Thus, although more NFTS roads may be open for 

OHV use under this alternative, the total miles of road open for vehicle use is the same as Alternative 

2. Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any additional impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to ungulate species as compared to Alternative 

2. This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2, which are imperceptible and 

discountable.

Comparison of effects on Ungulates, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. Table 3-111 displays a comparison 

of habitat-change metrics for the focal species for the ungulate group. In general, Alternative 1 shows 

the most impacts to ungulate species and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-111. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt4 Alt5

Elk

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

152,550)

NF habitat 

available for crosscountry travel

150,100ac 0 acres 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA*: 38 mi

UA+NFTS: 

471

UA: 27 

UA+NFTS: 

460

2%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

433 

8%< A-1

6%< A-2

UA: 25 

UA+NFTS: 

458 

3%< A-1

0.4%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 27

UA+NFTS: 

460

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

69.2 ac 

(0.05%)

49.1 ac 

(0.03%)

0 ac (0%) 45.5 ac 

(0.03%)

49.1 ac 

(0.03)%

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

857.2 ac 837.2 ac 788.1 ac 833.6 ac 49.1 ac

Mule Deer

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

227,440)

NF habitat 

available for crosscountry travel

218,940 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 78 

UA+NFTS: 

805

UA: 57 

UA+NFTS: 

784 

3%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

727 

10%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 48 

UA+NFTS: 

775 

4%< A-1

1%<A-2

7%> A-3

UA: 57 

UA+NFTS: 

784 

Equivalent acres 142.0 ac 103.7 ac 0 ac (0%) 87.4 ac 103.7 ac 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

268 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt4 Alt5

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

(0.06%) (0.05%) (0.04%) (0.05%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

1,465 ac 

(0.6%)

1,427 ac 

(0.6%)

1,323 ac 

(0.6%)

1,411 ac 

(0.6%)

1,427 ac 

(0.6%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Riparian Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species Within the Group: Bald Eagle, Willow Flycatcher, Yellow Warbler, Osprey

This species group is associated with habitats along rivers, streams, and wetlands. Species that 

represent this group include the Forest Service “Sensitive” species bald eagle and willow flycatcher. 

Other species include the yellow warbler and golden eagle. Currently, riparian habitats are managed 

according to the standards contained within the Modoc LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA and 

NWFP. Within the SNFPA ROD, Standard 69 states, “Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off of 

designated routes, trails, and limited off highway vehicle (OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise 

restricted by current forest plans or other specific area standards and guidelines, cross-country travel 

by over-snow vehicles would continue.”

The NWFP includes specific guidelines for an aquatic conservation strategy. Standard RM-2 

particularly applies to this project: “Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or 

prevent attainment of aquatic conservation strategy objectives. Where adjustment measures such as 

education, use limitations, traffic-control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, 

and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy.”

These specific guidelines and standards, along with others concerning new development and 

maintenance of existing routes, provide protection for riparian habitats.

Bald eagles are dependent on riparian and river systems to provide foraging locations for fish and 

waterfowl (Zeiner 1990). They primarily use large trees for nest locations that are close to the shore 

of lakes or streams. Jenkins (1992) found that bald eagles on the middle Pit River used trees that 

averaged 112.3 centimeters in diameter and averaged 424 meters from the water’s edge. Known bald 

eagle nests on the Modoc National Forest average 435 meters from the closest stream course. This 

compares closely with nests within the middle Pit River drainage (Big Lake to Pit 5 Reservoir), where 

all nests had a view of the closest permanent water body and averaged 424 meters from fish-bearing 

water (Jenkins 1992, table 3 pg 59). In order to evaluate effects to bald eagles, the riparian habitat 

conservation areas and the pond and lake GIS layers were buffered by 450 meters to provide an 

estimate of the area on the Forest available to potentially support bald eagles. This area estimate is 

considered the maximum potential habitat. The amount of area that actually could provide nesting is 

unknown because the small inclusions of large trees required for nest sites are not mapped. The 

maximum potential habitat indicates those areas where eagles may occur, given suitable foraging and 

sufficient size trees for nesting. 

The maximum potential habitat was then used to calculate a bald eagle nesting habitat disturbance 

index. Routes were buffered by 450 meters to determine the route zone of influence. The habitat 

disturbance index was calculated by dividing the area within the route zone of influence by the 

amount of maximum potential bald eagle habitat within the 6th-order watershed to determine the 

proportion of bald eagle habitat that could be influenced by routes available for public use. A ranking 

was assigned that follows the rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003), using the following class 

breaks:
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 269

• Less than 30 percent of maximum potential habitat within route zone of influence ranks as a 

“low” level of human influence

• Thirty to 50 percent of maximum potential habitat within the route zone of influence is a 

“moderate” level of human influence

• More than 50 percent of maximum potential habitat within the route zone of influence is a 

“high” level of human influence

The quantity of routes within the maximum potential habitat was determined for each alternative, as 

well as the amount of maximum potential habitat available for cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Because the maximum potential habitat is substantially larger than the known nesting and roosting 

habitat, the analysis also calculated the quantity of routes and the area open to cross-country travel 

within 0.25 miles of known roosts or nests for each alternative.

Willow flycatchers breed in riparian thickets during the summer months (Bombay et al. 2003) and 

spend the remainder of the year in Mexico and Central America. They breed in shrubby riparian 

vegetation that has at least some surface water or saturated soil within the territory during early 

breeding in June (Bombay et al. 2003). Observations are primarily limited to the Warner Mountains

(USFS 2007). Because willow flycatchers are very habitat specific, only known locations were 

analyzed. The area within 0.25 miles of known willow flycatcher activity centers is approximately 

1,760 acres. Other areas may provide long-term potential habitat, but are not analyzed for impacts 

from changes proposed by this project because of concerns related to actions outside of this project. 

See the cumulative effects section for more discussion. The effects of disturbance may be 

problematic; in at least one study (Altman et al. 2003) moderate or high human activity did not appear 

to be a factor in nest success. This may indicate that disturbance from human presence is not an 

important factor for this species. Other impacts from brood parasitism and livestock may be more 

important. 

The yellow warbler is found in habitats of wet, deciduous thickets (Lowther et al. 1999). There are 

roughly 86,585 acres of potential habitat for yellow warblers on the Modoc NF when modeled to the 

CWHR 0.75 suitability index level used in this analysis. Yellow warbler populations have increased 

in other areas where livestock grazing in riparian areas has been curtailed, and in locations where 

cowbirds have been reduced (Lowther et al. 1999). 

A 60-meter habitat influence buffer was created to address edge effects, snag loss, downed log

impacts and other human impacts associated with routes. A riparian influence index was then 

calculated, where the proportion of riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) within the habitat 

influence buffer to the amount of RHCA in the 6th order watershed (HUC) was determined. A 

ranking was assigned that follows the rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003). The level of 

influence is as follows:

• Less than 30 percent of total RHCA within the habitat influence buffer is a low level of 

human influence

• Thirty to 50 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a moderate level of human 

influence

• More than 70 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a high level of human influence

Ospreys are dependent on live fish for food (Poole et al. 2002). Because of this requirement, osprey 

distribution on the Doublehead Ranger District is limited (USFS 2007). Osprey habitat on the Modoc 

National Forest is approximately 2,980 acres within 0.25 miles of known sites. Ospreys habituate 

easily to nearby human activity, although individuals nesting away from disturbance may be sensitive 

to human presence (Poole et al. 2002). Adults nesting near highways are vulnerable to collisions with 

vehicles. Because osprey are dependent on large trees or structures that provide suitable substrates for 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

270 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

nest construction, their habitat is not mappable. In order to analyze effects to osprey, the impacts to 

existing known sites is analyzed and used as a relative measure of impact between alternatives.

Table 3-112. For the Riparian Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes Considered 

Suitable

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Bald eagle SPECIAL ELEMENTS (see discussion) 979,490 acres maximum potential

7,320 acres within 0.25 miles of existing activity 

centers

Willow flycatcher SPECIAL ELEMENTS (see discussion) 1,760 within 0.25 miles of existing activity 

centers

Yellow warbler MRI: 2P, 2M, 2D, 3 (ALL), 4S, 4P, 4M

PPN: 2P, 2M, 3P, 3M, 4P, 4M

SMC: 2P, 2M, 3P, 3M, 4P, 4M

WFR: 2P, 2M, 2D, 3(ALL), 4S, 4P, 4M

86,585 acres

Osprey SPECIAL ELEMENTS (see discussion) 2,980 acres within 0.25 miles of existing activity 

centers

Riparian Group: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The California WHR sizes and stages considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in Table 3-

97 above. Although occasional direct mortality to adults may occur from collisions with vehicles on 

highways, this is not known to have occurred from slower-moving vehicles off road. If off-road 

vehicle collisions with the focal species in this group do occur, it appears to be an exceedingly rare 

event and has not been reported within the Forest. At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the 

future), assuming an increase of off-highway use, direct mortality of adults would still be unlikely.

Indirect impacts, both in the short term, and the long term, would result from disturbance that may 

cause individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to 

the focal species within this group. Table 3-114 displays the acres of habitat potentially open for use 

under this alternative for the focal species within this group. Table 3-114 also displays the route

mileage that occurs within habitat on the national forest. 

Table 3-113. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on MDF 

open to cross-country travel

Bald eagle 7,320 w/in 0.25 mi existing

979,490 in maximum potential habitat

100.0%

100.0%

Willow flycatcher 1,710 97.1%

Yellow warbler 79,155 91.4%

Osprey 2,980 100.0%

*Acres rounded to the nearest 10.

Bald eagles appear to be more sensitive to foot travel than vehicle travel (Gaines et al. 2003). 

Anecdotal evidence from long-time observers of bald eagles in northeastern California seems to 

indicate a link between early nesting season vehicle access to nest stands and lowered nesting success 

(B. Turner personal observation, J. Rechtin personal observation; also see Watson 2004 related to foot 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 271

access). Access by vehicles under incubating birds or winter-roosting birds is presumed to be 

detrimental. Vehicle use under nest and roost trees probably results in lowered reproductive success. 

Potentially 7,320 acres within 0.25 miles of existing sites could be negatively affected by this 

alternative.

Direct impacts to willow flycatchers could include disturbance or loss of eggs or young due to 

jostling of willows. Similar impacts have been documented for livestock (USFS 2001a Vol.3, Chap. 

3, part 4.4.2.3). A direct impact to willow flycatchers from cross-country vehicle travel is possible but 

somewhat speculative. Indirect impacts could result from vehicle-induced changes to soil water levels 

affecting willow growth and invertebrate assemblages. For more information on impacts of crosscountry travel on soil moisture and surface water flow, see the section on effects to hydrology and 

soils elsewhere in this document. There are no known occurrences of habitat loss due to off-highway 

vehicle use on the Modoc National Forest.

Yellow warblers could be impacted by loss of eggs or young from the jostling of plants on which 

nests are built. Vehicle impacts that reduce riparian hardwoods such as willows would reduce 

quantities of available habitat for yellow warblers. Impacts on yellow warblers from cross-country 

vehicle travel are possible but somewhat speculative. There are no known occurrences of yellow 

warbler habitat loss due to off-highway vehicle use on the Modoc National Forest.

Osprey may also be affected by cross-country travel by disturbance of nesting birds. Although 

ospreys appear to habituate readily to vehicle traffic, sudden appearance of vehicles in unusual places 

(e.g., off a well-traveled road) has caused osprey to flush off the nest (B. Turner personal 

observation). 

Prohibition of cross-country travel includes the continuation of use on unauthorized routes. Table 3-

114 displays the route mileage that would be available for use by the public within habitats used by 

the focal species in this group. This alternative would have approximately 21 miles of roads within a 

quarter mile of existing bald eagle nests and roosts. Of these 21 miles, only 0.7 miles are 

unauthorized routes. Under the four action alternatives, cross-country travel would be prohibited,

which includes these 0.7 miles. Alternative 1 would thus have 0.7 miles, or 3 percent, more route 

mileage within 0.25 miles of active bald eagle areas than the other alternatives.

Within the maximum potential habitat, there would be roughly 2,850 miles of routes, of which

approximately 234 miles would be unauthorized routes. This is approximately eight percent more 

route mileage within the maximum potential habitat than occurs in the alternative with the least route 

mileage (Alternative 3). This small percentage difference is also reflected in the riparian habitat 

influence index ratings. Alternative 1 has three more watersheds (98 out of 123) with “high” ratings 

than Alternative 3, which has the least number of “high”-ranked watersheds. “high” ratings indicate 

that human influence is high within the area potentially used by bald eagles. For bald eagles, this 

alternative would therefore provide a slight additional amount of disturbance emanating from routes 

than the other alternatives. Because of fluctuations in snow accumulation and when spring snowmelt 

occurs, access to eagle nest and roost areas is highly variable. This variability affects when in the 

nesting cycle disturbance may occur near eagles. When disturbance occurs in the breeding cycle is 

important, as eagles show more sensitivity to disturbance during incubation and early stages of 

brooding than later in the nesting cycle (Watson 2004). Given that the high variability in weather 

probably causes a large variability in disturbance timing, a four- to eight-percent difference in route 

availability appears to be an undetectable amount of impact. 

Table 3-114. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on NF Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on 

NF

Bald eagle 0.7 mi within 0.25 miles of existing use 21 miles of route (total) within 0.25 miles 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

272 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on NF Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on 

NF

233.8 mi. within the maximum potential habitat

existing use

2,851 mi within max. potential

Willow flycatcher 0.9 10.9 miles of route (total)

Yellow warbler 24.7 398.9 miles of route (total)

Osprey 0.8 11.3 miles of route (total)

Willow flycatcher habitat would contain approximately 11 miles of unauthorized routes within 0.25 

miles of known occurrence locations under this alternative. Approximately nine percent more routes 

would occur in this alternative than would in Alternative 3, which does not add any routes to the 

NFTS. In at least one study (Altman et al. 2003), moderate or high human activity did not appear to 

be a factor in nest success. This may indicate that disturbance from human presence is not an 

important factor for this species. Routes may have an indirect impact of altering hydrology, thus 

impacting the amount of riparian shrub habitat available for nesting. This alternative would have the 

most impact from routes, although those impacts are expected to be limited compared to the impacts 

from other land management activities, especially grazing (see the cumulative effects section below).

Yellow warbler habitat would be affected similarly to willow flycatcher habitat. Approximately six 

percent of the total route mileage within potential habitat in this alternative would consist of 

unauthorized routes. This alternative would have the most unauthorized and NFTS route mileage 

within potential habitat at approximately 399 total miles, as compared to the 374 total miles in 

Alternative 3, the alternative that does not add any unauthorized routes to the system. This alternative 

is very similar in the quantity of routes within habitat that would exist under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

Alternative 1 would not prohibit cross-country travel which includes unauthorized routes that equal 

approximately two to three percent more route mileage than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Differences in 

disturbance on yellow warblers between alternatives would not likely be detectable given the 

relatively small changes in route mileage between alternatives. The indirect effect of altered 

hydrology and impacts to aquatic invertebrates are potentially much larger impacts. Because this 

alternative continues cross-country travel which includes the use of unauthorized routes, it would 

have a greater impact on potential habitat than the other alternatives. For the potential changes to 

stream hydrology from this alternative, see the hydrology and soils section of this chapter.

Alternative 1 would have approximately seven percent more routes (11.3 miles) within 0.25 miles of 

a known osprey nest than Alternative 3, the alternative that does not add any unauthorized routes to 

the system. Ospreys readily habituate to human road use (Poole et al. 2002). It appears that the small 

differences in routes between the alternatives are unlikely to have a detectable effect on osprey 

population dynamics. Osprey are seasonal migrants and subject to impacts from changes in fish 

populations, weather during the nesting season, and changes to nest site availability. Impacts from 

small changes in the amount of disturbance do not appear to be meaningful.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

routes. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the riparian group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

table 3-114. Those most important to the riparian group of the effects are the 122,500 AUMs of 

grazing annually on the Modoc National Forest, plus additional grazing actions on adjacent public 

and private lands. This grazing may be potentially affecting riparian species’ forage and cover. Forest 

standards provide protections to riparian areas and reduce impacts due to other management actions 

such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuel treatments (USFS 1991). However, some 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 273

riparian systems on the Forest are still recovering from impacts that occurred prior to the 

implementation of the Modoc LRMP in 1991. For additional discussion on changes to riparian 

systems, see the hydrology and aquatic biology sections of this chapter.

There is also ongoing residential development, timber harvest, and juniper removal on private lands 

within and adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic events such as 

wildfires and catastrophic insect outbreaks. These actions are not subject to the Forest’s standards, but 

in the case of timber harvest on private land, may be required to follow state timber harvest 

regulations that provide for protection of riparian resources. Vegetation treatments and grazing have 

the potential to impact species in this group by removing cover, impeding the growth of cover, 

altering vegetative structure, or altering the relative amounts of different riparian plants (USFS 

2001a). Some potential habitat for riparian shrub species such as willow flycatcher and yellow 

warbler cannot achieve suitability due to past, current and foreseeable actions, particularly grazing 

within perennial wet meadows. Grazing can suppress establishment and growth of willows (USFS 

2001a Vol.3, Chap. 3, part 4.4.2.3). Changes to vegetation may result in changes in insect 

assemblages, which may affect forage quality and quantity for willow flycatchers and yellow 

warblers (USFS 2001a Vol.3, Chap. 3, part 4.4.2.3). Loss of shrubs may also impact osprey by 

affecting the availability of fish. Past trends for this group have generally been negative but have 

improved greatly for bald eagles, culminating in their removal from the Endangered Species List in 

2007. 

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which would include the use of unauthorized 

routes. Therefore, impacts to species in this group would continue, and aggregate with effects from 

other activities that affect stream hydrology and riparian vegetation. This aggregation of effects 

appears to be insufficient to negatively impact bald eagles. Bald eagles continue to reproduce and 

roost on the Modoc National Forest. The Forest has no indication that trends are other than positive 

and reflective of the general trends that led to de-listing of this species. 

Cross-country travel may lead to additional negative impacts to hydrology and vegetative growth in 

riparian areas that can impact willow flycatcher habitat. This may aggregate with ongoing impacts 

from grazing that limit or minimize new willow establishment in wet meadows and removed willows 

in the past. Cross-country travel that reduces shrub density may combine with other impacts such as

grazing, recreation, landing construction for timber management, and residential development.These 

activities increase the distribution and density of brown-headed cowbirds resulting in increased nest 

parasitism of willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. 

The impact of cross-country travel on osprey appears to be minimal because of the osprey’s ability to 

habituate to vehicle presence. Ospreys are long-distance migrants and are therefore exposed to a 

multitude of impacts related to changes in not only the breeding area, but in the wintering areas. 

Changes to food sources can have large impacts to osprey productivity. For example, the removal of a 

fish hatchery as a food source for osprey on the Lassen National Forest resulted in a large decrease in 

nesting osprey on the Hat Creek Ranger District (USFS, Hat Creek Ranger District, unpublished 

data). Examples such as this would indicate that the impacts of occasional increased flushing of the 

small osprey population on the Modoc are probably insignificant at the population trend level. 

Continuation of cross-country travel which includes use on unauthorized routes would also continue 

to provide impacts. However, the impact of unauthorized routes appears to be small. For example, the 

11 miles of routes in willow flycatcher habitat in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 20 

acres, or about one percent of the willow flycatcher habitat modeled by this analysis. Furthermore, the 

roadways do not constitute a change to habitats, but an existing condition whose vegetation change 

impact has already occurred and whose conditions would continue into the future. Thus, the routes 

have less impact than an acre of new vegetation removal. This small additional impact would 

aggregate with negative pressures to population growth such as limited willow habitats and 

potentially increasing brood parasitism. But the additional impact is negligible, and would thus not 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

274 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

alter or accelerate existing trends. Yellow warblers are also long distance migrants and would be 

impacted similarly to willow flycatchers from the unauthorized routes within this alternative. 

In summary, this alternative would add negative impacts, primarily from cross-country travel, to the 

ongoing population trends for this species group. This additional impact is of a minimal nature and 

appears discountable and insignificant such that population and habitat trends would be unaffected.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The bald eagles and ospreys would not be 

affected by vehicle travel underneath nest or roost trees. Loss of young and loss of eggs due to 

jostling would not occur for willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Changes to riparian vegetation 

cover would not occur from cross-country vehicle travel.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of routes to the NFTS. Table 3-115 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group. This alternative would have approximately 20 

miles of route within a quarter mile of existing bald eagle nests and roosts. These 20 miles are all 

existing NFTS routes, as no routes within the quarter-mile zone would be added to the NFTS under 

this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect on bald eagles from the use of added 

routes within 0.25 miles of a bald eagle use location.

Within the bald eagle maximum potential habitat, there would be roughly 2,750 miles of NFTS 

routes, of which approximately 134 miles would be added routes. This is approximately five percent

more added routes within the maximum potential habitat than occurs in the alternative with the least 

mileage of added routes (Alternative 3). This alternative would have approximately four percent

fewer added routes within the maximum potential habitat than Alternative 1. This small percentage 

difference is also reflected in the habitat influence index ratings. Alternative 2 has one more 

watershed (96 out of 123) with “high” ratings than Alternative 3, which has the least number of

“high”-ranked watersheds. Alternative 2 has two fewer watersheds with “high” ratings than 

Alternative 1. “High” ratings indicate that human influence is high within the area potentially used by 

bald eagles. For bald eagles, this alternative would therefore provide a slight amount of disturbance 

reduction compared to Alternative 1. Given that the high variability in weather probably causes a 

large variability in disturbance timing, a one- to five-percent difference in route availability appears to 

be undetectable in amount of impact. 

Table 3-115. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS Within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Bald eagle 0 mi within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

133.8 mi. within the maximum potential habitat

20 miles within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

2,751 mi within max. potential

Willow flycatcher 0.1 miles 10.1 miles 

Yellow warbler 15.1 miles 389 miles 

Osprey 0.6 miles 11.1 miles 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 275

Willow flycatcher habitat would contain approximately 10 miles of routes within 0.25 miles of known 

occurrence locations under this alternative. Approximately two percent more routes would occur in 

this alternative than would in Alternative 3, which has the least amount of routes. This alternative 

would have approximately seven percent less route mileage than Alternative 1, where allowing crosscountry travel includes the continued use of one mile of unauthorized routes within willow flycatcher

habitat. Routes may have an indirect impact of altering hydrology and thus impacting the amount of 

riparian shrub habitat available for nesting. This alternative would have an intermediate impact to 

hydrology from routes, as compared to the other alternatives. The impacts from disturbance and 

changes to riparian habitats caused by altered stream flows are expected to be limited, compared to 

the impacts from other land management activities, especially grazing (see the hydrology section 

elsewhere and the cumulative effects section below).

Yellow warbler habitat would be affected similarly to willow flycatcher habitat. Approximately four 

percent of the route mileage within potential habitat in this alternative would consist of added routes. 

This alternative would have an intermediate quantity of route mileage within potential habitat at 

approximately 389 total miles, as compared to the 374 total miles in Alternative 3, the alternative 

with the smallest mileage of routes. Alternative 1 would have approximately two percent more route 

mileage in potential yellow warbler habitat than would occur in Alternative 2. The quantity of route 

mileage in Alternative 2 is approximately one percent more than would occur in Alternative 4, and 

the same as Alternative 5. Differences in disturbance to yellow warblers between alternatives would 

not likely be detectable, given the relatively small changes in route mileage between alternatives. The 

indirect effect of altered hydrology and impacts to aquatic invertebrates are potentially much larger 

impacts. Because this alternative prohibits cross-country travel, it would have a smaller impact on 

potential habitat than Alternative 1, but would still have more impact than Alternative 3, which does 

not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. For more discussion of the potential changes to stream 

hydrology from this alternative see the hydrology and soils section of this chapter.

Alternative 2 would have approximately five percent more route mileage (11.3 miles) within 0.25 

miles of a known osprey nest than Alternative 3, the alternative with the least route mileage. 

Alternative 2 would also have approximately two percent less route mileage than Alternative 1. It 

appears that the small differences in route mileage between the alternatives are unlikely to have a 

detectable effect on osprey population dynamics given osprey’s tolerance to human activity. Osprey 

are seasonal migrants and subject to impacts from changes in fish populations, weather during the 

nesting season, and changes to nest site availability. Impacts from small changes in the amount of 

disturbance do not appear to be meaningful.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities of bald eagles such as pair-bonding, nest initiation, 

incubation and early brooding may have less disturbance resulting in more successful reproduction. 

The seasonal closures would also reduce disturbance at winter roosts, potentially providing bald 

eagles with additional energy reserves. Willow flycatchers, yellow warblers, and osprey would be 

absent during the seasonal closures, as they are seasonal migrants. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 138 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel. But there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on this focal group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

276 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the riparian group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

table 3-83. Forest standards provide protections to riparian areas and reduce impacts due to 

management actions (USFS 1991). However, some riparian systems on the Forest are still recovering 

from impacts that occurred prior to the implementation of the Modoc LRMP in 1991. For additional 

discussion on changes to riparian systems, see the hydrology and aquatic biology sections of this 

chapter.

There is also ongoing residential development, timber harvest, juniper removal, and grazing on 

private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic 

events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect outbreaks. Vegetation treatments and grazing have the 

potential to impact species in this group by removing cover, impeding the growth of cover, altering 

vegetative structure, or altering the relative amounts of different riparian plants. Changes to 

vegetation may result in changes in insect assemblages, which may affect forage quality and quantity 

for willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Past trends for this group have generally been negative 

but have improved greatly for bald eagles, culminating in their removal from the Endangered Species 

List in 2007. 

This alternative would not continue cross-country travel; therefore, cross-country travel impacts to 

species in this group would cease and no longer aggregate with effects from other activities that affect 

stream hydrology and riparian vegetation. See the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 1 

above for more information on this aggregation of effects. 

The addition of 339 miles of routes to the NFTS would also continue to provide impacts. However, 

the impact of adding the routes to the NFTS is small. For example, the 10.1 miles of added route and 

pre-existing NFTS route in willow flycatcher habitat in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 

18 acres. This small additional impact would aggregate with negative pressures to population growth 

such as limited willow habitats, impacts occurring during migration and on the wintering grounds, 

and potentially increasing brood parasitism. However, the additional impact from route additions 

under this alternative is negligible and would thus not alter or accelerate existing trends. Yellow 

warblers, willow flycatchers, and osprey are also long-distance migrants. They would suffer little 

relative impact from the route added to the NFTS within this alternative, compared to the ongoing

impacts to habitat they use during other parts of their life cycle. 

In summary, this alternative would add fewer negative impacts to the ongoing population trends for 

this species group than Alternative 1. The primary reason for the lower amount of impact is the 

prohibition of cross-country travel and the reduced amount of routes available for public travel, as 

compared to Alternative 1. The small amount of impact that this alternative would add to existing 

population and habitat trends is of a minimal nature and appears discountable and insignificant.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The bald eagles and ospreys would not be 

affected by vehicle travel underneath nest or roost trees. Loss of young and loss of eggs due to 

jostling would not occur for willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Changes to riparian vegetation 

cover would not occur from cross-country vehicle travel.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 277

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. However, the linear effects of 

routes would still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS available for use. Table 3-116 displays the route

mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group. This alternative would have 

approximately 20 miles of NFTS routes within a quarter mile of existing bald eagle nests and roosts. 

Of these 20 miles, none would be unauthorized routes. Therefore, this alternative would have no 

effect on bald eagles from the addition of unauthorized routes within 0.25 miles of a bald eagle use 

location.

Within the maximum potential habitat, there would be roughly 2,617 miles of routes, of which none 

would be added unauthorized routes. This is approximately eight percent less route mileage within the 

maximum potential habitat, than occurs in the alternative that does not prohibit cross-country travel 

which includes the use of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1). This percentage difference is also 

reflected in the habitat influence index ratings. Alternative 3 has three less watersheds (98 out of 123) 

with “High” ratings than Alternative 1, which has the largest number of “high”-ranked watersheds. 

Alternative 2 has one more watershed with a “high” rating than Alternative 3. “High” ratings indicate 

that human influence is high within the area potentially used by bald eagles. This alternative would 

also have four to five percent less route mileage within bald eagle maximum potential habitat than 

alternatives 2, 4, and 5. For bald eagles, this alternative would therefore provide some disturbance 

reduction compared to the other alternatives. Given that the high variability in weather probably 

causes a large variability in disturbance timing, a four- to eight-percent difference in route availability 

appears to be an undetectable amount of impact. 

Table 3-116. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat

Bald eagle 0 mi within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

0 mi. within the maximum potential habitat

20 mi within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

2,617 mi within max. potential

Willow flycatcher 0 miles 9.9 miles 

Yellow warbler 0 miles 374 miles 

Osprey 0 miles 10.5 miles 

Willow flycatcher habitat would contain approximately 10 miles of routes within 0.25 miles of known 

occurrence locations under this alternative. Approximately nine percent less route mileage would 

occur in this alternative than would in Alternative 1, which has the largest amount of route mileage 

near existing willow flycatcher sites. This alternative would have approximately two percent less 

route mileage than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Routes may have an indirect impact of altering hydrology 

and thus impacting the amount of riparian shrub habitat available for nesting. This alternative would 

have the least impact to hydrology from routes. The impacts from disturbance and changes to riparian 

habitats caused by altered stream flows are expected to be limited, compared to the impacts from 

other land management activities, especially grazing (see the hydrology section elsewhere and the 

cumulative effects section below).

Yellow warbler habitat would be affected similarly to willow flycatcher habitat. There would be no 

addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS under this alternative. This alternative would have the 

lowest quantity of route mileage within potential habitat at approximately 374 total miles as 

compared to the 399 total miles in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would have approximately 

three to four percent more routes in potential yellow warbler habitat. Differences in disturbance to 

yellow warblers between alternatives would not likely be detectable given the relatively small 

changes in route mileage between alternatives. The indirect effect of altered hydrology and impacts to 

aquatic invertebrates are potentially much larger impacts. Because this alternative does not add any 

unauthorized routes, it would have the least impact on potential habitat. For more discussion of the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

278 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

potential changes to stream hydrology from this alternative, see the hydrology and soils section of this 

chapter.

Alternative 3 would have approximately seven percent less route mileage (11.3 miles) within 0.25 

miles of a known osprey nest than Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have approximately five 

percent more route mileage than this alternative. It appears that the small differences in route mileage 

between the alternatives are unlikely to have a detectable effect on osprey population dynamics, given 

osprey’s tolerance to human activity. Osprey are seasonal migrants and subject to impacts from 

changes in fish populations, weather during the nesting season, and changes to nest site availability. 

Impacts from small changes in the amount of disturbance do not appear to be meaningful.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

There would be no changes to vehicle class in this alternative. Changes to class of use are not 

expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of disturbance, whether an auto, truck, 

or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. Changing the mix of use is not expected to have 

any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and would discontinue crosscountry travel. The impacts to species in this group from the cross-country travel which includes the 

use of unauthorized routes would cease, and may partially counter some of the effects from 

vegetation management and grazing occurring elsewhere. However, the scope and intensity of the 

impact from cross-country travel is small. For example, 25 miles of unauthorized routes that would no 

longer be used with the prohibition of cross-country travel would convert slowly back to yellow 

warbler habitat over time. This is equivalent to approximately 46 acres, or less than 0.02 percent of 

the modeled yellow warbler habitat. The positive effects from prohibiting cross-country travel begin 

to show immediately for species such as willow flycatchers and yellow warblers that may suffer 

direct mortality from nest damage or jostling. However, the vehicle-caused mortality appears to be 

very small in relation to the potential for mortality from grazing. Livestock are more numerous than 

vehicles, and spend more time in and adjacent to riparian shrubs (122,500 animal-unit months versus 

897 primary-use and 22,755 secondary-use OHV visits (English et al. 2004)). At the 20-year, longterm point, some additional riparian habitat may have begun to accumulate from the prohibition of 

cross-country travel. However, the low rate and intensity of impacts from the cessation of crosscountry travel do not appear to be sufficient to counter other impacts that are occurring from grazing, 

vegetation management, and stochastic events such as breeding season, inclement weather, and standreplacing fires. Overall, when aggregated with other impacts to the riparian group, impacts from this 

alternative appear to be insufficient to alter the larger trends occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. In habitat where cross-country travel is 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 279

prohibited, the bald eagles and ospreys would not be affected by vehicle travel underneath nest or 

roost trees. Potential loss of young and loss of eggs due to jostling would not occur for willow 

flycatchers and yellow warblers. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 286 miles of routes to the NFTS. Table 117 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group. This alternative would have approximately 20 

miles of route within a quarter mile of existing bald eagle nests and roosts. Of these 20 miles, none 

are unauthorized routes. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect on bald eagles from the use 

of unauthorized routes within a quarter mile of a bald eagle use location.

Within the bald eagle maximum potential habitat, there would be roughly 2,728 miles of routes, of 

which approximately 111 miles would be added routes. This is approximately four percent more route

mileage within the maximum potential habitat than occurs in the alternative that prohibits crosscountry travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS (Alternative 3). This alternative 

would have approximately four percent less route mileage within the bald eagle maximum potential 

habitat than Alternative 1. This small percentage difference is also reflected in the habitat influence 

index ratings. Alternative 4 has one more watershed (96 out of 123) with “high” ratings than 

Alternative 3, which has the least number of “High”-ranked watersheds. Alternative 4 has two fewer 

watersheds with “high” ratings than Alternative 1. “High” ratings indicate that human influence is 

high within the area potentially used by bald eagles. For bald eagles, this alternative would therefore 

provide a slight amount of disturbance reduction compared to Alternative 1. Given that the high 

variability in spring weather probably causes a large variability in disturbance timing, a four percent

difference in route mileage appears to be an undetectable amount of impact. 

Table 3-117. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS Within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Bald eagle 0 mi with 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

111.3 mi. within the maximum potential habitat

20 mi with 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

2,728 mi within max. potential

Willow flycatcher 0.1 miles 10.1 miles 

Yellow warbler 12.6 miles 387 miles 

Osprey 0.6 miles 11.1 miles 

Willow flycatcher habitat would contain approximately 11 miles of routes within 0.25 miles of known 

occurrence locations under this alternative. Approximately two percent more routes would occur in 

this alternative than in Alternative 3, which does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This 

alternative would have approximately seven percent less route mileage than Alternative 1. Routes 

may have an indirect impact of altering hydrology and thus impact the amount of riparian shrub 

habitat available for nesting. This alternative would have an intermediate impact to hydrology from 

routes. The impacts from disturbance and changes to riparian habitats caused by altered stream flows 

are expected to be limited, compared to the impacts from other land management activities, especially 

grazing (see the hydrology section elsewhere and the cumulative effects section below).

Yellow warbler habitat would be affected similarly to willow flycatcher habitat. Approximately three 

percent of the total route mileage within potential habitat in this alternative would consist of 

unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. This alternative would have an intermediate quantity of route 

mileage within potential yellow warbler habitat with approximately 387 total miles as compared to 

the 374 total miles in Alternative 3, the alternative where no unauthorized routes are added to the 

NFTS. Alternative 1 would have approximately three percent more routes in potential yellow warbler 

habitat than would occur in Alternative 4. The route mileage in Alternative 4 is approximately one 

percent more than would occur in Alternatives 2 and 5. Differences in disturbance to yellow warblers 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

280 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

between alternatives would not likely be detectable, given the relatively small changes in route 

mileage between alternatives. The indirect effect of altered hydrology and impacts to aquatic 

invertebrates are potentially larger impacts. Because this alternative prohibits cross-country travel, it 

would have a smaller impact on potential habitat than Alternative 1. However, it would still have 

more impact than Alternative 3, which does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. For more 

discussion of the potential changes to stream hydrology and aquatic invertebrates from this 

alternative, see the hydrology and aquatic biology sections of this chapter.

Alternative 4 would have approximately six percent more route mileage (11.3 miles) within a quarter 

mile of a known osprey nest than Alternative 3, the alternative with the lowest route mileage. 

Alternative 4 would also have approximately two percent less route mileage than Alternative 1. It 

appears that the small differences in route mileage between the alternatives are unlikely to have a 

detectable effect on osprey population dynamics, given osprey’s tolerance to human activity. Osprey 

are seasonal migrants and subject to impacts from changes in fish populations, weather during the 

nesting season, and changes to nest site availability. Impacts from small changes in the amount of 

disturbance do not appear to be meaningful.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities of bald eagles such as pair-bonding, nest initiation, 

incubation, and early brooding may have less disturbance resulting in more successful reproduction. 

The seasonal closures would also reduce disturbance at winter roosts, potentially providing bald 

eagles with additional energy reserves. Willow flycatchers, yellow warblers and osprey would be 

absent during the seasonal closures, as they are seasonal migrants. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on the riparian group. The 

source of disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. 

This alternative would have no change in vehicle class. Changing the mix of use is not expected to 

have any impacts on the riparian group.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the riparian group would aggregate with the effects outlined above in 

table 3-83. For additional discussion on changes to riparian systems, see the hydrology and aquatic 

biology sections of this chapter. Past trends for this group have generally been negative, but have 

improved greatly for bald eagles, culminating in their removal from the Endangered Species List in 

2007. 

This alternative would not continue cross-country travel; therefore, impacts to species in this group 

from cross-country travel would cease and no longer aggregate with effects from other activities that 

affect stream hydrology and riparian vegetation. See the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 

1 above for more information on this aggregation of effects. 

The addition of 286 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would also continue to provide 

impacts. However, the impact of adding the unauthorized routes to the NFTS is small. For example, 

the 10.1 miles of route in willow flycatcher habitat, added to the NFTS in this alternative, is 

equivalent to approximately 18 acres. This small additional impact would aggregate with negative 

pressures to population growth such as limited willow habitats and potentially increasing brood 

parasitism, as well as grazing induced mortality and changes to riparian shrub vegetation. However, 

the additional impact from vehicle disturbance is negligible, and would thus not alter, or accelerate,

existing trends. Yellow warblers, osprey, and willow flycatchers, and juvenile bald eagles are also 

long-distance migrants. They would suffer little relative impact from the unauthorized routes added to 

the NFTS within this alternative, compared to the ongoing impacts to habitat they use during other 

parts of their life cycle. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 281

In summary, this alternative would add fewer negative impacts to the ongoing population trends for 

this species group than Alternative 1, 2 and 5, but more than Alternative 3. The primary reason for the 

lower amount of impact is the prohibition of cross-country travel and the reduced amount of route

added to the NFTS. The small amount of impact that this alternative would add to existing population 

and habitat trends is of a minimal nature and appears discountable and insignificant.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. Table 3-118 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group for this alternative. This alternative has the 

same route configuration as Alternative 2. Because the route system is the same, the effects to 

riparian species are the same for this alternative (Alternative 5) and Alternative 2.

Table 3-118. Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Riparian Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes 

within Habitat on NF

Bald eagle 0 mi within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

133.8 mi. within the maximum potential habitat

20 mi within 0.25 miles of existing eagle use

2,751 mi within max. potential habitat

Willow flycatcher 0.1 miles 10.1 miles 

Yellow warbler 15.1 miles 389 miles 

Osprey 0.6 miles 11.1 miles 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities of bald eagles such as pair-bonding, nest initiation, 

incubation and early brooding may have less disturbance, thereby resulting in more successful 

reproduction. The seasonal closures would also reduce disturbance at winter roosts potentially 

providing bald eagles with additional energy reserves. Willow flycatchers, yellow warblers and 

osprey would be absent during the seasonal closures as they are seasonal migrants. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on riparian wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to riparian species, as compared to Alternative 2. 

This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2, which are imperceptible and 

discountable.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

282 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Comparison of Effects on the Riparian Group, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. The first two tables (Table 3-119, 

Table 3-120) display the relative impacts at the watershed level of the five alternatives. 

Table 3-119. Riparian Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative

Number of HUCs with each Habitat Influence Rank Rating, Where each HUC Contains some Riparian Reserve

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt4 Alt5

Low 86 87 89 87 87

Moderate 27 27 25 27 27

High 4 3 3 3 3

Table 3-120. Bald Eagle Habitat Influence Rank Ratings, by Alternative

Number of HUCs with each Habitat Influence Rank Rating, Where each HUC Contains some Riparian Reserve

Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt4 Alt5

Low 9 9 10 9 9

Moderate 16 18 18 18 18

High 98 96 95 96 96

Table 3-121. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Bald eagle

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

7,320 within 

1⁄4 mi zone: 

979,490 ac 

within max. 

potential 

habitat)

NF habitat 

available to crosscountry travel (1/4-

mi zone)

7,320 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat (1/4 -mi 

zone)

UA*: 0.7

UA+NFTS: 21 

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 

20.3 

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

20.3 

UA 0

UA+NFTS: 

20.3 

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

20.3 

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of 1⁄4 mi 

zone Habitat)

1.3 ac (0.02%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of 1⁄4 mi zone 

Habitat)

38.2 ac (0.5%) 36.9 ac (0.5%) 36.9 ac (0.5%) 36.9 ac (0.5%) 36.9 ac (0.5%)

Area of maximum 

potential habitat 

available to crosscountry travel

979,490 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat (maximum 

potential habitat)

UA*: 233.8

UA+NFTS: 

2,851 

UA:133.8

UA+NFTS: 

2,751 

4%<A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

2,617

8%< A-1

5%< A-2 

UA 111.3

UA+NFTS: 

2,728

3%< A-1

1%< A-2

4%> A-3 

UA: 133.8 

UA+NFTS: 

2,751

4%< A-1 

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of 

maximum 

potential Habitat)

425.5 ac 

(0.04%)

243.5 ac 

(0.02%)

0 ac (0%) 202.5 ac 

(0.02%)

243.5 ac 

(0.02%)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 283

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of maximum 

potential Habitat)

5,189 ac 

(0.5%)

5,007 ac 

(0.5%)

4,763 ac 

(0.5%)

4,965 ac 

(0.5%)

5,007 ac 

(0.5%)

Willow 

flycatcher

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

1,760)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

1,713 acres 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 1.0 

UA+NFTS: 

10.9 

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

10.1 mi

7%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 9.9

9%< A-1

2%< A-2

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

10.1

7%< A-1

0%<A-2

2%> A-3

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

10.1

7%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

1.8 ac (0.1%) 0.4 ac (0.02%) 0 ac (0%) 0.4 ac (0.02%) 0.4 ac (0.02%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

19.8 ac (1.1%) 18.4 ac (1.0%) 18.0 ac (1.0%) 18.4 ac (1.0%) 18.4 ac (1.0%)

Yellow 

warbler

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

86,585)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

79,155 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

24.7 UA mi

398.9 mi

15.1 UA mi

389.3mi

2% < A-1

0 UA mi

374.2 mi

6% < A-1

4% < A-2

12.6 UA mi

386.8 mi

3% < A-1

1%< A-2

3%> A-3

15.1 UA mi

389.3mi

2% < A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

Osprey

(Modeled 

habitat on 

the MDF: 

2,980 

acres)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

2,980 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

0.8 UA mi

11.3 mi

0.6 UA mi

11.1 mi

3%< A-1

0 UA mi

10.5 mi

10%< A-1

7%< A-2

0.6 UA mi

11.1 mi

4%< A-1

1%<A-2

7%> A-3

0.6 UA mi

11.1 mi

3%< A-1

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

284 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Sensitive Species Determinations

Bald Eagle

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect individual bald eagles as crosscountry travel could contribute disturbance or direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding and 

reproductive activities. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would have no impacts above the existing NFTS 

route system, within or adjacent to existing sites, as motorized cross-country vehicle travel would be 

prohibited and no additional routes would be added to the NFTS within 1/4 –mile of an existing bald 

eagle site. Alternatives 2 and 5 would increase the amount of route within the maximum potential 

habitat by approximately 243 acres or 0.02 percent. Alternative 4 would increase the amount of NFTS 

route within maximum potential habitat by approximately 202 acres or 0.02%. Thus, Alternatives 2, 4 

and 5 would have the potential for disturbance effects on bald eagles that may be utilizing the 

maximum potential habitat area more than 0.25 miles from a known bald eagle nest. However, this 

disturbance is a potentiality, not a probability due to the nature of the maximum habitat model. With 

low vehicle use and imperceptible change in equivalent acres (0.04-0.02 percent), any effects are so 

small as to be imperceptible and discountable. Thus it is the wildlife biologist’s determination that the 

Modoc Travel Management Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals but are not likely 

to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. It is also the wildlife biologist’s 

determination that Alternative 3 would not affect bald eagles or their habitat because cross-country 

travel would be prohibited and no routes would be added to the NFTS

Willow Flycatcher

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect individual willow flycatchers, as 

cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding 

and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would have imperceptible impacts above the 

existing NFTS route system as motorized cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited and less 

than 1⁄4 mile of additional routes would be added to the NFTS within willow flycatcher habitat 

affecting approximately 0.02 percent of the habitat modeled as available. Alternative 3 would have no 

effects on willow flycatchers as cross-country travel would be prohibited and no additional routes 

would be added to the NFTS. Thus it is the wildlife biologist’s determination that the Modoc Travel 

Management Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 may affect individuals but are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. It is also the wildlife biologist’s determination that 

Alternative 3 would not affect willow flycatchers or their habitat.

Cavity-Dependent Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species Within the Group: Hairy woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pileated 

woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, and red-breasted sapsucker

This species group is associated with cavities in trees. Species include the pallid bat, a Forest Service 

“Sensitive” species. Other species include woodpeckers such as the hairy woodpecker, black-backed 

woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker and the red-breasted sapsucker. The Modoc 

LRMP, as amended by the NWFP and the SNFPA, provides for a variety of snag densities (snags are 

dead, standing trees).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 285

Table 3-122. Snag Retention Guidelines on the Modoc National Forest

Habitat Density Source of Guideline

Big Valley Sustained Yield Unit 1.5 snags >16” DBH/acre Modoc LRMP 1991

Eastside pine types At least 3.0 largest snags/acre SNFPA

Westside mixed conifer and 

ponderosa pine types

At least 4.0 largest snags/acre SNFPA

Red fir At least 6.0 largest snags/acre SNFPA

NWFP matrix Sufficient snags to support 40% of 

potential cavity-nesting bird population

levels

Northwest Forest Plan

The hairy woodpecker, found in all woodland and Forest types, uses snags and dead parts of trees to 

create cavities (USFS 1991b pg. 3-110). Zeiner et al. (1990) report that hairy woodpecker nest tree 

diameter ranges from 13 to 30 inches. Jackson et al. (2002) report cavity entrances are about 5 cm (2 

inches) in diameter. This would indicate use of trees much smaller than the 13” minimum reported by 

Zeiner may not be physically possible due to structural weakness created in trees smaller than 10-13” 

DBH. 

Black-backed woodpeckers are also found in a variety of forested habitats. This species uses live and 

dead trees with an average size of 14-15” DBH (Dixon et al. 2000). The cavity is often excavated in a 

tree with heart rot, or in the sapwood of a recently burned tree (Dixon et al. 2000).

Pileated woodpeckers are the largest woodpecker in the Modoc area and in most of North America 

(Bull and Jackson 1995). This species uses late-successional forest or younger forest with large 

remnant trees (Bull and Jackson 1995). Roost locations are in trees with existing hollow interiors 

created by decay. Nest trees in the Pacific Northwest are typically snags with large diameters (mean 

DBHs—or diameter at breast height—of 38, 33 and 27 inches reported in Bull and Jackson 1995). 

Pileated woodpeckers are reported to be “tolerant” of human activity near the nest, and to exhibit 

variable behavior near roosts where some individuals may be tolerant and other individuals may 

change roosts (Bull and Jackson 1995). The CWHR and vegetation modeling predicts an estimated

25,360 acres could potentially support this species in mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir vegetation 

types on the Forest.

The red-naped and red-breasted sapsuckers are closely related species of woodpeckers found on the 

Modoc National Forest. The range of the two species overlaps on the Modoc NF, and the two species 

hybridize (Walters et al. 2002). These aptly named birds are adapted for sipping sap from a variety of 

conifer and hardwood species (Walters et al. 2002). Red-breasted sapsuckers may place cavities 

higher in trees than red-naped sapsuckers (55- to 65-foot average for red-breasted sapsuckers, versus 

9.5- to 58-foot averages for red-naped, as reported in Walters et al. 2002). Cavity diameters are 

generally about 1.5 to 1.8 inches (Walters et al. 2002). The minimum size tree used by sapsuckers 

was reported as 6.6 inches (Walters et al. 2002). It appears that, at least the red-naped, is “little 

affected by vehicle traffic when nesting alongside roads” (Walters et al. 2002). Because red-naped 

sapsuckers are mostly limited to the Warner Mountains, the habitat modeling was restricted to the 

Warner Mountain Ranger District. Red-naped sapsuckers do occur on other portions of the Forest; 

however, the Warner Mountains provide the locations where red-naped sapsuckers are routinely 

observed on the Forest. 

Cavity use places pallid bats in this species grouping. Pallid bats are thought to be widely distributed 

across the Forest. The SNFPA FEIS 2001 refers to pallid bats as “roosting habitat generalists” whose 

“foraging habitats requirements appear to be more restrictive” (Vol.3, Chap. 3, part 4.4 pg. 55 (USFS 

2001a)). Some of the roosts used by pallid bats are oak cavities and hollow trees (USFS 2001a, Vol. 

3. Chap. 3, part 4.4, pg. 55) Pallid bats also forage on ground-dwelling arthropods, so open areas are 

important for feeding. The presence of cavities and open areas across much of the Forest provides the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

286 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

conditions that support the assumption of broad distribution. Suitable cavities for pallid bats may 

occur anywhere there are sufficiently large trees to form cavities (assumed to be trees larger than 6” 

DBH). Pallid bats’ preference for foraging in open areas makes determination of habitat difficult. 

Also, the broad nature of habitats used results in none of the CWHR habitat stages meeting the 0.75 

suitability index used in this analysis. Because of the diverse nature and lack of sufficient suitability 

rating, impacts to pallid bats will only be discussed in a qualitative way. 

In order to examine relative impacts between alternatives, a disturbance index was calculated. Hairy 

woodpeckers were used to represent the other focal species in this group. Hairy woodpeckers have a 

relatively widespread population across the Forest and capture both medium- and large-tree Forest

types. To determine the route zone of influence, routes were buffered by 60 meters. The habitat 

disturbance index was calculated by dividing the hairy woodpecker habitat within the route zone of 

influence by the amount of hairy woodpecker habitat within the 6th-order watershed, to determine the 

proportion of habitat that could be influenced by routes. A ranking was assigned that follows the 

rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003) using the following class breaks:

• Less than 30 percent of maximum potential habitat within route zone of influence ranks as a 

“low” level of human influence

• Thirty to 50 percent of maximum potential habitat within the route zone of influence is a 

“moderate” level of human influence

• Greater than 50 percent of maximum potential habitat within the route zone of influence is a 

“high” level of human influence.

Table 3-123. For the Cavity-Dependent Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Hairy Woodpecker ASP: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

EPN: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

JPN: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

LPN: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

MHW: 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

MRI: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

PPN: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

RFR: 5S, 5P

SMC: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

SCN: 5S, 5P, 5M

WFR: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

390,960 acres

Black-backed 

woodpecker

LPN: 4 (ALL), 5(ALL)

RFR: 5D

25,600 acres

Pileated woodpecker JPN: 5M, 5D

MHW: 5M, 5D, 6

PPN: 5M, 5D

SMC: 5M, 5D, 6

WFR: 5M, 5D, 6

25,360 acres

Red-naped sapsucker ASP: 3S, 3P, 3M, 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

ESP: 5S, 5P, 5M

MHW: 3S, 3P, 3M, 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

MRI: 3S, 3P, 3M, 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

19,530 acres
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 287

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

WFR: 3S, 3P, 3M, 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

Red-breasted 

sapsucker

ASP: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

EPN: 4S, 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

JPN: 4S, 4P, 5S, 5P, 5M

JUN: 5S, 5P

LPN: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

MHW: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

MRI: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

PPN: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

RFR: 4S, 4P, 4M

SMC: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M, 6

WFR: 4S 4P, 4M, 5S, 5P, 5M

380,610 acres

Pallid bat NO HABITATS >0.75 (see discussion)

Cavity-Dependent Group: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

Table 3-124 displays the acres of habitat potentially available for use under this alternative for the 

focal species within this group. Cross-country travel includes the use of unauthorized routes. Table 3-

125 displays the route mileage that occurs within habitats of the focal species on the Modoc National 

Forest. Although occasional direct mortality may occur from off-road collisions with vehicles, this 

appears to be an exceedingly rare event and has not been reported to occur within the Forest. It is 

possible that such an event could occur under this alternative. However, given existing use and 

mobility of the species, such occurrences would remain rare and inconsequential to species 

population dynamics. At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase of 

off-highway use, direct mortality events would occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate 

similar to the rate of increase of off-highway use.

A larger impact, both in the short term and the long term, would be the disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to the 

focal species within this group. Disturbance could occur during feeding activities. Vehicles in 

proximity may cause birds to flush from feeding locations. Disturbance may also impact food 

deliveries to cavities, pair-bonding, and cavity construction. Breeding-related impacts may be 

somewhat limited, as early breeding activities may begin when snow impedes or prevents most crosscountry travel.

Hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted sapsuckers, being widespread, are the most available to be 

impacted. At the same time, the large number of acres of habitat means the impacts that do occur are 

diluted. Pileated woodpeckers often forage near or on the ground (Bull and Jackson 1995), and thus 

may be particularly susceptible to having feeding disturbed. Impacts to red-naped sapsuckers may be 

reduced, compared to other cavity-dependent species, as the Warner Mountains with their steeper 

slopes may be less used for cross-country travel than other portions of the Forest.

Cross-country road travel may benefit pallid bats by increasing the amount of openings in the groundlevel vegetation. This effect would probably be limited, as most areas suitable for cross-country travel 

probably have sufficient ground-level openings.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

288 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-124. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group that Could be Impacted by 

Cross-Country, Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on 

MDF open to crosscountry travel

Hairy woodpecker 376,820 96.4%

Black-backed woodpecker 21,250 83.0%

Pileated woodpecker 22,160 87.4%

Red-naped sapsucker 13,970 71.5%

Red-breasted sapsucker 285,910 75.1%

*Rounded to nearest 10 acres.

This alternative would continue to allow cross-country travel which would include the use of 491 

miles of unauthorized routes. Table 3-125 displays the amount of route mileage within habitats used 

by the focal species in this group. Disturbance to cavity-dependent species’ activities could occur 

along these routes. The largest impact would be the increased loss of recently dead trees to 

woodcutting and hazard reduction. 

The habitat influence rating was “Moderate” for 11 of the watersheds, and “Low” for 100 watersheds. 

Of the hairy woodpecker habitat on the Modoc National Forest, 94 percent occurs in a watershed with 

a “low” rating for human influence. This alternative has the most watersheds with moderate ratings,

and has the lowest percentage of habitat with a low rating. The continuation of cross-country travel

results in approximately five percent of the habitat being rated “moderate” rather than “low”. 

As a group, all of the focal species would be most affected by this alternative, as opposed to the other 

alternatives, because cross-country travel which includes the continued use of unauthorized routes, 

would continue under this alternative. The routes and vehicle traffic probably present little direct 

impact to any of the focal species in this group. Indirectly, more route mileage would equal more area 

that would be easily accessible for woodcutting. Woodcutting typically happens in proximity to a 

roadway, resulting in fewer snags near the road. The habitat influence rating of “low” indicates this 

impact does not greatly affect the populations of these focal species. However, there would be about 

five percent fewer acres occurring within a “low” ranked watershed under this alternative than under 

Alternative 3, which prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the 

NFTS. Black-backed woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers are probably 

less affected by continued cross-country travel, as these species tend to be more associated with 

special habitat elements. The special habitat elements of recently burned trees for black-backed

woodpeckers, large trees and ants for pileated woodpeckers, and riparian hardwoods for red-naped 

sapsuckers, are not evenly distributed across the Forest. Black-backed and pileated woodpecker 

habitat show the largest differential between alternatives in the miles of route within habitat metric. 

This alternative would continue cross-country travel that would include five percent more route 

mileage within pileated habitat and 14 percent more miles within black-backed habitat than would 

occur under Alternative 3. For the black-backed woodpecker, this alternative differs from 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 by about six to seven percent in the route mileage within habitat. The mileage 

differences (on a percentage basis) are less for the other focal species. The sapsuckers and the hairy 

woodpecker are affected by eight to ten percent more routes under this alternative than under the 

alternative where no unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS (Alternative 3). There is little 

difference (two to six percent) between this alternative and Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 in the change in 

route mileage within habitat for the sapsuckers and the hairy woodpecker.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 289

Table 3-125. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Unauthorized Routes within Habitat 

on NF

Hairy woodpecker 147.5 1,749

Black-backed woodpecker 12.9 95

Pileated woodpecker 3.3 66

Red-naped sapsucker 5.9 59

Red-breasted sapsucker 123.8 1,363

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

particular route segment. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the cavity-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. Those effects include 4,000 acres of prescribed fire, 6,000 acres of mechanical 

fuel treatments, 1,500 acres of treatments to improve sage-steppe, and 5,500 acres of timber harvest 

on the Modoc National Forest. This is about 17,000 acres per year of vegetation treatments, of 

varying intensity, potentially affecting cavity-dependent species’ forage and cover. There is also 

ongoing timber harvest and juniper removal on private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed 

boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect 

outbreaks. Vegetation management and prescribed fire have the potential to impact species in this 

group by removing important habitat elements such as downed logs, snags, hollow trees, and large 

trees. These elements are used for cover, cavity construction, or are important to the life histories of 

the prey of cavity-dwellers. Prescribed fire and wildfire may also increase the numbers of dead trees, 

or increase the stress levels within trees, resulting in additional insect populations. Generally, this 

group of species is affected negatively by extensive mechanical treatments that reduce these 

important habitat elements and reduce the rate of accumulation of dead trees. Conversely, the species 

in this group tend to benefit from wildfires, prescribed fire, insect outbreaks, and densely stocked 

timber stands. The benefits from these conditions are a result of higher quantities of snags and higher 

insect populations that provide improved foraging for these primarily insectivorous species.

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which includes the public use of the 491 miles of 

unauthorized routes. Therefore, impacts to species in this group would continue and aggregate with 

effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. Because the impacts from cross-country 

travel are estimated to be low, the continuation of cross-country travel under this alternative would 

add only a small amount of negative impacts to those impacts occurring from vegetation management 

activities. The continuation of public travel on the unauthorized routes would also continue to provide 

impacts. However, the impact of the unauthorized routes is small in relation to the extent of habitat 

for these species. For example, the 148 miles of unauthorized routes in hairy woodpecker habitat in 

this alternative are equivalent to approximately 270 acres, or about two percent, of the area impacted 

annually by various mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments, or 0.04 percent of the 

modeled suitable hairy woodpecker habitat on the Modoc National Forest. The three miles of 

unauthorized routes in pileated woodpecker habitat in this alternative are equivalent to approximately 

six acres, or 0.3 percent area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation 

treatments, or about 0.02 percent of the habitat open to cross-country travel. Furthermore, the 

unauthorized routes do not constitute a change to habitats, but an existing condition whose 

vegetation-change impact has already occurred, and whose conditions would continue into the future. 

Thus, the unauthorized routes have less impact than an acre of new vegetation manipulation. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

290 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Alternative 1 has the highest level of negative effects of the alternatives, but these effects are limited 

in scope and intensity in comparison to other actions occurring on the landscape. Timber harvest and 

mechanical fuels treatments must meet minimum retention requirements for downed logs and snags, 

thereby ameliorating the potential negative effects to cavity-dependent species from direct removal of 

snags. Reduced stand density from timber harvest and stand tending results in stronger trees, more 

resistant to insects. The lower rates of mortality in treated stands thus result in lower densities of 

snags and ultimately downed logs. This effect can last 20 years or more until stand density increases 

sufficiently to cause tree stress and death. Snag density is encouraged through the retention of 

existing snags, but as snags fall, the reduced snag recruitment rate can result in areas being below 

target levels of snag density. This is detrimental to those cavity nesters depending on snags for forage 

and nesting substrates. Prescribed fire, wildfire, and insect attacks create additional snags and downed 

logs. At the same time, stand-replacing wildfire, while providing a pulse of snags, can remove all 

living trees, leaving an area poorly suited for cavity nesters for decades. To the extent that snagremoving activities exceed snag-creating activities, there may be a long-term decline in habitat 

quality for cavity-dependent species. The small acreages of unauthorized routes in this alternative 

(e.g., 268 equivalent-acres in hairy woodpecker habitat) are insignificant compared to the quantity of 

treated landscape (5,500 acres per year on the Modoc National Forest; additional would occur on 

adjacent private lands). This is especially true when considering the positive benefits from this project 

are essentially a one-time event and timber harvest is ongoing. In other words, the impact of 286 acres 

of unauthorized route would be undetectable compared to the long-term period of 20 years and 

110,000 acres of timber treatments. Thus, compared to the scope and intensity of the other impacts 

occurring on the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 1 are imperceptible and discountable. They 

do not appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat or distribution.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. The routes and vehicle 

traffic probably present little direct impact to any of the focal species in this group. Indirectly, more 

routes would equal more area easily accessible for woodcutting. Woodcutting typically happens in 

proximity to a roadway, resulting in fewer snags near the road. The habitat influence rating of “low” 

indicates that this impact does not greatly affect the populations of these focal species. However, 

there would be about five percent fewer acres occurring within a “low” ranked watershed under this 

alternative than under Alternative 3, which has the lowest route mileage. This alternative would have 

two percent more route miles within pileated woodpecker habitat, and eight percent more route miles 

within black-backed habitat than would occur under Alternative 3. For the black-backed woodpecker, 

this alternative differs from Alternative 4 by about one percent in the route mileage within habitat. 

The sapsuckers and the hairy woodpecker are affected by five to seven percent more route mileage 

under this alternative than under the alternative with the least mileage (Alternative 3). There is little 

difference (one percent) between this alternative and Alternative 4 in the change in route mileage 

within habitat for the sapsuckers and the hairy woodpecker. The impacts of this alternative would be 

the same as Alternative 5 because they have the same routes. The routes in Alternative 2 would thus 

result in lower impacts to cavity-dependent species than would occur under Alternative 1, have 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 291

essentially the same impacts as Alternatives 4 and 5, and slightly more impact than Alternative 3. 

These impacts would primarily be a slight lowering of available snags adjacent to routes, and 

occasional disturbance of foraging due to passing vehicles. These impact differences are limited in 

scope and intensity.

Table 3-126 displays the route mileage within habitats used by the focal species for this group. The 

habitat influence rating was “moderate” for 10 of the watersheds, and “low” for 101 watersheds. In 

this alternative, 95 percent of the hairy woodpecker habitat on the Modoc National Forest occurs in a 

watershed with a “low” rating for human influence.

Table 3-126. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Hairy woodpecker 114.5 1,716

Black-backed woodpecker 7.6 90

Pileated woodpecker 1.5 64

Red-naped sapsucker 3.0 56

Red-breasted sapsucker 98.9 1,363

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles. These areas would have no 

disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Seasonal closures do not appear to be a factor 

for this species group. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance—whether an auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By 

allowing an additional 138 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there 

are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. 

Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the cavity-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. This alternative would not continue cross-country travel which includes the use 

of unauthorized routes; therefore, impacts to species in this group from cross-country travel would 

cease and no longer aggregate with effects from other activities that affect cavity-dependent species 

or their habitat.

The addition of 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would also continue to provide 

impacts. However, the impact of the added routes is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these 

species. For example, the 115 miles of added route in hairy woodpecker habitat in this alternative, is 

equivalent to approximately 209 acres, or about one percent of the area impacted annually by various 

mechanical and prescribed fire vegetation treatments. The 1.5 miles of added route in pileated 

woodpecker habitat in this alternative is equivalent to approximately three acres, or about 0.01

percent of the habitat on the national forest, or 0.01 percent of the area impacted annually by various 

mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments.

Alternative 2 has a level of negative effects equal to Alternative 5, below those of Alternative 1, and 

above those of Alternatives 3 and 4. The primary reasons for the lower impact compared to 

Alternative 1, is the prohibition of cross-country travel in Alternative 2. The effects of Alternative 2 

are limited in scope and intensity in comparison to other actions occurring on the landscape. The 

small acreages of routes added to the NFTS in this alternative are insignificant compared to the 

quantity of treated landscape. Thus, compared to the scope and intensity of the other impacts 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

292 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

occurring on the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 2 are imperceptible and discountable. They 

do not appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution. The small 

amount of impact that this alternative would add to existing population and habitat trends is of a 

minimal nature and appears discountable and insignificant.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. However, the linear effects of 

routes would still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS routes. Table 3-127 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

The habitat influence rating was “moderate” for 8 of the watersheds, and “low” for 103 watersheds. 

Of the hairy woodpecker habitat on the Modoc National Forest, 99 percent occurs in a watershed with 

a “low” rating for human influence. This alternative would have the smallest quantity of route

mileage of the alternatives. This alternative could potentially add approximately 268 acres of hairy 

woodpecker habitat if all the routes no longer used due to the prohibition of cross-country travel, revegetate into suitable forested habitat. The quantities of potential habitat prohibiting cross-country

travel would be even less for the other focal species in this group because they have route mileage 

within their suitable habitat. For example, pileated woodpeckers have only 3.3 miles of unauthorized 

route in their modeled habitat. This is approximately six acres. Even for hairy woodpecker, the 

amount of habitat added is small compared to the extent of the existing habitat. For hairy 

woodpecker, the 268 acres from routes not added to the NFTS is only 0.07 percent of the total hairy 

woodpecker habitat on the national forest. For pileated woodpeckers, the potential habitat gain is only 

0.03 percent of modeled habitat. These extremely small percentages indicate that even no addition of 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS has no perceptible impact to the population of cavity-dependent

species on the Forest.

Table 3-127. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes Within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes Within Habitat on NF

Hairy woodpecker 114.5 1,716

Black-backed woodpecker 7.6 90

Pileated woodpecker 1.5 64

Red-naped sapsucker 3.0 56

Red-breasted sapsucker 98.9 1,363

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

This alternative would have no change in vehicle class of use. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 293

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which would include use of approximately 

491 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. The impacts to species in this group from the crosscountry travel would cease, and may partially counter negative effects from vegetation management 

occurring elsewhere. However, the scope and intensity of the impact from ending cross-country travel 

is small (see the cumulative effects discussion above for Alternative 1). The positive effects from 

prohibiting cross-country travel would begin to show immediately for species such as pileated 

woodpeckers that forage on downed logs. At the 20-year, long-term point, some additional cavity 

habitat would have begun to accumulate. However, the low rate and intensity of positive impacts 

from the cessation of cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient to counter other impacts that 

are occurring from vegetation management treatments. As noted above, there is a potential one-time 

gain of 268 acres of habitat for hairy woodpecker. This pales in comparison to the 5,500 acres per 

year of timber harvest that is reasonably foreseeable. Thus, at the end of 20 years, the potential habitat 

gain of 268 acres from this alternative could possibly be countered by 110,000 acres of treatment. 

Additional harvest would occur on the adjacent private timberlands, also reducing live tree mortality 

and reducing potential hairy woodpecker habitat. During this 20-year period, some improvement in 

condition for hairy woodpeckers would occur as prescribed fire, wildfire, and insect outbreaks create 

new snags. However, these impacts also would dwarf the impact of the potential additional habitat 

from this alternative. Overall, when aggregated with other impacts to the cavity-dependent group, 

impacts from this alternative are imperceptible and discountable. They do not appear to affect existing 

trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by 

disturbance or indirect impacts to prey or food resources.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-128 displays the amount of route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this 

group.

The habitat influence rating was “moderate” for 10 of the watersheds, and “low” for 101 watersheds. 

Of the hairy woodpecker habitat on the Modoc National Forest, 95 percent occurs in a watershed with 

a “low” rating for human influence. This alternative differs from Alternatives 2 and 5 by less than one 

percent in the quantity of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in the habitat for the focal species. 

The difference in “footprint” between this alternative and alternatives 2 and 5 are, for all intents, 

essentially undetectable. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have the same effects to cavity-dependent

species as Alternative 2.

Table 3-128. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Cavity-Dependent Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Hairy woodpecker 114.5 1,716

Black-backed woodpecker 7.6 90
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

294 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Pileated woodpecker 1.5 64

Red-naped sapsucker 3.0 56

Red-breasted sapsucker 98.9 1,363

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Hairy woodpeckers, black-backed 

woodpeckers, and pileated woodpeckers may see some small reduction in disturbance from seasonal 

closures, but the extent of closures is small in comparison to the distribution of these species. Because 

additional miles of seasonal closure occur on the Warner Mountains in this alternative, red-naped 

sapsuckers would have additional relief from disturbance as compared to the other alternatives that 

would not implement closures in the Warner Mountains. Conversely, red-breasted sapsuckers would 

not benefit from the additional closures.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance—whether an auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. There 

would be no change to vehicle class of use in this alternative. Changing the mix of use is not expected 

to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the cavity-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. This alternative would not continue cross-country travel; therefore, the 

disturbance impacts to species in this group would cease and no longer aggregate with effects from 

other activities that affect cavity-dependent species and their habitat. The continuation of public travel 

on 286 miles of unauthorized route added to the NFTS would also continue to provide impacts. 

However, the impact of the added routes is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these species. 

For example, the 94 miles of route added to the NFTS in hairy woodpecker habitat, in this alternative, 

is equivalent to approximately 171 acres, or about one percent of the area impacted annually by 

various mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments. The 1.4 miles of route added to the 

NFTS in pileated woodpecker habitat, in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 2.5 acres, or 

about 0.01 percent of the habitat on the National Forest, or 0.01 percent area impacted annually by 

various mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments. These impacts are essentially the same 

as those that would occur under Alternatives 2 and 5. 

The small acreages of route added to the NFTS in this alternative are insignificant compared to the 

quantity of treated landscape. Certainly, the quantity of potential improvement is insufficient to affect 

habitat trends or population dynamics. Thus, compared to the scope and intensity of the other impacts 

occurring on the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 4 are imperceptible and discountable. They 

do not appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat or distribution. 

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. Table 3-129 displays the route mileage 

proposed to be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the focal species in this group under 

Alternative 5. Because the route system is the same, the effects to cavity-dependent species are the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 295

same for this alternative (Alternative 5) and Alternative 2. Because the route footprint is less than one 

percent different with Alternative 4, Alternative 5 has essentially the same impacts as Alternative 4. 

Table 3-129. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wide-Ranging Carnivore Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 

within Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Added Routes within Habitat on NF

Hairy woodpecker 114.5 1,716

Black-backed woodpecker 7.6 90

Pileated woodpecker 1.5 64

Red-naped sapsucker 3.0 56

Red-breasted sapsucker 98.9 1,363

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities such as pair-bonding and nest initiation may have less 

disturbance. However, this is also the period when roads are often blocked by snow drifts and 

unavailable for wheeled travel. Therefore, the impact is expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance—whether an auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By 

allowing an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel but there 

are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. 

Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to cavity-dependent species as compared to 

Alternative 2. This alternative has the same imperceptible and discountable cumulative effects as 

Alternative 2.

Comparison of Effects on Cavity-Dependent Species, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. Table 3-130 displays how the 

alternatives compare in number of watersheds with a low habitat influence index, and in proportion of 

habitat acres occurring within a watershed with a “low” route influence index rating. Table 3-130

displays a comparison of habitat-change metrics for the focal species in the cavity-dependent group. 

In general, Alternative 1 shows the most impacts to cavity-dependent species and Alternative 3 the 

least.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

296 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-130. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the CavityDependent Group 

Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

# of watersheds 

with a low habitat 

influence index

100 101 103 101 101

% of habitat acres 

whose watershed 

rating is “low”

94% 95% 99% 95% 95%

Table 3-131. Comparison of Selected Effects, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Hairy 

Woodpecker

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

390,960)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

376,825 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA*: 147.5 

UA+NFTS: 

1,749 mi

UA: 114.5

UA+NFTS: 

1,716 mi

2%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

1,601mi

8%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 94.2

UA+NFTS: 

1,695 mi

3%< A-1

1%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 114.5

UA+NFTS: 

1,716 mi

2%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

268.4 

(0.07%)

298.4 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 171.4 (0.04%) 298.4 (0.05%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

3,183 (0.8%) 3,123 (0.8%) 2,914 (0.7%) 3,085 (0.8%) 3,123 (0.8%)

Black-backed 

woodpecker

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

25,600)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

21,252 acres 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat l

UA: 12.9 

UA+NFTS: 95 

UA: 7.6

UA+NFTS: 90 

6%< A-1

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 82 

14%< A-1

8%< A-2

UA: 6.4

UA+NFTS: 89 

7%< A-1

1%<A-2

8%> A-3

UA: 7.6 

UA+NFTS: 90 

6%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

23.5 (0.09%) 13.8 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 11.6 (0.05%) 13.8 (0.05%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

172.9 (0.7%) 163.8 (0.6%) 149.2 (0.6%) 162.0 (0.6%) 163.8 (0.6%)

Pileated 

woodpecker

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

25,360)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

22,165 acres 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 3.3

UA+NFTS: 66 

UA: 1.5

UA+NFTS: 64 

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 62 

UA: 1.4

UA+NFTS: 64 

UA: 1.5

UA+NFTS: 64
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 297

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3%< A-1 5%< A-1

2%< A-2

3%< A-1

0%<A-2

2%> A-3

3%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

6.0 (0.02%) 2.7 (0.01%) 0 (0%) 2.5 (0.01%) 2.7 (0.01%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

120.1 (0.5%) 116.5 (0.5%) 112.8 (0.4%) 116.5 (0.5%) 116.5 (0.5%)

Red-naped 

sapsucker

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

19,530)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

13,967 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 5.9

UA+NFTS: 59 

UA: 3.0

UA+NFTS: 56 

5%< A-1

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 53 

10%< A-1

5%< A-2

UA: 2.5

UA+NFTS: 56 

6%< A-1

1%<A-2

5%> A-3

UA: 3.0

UA+NFTS: 56 

5%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

10.7 (0.05%) 5.5 (0.03%) 0 (0%) 4.6 (0.02%) 5.5 (0.03%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

107.4 (0.5%) 101.9 (0.5%) 96.5 (0.5%) 101.9 (0.5%) 101.9 (0.5%)

Red-breasted 

sapsucker

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

380,610)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

285,907 

acres

0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 123.8 

UA+NFTS: 

1,363 

UA: 98.9 

UA+NFTS: 

1,338 

2%< A-1

UA: 0

UA+NFTS: 

1,239 

9%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 81.5 

UA+NFTS: 

1,320 

3%< A-1

1%<A-2

7%> A-3

UA: 98.9

UA+NFTS: 

1,338 

2%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

225.3 

(0.06%)

180.0 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 148.3 (0.04%) 180.0 (0.05%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

2,481 (0.7%) 2,435 (0.6%) 2,255 (0.6%) 2,402 (0.6%) 2,435 (0.6%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

298 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Oak Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species within the Group: Western Gray Squirrel, Mountain Quail

This species group is associated with habitats that contain oak trees and other hardwoods not 

associated with riparian zones. Typical species in this group are western gray squirrel, wild turkeys, 

and mountain quail. Western gray squirrels and mountain quail are the focal species for this group. 

Western gray squirrels use the lower-elevation habitats of the Big Valley Ranger District, and are 

sporadically observed on the other ranger districts (USFS 2007). Western gray squirrel presence data 

for the Modoc is almost entirely from oak habitat (USFS 2007). Mountain quail are included in this 

group, although they are also strongly associated with shrub habitats other than oaks. However, much 

of the oak habitat on the Modoc National Forest is often associated with, or located near, dense shrub 

habitats such as mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus sp), Ceanothus, or Prunus species (B. Turner, 

2008 personal observation). Mountain quail habitat is generally steeper, has more cover, more trees, 

and more woody debris than California quail habitat does (Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999). Mountain 

quail have been observed to hull and eat “acorns extensively in the fall” (Gutierrez and Delehanty 

1999). Mountain quail also eat mushrooms in winter, and generally restrict their diet to plant material 

(Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999). Mountain quail are altitudinal migrants that move downslope in fall 

to avoid deep winter snows (Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999).

The Modoc LRMP contains standards and guidelines for managing oaks. The area of the Forest that is 

managed in accordance with the SNFPA (USFS 2004) provides for oak regeneration and oak 

retention during treatments. Management of the Big Valley Sustained Yield Unit provides for oak 

retention under the standards promulgated in the 1991 LRMP. These standards require maintaining at 

least 36 square feet of basal area per acre in deer intermediate and winter ranges, and 10 square feet 

of basal area per acre in other areas of oak occurrence.

In order to examine relative impacts between alternatives, a disturbance index was calculated. 

Western gray squirrels were used to represent the other species in this group. Western gray squirrels 

appear to be more associated with oak habitats than mountain quail, based on the CWHR habitats that 

are important (see Table 3-132, below). To determine the route zone of influence, routes were 

buffered by 60 meters. The habitat disturbance index was calculated by dividing the western gray 

squirrel habitat within the route zone of influence by the amount of western gray squirrel habitat 

within the 6th-order watershed to determine the proportion of habitat that could be influenced by 

routes. A ranking was assigned that follows the rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003) using the 

following class breaks:

• Less than 30 percent of western gray squirrel habitat within a route zone of influence ranks 

as a “low” level of human influence

• Thirty to 50 percent of habitat within the route zone of influence is a “moderate” level of 

human influence

• More than 50 percent of habitat within the route zone of influence is a “high” level of 

human influence

Table 3-132. For the Oak-associated Group: California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable

Species Habitat (CWLW) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Western gray squirrel ESP: 4D, 4M, 5D

MHW: 3D, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

PPN: 4D, 5S, 5P, 5M

141,780 acres

Mountain quail ESP: 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL)

JPN: 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL)

340,000 acres
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 299

Species Habitat (CWLW) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

MCP: 2S, 2P, 3S, 3P, 4S, 4P

MHW: 1(ALL), 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL), 6

MRI: 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL), 6

PPN: 1(ALL), 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL)

SMC: 1(ALL), 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL), 6

SCN: 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL)

WFR: 1(ALL), 2(ALL), 3,(ALL), 4(ALL), 5(ALL), 6

Oak Group: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in 

Table 3-132, above. Table 3-133 displays the acres of habitat potentially available for use under this 

alternative for the focal species within this group. Table 3-131 displays the route mileage that occurs 

within habitat on the national forest. Although occasional direct mortality may occur from collisions 

with vehicles on highways, this is not known to have occurred from slower-moving vehicles off road. 

If off-road vehicle collisions with the focal species in this group do occur, such occurrences appear to 

be rare events, and have not been reported within the Forest. Mountain quail nests could be destroyed 

by off-road vehicle use because of the ground-nesting behavior of this bird. Western gray squirrel 

young are generally arboreal, and away from direct impacts of vehicles. At the long-term analysis 

point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase of off-highway use, direct mortality events may 

occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate similar to the rate of increase of off-highway use.

Indirect impacts to species in this group include impacts to soils that result in less food availability. In 

locations of heavy off-road use, soil conditions can become compacted. Compacted soils could 

potentially reduce acorn production, have lower truffle production, and provide fewer opportunities 

for caching of acorns. Because there are few locations that show extensive compaction from 

recreational off-road vehicle use, these indirect impacts are very limited on the Modoc NF. For more 

information on impacts to soils, see the soils and hydrology sections of this document.

A larger impact, both in the short term, and the long term, would be the disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. This alternative would provide potential disturbance to the 

focal species within this group 

Table 3-133. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Oak Group that Could be Impacted by Cross-Country, 

Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on MDF 

open to cross-country travel

Western gray squirrel 141,060 99.5%

Mountain quail 338,870 99.7%

*Acres rounded to the nearest 10. 

Cross-country travel includes the use of unauthorized routes, and Table 3-134 displays the route

mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

300 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-134. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on 

NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on NF

Western gray 

squirrel

59.0 miles 658.4 miles 

Mountain quail 146.8 miles 1,578.0 miles 

This alternative would continue to allow the use of 491 miles of unauthorized routes. Disturbance to 

oak-associated species’ activities could occur along these routes. The largest impact would be the 

continued disturbance along route edges. Vehicle travel may disrupt foraging activities, resulting in 

more energy expenditures. However, the habitat influence index that was calculated for western gray 

squirrels indicates that roadside disturbance is probably a minor impact. The habitat influence rating 

was “moderate” for eight of the watersheds with gray squirrel habitat, and “low” for 94 watersheds. 

There were no watersheds with western gray squirrel habitat that had a rating of “high”. Of the 

western gray squirrel habitat on the Modoc National Forest, 94 percent occurs in a watershed with a 

“low” rating for human influence. All of the alternatives have the same number of watersheds in each 

of the rating categories. 

Although the watersheds all have the same rating between alternatives, there are differences in the 

amount of habitat that is within the disturbance zone that occurs within 60 meters of a route. Not 

surprisingly, given that cross-country travel, including continued use of unauthorized routes, would 

continue, Alternative 1 has the largest number of acres (30,607) that fall within the route disturbance 

zone. This equates to about eight percent more than the alternative with the fewest acres within the 

disturbance zone (Alternative 3).

As a group, all of the oak-associated species would be most affected by this alternative, as opposed to 

the other alternatives, because this alternative would have the most route mileage. The routes and 

vehicle traffic probably present little direct impact to any of the focal species in this group. Indirectly, 

more route mileage would equal less available habitat for foraging and reproduction. This is 

especially true in the long-term time period of 20 years, when the other alternatives would have 

converted routes into re-vegetated foraging habitat for these species. This alternative would have nine 

percent more route mileage within gray squirrel and mountain quail habitat, than would occur under 

Alternative 3. For the gray squirrel, this alternative differs from Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 by about two 

to four percent in the route mileage within habitat. For the mountain quail, this alternative differs 

from Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 by about two to three percent in the route mileage within habitat. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any route. 

There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the oak-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. Vegetation management and prescribed fire have the potential to impact species 

in this group by removing small oaks. Vegetation management that may affect oaks includes 4,000 

acres of prescribed fire, 6,000 acres of mechanical fuel treatments, 1,500 acres of treatments to 

improve sage-steppe, and 5,500 acres of timber harvest on the Modoc National Forest. This is about 

17,000 acres per year of vegetation treatments, of varying intensity, potentially affecting oakdependent species forage and cover. Much, if not most, of this activity would occur in areas without 

an oak component. There is also ongoing timber harvest on private lands where oaks may not be 

retained at any level. Other ongoing adjacent actions that may impact oaks include juniper removal 

and grazing on private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, as well as 

stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect and disease outbreaks. Prescribed fire and 

wildfire may increase acorn production. Some oak habitat is lost through time as conifers overtop the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 301

oaks, causing them to decline and eventually die. Generally, this group of species is affected 

negatively by extensive mechanical treatments that reduce the quantity of oaks, and affected 

positively by treatments that remove conifers that are competing with oaks for sunlight and water. 

Competition from conifers is an endemic problem in most oak stands due to the long-term effects of 

fire suppression.

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which would include use of unauthorized routes 

to public use; therefore, the impacts described above to species in this group would continue and 

aggregate with effects from vegetation management occurring on the Forest and elsewhere. Because 

the impacts from cross-country travel are limited in intensity, the continuation of cross-country travel 

under this alternative would add minor negative impacts to impacts from vegetation management 

activities. Included in cross-country travel is the continuation of public travel on the unauthorized 

routes, which would also continue to provide impacts. However, the impact of unauthorized routes is 

small in relation to the extent of habitat for these species. For example, the 59 miles of unauthorized 

route in western gray squirrel habitat, is equivalent to approximately 107 acres, or about 0.6 percent

of the area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribed fire vegetation treatments. The 

147 miles of unauthorized route in modeled mountain quail habitat, in this alternative, are equivalent 

to approximately 268 acres, or about 0.07 percent of the habitat open to cross-country travel, or 1.6 

percent of the area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation 

treatments. 

Alternative 1 has the highest level of negative effects of the alternatives, but these effects are limited 

in scope and intensity in comparison to other actions occurring on the landscape. Oak habitat is lost 

through time as conifers overtop the oaks. The mechanical treatments and timber harvest that remove 

competing conifers provide a partial counter to this trend toward loss of oaks due to conifer 

competition. Although timber harvest and mechanical fuels treatments must meet minimum retention

requirements for oaks under the Forest LRMP, oak regeneration can be lost during these actions and 

during prescribed fire treatments. Grazing can also affect oak regeneration (Bartolome et al. 1987). 

The impacts of slow habitat loss due to conifer competition, suppressed regeneration due to grazing, 

and loss of small oaks during other vegetation treatments are occurring across the distribution of oak 

on the Modoc NF. Thus, compared to the scope and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the 

landscape, the impacts from Alternative 1 are imperceptible and discountable, and do not appear to 

affect existing trends to species population size, habitat or distribution.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The western gray squirrel and mountain 

quail would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging habitat. Changes to 

food resources caused by compaction or removal of vegetation by cross-country travel would not 

occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Table 3-135 displays the 

route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

302 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-135. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Western gray 

squirrel

44.9 miles 644 miles 

Mountain quail 118.2 miles 1,549 miles 

The route mileage added to the NFTS within western gray squirrel habitat declines by two percent

(approximately 14 miles) compared to Alternative 1. This Alternative would contain seven percent

more route mileage added to the NFTS (45 miles) than Alternative 3, and about two percent more 

route mileage (10 miles) than Alternative 4. The added route mileage would be the same for both this 

alternative and Alternative 5. Alternative 2 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for 

gray squirrels due to route-induced disturbance than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would result 

in less disturbance than Alternative 1, and the same amount as Alternative 5. The habitat influence 

index that was calculated for western gray squirrels indicates that roadside disturbance is probably a 

minor impact. The habitat influence rating was “moderate” for eight of the watersheds with gray 

squirrel habitat, and “low” for 94 watersheds, the same as the other alternatives. There were no 

watersheds with western gray squirrel habitat that had a rating of “high”. 

Although the watersheds all have the same rating between alternatives, there are differences in the 

amount of habitat that is within the disturbance zone that occurs within 60 meters of a route. 

Alternative 2 has the second largest number of acres (30,089) that fall within the route disturbance 

zone. This equates to about two percent less than the alternative with the most acres within the 

disturbance zone, Alternative 1.

The amount of route mileage within mountain quail habitat declines by two percent (approximately 

28 miles), compared to Alternative 1. This Alternative would contain eight percent more route 

mileage added to the NFTS (118 miles) than Alternative 3, and about 1 percent more route mileage 

(22 miles) than Alternative 4. The routes would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 

5. Alternative 2 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for mountain quail due to routeinduced disturbance than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would result in less disturbance than 

Alternative 1, and the same amount of disturbance as Alternative 5. 

The impacts of the small percentage differences between this alternative and the other alternatives in 

the route mileage added to the NFTS within habitat for the focal species, may be essentially 

undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable traffic quantities, variable hunting 

pressure, weather, and stochastic events such as fires.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may have less disturbance. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 138 miles of mixed use, there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the oak-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. (Also, see the discussion above for Alternative 1 and its effects on oak-dependent 

species.) This alternative would not continue cross-country travel; therefore, impacts from crosscountry travel to species in this group would cease and no longer aggregate with effects from other 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 303

activities that affect oak-dependent species vegetation. The continuation of public travel on 339 miles 

of routes added to the NFTS would also continue to provide impacts. However, the impact of added 

routes is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these species. For example, the 45 miles of route

added to the NFTS in western gray squirrel habitat in this alternative, are equivalent to approximately 

82 acres, or about 0.5 percent of the area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribedfire vegetation treatments. This also equates to 0.06 percent of the modeled western gray squirrel 

habitat. The 118 miles of routes added to the NFTS in mountain quail habitat, in this alternative, are

equivalent to approximately 215 acres, or about 0.06 percent, of the habitat on the Modoc National 

Forest, or 1.2 percent of the area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribed-fire 

vegetation treatments. The small acreages of route added to the NFTS in this alternative are 

insignificant compared to the quantity of treated landscape. Certainly, the quantity of potential 

improvement in habitat that would occur by the passive restoration of unauthorized routes resulting 

from prohibition of cross-country travel is insufficient to affect habitat trends or population dynamics. 

Thus, compared to the scope and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the landscape, the 

impacts from Alternative 2 are imperceptible and discountable. They do not appear to affect existing 

trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution. They are therefore insignificant.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The western gray squirrel and mountain quail would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to 

nests or within foraging habitat that occurs as a result of cross-country vehicle travel. This alternative 

would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting cross-country travel. 

In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover from soil and 

vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where unauthorized routes no 

longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from crosscountry travel would not occur. Changes to food resources caused by compaction or removal of 

vegetation would not occur. 

This alternative would not add any routes to the NFTS. However, the linear effects of roads would 

still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS routes. Table 3-136 displays the route mileage within habitats 

used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-136. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the 

NFTS within Habitat ON NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on NF

Western gray 

squirrel

0 miles 599 miles

Mountain quail 0 miles 1,431 miles

The route mileage within western gray squirrel habitat declines by nine percent (approximately 59 

miles) compared to Alternative 1. In Alternative 3, route mileage declines by seven percent

(approximately 45 miles) compared to the total in Alternative 2 or Alternative 5. Alternative 3 has six 

percent (approximately 35 miles) fewer miles within habitat than Alternative 4. This alternative 

would thus have the lowest energy expenditure for gray squirrels due to road-induced disturbance. 

Even though this alternative would have less route mileage, all of the alternatives have the same 

number of watersheds in each of the rating categories, indicating similar levels of impact from route 

edge effects. Although the watersheds all have the same rating between alternatives, there are 

differences in the amount of habitat within the disturbance zone that occurs within 60 meters of a 

route. Not surprisingly, given it has the lowest route mileage, Alternative 3 has the fewest number of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

304 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

acres (28,129) that fall within the route disturbance zone. This equates to about eight percent fewer 

than the alternative with the most acres within the disturbance zone, Alternative 1.

The route mileage within mountain quail habitat declines by nine percent (approximately 147 miles) 

compared to Alternative 1. In Alternative 3, route mileage declines by eight percent (approximately 

118 miles) compared to the total in Alternative 2 or Alternative 5. Alternative 3 has seven percent

(approximately 35 miles) less route mileage within habitat than Alternative 4. Alternative 3 would 

thus have the lowest energy expenditure for mountain quail due to road-induced disturbance. 

Although this alternative has the lowest route mileage within habitat, the percentage change of miles 

within habitat is less than 10 percent between all alternatives. The impacts of the small percentage 

differences may be essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable traffic 

quantities, harvest, weather, and stochastic events such as fires.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which would include the use of 

approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes. The impacts to species in this group from the crosscountry travel would cease and may partially counter some of the effects from loss due to conifer 

competition occurring elsewhere. However, the scope and intensity of the impact from ending crosscountry travel is small (see the cumulative effects discussion above for Alternative 1). The positive 

effects from discontinuing cross-country travel which includes unauthorized routes, would begin to 

show immediately as new oaks begin to sprout and reclaim disturbed areas. At the 20-year, long-term 

point, some additional oak habitat would have begun to accumulate. However, the low rate and 

intensity of impacts from the cessation of cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient to 

counter the rate of habitat loss due to conifer competition, stochastic events such as wildfire or 

catastrophic disease, or reduced recruitment of oaks due to grazing. Overall, when aggregated with 

other impacts to the cavity-dependent group, impacts from this alternative appear to be insufficient to 

alter the larger trends occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The western gray squirrel and mountain 

quail would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging habitat. Changes to 

food resources caused by compaction or removal of vegetation would not occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-137 displays the route mileage that would be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the 

focal species in this group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 305

Table 3-137. Alternative 4: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group

Species Miles Of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Western gray 

squirrel

34.9 miles 634 miles 

Mountain quail 96.1 miles 1,527 miles 

The route mileage within western gray squirrel habitat declines by four percent (approximately 24 

miles) compared to Alternative 1 and declines by two percent (approximately 10 miles), compared to 

the route mileage added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2 and 5. This Alternative would contain six 

percent more added mileage (35 miles) than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would thus cause slightly 

higher energy expenditure for gray squirrels due to road-induced disturbance than Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 would result in less disturbance than Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. The habitat influence 

index that was calculated for western gray squirrels indicate that roadside disturbance is probably a 

minor impact. The habitat influence rating was “moderate” for eight of the watersheds with gray 

squirrel habitat, and “low” for 94 watersheds, the same as the other alternatives. There were no 

watersheds with western gray squirrel habitat that had a rating of “high”. 

Although the watersheds all have the same rating between alternatives, there are differences in the 

amount of habitat within the disturbance zone that occurs within 60 meters of a route. Alternative 4 

has the second-fewest number of acres (29,630) that fall within the route disturbance zone. This 

equates to about five percent more than the alternative with the least acres (Alternative 3), and about 

three percent less than the alternative with the most acres within the disturbance zone, Alternative 1.

The route mileage within mountain quail habitat declines by three percent (approximately 51 miles) 

compared to Alternative 1. This Alternative would contain seven percent more route mileage (96 

miles) than Alternative 3, and about one percent less route mileage (22 miles) than Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 5. Alternative 4 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditures for mountain quail 

due to route-induced disturbance than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would result in less disturbance to 

mountain quail than Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. 

The impacts of the small percentage differences between this alternative and the other alternatives in 

the amount of routes within habitat for the focal species, may be essentially undetectable against the 

background fluctuations of variable traffic quantities, variable hunting pressure, weather, and 

stochastic events such as fires.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may have less disturbance. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. There would

be no change in vehicle class of use in this alternative. Changing the mix of use is not expected to 

have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the oak-dependent group would aggregate with the effects outlined 

above in table 3-83. (Also, see the discussion above for Alternative 1 and its effects on oak-dependent 

species.). This alternative would not continue cross-country travel; therefore, those impacts to species 

in this group would cease and no longer aggregate with effects from other activities that affect oakdependent species habitat. The addition of 286 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would also 

continue to provide impacts. However, the impact of the added route use is small in relation to the 

extent of habitat for these species. For example, the 35 miles of unauthorized route that would be 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

306 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

added to the NFTS in western gray squirrel habitat in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 

64 acres or about 0.4 percent of the area impacted annually by various mechanical and prescribed fire 

vegetation treatments. The 118 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in mountain quail 

habitat in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 215 acres, or about 0.06 percent of the 

habitat on the Modoc National Forest, or 1.2 percent of the area impacted annually by various 

mechanical and prescribed-fire vegetation treatments.

The small acreages of unauthorized route added to the NFTS in this alternative are insignificant,

compared to the quantity of treated landscape and the quantity of landscape affected by conifer 

competition.The effects from the prohibition of cross-country travel in this alternative are also small 

when compared to the quantity of other actions affecting these species. Certainly, the quantity of 

potential improvement is insufficient to affect habitat trends or population dynamics. Thus, compared 

to the scope and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the landscape, the impacts from 

Alternative 4 are imperceptible and discountable. They do not appear to affect existing trends to 

species population size, habitat, or distribution and are therefore insignificant.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. Therefore, there would be no impacts from 

cross-country, motorized travel.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-138 displays the route mileage that would be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the 

focal species in this group. This alternative has the same route configuration as Alternative 2. Because 

the road system is the same, the effects to oak-associated species are the same for this alternative 

(Alternative 5) and Alternative 2.

Table 3-138. Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Oak-Associated Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Western gray 

squirrel

44.9 miles 644 miles 

Mountain quail 118.2 miles 1,549 miles 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road and be identical to 

those that would occur with Alternative 2. These closure areas would have no disturbance from 

vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter and early spring, early 

breeding activities such as pair-bonding and nest initiation may have less disturbance. The impact is 

expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 530 miles of mixed use, there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 307

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to oak-associated species, as compared to 

Alternative 2. This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2, which effects are 

imperceptible and discountable.

Comparison of Effects on Oak-Associated Species, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. The first table (3-139) compares 

the number of watersheds with a “low” disturbance index rating and compares the amount of total 

acres that lie within the habitat disturbance zone. Table 3-140 displays a comparison of habitatchange metrics for the focal species in the oak-associated group. Alternative 1 shows the most 

impacts to oak-associated species, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-139. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the OakAssociated Group 

Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

# of watersheds 

with a low habitat 

disturbance index

94 94 94 94 94

# of acres within 

the habitat 

disturbance zone”

30,607 30,089 28,189 29,630 30,089

Table 3-140. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Oak-Associated Group, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Western gray 

squirrel

(Modeled 

habitat on the 

MDF: 141,780)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

141,060 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA*: 59.0 

UA+NFTS: 

658.4 

UA: 44.9

UA+NFTS: 

644.3 

2%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

599.4

9%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 34.9

UA+NFTS: 

634.3

4%< A-1

2%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 44.9 

UA+NFTS: 

644.3 

2%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

107.4 (0.08%) 81.7 (0.06%) 0 (0%) 63.5 (0.04%) 81.7 (0.06%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

1,198 (0.8%) 1,173 (0.8%) 1,091 (0.8%) 1,154 (0.8%) 1,173 (0.8%)

Mountain quail

(Modeled 

habitat on the 

MDF: 340,000)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

338,870 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 146.8

UA+NFTS: 

1,578

UA: 118.2

UA+NFTS: 

1,549

2%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

1,431

9%< A-1

UA: 96.1

UA+NFTS: 

1,527

3%< A-1

UA: 118.2

UA+NFTS: 

1,549

2%< A-1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

308 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

8%< A-2 1%<A-2

7%> A-3

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

267.2 (0.08%) 215.1 (0.06%) 0 (0%) 174.9 (0.05%) 215.1 (0.06%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

2,872 (0.8%) 2,819 (0.8%) 2,604 (0.8%) 2,779 (0.8%) 2,819 (0.8%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Wetland Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species within the Group: Sandhill Crane, Canada Goose, Mallard

This species group is associated with seasonal and permanent wetlands and areas with wet soils that 

support rushes and sedges. Focal species for this group include sandhill cranes, Canada goose, and 

mallards. Sandhill cranes that breed at many of the larger wetland areas on the Forest are part of the 

Central Valley population of greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida; Ivey and Herziger 

2001). Sandhill cranes nest in flooded meadows and marshes with scattered stands of bulrush, cattails 

and burreed (Tacha et al. 1992). Established pairs tend to return to breeding sites (Tacha et al. 1992).

Canada geese nest on many of the islands in wetlands and lakes on the Modoc National Forest. 

Approximately 667 islands have been constructed for goose nesting on the Modoc National Forest 

(USFS 2007). Mallard use of habitat on the Modoc National Forest is similar to that used by Canada 

geese (USFS 2007). The CWHR habitat stages that are important (as measured by exceeding the 0.75 

suitability index) are the same for both mallards and Canada geese. Because of the similarities of their 

habitat, mallards and Canada geese are analyzed together. Disturbance of mallards or Canada geese 

on the nest can result in nest desertion or attraction of avian and mammalian predators (Drilling et al.

2002). Wetlands on the Modoc NF are not only important for nesting, but as important mid-migration 

foraging areas (Miller et al. 2005).

An index to evaluate the effects of displacement, avoidance, and disturbance is the security habitat 

index (Gaines et al. 2003). For this analysis, routes are buffered by 250 meters in order to establish a 

zone of route influence The mapped habitats that scored a CWHR suitability index of 0.75 for 

mallards and Canada geese (see Table 3-141 below) were buffered by 250 meters following the 

procedure established by Gaines et al. (2003) to establish the potential habitat. The amount of 

potential habitat in a watershed outside of the zone of route influence (the security habitat) is divided 

by the total amount of potential habitat to determine the level of human influence within the 

watershed. A ranking was assigned that follows the rankings developed by Gaines et al. (2003), and 

that reflects an approximation of a point where human influences affect wetland wildlife use of the 

wetland. The level of influence of human activities on habitat ranking is as follows:

• Less than 50 percent security habitat is a high level of human influence

• Fifty to 70 percent security habitat is a moderate level of human influence

• More than 70 percent security habitat is a low level of human influence
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 309

Table 3-141. For the Wetland-Associated Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Sandhill crane FEW: 1M, 1D, 2M, 2D

WTM: 1M, 1D, 2M, 2D

7,060 acres

Canada goose and 

Mallard duck

AGS: All sizes/stages

FEW: All sizes/stages

PGS: All sizes/stages

WTM: All sizes/stages

82,000 acres

Wetland Group: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in 

Table 3-141, above. Table 3-142 displays the number of acres of mapped habitat that meets the 

CWHR stages potentially available for use under this alternative. Table 3-143 displays the route

mileage that occurs within habitat on the national forest. Although occasional direct mortality may 

occur from collisions with vehicles on highways, this is not known to have occurred from slower 

moving vehicles off road. If off-road vehicle collisions with adults in this group do occur, such 

occurrence appears to be a rare event and has not been reported within the Forest. Sandhill crane, 

mallard, and goose nests could be destroyed by off-road vehicle use because of the ground-nesting 

behavior of these birds. At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase 

of off-highway use, direct mortality events would occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate 

similar to the rate of increase of off-highway use.

Indirect impacts to species in this group include impacts to vegetation that results in less cover 

suitable for nesting. In locations of heavy off-road use, vegetation can be impacted such that it 

becomes compacted or in extreme cases removed, thereby rendering a site unsuitable for nesting 

waterfowl and cranes. Sedimentation of wetlands from off-road vehicle use could also impact 

vegetation growth or invertebrate production in the wetlands. For more information on impacts to 

soils and water quality, see the soils and hydrology sections of this document.

Another impact would be the disturbance caused by off-road use of vehicles, resulting in the 

movement of individuals or the alteration of their behavior. Disturbance-caused movement can 

expose eggs or chicks to potentially fatal weather conditions or predators. Disturbance can also alter 

feeding patterns or interrupt important mating rituals. These impacts to feeding and mating can have 

indirect impacts to the production of young through delaying the onset of laying, reducing clutch size,

or reducing the fitness of adults or chicks.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

310 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-142. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of Habitat* Percent of all habitat on MDF 

open to cross-country travel

Sandhill crane 6,560 acres of mapped habitat 92.9%

Canada goose

Mallard

78,150 acres of mapped habitat 95.3%

*Acres rounded to the nearest 10

Continued cross-country travel includes effects from the continuation of use of unauthorized routes. 

Table 3-143 displays the route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-143. Alternative 1: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on NF Combined Miles of NFTS and 

Unauthorized Routes within Habitat on 

NF

Sandhill crane 2.25 miles 13 miles 

Canada goose 

Mallard

35.0 miles 257 miles 

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which would include the use of 491 miles of 

unauthorized routes. Disturbance to wetland species’ activities could occur along these routes. The 

largest impact would be the continued disturbance along route edges. Vehicle travel may disrupt 

foraging activities, resulting in more energy expenditures. To evaluate the level of human influence, 

the security index for wetland habitat was calculated. In this alternative, the human influence rating 

would be “high” for 67 of the watersheds with wetland habitat, “moderate” for 31 of the watersheds, 

and “low” for 23 watersheds. These ratings reflect the increased route mileage under this alternative,

compared to the other alternatives. This alternative (Alternative 1) has six more watersheds with high 

rankings than the alternative with the fewest high rankings (Alternative 3), and four fewer “low”-

ranked watersheds than the two alternatives with the most “low”-ranked watersheds (Alternatives 3 

and 4).

As a group, all of the wetland species would be most affected by this alternative, as opposed to the 

other alternatives, because this alternative allows continued cross-country travel which includes 

unauthorized routes. Indirectly, more route mileage would equal less available habitat, as well as 

more disturbance to foraging and reproduction activities. This is especially true in the long-term time 

period of 20 years when the other alternatives would have unauthorized routes which, over time,

would convert into re-vegetated foraging habitat or buffer from disturbance for these species. Because 

cross-country travel includes unauthorized roads, this alternative would have 17 percent more route 

miles within sandhill crane habitat, than would occur under Alternative 3, the alternative that does not 

add any unauthorized routes to the system and prohibits cross-country travel. For the sandhill crane, 

this alternative differs from Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 by about 11 to14 percent in the route mileage 

within habitat. The larger percentage differences between this alternative and the other alternatives in 

route mileage within sandhill crane habitat may be a factor of the relatively small area that is known 

to be sandhill crane habitat. This alternative would have 14 percent more route mileage within 

Canada goose and mallard habitat, than would occur under Alternative 3, the alternative that does not 

add any unauthorized routes to the system and prohibits cross-country travel. For the goose and 

mallard, this alternative differs from Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 by approximately seven to eight percent

in the mileage of routes within habitat. The impacts of the small percentage differences between this 

alternative and the other alternatives in the amount of routes within Canada goose and mallard habitat 

may be essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable wetland water levels, 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 311

variable harvest rates, weather, and stochastic events such as fires and floods. However, Alternative 1 

would have the most impact of all the alternatives on wetland species.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

particular route segment. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the wetland-dependent group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83. Those impacts most affecting wetland habitats are related to the 122,500 

AUMs of grazing on the national forest, and similar impacts occurring on adjacent BLM and private 

lands. These impacts include mortality to wetland-associated species from fence entanglement and 

hay cropping, removal of vegetation that results in the loss of nesting cover, loss of substrate for 

invertebrates, lowered water quality, and increased turbidity. Vegetation management activities that 

affect water quality and quantity of runoff can also impact the habitat for this species group. For more 

information on cumulative effects to water quality and quantity, see the hydrology section of this 

chapter.

This alternative would continue cross-country travel which includes the use of unauthorized routes by 

the public; therefore, impacts to species in this group would continue and aggregate with effects from 

vegetation management and grazing. Because the impacts from cross-country travel are estimated to 

be of limited intensity, the continuation of cross-country travel under this alternative would add a 

small amount of negative impacts to the impacts from grazing and other activities. The continuation 

of use on the unauthorized routes, which is a part of cross-country travel, would also continue to 

provide impacts. However, the impact of this use is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these 

species. For example, the 35 miles of unauthorized route in Canada goose and mallard habitat in this 

alternative, is equivalent to approximately 64 acres, or about 0.08 percent, of the buffered Canada 

goose and mallard habitat area. Under Alternative 1, approximately 2.25 miles of unauthorized route 

is an equivalent of approximately four acres, or 0.06 percent of potential sandhill crane habitat. 

Alternative 1 has the highest level of negative effects of the alternatives, but these effects are limited 

in scope and intensity in comparison to the other actions occurring on the landscape. Especially on 

private lands, residual vegetation after grazing may be insufficient to provide nesting cover. Trends 

for Canada goose and mallard populations are affected by conditions on the wintering grounds and 

other centers of nesting. Generally, Canada goose populations appear to be increasing in the West,

while mallard populations appear to have declined (USFS 2007). Sandhill crane populations also 

appear to be increasing (USFS 2007). The small negative impacts of this alternative, aggregated with 

the other negative impacts occurring to wetland habitats, appear to be insufficient to counter the 

increasing numbers of sandhill cranes and Canada geese. These same impacts may be contributing to 

a portion of the decline in mallard numbers. However, mallard populations may be more heavily 

affected by factors impacting the primary breeding and wintering areas in the Great Plains, Palouse,

and Central Valley (Austin and Miller 1995). When compared to the scope and intensity of the other 

impacts occurring on the landscape, and to the overall trends for the focal species, the impacts from 

Alternative 1, including individual mortality, degraded water quality, and removal of emergent 

vegetation, are imperceptible and discountable and do not appear to affect existing trends to species 

population size, habitat or distribution.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

312 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The sandhill crane, mallard and Canada 

goose would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging habitat. Changes to 

food resources caused by compaction or removal of vegetation would not occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of routes to the NFTS. Table 3-144 displays the routes within 

habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-144. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Sandhill crane 0.76 miles 11.75 miles 

Canada goose 

Mallard

17.45 miles 239 miles 

The route mileage within sandhill crane habitat declines by 11 percent (approximately 1.5 miles) 

compared to Alternative 1. This alternative would contain about 6 percent more added route mileage 

(0.8 miles) than Alternative 3, and about 3 percent more added route mileage (0.5 miles) than 

Alternative 4. The route system would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 5. 

Alternative 2 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for sandhill cranes due to routeinduced disturbance than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would result in less disturbance than 

Alternative 1 and the same amount as Alternative 5. 

The route mileage within Canada goose and mallard habitat declines by 7 percent (approximately 

17.5 miles) compared to Alternative 1. This alternative would contain 7 percent more route mileage 

(17.5 miles) than Alternative 3, and about 1 percent more route mileage (3.5 miles) than Alternative 

4. The route mileage would be the same for both this alternative and Alternative 5. Alternative 2 

would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditure for geese and mallards due to route-induced 

disturbance than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would result in less disturbance than Alternative 

1, and the same amount as Alternative 5. 

To evaluate the level of human influence, the security index for wetland habitat was calculated. In 

this alternative the human influence rating would be “high” for 66 of the watersheds with Canada 

goose/mallard habitat, “moderate” for 31 of the watersheds, and “low” for 24 watersheds. These 

ratings reflect the slightly higher amount of route mileage than contained in Alternatives 3 and 4. This 

alternative would have the same number of watersheds in each ranking category as Alternative 5. 

This alternative (Alternative 2) has five more watersheds with high rankings than the alternative with 

the fewest high rankings (Alternative 3), and three fewer low-ranked watersheds than the two 

alternatives with the most low-ranked watersheds (Alternatives 3 and 4). These changes in ratings 

place this alternative as intermediate in the effect of routes on wetland habitats compared to the other 

alternatives. However, the impacts of the small percentage differences between this alternative and 

the other alternatives in the route mileage within Canada goose and mallard habitat, may be 

essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable wetland water levels, variable 

harvest rates, weather, and stochastic events such as fires and floods. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 313

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may have be disturbed less than under alternatives 1 and 3 

that do not implement closures. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance—whether auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 138 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel but there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the wetland-dependent group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83. This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which would 

include approximately 152 miles of unauthorized routes that with discontinued use would eventually 

re-vegetate. The addition of 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS would continue to provide 

impacts. However, the impact of additional routes is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these 

species. For example, the 17 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in Canada goose and 

mallard habitat in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 31 acres or about 0.04 percent of the 

buffered Canada goose and mallard habitat area. Under Alternative 2, approximately 0.76 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in sandhill crane habitat. This would be less than 

two acres or about 0.02 percent of modeled sandhill crane habitat. 

The small negative impacts of this alternative, aggregated with the other negative impacts occurring 

to wetland habitats, appear to be insufficient to counter the increasing numbers of sandhill cranes and 

Canada geese (see discussion under Alternative 1). These same impacts may be contributing to a 

portion of the decline in mallard numbers. However, mallard populations may be more heavily 

affected by factors impacting the primary breeding and wintering areas in the Great Plains, Palouse,

and Central Valley (Austin and Miller 1995, Miller and Duncan 1999). When compared to the scope 

and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the landscape, and to the overall trends for the focal 

species, the impacts from Alternative 2, including individual mortality, degraded water quality, and 

removal of emergent vegetation, are imperceptible and discountable. They do not appear to affect 

existing trends to species population size, habitat or distribution.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The wetland species would not be affected 

by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging habitat. Changes to food resources caused by 

compaction or removal of vegetation would not occur. 

This alternative would not add any routes to the NFTS. However the linear effects of routes would 

still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS roads open for use. Table 3-145 displays the route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

314 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-145. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Sandhill crane 0 miles 11 miles 

Canada goose 

Mallard

0 miles 222 miles 

The route mileage within sandhill crane habitat declines by 17 percent (approximately 2.25 miles) 

compared to Alternative 1. In Alternative 3, route mileage in crane habitat declines by 6 percent

(approximately 0.75 miles) compared to the total in Alternative 2 or Alternative 5. Alternative 3 has 4

percent (approximately 0.5 miles) fewer miles within habitat than Alternative 4. This alternative 

would thus have the lowest energy expenditure for sandhill cranes due to road-induced disturbance. 

The route mileage within Canada goose and mallard habitat declines by 4 percent (approximately 35 

miles) compared to Alternative 1. In this alternative (Alternative 3), route mileage declines by 7

percent (approximately 17 miles) compared to the total in Alternative 2 or Alternative 5. Alternative 3 

has 6 percent (approximately 14 miles) fewer route miles within habitat than Alternative 4. 

Alternative 3 would thus have the lowest energy expenditure for Canada geese and mallards due to 

road-induced disturbance. 

To evaluate the level of human influence, the security index for wetland habitat was calculated. In 

this alternative the human influence rating would be “high” for 61 of the watersheds with Canada 

goose/mallard habitat, “moderate” for 33 of the watersheds, and “low” for 27 watersheds. These 

ratings reflect the reduced route mileage under this alternative compared to the other alternatives. 

This alternative (Alternative 3) has six fewer watersheds with high rankings than the alternative with 

the most “high” rankings (Alternative 1), and four more low-ranked watersheds than the alternative 

with the least “low” ranked watersheds (Alternatives 1). These changes in ratings places this 

alternative as the lowest in the effect of routes on wetland habitats compared to the other alternatives. 

The lowest impact from existing routes means the least amount of disturbance caused by vehicles 

operating on roadways. However, the impacts of the small percentage differences between this 

alternative and the other alternatives in the amount of routes within Canada goose and mallard 

habitat, may be essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable wetland water 

levels, weather, and stochastic events such as fires and floods. The larger percentage differences 

between this alternative and the other alternatives in amount of routes within sandhill crane habitat 

may indicate the potential for sandhill cranes to benefit from reduced routes adjacent to wetlands used 

by sandhill cranes.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which would include continued use of 491 

miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. The impacts to species in this group from the cross-country 

travel and from the unauthorized routes would cease, and may partially counter some of the ongoing

negative effects due to grazing. However, the scope and intensity of the impact from ending crosscountry travel is small (see the cumulative effects discussion above for Alternative 1). The positive 

effects from prohibiting cross-country travel begin to show immediately, as disturbance would be 

immediately reduced. At the 20-year, long-term point, some additional wetland habitat would have 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 315

begun to accumulate from discontinuation of motorized use on unauthorized roads resulting from the 

prohibition of cross-country travel. However, the low rate and intensity of impacts from cessation of 

cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient to counter the impacts from ongoing grazing or 

stochastic events such as wildfire or catastrophic disease. Overall, the reduced negative impacts from 

this alternative, when aggregated with the positive population trends for geese and cranes, seem to 

indicate that conditions may continue to improve for Canada geese and sandhill cranes. The

aggregated negative effects may be a small contribution to mallard population declines, but the 

project area is small in comparison to mallard habitat in the Pacific flyway. Overall, cumulative 

effects appear to be insufficient to alter the larger trends occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts discussed under 

Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not occur. The sandhill crane, Canada goose and 

mallard would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging habitat. Changes 

to food resources caused by compaction or removal of vegetation would not occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-146 displays the route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-146. Alternative 4: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Sandhill crane 0.45 miles 11.4 miles 

Canada goose 

Mallard

14 miles 236 miles 

The route mileage within sandhill crane habitat declines by 14 percent (approximately 1.8 miles) 

compared to Alternative 1, and declines by three percent (approximately 0.3 miles) compared to the 

added route mileage in Alternatives 2 and 5. This alternative would contain four percent more added 

route mileage (0.5 miles) than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would thus cause slightly higher energy 

expenditure for sandhill cranes due to route-induced disturbance than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 

would result in less disturbance than Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. 

The route mileage within mallard and Canada goose habitat declines by 8 percent (approximately 21 

miles) compared to Alternative 1. This alternative would contain 6 percent more added route mileage 

(14 miles) than Alternative 3, and about 1 percent less route mileage (3.5 miles) than Alternative 2 

and Alternative 5. Alternative 4 would thus cause slightly higher energy expenditures for geese and 

mallards due to route-induced disturbance than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would result in less 

disturbance than Alternatives 1, 2 and 5. 

In this alternative, the human influence rating would be “high” for 66 of the watersheds with Canada 

goose/mallard habitat, “moderate” for 28 of the watersheds, and “low” for 27 watersheds. These 

ratings reflect the reduced mileage of routes added to the NFTS under this alternative compared to 

most of the other alternatives. This alternative (Alternative 4) has one less watershed with a high 

ranking than the alternative with the most “high” rankings (Alternative 1), and the same number of 

“low”- ranked watersheds as the other alternative with the most “low”-ranked watersheds (Alternative 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

316 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

3). These ratings place this alternative as intermediate in the effect of routes on wetland habitats 

compared to the other alternatives. Although tying for the number of watersheds with a “low” 

ranking, this alternative has more “high”- rated watersheds than the alternative (3) that does not add 

any routes to the NFTS. This would appear to indicate an elevated level of negative impact from this 

alternative as compared to Alternative 3. The impacts of the percentage differences between this 

alternative and the other alternatives in the route mileage added within Canada goose and mallard 

habitat, may be essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of variable wetland water 

levels, variable harvest rates, weather, and stochastic events such as fires and floods. This alternative 

provides benefits of reduced disturbance to sandhill cranes as compared to Alternative 1. That 

Alternatives 2 through 5 have small differences in effect may reflect the screening that was performed 

by the line officer and Interdisciplinary Team, and indicate that the screening would not add the most 

onerous route segments, at least for sandhill cranes, to the NFTS.

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may be disturbed less than by Alternative 1 and Alternative 

3 which do not have seasonal closures. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the wetland-dependent group would aggregate with the effects 

outlined above in table 3-83. This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which includes 

continued use on approximately 152 miles of unauthorized routes. The continuation of public travel 

on 339 miles of unauthorized routes would continue to provide impacts. However, the impact of the 

routes added to the NFTS is small in relation to the extent of habitat for these species. For example, 

the 14 miles of added route in Canada goose and mallard habitat, in this alternative, is equivalent to 

approximately 25 acres or about 0.03 percent of the buffered Canada goose and mallard habitat area. 

Under Alternative 4, approximately 0.5 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in 

sandhill crane habitat. This would be less than one acre of potential habitat. 

The small negative impacts of this alternative, aggregated with the other negative impacts occurring 

to wetland habitats, appear to be insufficient to counter the increasing numbers of sandhill cranes and 

Canada geese (see discussion under Alternative 1). These same impacts may be contributing to a 

portion of the decline in mallard numbers. However, mallard populations may be more heavily 

affected by factors impacting the primary breeding and wintering areas in the Great Plains, Palouse,

and Central Valley (Austin and Miller 1995, Miller and Duncan 1999). When compared to the scope 

and intensity of the other impacts occurring on the landscape, and to the overall trends for the focal 

species, the impacts from Alternative 4, including individual mortality, degraded water quality, and 

removal of emergent vegetation, are imperceptible and discountable, and do not appear to affect 

existing trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by prohibiting crosscountry travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be expected to recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, especially where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. Table 3-147 displays the route mileage 

proposed to be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the focal species in this group. This 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 317

alternative has the same NFTS configuration as Alternative 2. Because the NFTS is the same, the 

effect to wetland species is the same for this alternative (Alternative 5) and Alternative 2.

Table 3-147. Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Wetland Group

Species Miles Of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Sandhill crane 0.76 miles 11.75 miles 

Canada goose 

Mallard

17.45 miles 239 miles 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of road and be identical to 

those that would occur with Alternative 2. These closure areas would have no disturbance from 

vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter and early spring, early 

breeding activities such as pair-bonding and nest initiation may have less disturbance. The impact is 

expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of

disturbance—whether an auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By 

allowing an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel, but there 

are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. 

Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different quantity of mixed 

use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to wetland species, as compared to Alternative 

2. This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2, which are effects that are 

imperceptible and discountable.

Comparison of Effects on Wetland Species, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. The first table (Table 3-148) 

compares the number of watersheds with a “low” disturbance index rating, and compares the amount 

of acres that lie within the habitat disturbance zone. Table 3-149 displays a comparison of habitatchange metrics for the focal species in the wetland-associated group. Alternative 1 has the most 

impacts to wetland-associated species and Alternative 3 the least.

Cumulative Effects

Table 3-148. Comparison of Habitat Disturbance Index Ratings Between Alternatives for the Wetland 

Group

Metric Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

# of watersheds 

with each human 

influence rank

23 “Low”

31 “Moderate”

67 “High”

24 “Low”

31 “Moderate”

66 “High”

27 “Low”

33 “Moderate”

61 “High”

27 “Low”

28 “Moderate”

66 “High”

24 “Low”

31 “Moderate”

66 “High”

Table 3-149. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Oak-Associated Group, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Sandhill crane NF habitat 

available for 

6,560 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

318 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

7,060)

cross-country 

travel

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA*: 2.25 

UA+NFTS: 13 

UA: 0.76 

UA+NFTS: 

12 

11%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 11 

17%< A-1

6%< A-2

UA: 0.45 

UA+NFTS: 11 

14%< A-1

3%<A-2

4%> A-3

UA: 0.76 

UA+NFTS: 

12 

11%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

4.1 (0.06%) 1.4 (0.02%) 0 (0%) 0.8 (0.01%) 1.4 (0.02%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

23.7 (0.3%) 21.8 (0.3%) 20.0 (0.3%) 20.0 (0.3%) 21.8 (0.3%)

Canada goose 

and Mallard 

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

82,000)

NF habitat 

available for 

cross-country 

travel

78,150 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 35.0 

UA+NFTS: 

257 

UA 17.5

UA+NFTS: 

239 

7%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

222 

14%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 14.0

UA+NFTS: 

236 

8%< A-1

1%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 17.5

UA+NFTS: 

239 

7%< A-1

Equivalent acres 

of UA routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

63.7 (0.08%) 31.9 (0.04%) 0 (0%) 25.5 (0.03%) 31.9 (0.04%)

Equivalent acres 

of UA +NFTS 

routes in habitat 

(% of MDF 

Habitat)

467,7 (0.6%) 435.0 (0.5%) 122.0 (0.1%) 429.5 (0.5%) 435.0 (0.5%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Sensitive Species Determinations

Greater Sandhill Crane

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

For the Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1, the biologist found that the alternative 

may affect individual sandhill cranes, as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct 

effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 

would prohibit cross-country travel and reduce the potential disturbance and indirect effects from 

additional routes being added to the NFTS compared to the potential impacts of Alternative 1. This 

reduction appears to be sufficiently low as to be undetectable and thus Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 

would not contribute to any trends toward listing sandhill cranes or affect their viability. 

Alternative 3 would have no impacts above the existing NFTS route system as motorized crosscountry vehicle travel would be prohibited and no additional routes would be added to the NFTS. 

Alternative 3 would therefore have no effects on sandhill cranes or their habitats. Thus it is the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 319

wildlife biologist’s determination that the Modoc Travel Management Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 

and 5 may affect individuals but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability. Alternative 3 would not affect sandhill cranes or their habitat.

Sage-Steppe Group: Affected Environment

Focal Species within the Group: Pronghorn, Greater Sage-Grouse, Swainson’s Hawk, Golden 

Eagle

This species group is associated with the dynamic mosaic landscape of big and low sagebrush, 

grasslands, and juniper. 

Pronghorn use extensive sagebrush areas with a low coverage of shrubs for food and predator escape 

(USFS 2008a). Pronghorns rely on the ability to visually detect predators at long distance and the 

pronghorn’s speed to escape predators (Zeiner et al. 1990). This sensitivity to predators makes does in 

late pregnancy and does with young fawns, highly reactive to any form of harassment (Lee et al.

1998). There are an estimated 62,550 acres of potential pronghorn habitat that meets the CWHR 

suitability index equal to or greater than 0.75 on the Modoc National Forest. A habitat disturbance 

index was calculated for pronghorn antelope based on a 1,500-meter buffer. However, only a limited 

number of watersheds (10) showed any difference between the two most divergent alternatives (1 and 

3). The average difference of 53 acres in the raw acre calculation resulted in very small percentage 

differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. Additionally, 96 percent of the modeled habitat

Forest-wide was contained in the 1500-meter disturbance buffer. Because of these results it is clear 

that pronghorn habitat is potentially subject to roadside disturbance, and that the differences between 

alternatives is insufficient for the habitat disturbance index to be a useful measure of effect.

The Swainson’s hawk is a long-distance migrant that breeds on the Modoc National Forest (Modoc 

National Forest records) and spends the non-breeding season in South America (England et al. 1997). 

Swainson’s hawk reproduction appears to be restricted on the Modoc to the northwest corner of the 

Doublehead Ranger District, although there appears to be suitable habitat on at least small portions of 

the other three districts. 

Nesting pairs may desert their nests after visits to nests by humans (England et al. 1997). Although 

apparently tolerant of regular, ongoing human activities, loud, irregular, unpredictable activities have 

caused nest abandonment (England et al. 1997). A study on the Hanford Site in central Washington 

found that Swainson’s hawks appeared to be sensitive to pedestrian and vehicle traffic (Poole et al.

1988). The authors of the study recommended a 2.2 kilometer (1.4 mile) buffer around nest trees to 

reduce disturbance to nesting Swainson’s hawks and to protect against impacts to the prey base 

(Poole et al. 1988). The Modoc LRMP requires a 402.3 meter (0.25 mile) protective buffer around 

Swainson’s hawk nests to prevent disturbance from management activities (USFS 1991). Analysis of 

this project’s effects on Swainson’s hawks is thus complicated by widely distributed, but apparently 

vacant, habitat and widely varying potential effects zones. Thus, in order to cover the impacts that 

may potentially occur without knowing the appropriate scale, this analysis looks at the effects to 

Swainson’s hawks at three scales. The Forest-wide CWHR potentially suitable habitat is the largest 

scale and includes habitat on all four ranger districts. The mid-scale examines the potential impacts at 

the 2.2-kilometer range around the known, recently active nesting sites. The third and smallest scale 

examines the potential impacts within the 402.3 meter disturbance zone around the known active 

nests. The 2.2 kilometer and the 402.3 meter scales only examine the known sites on the Doublehead 

Ranger District.

Greater sage-grouse on the Modoc plateau have declined (USFS 2008a) as have sage-grouse 

populations in other areas of their contracting range (Schroeder et al. 1999). California Department of 

Fish and Game records indicate there were many active leks (an assembly area where animals carry 

on display and courtship behavior) across much of the Devil’s Garden and Doublehead Ranger 

Districts with scattered leks on or adjacent to the other two districts in the early part of the 20th 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

320 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

century (USFS 2007). By the 1950s, the sage-grouse population had dropped dramatically and by 

2004, only six birds remained on the only known remaining active lek on the Devil’s Garden (USFS 

2007). The encroachment of juniper into the sagebrush steppe has been a major factor in the decline 

of sage-grouse habitat on the Modoc National Forest (USFS 2007). This analysis looks at the 

potential sagebrush habitats across the historic range of sage-grouse on the Modoc National Forest,

including the remaining center of activity near the Clear Lake Hills on the Doublehead Ranger 

District. The entire historic range of habitat is analyzed to detect potential conflicts with areas of sage 

habitat that may be currently vacant, but that may provide important future expansion habitats. 

The area designated for active management of the Devil’s Garden/Clear Lake population

management unit (“active management area”) is also analyzed for impacts. This is the area where a 

multi-agency group (including the Forest Service) is actively working to enhance the sage-grouse 

population through habitat manipulation and the release of translocated birds. The active management 

area is approximately 289,400 acres, of which 212,710 acres are on the Modoc National Forest. This 

area of the Modoc National Forest was selected to analyze the effects of the alternatives considered in 

this document on sage-grouse in this important area of active population restoration. 

The small-scale, local impacts near the currently active sage-grouse leks were considered as part of 

the analysis of each unauthorized route segment by the line officer and Interdisciplinary Team as part 

of the analysis to define the proposed action. 

Golden eagles hunt primarily prey of open country such as hares, rabbits, ground squirrels, prairie 

dogs and will frequently use carrion (Kochert et al. 2002, USFS 2007). An estimated 5,500 acres are 

within 0.25 miles of nesting golden eagles on the Forest. Humans cause over 70 percent of the 

recorded golden eagle deaths, with collision being the largest cause (Kochert et al. 2002). Nearly 

1,000 golden eagles were killed along highways near Rock Springs, WY in one winter (Kochert et al.

2002). Analysis of golden eagles examines the potential impacts within a 402.3-meter (0.25 mile) 

radius of the known nesting sites. This scale was picked due to the difficulty in defining golden eagle 

habitat. Golden eagles on the Modoc use a variety of vegetation types and substrates for nesting. 

Foraging can also occur in a variety of habitat types. Due to these factors, the existing golden eagle 

locations were buffered by 0.25 mile and used to analyze the relative differences between 

alternatives.

Table 3-150. For The Sage-Steppe Group, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Stage Classes 

Considered Suitable

Species Habitat (CWHR) Suitability >0.75 Acres of Habitat on National Forest

Pronghorn AGS: All sizes/stages

LSG: 1, 2S, 2P, 2M, 3S

PAS: All sizes/stages

SGB: 1, 2S, 2P, 2M

62,550 acres

Swainson’s hawk AGS: All sizes/stages

JUN: 5S, 5P

PAS: All sizes/stages

59,450 acres (potential habitat from model)

17,720 acres (within 2.2 kilometers of existing 

site)

1,450 acres (within 0.25 miles of existing sites)

Greater sage-grouse BBR: 2(ALL), 3(ALL), 4(ALL)

SGB: 2(ALL), 3(ALL), 4(ALL)

WTM: 1S, 1P, 2D

128,940 acres (potential habitat from model)

Greater sage-grouse National Forest System lands within the active 

management area

212,710 acres

Golden eagle SPECIAL ELEMENTS 5,550 (within 0.25 miles of existing sites)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 321

Sage-Steppe Group: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Continuation of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

The California WHR sizes and stages that were considered as “suitable” are listed for each species in

table 3-150, above. Table 3-151. displays the number of acres of mapped habitat that meets the 

CWHR stages potentially open for cross-country travel under this alternative. Table 3-152. displays 

the route mileage that occurs within habitat on the national forest. Although occasional direct 

mortality may occur from collisions with vehicles on highways, this is not known to have occurred 

from slower-moving vehicles off-road. Sage grouse nests could be destroyed by cross-country travel. 

At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase of off-highway use, 

direct mortality events would occur more frequently, probably increasing at a rate similar to the rate 

of increase of off-highway use.

Indirect impacts to species in this group from cross-country travel fall into two basic sets. One set is 

related to changes in vegetation due to cross-country travel. The other set of impacts is related to 

disturbance to animal behavior from cross-country vehicle travel. 

Changes to vegetation that result from cross-country vehicle travel potentially include reduction in 

quantity of vegetation, changes to vegetative structure that affects cover, or changes in relative 

abundance of plant species. In locations of heavy off-road use, vegetation can be impacted such that it 

becomes compacted or in extreme cases, removed; thereby rendering a site unsuitable for groundnesting birds such as sage-grouse to construct nests safe from predators. Cross-country travel may 

also alter the relative mix of plant species. An example may be a reduction in sage shrubs and an 

increase in annual grasses from repeated vehicle travel masticating the shrubs. Cross-country vehicle 

travel can also disrupt soil crusts, reducing soil fertility, which in turn results in less new plant 

growth, and potentially increases noxious plants (Kaltenecker and Wicklow-Howard 1994). For more 

information on cross-country travel effects to plants, see the botany section elsewhere in this 

document.

The amount of impact from cross-country vehicle travel is unknown, but presumed small due to the 

relatively low quantity of cross-country vehicle travel on the Modoc National Forest (see discussion 

on recreation and of-road vehicle use patterns elsewhere in the document). The intensity of this 

impact is unknown but appears to be limited, especially when compared to other vegetation altering 

activities (see cumulative effects sections).

Disturbance can be an impact caused by off-road use of vehicles, which may result in direct and 

indirect effects by causing the movement of individuals or the alteration of their behavior.

Disturbance-caused movement can expose eggs or young to potentially fatal weather conditions or 

predators. Disturbance can also alter feeding patterns or interrupt important mating rituals. These 

impacts to feeding and mating can have impacts to the production of young through delaying the 

onset of laying, reducing clutch size or reducing the fitness of adults or young with reduced fitness 

manifesting in lower rates of survival for offspring. The amount of this impact is unknown, but 

presumed small due to the relatively low quantity of cross-country vehicle travel on the Modoc 

National Forest (see discussion on recreation and off-road vehicle use patterns elsewhere in the 

document).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

322 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Table 3-151. Alternative 1: Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group that Could be Impacted by CrossCountry, Off-Road Travel

Species Acres of habitat* Percent of all habitat (or area) 

on MDF open to cross-country 

travel

Pronghorn 62,530 acres (CWHR habitat model) 100%

Swainson’s hawk 59,430 acres (CWHR habitat model)

17,720 acres (2.2 km buffer of known 

sites)

1,450 acres (402.3 m buffer of known 

sites)

100%

100%

100%

Greater sage-grouse 128,300 acres (CWHR habitat model)

212,710 acres (active management 

area)

100%

100%

Golden eagle 4,980 acres (402.3 m buffer of known 

sites)

89.7%

*Acres rounded to the nearest 10

Table 3-152. displays the route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-152. Alternative 1: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group

Species Miles of Unauthorized Routes Within Habitat on 

NF, or within the active management area (sagegrouse)

Combined Miles of NFTS and Unauthorized 

Routes 

Pronghorn 31.26 miles 208.5 miles 

Swainson’s 

hawk

29.4 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

0 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

194.4 miles (CWHR habitat model)

40.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

4.8 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

Greater sagegrouse34.3 miles (CWHR habitat model)

43.1 miles (active management area)

372 miles (CWHR habitat model) 

797 miles (active management area)

Golden eagle 1.5 miles 17.8 miles 

This alternative would continue to allow the use of 491 miles of unauthorized routes as part of the 

continuation of cross-country travel. Disturbance to sage-steppe species’ activities could occur along 

these routes. The largest impact would be the continued disturbance along route edges. Vehicle travel 

may disrupt foraging activities resulting in more energy expenditures. As a group, all of the sagesteppe species would be most affected by this alternative, as opposed to the other alternatives, 

because cross-country travel would continue that includes the use of the most route mileage available 

for public motorized vehicle travel. 

Approximately 31.3 miles of unauthorized routes would be available for use within potential 

pronghorn habitat in this alternative. This is 15 percent more than route mileage that would be 

available for use under Alternative 3, which does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would have approximately seven to eight percent fewer route miles than this 

alternative. Alternative 1 would allow cross-country travel which includes 209 miles of unauthorized 

routes within the CWHR-modeled pronghorn habitat. This is approximately 15 percent (29 miles) 

more than would occur under Alternative 3, the alternative with no unauthorized route usage. The 

additional route mileage would result in this alternative having the greatest potential disturbance to 

pronghorn. However, this disturbance effect is tempered by the average length of the unauthorized 

route segments. Approximately 84 percent of all unauthorized route segments are less than 0.5 miles 

in length, or much shorter than the 1500-meter (0.93 mile) distance used to approximate pronghorn 

reactions. Analysis indicates that 100 percent of the unauthorized routes would lie within the 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 323

influence zone of the existing route system. Thus, even though this alternative would have more 

routes than the other alternatives, the additional miles do not result in additional disturbance to 

pronghorn.

Indirectly, more unauthorized route mileage would equal less available habitat. Assuming an average 

15-foot route width, the 31.3 miles of unauthorized routes that occur in pronghorn habitat represent

about 57 acres. In the long-term time period of 20 years, when the other alternatives would have 

converted routes not added to the NFTS into re-vegetated foraging habitat, Alternative 1 would still 

have 57 acres of unauthorized routes within habitat. The acres would not be available as pronghorn 

habitat.

Alternative 1 would potentially have more disturbance to Swainson’s hawks than Alternative 3 due to 

29 more miles routes being available for use in Alternative 1. This is about 15 percent more route

mileage than Alternative 3. Alternative 1 would also have approximately seven to nine percent more 

route mileage than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Although these percentages are relatively high for the 

effects in this project, they are somewhat speculative, given the speculative nature of the CWHRmodeled Swainson’s hawk habitat. The known Swainson’s hawk habitat at the 2.2-kilometer (1.4-

mile) scale would only be impacted by 0.2 miles of unauthorized route that would be available to 

public use in Alternative 1, or added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. At the 402.3-meter 

(0.25-mile) scale, there are no unauthorized routes in any of the alternatives. It thus appears that there 

is a small, somewhat speculative, increase in disturbance to Swainson’s hawk potential habitat away 

from the known nesting areas.

Alternative 1 would not prohibit cross-country travel and would include continued use on 

approximately 34 miles of unauthorized routes in potential sage-grouse habitat across the Forest. 

Alternative 1 would also continue public use on 43.1 miles of unauthorized routes within the active 

management area for sage-grouse. When combined with existing NFTS routes, a total of 372 miles 

would be available for public use within the modeled habitat, and 438 miles would be available 

within the active management area. This is 9 percent more route mileage in habitat than under 

Alternative 3 and 10 percent more mileage in the active mileage area than would be available for 

public use in Alternative 3. Route mileage in habitat across the Forest in Alternative 1 totals 

approximately 3 percent more than would occur in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Route mileage in the 

active management area would be three to four percent more than would occur in Alternatives 2, 4, 

and 5. Only one mile of unauthorized route is within 1/4 mile of a historic lek site. This one mile 

aggregate would affect four historic lek sites, none of which appear to be currently active. In the long 

term, this alternative would maintain current disturbance levels and would not have the potential 

recovery of habitat that would occur under the other alternatives.

Golden eagle activity centers would have approximately 17.8 miles of route continuing to be used by 

the public under this alternative. This is approximately 8 percent more route mileage than would 

occur under Alternative 3. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would have approximately 5-6 percent less route 

mileage (16.7 –17.0 miles) than this alternative. The primary impact to golden eagles is increased 

disturbance during the nesting season, compared to the other alternatives. Although a potential 

positive indirect effect could be additional forage in the form of road-killed carrion, this effect would 

be limited or not occur, given the low speeds on these generally short spurs (maximum length of 

unauthorized route segment in golden eagle habitat is 0.3 miles, the mean length is 0.14 miles) and 

during cross-country travel. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

This alternative does not have any changes to season of use or class of vehicle that may use any 

particular route segment. There are no impacts in this category for this alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

324 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 1 on the sage-steppe group would aggregate with the effects outlined above 

in table 3-83. Those effects include approximately 1,500 acres per year of treatments to improve sagesteppe, and 122,500 AUMs of grazing annually on the Modoc National Forest. There is also ongoing

juniper removal and grazing on other public and private lands within and adjacent to the proclaimed 

boundary of the Forest, as well as stochastic events such as wildfires and catastrophic insect 

outbreaks. However, the dominant trends affecting this species group are a substantial trend of juniper 

encroachment and capture of sagebrush sites within and adjacent to the project area, and a trend of 

increased extent of annual grasses such as cheatgrass and medusahead (US Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2008). 

Juniper and encroachment of annual grasses results in reduced forbs and perennial grasses. This can 

reduce forage for the focal species pronghorn and sage-grouse and reduce the food for the prey of 

Swainson’s hawks and golden eagles. Juniper encroachment may also make sage-grouse more 

susceptible to predation and reduce an area’s suitability for pronghorn. Vegetation treatments and 

grazing have the potential to impact species in this group by removing grasses and forbs, impeding 

the growth of sagebrush, expediting the spread of annual grasses, or altering vegetative structure that 

provides cover. Past trends for this group have generally been negative for all species except golden 

eagles. Pronghorn populations in northeastern California appear to have dropped from near 100,000 

in 1952 to approximately 25,000 by 1992, and have since appeared to stabilize (USFS 2007). 

Swainson’s hawk populations in California appear to be slowly declining (USFS 2007). Sage grouse 

have sharply declined (see above also USFS and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2008).

This alternative would continue cross-country travel. Therefore, impacts to species in this group 

would continue and aggregate with effects from vegetation management and the effects of juniper 

encroachment. Because the impacts from cross-country travel are estimated to be low, the 

continuation of cross-country travel under this alternative would add minor to imperceptible amounts 

to negative impacts from vegetation-management activities. The impact of unauthorized routes would 

be small. For example, the 31 miles of unauthorized route in pronghorn habitat, in this alternative are

equivalent to approximately 56 acres, or about 0.09 percent, of the potential pronghorn habitat. The 

34 miles of unauthorized route in sage-grouse habitat (CWHR model), in this alternative, is 

equivalent to approximately 62 acres or about 0.05 percent of the area the model predicts may 

potentially provide sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not constitute a 

change to habitats, but an existing condition whose vegetation-change impact has already occurred 

and whose conditions would continue into the future. Thus, the roadways have less impact than an 

acre of new vegetation manipulation. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be primarily 

related to disturbance and appear to aggregate with other impacts occurring on the landscape, 

particularly the trend of loss of habitat to juniper and annual grass encroachment. However, compared 

to the scope and intensity of habitat loss due to juniper and annual grass encroaching across the 

landscape, the impacts from Alternative 1 are imperceptible and discountable. They do not appear to 

affect existing trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution for species in this group.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within the sage-steppe group by 

prohibiting cross-country travel, including continued use of approximately 213 miles of unauthorized

routes, that are within the sage-steppe habitat. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species 

habitat would be expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged 

motorized travel, especially where unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The 

potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from continued cross-country travel would not occur. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 325

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

This alternative would add 339 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Table 3-153 displays the 

route mileage within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-153. Alternative 2: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Pronghorn 16.8 miles 194 miles 

Swainson’s 

hawk

15.6 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

0 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

181 miles (CWHR habitat model)

40.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

4.8 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

Greater sagegrouse3.9 miles (CWHR habitat model)

31.3 miles (active management area)

361 miles (CWHR habitat model)

426.1 miles (active management area)

Golden eagle 0.6 miles 17 miles 

Alternative 2 would have a total of 194 miles of unauthorized routes within the CWHR modeled 

habitat for pronghorn. Of this total, approximately 16.8 miles of unauthorized routes would be added 

to the NFTS within potential pronghorn habitat in this alternative. This is nine percent more than the 

route mileage that would be available for use under Alternative 3, which adds no unauthorized routes 

to the NFTS. Alternative 1 would have approximately seven percent more route mileage than this 

alternative. Alternative 4 would have approximately two percent fewer miles added to the NFTS than 

this alternative. This alternative would have the same route mileage, in the same locations, as 

Alternative 5. The slightly lower amount of route miles added to the NFTS would result in this 

alternative having somewhat less potential disturbance to pronghorn than the Alternative 1, which has 

the most routes available to public use. However, this disturbance effect is tempered by the average 

length of the unauthorized route segments. Approximately 84 percent of all unauthorized route 

segments are less than 0.5 miles in length, or much shorter than the 1500-meter (0.93 mile) distance 

used to approximate pronghorn reactions. Analysis indicates that 100 percent of the unauthorized 

routes would lie within the influence zone of the existing NFTS routes. Thus, even though this 

alternative would have more routes than some other alternatives, the additional miles do not result in 

additional disturbance.

Indirectly, more route mileage would equal less available habitat. Assuming an average 15-foot route 

width, the 17 miles of unauthorized routes that would be added to the NFTS that occur in pronghorn 

habitat represents about 31 acres. In the long-term period of 20 years, Alternative 2 would not be in 

the process of growing the 31 acres into available pronghorn habitat. This would be approximately 26 

acres less than would be available to grow into habitat in Alternative 3, and approximately five acres 

less than the available amount for Alternative 4. Alternative 2 would have the same amount of longterm habitat returned as Alternative 5. However, these acres appear to be insignificant additions 

compared to the more than 62,000 acres of modeled potential pronghorn habitat.

Alternative 2 would potentially have more disturbance to Swainson’s hawks than Alternative 3 due to 

16 more miles of unauthorized routes being added to the NFTS in Alternative 2. This is about nine 

percent more route mileage than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would also have approximately two 

percent more route mileage than Alternative 4, and approximately seven percent less than Alternative 

1. These impacts are somewhat speculative, given the speculative nature of the CWHR model of 

habitat for Swainson’s hawks. The known Swainson’s hawk habitat at the 2.2-kilometer (1.4-mile) 

scale would only be impacted by 0.2 miles of unauthorized route in Alternative 1, or 0.2 miles of 

unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. At the 402.3-meter (0.25-mile) 

scale, there are no unauthorized routes that would be added to the NFTS in any of the alternatives. It 

thus appears there is a small, somewhat speculative, increase in disturbance to Swainson’s hawk 

habitat away from the known nesting areas.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

326 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Alternative 2 would add to the NFTS approximately 24 miles of unauthorized routes in potential 

sage-grouse habitat across the Forest. When combined with existing NFTS routes a total of 362 miles 

would be available for public use within habitat for sage-grouse. This is seven percent more mileage 

than would be available under Alternative 3, which does not add any routes to the NFTS. There is no 

difference in miles of route within potential habitat between Alternative 2 and 5 because both 

alternatives have the same route system. There is no effective difference between Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 4, as the two alternatives differ by less than 0.7 miles or less than 0.2 percent. Alternative 

2 would add 31.3 miles to the existing NFTS routes for a total of 426 miles within the active 

management area. This is seven percent more mileage within the active management area than would 

occur in Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would have 5.8 miles more available routes than Alternative 4 

within the active management area. Thus alternative 2 would have more available routes than 

Alternatives 3 and 4, the same as Alternative 5, and less than Alternative 1. The additional route 

mileage, when converted to acre-equivalents, would be 43.5 acres of routes added within habitat 

(0.03 percent of the total available), and 57 acres of routes added within the active management area 

(0.03 percent of the active management area). These percentages appear to be so small as to be 

insignificant. Only 0.7 miles of added route would be within 1/4 mile of a historic lek, with no routes 

added within the active management area.

In the long term, this alternative would potentially add approximately 19 acres of habitat, compared to 

0 acres added for Alternative 1, 63 acres added in Alternative 3, 20 acres added in Alternative 4, and 

19 acres added in Alternative 5. This would appear to be an insignificant change, given approximately 

129,000 acres that potentially could provide habitat for sage-grouse, according to the CWHR model.

Golden eagle activity centers would have approximately 17.0 miles of NFTS route within a quartermile under this alternative. This is approximately four percent more route mileage than would occur 

under Alternative 3, and approximately two percent more route mileage than would occur under 

Alternative 4. Alternative 1 would have approximately five percent more total route miles (17.8 

miles) than this alternative. The primary impact to golden eagles from the route system is increased 

disturbance during the nesting season, compared to the Alternatives 3 and 4 with their lower total 

route mileage, and the decreased disturbance compared to Alternative 4. However, these impacts are 

probably insignificant given the short length of added route segments and the low percentage of 

change over the entire route system. Although a potential positive indirect effect could be additional 

forage in the form of road-killed carrion, this effect would be limited or not occur given the low 

speeds on these generally short spurs (maximum length of unauthorized route segment in golden 

eagle disturbance zone is 0.3 miles; mean length is 0.14 miles). 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may be disturbed less than under Alternatives 1 and 3, 

which do not implement closures. 

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By allowing 

an additional 138 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel. But there are no 

indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. Changing 

the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 2 on the sage-steppe group would aggregate with the effects outlined above 

in table 3-83. Those effects include 1,500 acres per year of treatments to improve sage-steppe, and 

122,500 AUMs of grazing annually on the Modoc National Forest. This alternative would discontinue 

cross-country travel. This would include 152 miles of unauthorized routes, but would add 339 miles 

of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Therefore, impacts to species in this group would be less than
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 327

those in Alternative 1, but more than those in Alternative 3. The impact of routes added to the NFTS 

is small. For example, the 17 miles of unauthorized route in pronghorn habitat, added to the NFTS in 

this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 31 acres ,or about 0.05 percent of the potential 

pronghorn habitat. The 24 miles of added unauthorized route in sage-grouse habitat (CWHR model), 

in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 44 acres or about 0.03 percent of the area the model 

predicts may potentially provide sage-grouse habitat. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to 

be primarily related to disturbance and appear to aggregate with other impacts occurring on the 

landscape, particularly the trend of loss of habitat to juniper and annual grass encroachment. 

However, compared to the scope and intensity of habitat loss due to juniper and annual grass 

encroachment across the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 2 are imperceptible and 

discountable. They do not appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat or 

distribution for species in this group.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within the sage-steppe group by 

prohibiting cross-country travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be 

expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, 

especially where unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts 

discussed under Alternative 1 from continued cross-country travel would not occur. 

The sage-steppe species would not be affected by vehicle travel adjacent to nests or within foraging 

habitat. Changes to food resources caused by compaction or removal of vegetation would not occur. 

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes. However, the linear effects of roads would 

still occur on the 4,580 miles of NFTS roads. Table 3-154. displays the NFTS route mileage currently 

within habitats used by the focal species in this group.

Table 3-154. Alternative 3: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Pronghorn 0 miles 177 miles 

Swainson’s 

hawk

0 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

0 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

165 miles (CWHR habitat model)

40.0 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

4.8 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

Greater sagegrouse0 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0 miles (active management area)

338 miles (CWHR habitat model)

395 miles (active management area)

Golden eagle 0 miles 16.4 miles 

Alternative 3 would have a total of 177 miles of NFTS route within the CWHR modeled habitat for 

pronghorn. No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. Alternatives 2 

and 5 would have approximately nine percent more route mileage than this alternative, and 

Alternative 4 would have approximately eight percent more route mileage than this alternative in 

pronghorn habitat. The lower route mileage would result in this alternative having the least potential 

disturbance to pronghorn of the alternatives. However, this disturbance effect is tempered by the 

average length of the unauthorized route segments in the other alternatives. Approximately 84 percent

of all unauthorized route segments are less than 0.5 miles in length or much shorter than the 1500-

meter (0.93 mile) distance used to approximate pronghorn reactions. Analysis indicates that 100

percent of the unauthorized routes in Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 would lie within the influence zone of 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

328 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

the existing NFTS route system. Thus, even though this alternative would have fewer routes than the 

other alternatives, the additional miles in the other alternatives do not result in additional disturbance.

With no unauthorized routes being added to the NFTS, the prohibition of cross-country travel would 

result in all of the unauthorized routes slowly regaining habitat characteristics similar to the 

surrounding lands. Assuming an average 15-foot route width, the 31 miles of unauthorized routes in 

pronghorn habitat in this alternative represent about 57 acres. In the long-term period of 20 years, 

Alternative 3 would be in the process of growing the 57 acres into available pronghorn habitat. This 

would be more than in Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 (0 acres, 26 acres, 31 acres, and 26 acres 

respectively). However, this appears to be an insignificant addition compared to the more than 62,000 

acres of modeled potential pronghorn habitat.

Alternative 3, at the Forest-wide scale of potential habitat to Swainson’s hawks, would potentially 

have less disturbance than the other alternatives, as no unauthorized routes would be added to the 

NFTS. The known Swainson’s hawk habitat at the 2.2-kilometer scale would not be impacted by the 

0.2 miles of unauthorized route that would be added to the NFTS in Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. At the 

402.3-meter scale, there are no unauthorized routes that would be added to the NFTS in any of the 

alternatives. This alternative (Alternative 3) appears to have no difference in effects to Swainson’s 

hawks from the other alternatives at the scale of the known sites (2.2 km and 402.3 m scales).

Alternative 3 would not add any unauthorized routes in potential sage-grouse habitat or within the 

active management area. The existing NFTS routes would total 337 miles within sage-grouse habitat. 

There are 395 miles of NFTS routes within the active management area. Route mileage within habitat 

for Alternatives 2 and 5 is approximately seven percent more than would occur in Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 would have approximately seven percent more miles than this alternative within habitat. 

In the long term, this alternative would potentially add approximately 63 acres of habitat, compared to 

0 acres added for Alternative 1, 19 acres added in Alternative 2, 20 acres added in Alternative 4, and 

19 acres added in Alternative 5. This would appear to be an insignificant change, given approximately 

129,000 acres that potentially could provide habitat for sage-grouse according to the CWHR model.

Golden eagle activity centers would have approximately 16.4 miles of NFTS routes under this 

alternative. This is approximately four percent less route mileage than would occur under Alternatives 

2 and 5, and approximately two percent less route mileage than would occur under Alternative 4. The 

impacts to golden eagles from the lower route mileage in this alternative, are primarily decreased 

disturbance during the nesting season compared to the other alternatives. However, these impacts are 

probably insignificant, given the short length of added route segments in the other alternatives and the 

low percentage of change over the entire road system. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

No routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would not occur under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel and would not add approximately 491 miles 

of unauthorized routes. The impacts to species in this group from the cross-country travel and from 

the unauthorized routes would cease, and may partially counter some of the effects due to grazing or 

juniper and annual grass encroachment. However, the scope and intensity of the impact from ending 

cross-country travel is small (see the cumulative effects discussion above for Alternative 1). The 

positive effects from not adding the unauthorized routes begin to show immediately as disturbance 

would be immediately reduced. At the 20-year, long-term point, some additional sage habitat would 

have begun to accumulate on the unauthorized routes. However, the low rate and intensity of impacts 

from the cessation of cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient to counter the impacts from 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 329

ongoing grazing, juniper and annual grass encroachment or stochastic events such as wildfire or 

catastrophic disease. Overall, even though this alternative has the fewest negative effects of any of the 

alternatives, when aggregated with the overall effects of juniper and annual grass encroachment and 

grazing, long-term trends of declining habitat suitability for sage-steppe species remain unaffected. 

Overall, cumulative effects appear to be insufficient to alter the larger trends occurring on the 

landscape. Essentially, the impacts from Alternative 3 are imperceptible and discountable and do not 

appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat, or distribution for species in this 

group.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within the sage-steppe group by 

prohibiting cross-country travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be 

expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, 

especially where unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts 

discussed under Alternative 1 from continued cross-country travel would not occur. 

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-155. displays the route mileage that would be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the 

focal species in this group.

Table 3-155. Alternative 4: Miles of Route within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Pronghorn 14.0 miles 191 miles 

Swainson’s 

hawk

12.8 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

0 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

178 miles (CWHR habitat model)

40 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

5 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

Greater sagegrouse23.2 miles (CWHR habitat model)

25.5 miles (active management area)

361 miles (CWHR habitat model) 

765 miles (active management area)

Golden eagle 0.3 miles 16.7 miles 

Alternative 4 would have a total of 191 miles of NFTS routes within the CWHR-modeled habitat for 

pronghorn. Of that total, this alternative includes approximately 14 miles of unauthorized routes that 

would be added to the NFTS within potential pronghorn habitat . This is eight percent more than the 

quantity of routes that would exist under Alternative 3, which adds no unauthorized routes to the 

NFTS. Alternative 1 would have approximately eight percent more mileage than this alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 5 would have approximately one percent more route mileage than Alternative 4. 

The additional route miles would result in this alternative having potentially more disturbance to 

pronghorn than the alternative which adds no routes to the NFTS (Alternative 3). As discussed above, 

even though this alternative would have more route mileage than some other alternatives, the 

additional miles do not result in additional disturbance.

Indirectly, more routes added to the NFTS would equal less available habitat. Assuming an average 

15-foot route width, the 14 miles of unauthorized route added to the NFTS that occurs in pronghorn 

habitat represents about 25 acres. In the long-term period of 20 years, Alternative 4 would have 25 

acres that would not be returning into available pronghorn habitat. This would be approximately 26 

acres less than would be available to grow into habitat in Alternative 3, approximately 31 acres more 

than the available amount for Alternative 1 and approximately 5 acres more than the available amount 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

330 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

for Alternatives 2 and 5. However, this appears to be an insignificant addition compared to the more 

than 62,000 acres of modeled potential habitat for pronghorn.

Alternative 4 would potentially have more disturbance to Swainson’s hawks than Alternative 3 due to 

13 additional miles of NFTS routes in Alternative 4. This is about eight percent more route mileage 

than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would also have approximately two percent less route mileage than 

Alternative 2 and 5, and approximately nine percent less than Alternative 1. These impacts are 

somewhat speculative given the speculative nature of the CWHR habitat model for Swainson’s 

hawks. The known Swainson’s hawk habitat at the 2.2-kilometer scale would only be impacted by 0.2 

miles of unauthorized routes in Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. At the 402.3-meter scale, there are no 

unauthorized routes in Swainson’s hawk habitat that would be added to the NFTS in any of the 

alternatives.

Alternative 4 would add approximately 23 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS in potential 

sage-grouse habitat across the Forest. When combined with the existing NFTS, the route mileage 

would total of 361 miles. This is seven percent more route mileage than under Alternative 3, which 

has the lowest route mileage. Route mileage within habitat in Alternative 4 totals approximately three 

percent less than would occur in Alternative 1. There is no effective difference between Alternatives 

2, 5, and 4; the three alternatives differ by less than 0.7 miles, or less than 0.2 percent. Alternative 4 

would add 25.5 miles of route within the active management area. This would equate to 

approximately 46 acres, or 0.02 percent of the active management area. Alternative 4 would not add 

any routes within 1/4 mile of a historic lek within the active management area, and would add only 

0.4 miles within 1/4 mile of leks outside of the active management area. Given the lack of impact 

adjacent to leks, and the absence of cross-country travel this alternative would have no direct or 

indirect impacts on sage-grouse in the near term.

In the long term, Alternative 4 would potentially have 20 fewer acres of sage-grouse habitat 

compared to Alternative 3, and one acre less than Alternatives 2 and 5. This would appear to be an 

insignificant change, given approximately 129,000 acres that potentially could provide habitat for 

sage-grouse according to the CWHR model. The larger impact would be a reduction in potential 

disturbance and avoidance of direct impacts due to the prohibition of cross-country travel.

Golden eagle activity centers would have approximately 16.7 miles of NFTS routes under this 

alternative. This is approximately two percent more route mileage than would occur under Alternative 

3, and approximately two percent less route mileage than would occur under Alternatives 2 and 5. 

Alternative 1 would have approximately six percent more routes (17.8 miles) than this alternative. 

The primary impacts to golden eagles from the routes is increased disturbance during the nesting 

season, compared to Alternative 3 with its lower total route mileage and decreased disturbance 

compared to Alternatives 1, 2 and 5. However, these impacts are probably insignificant given the 

short length of added route segments, and the low percentage of change over the entire NFTS. 

Although a potential positive indirect effect could be additional forage in the form of road-killed 

carrion, this effect would be limited or not occur, given the low speeds on these generally short spurs 

(maximum length of proposed route additions in golden eagle habitat is 0.3 miles; mean length is 0.14 

miles). 

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 424 miles of routes. These areas would 

have no disturbance from vehicles during the closure periods. Since the closure periods cover winter 

and early spring, early breeding activities may be disturbed less than Alternative 1 and Alternative 3,

which do not have seasonal closures. 

Changes to class of use would not occur with this alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 331

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 on the sage-steppe group would aggregate with the effects outlined above 

in table 3-83. Those effects include 1,500 acres per year of treatments to improve sage-steppe during 

the next decade, and 122,500 AUMs of grazing annually on the Modoc National Forest. This 

alternative would discontinue cross-country travel, which would include 213 miles of unauthorized 

routes, but would add 286 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Therefore, impacts to species in 

this group would be less than those in Alternative 1, but more than those in Alternative 3. The impact 

of routes added to the NFTS is small. For example, the 14 miles of unauthorized route in pronghorn 

habitat, added to the NFTS in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 26 acres, or about 0.04

percent of the potential pronghorn habitat. The 23 miles of added unauthorized route in sage-grouse 

habitat (CWHR model) in this alternative, is equivalent to approximately 42 acres, or about 0.03

percent of the area the model predicts may potentially provide sage-grouse habitat. Overall, impacts 

from this alternative appear to be primarily related to disturbance and appear to aggregate with other 

impacts occurring on the landscape, particularly the trend of loss of habitat to juniper and annual 

grass encroachment. However, compared to the scope and intensity of habitat loss due to juniper and 

annual grass encroachment across the landscape, the impacts from Alternative 2 are imperceptible 

and discountable, and do not appear to affect existing trends to species population size, habitat, or 

distribution for species in this group.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within the sage-steppe group by 

prohibiting cross-country travel. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be 

expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, 

especially where unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. The potential impacts 

discussed under Alternative 1 from continued cross-country travel would not occur. 

This alternative does not continue the practice of cross-country, motorized vehicle travel. Therefore, 

there would be no impacts from cross-country, motorized travel.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS

Table 3-156. displays the route mileage proposed to be added to the NFTS within habitats used by the 

focal species in this group. This alternative has the same route mileage and configuration as 

Alternative 2. Because the road system is the same, the effects to sage-steppe species are the same for 

this alternative (Alternative 5) and Alternative 2.

Table 3-156. Alternative 5: Miles of Routes within Potential Habitat for the Sage-Steppe Group

Species Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF

Combined Miles of NFTS and Added Routes within 

Habitat on NF

Pronghorn 16.8 miles 194 miles 

Swainson’s 

hawk

15.6 miles (CWHR habitat model)

0.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

0 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

181 miles (CWHR habitat model)

40.2 miles (2.2 km buffer of known sites)

4.8 miles (402.3 m buffer of known sites)

Greater sagegrouse3.9 miles 361 miles 

Golden eagle 0.6 miles 17 miles 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

332 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Effects of Changes in Existing Season and Class of Use 

Changes to existing season of use would reduce impacts on 312 miles of route and be identical to 

those that would occur with Alternative 2. These closure areas would have no disturbance from 

vehicles during the closure periods. The impact is expected to be minor to undetectable.

Changes to class of use are not expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of 

disturbance—whether an auto, truck, or OHV—is assumed to be the same for this analysis. By 

allowing an additional 530 miles of mixed use there may be some additional vehicle travel. But there 

are no indications that the amount of use would be greater than the existing variation in total use. 

Changing the mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of Alternative 5 on the sage-steppe group would aggregate with the effects outlined above 

in table 3-83. Alternative 5 has the same effects as Alternative 2, with the exception of a different 

quantity of mixed use. Mixed use does not cause a difference in effects to sage-steppe species as 

compared to Alternative 2. This alternative has the same imperceptible and discountable cumulative 

effects as Alternative 2.

Comparison of Effects on Sage-Steppe Species, by Alternative 

This section provides tabular comparisons of the five alternatives. Table 3-157. displays a comparison 

of habitat-change metrics for the focal species in the sage-steppe group. Alternative 1 shows the most 

impacts to sage-steppe species, and Alternative 3 the least.

Table 3-157. Comparison of Selected Effects on the Sage-Steppe Group, by Alternative

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Pronghorn

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

62,550)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

62,530 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA*: 31.3 

UA+NFTS: 

209 

UA: 16.8

UA+NFTS: 

194

7%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

177

15%< A-1

9%< A-2

UA: 14.1 

UA+NFTS: 

191

8%< A-1

1%<A-2

8%> A-3

UA: 16.8 

UA+NFTS: 

194

7%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

57.0 (0.09%) 30.6 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 25.7 (0.04%) 30.6 (0.05%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

380.4 (0.6%) 353.1 (0.6%) 322.1 (0.5%) 347.6 (0.6%) 353.1 (0.6%)

Swainson’s 

hawk (based on 

CWHR model

potential habitat 

on the MDF: 

59,450)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

59,430 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat

UA: 29.4 

UA+NFTS: 

194 

UA: 15.6 

UA+NFTS: 

181

7%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

165

15%< A-1

9%< A-2

UA: 12.8 

UA+NFTS: 

178

9%< A-1

2%<A-2

8%> A-3

UA: 15.6 

UA+NFTS: 

181

7%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

53.5 (0.09%) 28.4 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 23.3 (0.04%) 28.4 (0.05%)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 333

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

353.1 (0.6%) 329.4 (0.6%) 300.3 (0.5%) 324.0 (0.5%) 329.4 (0.6%)

Swainson’s 

hawk (based on 

2.2 kilometer 

habitat zone 

around existing 

sites potential 

habitat on the 

MDF: 17,720)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

17,722 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

40 

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

40 

0%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

40 

<1%< A-1

<1%< A-2

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

40 

0%< A-1

0%<A-2

<1%> A-3

UA: 0.2 

UA+NFTS: 

40 

0%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

0.4 (0.002%) 0.4 (0.002%) 0 (0%) 0.4 (0.002%) 0.4 (0.002%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

72.8 (0.4%) 72.8 (0.4%) 72.8 (0.4%) 72.8 (0.4%) 72.8 (0.4%)

Swainson’s 

hawk (based on 

402.3 meter 

habitat zone 

around existing 

sites, existing 

habitat on the 

MDF: 1,450)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

1,450 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 5 

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 5 

0%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 5 

0%< A-1

0%< A-2

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 5 

0%< A-1

0%<A-2

0%> A-3

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 5 

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

9.1 (0.6%) 9.1 (0.6%) 9.1 (0.6%) 9.1 (0.6%) 9.1 (0.6%)

Greater sagegrouse

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

128,940)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

128,300 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 34.3 

UA+NFTS: 

372 

UA: 23.9 

UA+NFTS: 

362 

3%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

338 

9%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 23.2 

UA+NFTS: 

361

3%< A-1

0%<A-2

7%> A-3

UA: 23.9 

UA+NFTS: 

362

3%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

62.4 (0.05%) 43.5 (0.03%) 0 (0%) 42.2 (0.03%) 43.5 (0.03%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

677.0 (0.5%) 658.8 (0.5%) 615.2 (0.5%) 657.0 (0.5%) 658.8 (0.5%)

Greater sagegrouse

(National Forest 

NF within the active 

management area 

available for crosscountry travel

212,710 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

334 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

lands within the 

active 

management 

area: 212,710)

Miles of route in 

active management 

area

UA: 43.1 

UA+NFTS: 

437.9

UA: 31.3

UA+NFTS: 

426.1

3%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

394.8 

10%< A-1

7%< A-2

UA: 25.5 

UA+NFTS: 

420.3

4%< A-1

1%<A-2

6%> A-3

UA: 31.3 

UA+NFTS: 

426.1

3%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of active 

management area)

78.4 (0.04%) 57.0 (0.03%) 0 (0%) 46.4 (0.02%) 57.0 (0.03%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of active 

management area)

797.0 (0.4%) 775.5 (0.4%) 718.5 (0.3%) 764.9 (0.4%) 775.5 (0.4%)

Golden eagle

(Modeled habitat 

on the MDF: 

5,550)

NF habitat available 

for cross-country 

travel

4,975 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Miles of route in 

habitat 

UA: 1.5 

UA+NFTS: 

18 

UA: 0.6 

UA+NFTS: 

17 

5%< A-1

UA: 0 

UA+NFTS: 

16 

8%< A-1

4%< A-2

UA: 0.3 

UA+NFTS: 

17 

6%< A-1

2%<A-2

2%> A-3

UA: 0.6 

UA+NFTS: 

17 

5%< A-1

Equivalent acres of 

UA routes in habitat 

(% of MDF Habitat)

2.7 (0.05%) 1.1 (0.02%) 0 (0%) 0.5 (0.01%) 1.1 (0.02%)

Equivalent acres of 

UA +NFTS routes in 

habitat (% of MDF 

Habitat)

32.8 (0.6%) 30.9 (0.6%) 29.1 (0.5%) 30.9 (0.6%) 30.9 (0.6%)

* UA = unauthorized routes that could continue to receive motorized use under continued cross-country travel (Alt 1), or that 

would be added to the NFTS (all other alternatives) 

UA+NFTS = total miles of combined UA routes and NFTS routes

Sensitive Species Determinations

Swainson’s hawk

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

For the Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1, the biologist found that the alternative may 

affect individual Swainson’s hawks, as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct 

effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 

would have no impacts above the existing NFTS route system as motorized cross-country vehicle 

travel would be prohibited and no additional routes would be added to the NFTS within 1⁄4-mile of 

existing Swainson’s hawk sites however at larger scales (2.2 kilometer and potential habitat model) 

some routes would be added to the NFTS increasing equivalent acres by 0.002 percent at the 2.2 

kilometer scale and 0.04 to 0.05 percent at the scale of the potential habitat model. This percentage of 

change in available habitat and potential disturbance is imperceptible and discountable. Alternatives 

2, 4, and 5 would therefore potentially affect individual Swainson’s hawks or their habitats but would 

not affect population trends. Thus it is the wildlife biologist’s determination that the Modoc Travel 

Management Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife 335

Greater sage-grouse

In accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) a Biological 

Evaluation and Assessment for this species was prepared for the Modoc National Forest motorized 

Travel Management Project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

For the Modoc Travel Management Project Alternative 1, the biologist found that the alternative 

may affect individual sage-grouse, as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct 

effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross-country travel and reduce the potential disturbance 

and indirect effects from additional routes being added to the NFTS, as compared to the potential 

impacts of Alternative 1 but could still provide some potential for additional disturbance above 

that provided by the NFTS alone (as in Alternative 3). Therefore, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 have the 

potential to affect individuals. However, this potential disturbance appears to be sufficiently low as 

to be undetectable and thus Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would have no effect on trends toward listing 

or viability of sage-grouse. Alternative 3 would have no impacts above the existing NFTS route 

system as motorized cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited and no additional routes 

would be added to the NFTS. Alternative 3 would therefore have no effects on sage-grouse or their 

habitats. Thus it is the wildlife biologist’s determination that the Modoc Travel Management 

Project Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 may affect individuals but are not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. It is also the wildlife biologist’s determination that 

Alternative 3 would have no effects on greater sage-grouse or their habitat.

Summary of Effects Analysis Across all Alternatives

Alternative 1 would have the most effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The primary impacts from 

this alternative relate to the continuation of cross-country travel and the associated wildlife 

disturbance and habitat alteration. Alternative 3 would have the least effect to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. The reduced effects are a result of the cessation of cross-country travel and the absence of 

route addition to the NFTS. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are intermediate in effects to Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the same level of effect on wildlife because the footprint of 

disturbance would be the same. Alternative 4 would have additional impacts as compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 4, as additional routes are added to the NFTS under this alternative as compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 4. 

The summary tables at the end of each group display the raw difference that would occur for the focal 

species under each alternative. Those tables, along with the discussions, provide a more complete 

picture of the potential effects of this project.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives would comply with Forest plan direction concerning wildlife and routes.

Migratory Landbird Conservation 

Within the national forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat 

conditions at multiple spatial scales, and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning 

for land management activities. 

As part of the travel management process, the Modoc National Forest has assessed existing roads and 

trails within Forest boundaries. Any new construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of system 

roads or trails will be done under a separate NEPA analysis and decision. Because current travel 

management efforts are directed at identifying which existing unauthorized routes will be formally 

added to the National Forest Transportation System while prohibiting cross-country travel, and 

because there is no expectation of new construction or development, no changes in the distribution or 

abundance of habitats available to migratory birds are anticipated. Changes in authorization are not 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

336 Chapter 3—Terrestrial Wildlife

expected to contribute to measurable increase in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel 

is expected to result in less use across the landscape. Therefore, we expect habitat functionality to 

remain at the same level it was before the responsible official made the NEPA decision. We expect 

levels of disturbance to remain the same or decline.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 337

Aquatic Organisms

Introduction

Management of aquatic-dependent species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 

1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System

(NFS) lands must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence 

of threatened or endangered species, or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest 

Service Sensitive species. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or 

improve habitat for Management Indicator Species to the degree consistent with multiple-use 

objectives established in each Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Management 

decisions related to motorized travel can affect aquatic species by increasing human-caused mortality, 

causing changes in behavior due to disturbance and habitat modification (Gaines et al. 2003, 

Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). It is Forest Service policy to minimize 

damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife 

habitat, while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, 

management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to terrestrial 

and aquatic wildlife and their habitat.

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and 

Other Direction 

Direction relevant to the Proposed Action as it affects aquatic biota includes the following:

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a Federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a Threatened or Endangered (T&E) species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible Federal agency to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning T&E species under their jurisdiction. 

It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to T&E species to ensure management activities are not 

be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a T&E species, or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is 

documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and is summarized or referenced in this chapter.

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987): establishes as Federal policy for the 

control of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control 

of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by national forests in California is achieved 

under State law (see below).

Non-point source pollution on national forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000), which relies on 

implementation of prescribed best management practices (BMPs). The Water Quality Management 

Plan includes one BMP for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (4-7), and 28 BMPs related to road 

construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28) (See appendix D). All NFTS roads and trails open to 

OHV use are required to comply with these BMPs. 

Of particular relevance for motorized travel management, BMP 4-7 requires each forest to (1) identify 

areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water quality, (2) identify appropriate 

mitigation and controls, and (3) restrict OHV use to designated routes. This BMP further requires 

forests to take immediate corrective actions if considerable adverse effects are occurring or are likely 

to occur. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

338 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all State laws 

related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to 

water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests, and are directed at 

protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the Proposed Action is section 

13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water 

Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Control 

Board and the regional water quality control boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) includes standards 

and guidelines that apply to the six forests included entirely or partially within the Northwest Forest 

Plan. The ACS standards and guidelines require that a watershed analysis be completed that 

determines the influence of each road on ACS objectives, and that roads be designed to minimize 

impacts on riparian and aquatic resources. Construction of new roads in wetlands is prohibited. 

Adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS in meadows or wetlands constitutes road construction, and 

should be avoided. Stream crossings are required to be designed to pass a 100-year flood and allow 

for passage of aquatic fauna. 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

2004 SNFPA includes standards and guidelines that apply to the 10 Sierra Nevada forests for 

construction and relocation of roads, and for management of riparian conservation areas (RCAs). 

These standards and guidelines (S & G) require the Forest Service to avoid road construction, 

reconstruction, and relocation in meadows and wetlands (SNFPA S & G 70). Reconstructing 

unauthorized routes to bring them to NFTS standards in meadows or wetlands should therefore be 

avoided. Only routes that already meet NFTS standards in meadows and wetlands should be proposed 

for addition to the NFTS. SNFPA S &G 92 requires that the Forest Service evaluate new 

management activities within RCAs and critical aquatic refuges (CARS) during environmental 

analysis to determine consistency with riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) at the project level 

and the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals for the landscape. Adding an unauthorized route 

to the NFTS is a new management activity and must comply with S&G 92. SNFPA S&G 100 

requires the Forest Service to maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, 

and wetlands by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt flows paths and 

implementing corrective actions. SNFPA S&G 102 requires that the Forest Service determine if 

stream characteristics are within the range of natural variability prior to taking actions that could 

adversely affect streams. 

There is a small portion of the Modoc National Forest covered by the NWFP Record of Decision 

(ROD), as well as areas of the Forest that are exempt form the SNFPA ROD. Where that situation 

exists, the appropriate standard and guideline would be based on the Modoc National Forest (MDF)

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) prior to 2004.

Forest Service Handbook 2670: Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are species identified by the 

Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest Service develops and 

implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become threatened or 

endangered and ensure their continued viability on national forests. It is Forest Service policy to 

analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

Area of Effect for Aquatic Resources

Two geographic areas were chosen to analyze the effects of the proposed routes on aquatic resources:
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 339

• The entire Modoc National Forest analysis area. This analysis area was used to analyze 

cumulative effects to aquatic species for all alternatives.

• The zone-of-influence area. Direct and indirect effects to aquatic species were assessed 

using the area within 300 feet of perennial streams adjacent to existing or proposed routes.

This distance corresponds to riparian conservation areas (RCA) distances, and is considered 

within the zone of influence for aquatic species. In general, indirect effects are most likely 

to occur within this zone of influence due to interception of runoff, compaction of soils, and 

detachment of sediment. 

Analysis of Methodology

The analysis of effects on aquatic species was a three-step process.

In the first step, all listed or proposed aquatic species that were known or were believed to have 

potential to occur in the analysis area were identified. This list was developed by reviewing the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife List for the Modoc National Forest (USFWS 2008) and the Region 5 sensitive 

species list (USFS 2006).

All of this information was used in step two of the analysis. Geographic information system (GIS) 

technology was used to analyze existing habitat. Proposed routes from the alternatives were overlaid 

with GIS coverage layers to complete a risk assessment of adverse effects to soil and water quality. 

When the maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR) for a soil was low to moderate, water runoff 

potential was rated as very low to moderate, watershed sensitivity was rated as low to moderate, and 

slope stability hazard was rated as low to moderate. Therefore, no field checking was completed as 

these were considered areas of low sensitivity.

The third step was to field-check proposed routes that were not eliminated due to MEHR from the 

GIS analysis to determine if the route in its current condition was consistent with best management 

practice (BMP) 1.17 (Erosion Control on Skid Trails), 1.19 (Stream course and Aquatic Protection), 

and 2.26 (Obliteration or Decommissioning of Roads). The Forest Hydrologist conducted the field 

surveys. Where the maximum erosion hazard rating (MEHR) rating required field checking, it was 

noted if the trail was eroding and determined if the erosion exceeded Modoc LRMP standards and 

guidelines. The routes and the associated zone of influence were also field checked to determine if 

there was a hydrologic connectivity to a perennial or seasonally flowing stream course.

Assumptions Specific to the Aquatic Biota Analysis

1. All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect on aquatic dependent species 

(unless there is local information enabling a separate analysis by vehicle type).

2. Aquatic species spend all or significant portions of their life cycles either in or moving 

through riparian habitats.

3. Habitat is already impacted in the short term. In the long term, habitat would remain the same 

on added routes, but would increase to at least some degree on non-added routes with the ban 

of cross-country travel and subsequent passive restoration. 

Data Sources

• GIS layers of the following information: routes, streams, habitats, and “designated”, or 

important aquatic areas (e.g., RCAs, CARs)

• Site-specific surveys and assessment of any localized aquatic habitats within the zone of 

influence of routes proposed to be added to the National Forest Transportation System

(NFTS)
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

340 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

• Soils and hydrology report and surveys from the Travel Management FEIS.

Aquatic Biota Indicators

• Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to TES aquatic biota habitat. This is the area 

within 300 feet (perennial) of streams. 

• Miles of motorized routes and acres of areas at Forest-wide scale and within the habitat for 

each species

• The number of areas within 300 feet (RCA width) of an added route or area

• Hydrologic connectivity to perennial streams

Aquatic Biota Methodology by Action

1. Direct and indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel

2. Direct and indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads) to the NFTS

3. Changes to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class

Direct and indirect effects are assessed together and should be assessed in both the short term (within 

one year) and the long term (approximately 20 years). The indicators for the three parts of the action 

are the same.

Indicators: (1) miles of routes or areas open for motor vehicle use within or adjacent to aquatic 

resources, (2) miles of routes or areas open for motor vehicle use with documented disturbances from 

motor vehicles that resulted in damage to aquatic resources, (3) miles of routes open for motor vehicle 

use potentially affecting aquatic TES, (4) miles of routes open for motor vehicle use within riparian

habitat, including meadows and stream banks, and (5) the number of routes open for motor vehicle 

use within habitats of known or historically occupied by TES herpafauna (reptiles or amphibians). 

The tables below show the number of roads and stream crossings, by alternative, in affected habitat.

Table 3-158. Unauthorized Road Stream Crossings within RCAs, and TES Habitat

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Number of unauthorized 

road stream crossings 

within perennial stream 

and lake RCA 10 5 0 5 5

Number of unauthorized 

road stream crossings 

within seasonally flowing 

stream and lake RCAs 221 114 0 100 100

Number of unauthorized 

road stream crossings 

within perennial stream 

and lake habitat of TES 

species habitat

7 2 0 2 2

Miles of unauthorized 

road stream crossings 

within seasonally flowing 

stream and lake habitat 

of TES species habitat

3 2 0 1 1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 341

Table 3-159. Miles of Unauthorized Roads within RCAs, CARs, and TES Habitat

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles of unauthorized 

roads within perennial 

stream and lake RCAs

6.74 1.8 0 1.8 1.8

Miles of unauthorized 

roads within seasonally

flowing stream and lake 

RCAs 37.84 17.6 0 17.6 17.6

Miles of unauthorized 

roads within perennial 

stream and lake CARs

88.71 38.93 0 17.28 35.69

Miles of unauthorized 

roads within perennial 

stream and lake habitat of 

TES species habitat 4.01 1.16 0 0.51 1.16

Miles of unauthorized 

roads within seasonally 

flowing stream and lake 

habitat of TES species 

habitat

2.12 0.62 0 0.23 0.62

4. Cumulative Effects: The same indicators as above were used to measure cumulative effects. 

Cumulative effects are only measured in the long term and are done using a GIS analysis of 

past, current, added, and future routes in relation to habitat and important or sensitive aquatic 

areas and in context of other past, current, and future management actions affecting aquatic 

habitat (See appendix E, Travel Management FEIS, Volume 2).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Affected Environment

The Modoc National Forest provides habitat for over 350 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles (Modoc National Forest LRMP). There are currently five aquatic species listed as 

Endangered or Threatened under the ESA, and 11 aquatic species listed as Forest Service Sensitive. 

These species and their habitats on the Modoc National Forest are described in detail in the Modoc 

National Forest Motorized Travel Management EIS Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

(BA and BE), which are hereby incorporated by reference. They can be found in the project record. 

Table 3-160. Federally Listed Aquatic Species Found on the Forest

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris Proposed

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus Endangered

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus Proposed

Modoc sucker Catostomus microps Endangered

Modoc sucker Catostomus microps Designated
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

342 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis Threatened

Shasta crayfish Pacifastacus fortis Endangered

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Species Account

The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker are endemic to the upper Klamath Basin, which includes 

the Upper Klamath River, Oregon and California, and the Lost River system in north-central 

California and south/central Oregon. These species are found within the Lost River drainage on 

Devil's Garden and Doublehead Districts; these fish are known to be widespread in Willow, Boles, 

and Fletcher Creeks, as well as in pools and wetlands. Primarily lake residents, these fish migrate 

into stream and have been documented to successfully spawn, and live year-round on the Forest. 

The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker were listed as a Federal endangered species in July 18, 

1988. On December 1, 1994, critical habitat was proposed for the Lost River sucker and the shortnose 

sucker of the Upper Klamath River Basin of Oregon and California. A recovery plan has been 

written for both species (USFWS 1993c).

Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker occur within creeks and Clear Lake on the Modoc National 

Forest. A study completed in 1991 found Lost River suckers in Clear Lake and its tributaries and 

shortnose suckers in Clear Lake and its tributaries and in Malone and Copco reservoirs (Buettner and 

Scoppettone 1991). Lost River suckers are native to the rivers of the Lost River system in Oregon and 

California (Moyle 1976). Recently, they have been collected from Copco Reservoir (Klamath River) 

and Clear Lake Reservoir (Lost River) (ibid.). 

Although native mainly to the Upper Klamath Lake and Lake of the Woods in Oregon, shortnose 

suckers have recently been collected from Copco Reservoir, below Upper Klamath Lake (Siskiyou 

County) and Boles Creek (Modoc County); the latter fish were apparently on a spawning run from 

Clear Lake Reservoir on the Lost River (ibid.). The recent distribution of these fish has been 

described by Buettner and Scoppetone (1991). Basically, the fish are in residual pools and in some 

small reservoirs on private land within the Modoc NF. The Lost River and shortnose suckers occur on 

only one forest affected by the proposed project, the Modoc.

Based upon surveys conducted by the National Biological Survey, there are 23,000 Lost River 

suckers and 73,000 shortnose suckers on the Modoc NF. According to past survey records there 

appears to be an increasing trend in the population numbers in the past ten year period (ibid.). Habitat 

availability trends for this same time period seem to be experiencing an increasing trend (ibid.). The 

Annual Monitoring Report for 2002 suggest that populations of these two species are relatively stable,

but the demographics of the populations appears to be changing. Data suggest that fish captured are 

beginning to appear in the older age class (U.S. Geological Survey 2003).

Habitat Status

The Lost River and shortnose suckers are long-lived species that generally live in lakes, except during 

the breeding season, when they migrate to tributary rivers, streams, or springs to spawn (USFWS 

1993c). Radio-telemetry studies by National Biological Survey (NBS) and Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) personnel found that these suckers are extremely long-lived: shortnose suckers have been aged 

to 33 years and Lost River suckers to 43 years. 

Habitat for these species consists of open water in lakes and streams, except when they move 

upstream to spawn (Moyle 1976). Gravel substrates appear to be preferred (USFWS 1993c). Larval 

suckers usually migrate back to lake sites shortly after they leave the spawning gravels, primarily 

moving at night and resting in shallow shoreline areas of the river during the day (USFWS 1993c). 

They appear to select areas where water is less than 19.7 inches deep, the bottom is sand, mud, or 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 343

concrete, and there is emergent vegetation (USFWS 1993c). Adults usually spend relatively little time 

in tributary springs after spawning (USFWS 1993c).

Cool water, high amounts of dissolved oxygen, and cool freshwater refuges appear to be important 

habitat components for both species (Buettner and Scoppettone 1991). When conditions become 

stressful in lakes, such as in the summer when there can be heavy algal blooms and fluctuations in 

dissolved oxygen, pH, and suspended and dissolved materials, areas where streams or springs flow 

into lakes may be important refugia (USFWS 1993c).

Fish begin making short migrations up into streams when discharge increases at any time from early 

February through early April, although March is probably the most frequent month of movement 

(Scoppetone et al. 1995). On the Modoc NF, spawning runs normally occur in March to April, when 

these fish move from Clear Lake into Willow Creek. In Willow Creek radio-tagged suckers were 

found to migrate only 3 to 6 km and remain on spawning grounds for 2 to 3 weeks (Perkins and 

Scoppetone 1996). Larvae emerge and spend at best only a short time in shallow water along stream 

edges before moving into lakes. Larval downstream movement occurs mostly at night over about a 

six-week period from late march to early June; the timing of out-migration depends on spawning 

time. Although the feeding habits of these two species have not been studied, their mouth morphology 

and gill rakers suggest that the Lost River sucker feeds on hard-shelled bottom invertebrates or on 

large plankton. The shortnose sucker strains plankton, primarily zooplankton, from the water (Moyle 

1976).

Population decreases of these suckers seem to be primarily related to decreasing spawning habitat 

from damming, draining, and dredging of historical spawning areas (USFWS 1993c). Other 

predominant threats to these suckers are continued loss of habitat, water diversions, competition and 

predation by introduced species, hybridization with other sucker species, insularization of remaining 

habitats, and drought (USFWS 1988b, CDFG 1991). Decreases in water quality resulting from timber 

harvest, dredging activities, removal of riparian vegetation, and livestock grazing may also cause 

problems for these species (USFWS 1988b).

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Critical Habitat

The primary constituent elements (PCEs) determined necessary to the survival and recovery of the 

Lost River and shortnose sucker include the following: 

Water: This PCE includes a quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e., temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, lack of nutrients, contaminants, turbidity, etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in 

accordance with a hydrologic regime that is required for the particular life stage for each species. This 

also includes those physical and structural features of a functioning watershed (i.e., springs, riparian

areas, wetlands, floodplains, etc.) that provide or maintain water quality sufficient to meet the current 

or future needs of the suckers. 

Physical Habitat: This PCE includes areas of the Upper Klamath Basin watershed that are inhabited 

or potentially habitable by suckers for use as refugia from stressful water quality conditions or 

predation, or in spawning, nursery, feeding, rearing, normal behavior, or as corridors between these 

areas. These areas include seasonal wetlands and areas used or potentially used seasonally by the 

listed suckers. 

Biological Environment: Food supply, predation, parasitism, and competition are important elements 

of the biological environment and are considered components of this constituent element. Food 

supply is a function of nutrient supply, productivity, and availability for each life stage of the species. 

Predation, although considered a normal component of this environment, may be out of balance due 

to introduced fish species or the elimination of refugial structures. Competition from nonnative fish 

species and parasitism may also be elevated due to stresses induced by degraded habitats. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

344 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

These primary constituent elements form complex interrelationships in the life history of the Lost 

River and shortnose suckers. These relationships are a prime consideration in the selection of 

proposed critical habitat areas. 

Modoc Sucker

Species Account

The Modoc sucker historically occurred in small tributaries of the Upper Pit River in Lassen and 

Modoc Counties, California, but is now found only in portions of the Turner Creek and the Rush 

Creek drainage systems in Modoc County. 

A 1978 California Department of Fish and Game survey reported the species from eight creeks: 

Washington, Hulbert, Turner, Willow, Ash, Dutch Flat, Johnson, and Rush. Habitat degradation has 

removed natural barriers and allowed hybridization with the related Sacramento sucker (Catostomus 

occidentalis), which is threatening the genetic integrity of the Modoc sucker.

On June 11, 1985, the Modoc sucker was listed as an endangered species and critical habitat was 

designated.

Habitat Status

Preferred habitat of the species consists of small streams characterized by large, shallow pools with 

cover, soft sediments, and clear water. Food of the Modoc sucker consists of benthic invertebrates, 

algae, and detritus. During spring spawning runs, the species ascends creeks or tributaries that may 

be dry during summer months. Spawning takes place over fine gravels in the lower end of pools or in 

riffles between mid-April and early June. Spawning has been observed from mid-morning to late 

afternoon, at temperatures of 13 to 16 degrees C, in water around 15 cm deep. Spawning behavior is 

similar to that of other suckers: Males enter the spawning grounds first and wait for females. When a 

ripe female enters, 2 to 3 males quickly assume positions on each side, and milt and eggs are released 

simultaneously. Fertilized eggs drop into interstices in the gravel. Females have a fairly high 

fecundity for their size, compared with other suckers: two females, measuring 162 and 165 SL, 

contained 6,395 and 12,590 eggs, respectively (Moyle 2002).

Modoc Sucker Critical Habitat

Primary constituent elements include intermittent and permanent-water creeks, and surrounding land 

areas that provide vegetation for cover and protection from erosion (Federal Register, vol. 50, no. 

112, June 11, 1985).

Warner Sucker

Species Account

The Warner sucker is endemic to the streams and lakes of the Warner Basin in south-central Oregon. 

This species is particularly interesting in that it is part of a relict fauna isolated in remaining waters of 

a larger Pleistocene lake that previously covered much of the basin floor. Early residents of the area 

recalled when the suckers and other fishes were very abundant and would ascend the creeks in the 

spring for spawning. The Warner sucker is presently known to occur in portions of Crump and Hart 

Lake, the spillway canal north of Hart Lake, and portions of Snyder, Honey, Twentymile, and 

Twelvemile Creeks.

The Warner sucker was listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

September 27, 1985. 

The Warner sucker is found outside of the watersheds of any of the proposed actions. There would be 

no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 345

Shasta Crayfish

Species Account

The range of the Shasta crayfish is very limited, occurring only within the mid-section of the Pit 

River drainage system of Shasta County. It is grouped into eight geographically isolated populations. 

One of these populations, the Fall River/Fall River Mill population, is considered to be extirpated

(extinct). The total population in 1978 was estimated to be fewer than 6,000 individuals (Daniels 

1980). Subsequent loss of habitat points to a 1988 population that probably numbered fewer than 

3,000 individuals (USFWS 1988). They have a low abundance and their distribution is highly 

fragmented. Migration and genetic exchange between populations is limited by hydroelectric 

development, natural barriers, and loss of habitat (USFWS 1998). 

There is no habitat for Shasta Crayfish on the Modoc National Forest. This species only occurs about 

25 miles west of the Modoc National Forest, primarily in the Fall River and Hat Creek sub-drainages 

of the Pit River in Shasta County. 

Shasta crayfish are found in cool, clear springs, lakes, and streams, frequently at or near a spring 

source, in areas with abundant volcanic rubble or boulders for escape cover from predators (Light and 

Clarke 1991). They prefer boulder/cobble substrate, but also use silty substrate as long as rocks are 

not embedded. They have been observed using aquatic vegetation for cover, but use of vegetation is 

uncommon. The species prefers areas of water movement as in locations with distinct flow from a 

spring source. They are found in all habitat types, such as pools, riffles, and runs, but prefer runs. 

Hydroelectric developments have resulted in habitat loss and fragmentation. The introduction of 

nonnative crayfish species, particularly the signal crayfish, introduction of nonnative game fish 

species, pathogens from introduced species, hatchery management, trout habitat restoration, and 

crayfishing have also contributed to a population decline. Sedimentation of lava substrate preferred 

by Shasta crayfish has been brought about through channelization, dredging, logging, forest fires, 

culverts and bridges, agriculture, grazing, and muskrat activity.

This species was listed as a Federal endangered species in 1988. Critical habitat has not been 

designated. 

This species is distributed in the watershed, but far downstream (greater than 25 miles) and up 

tributaries of the Pit River. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.

Table 3-161. USDA Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Aquatic Species that Occur on or Have Habitat 

Downstream from the Modoc National Forest

Common Name Scientific Name Taxon Category for 

Project Analysis 

*

California floater Anodonta californiensis invertebrate 1

Topaz juga Juga acutifilosa invertebrate 1

Cascade frog Rana cascadae amphibian 1

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens amphibian 1

Spotted frog Rana pretiosa amphibian 1

Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata reptile 3

Goose Lake sucker Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus fish 3

Goose Lake tui chub Gila bicolor thallassina fish 3

Goose Lake lamprey Lampetra tridentata ssp. fish 3

Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 6 fish 3

Warner Valley redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 4 fish 1
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

346 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

* Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project

Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the 

project

Category 3: Species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project

Northwestern Pond Turtle

Species Account

Northwestern pond turtles have been sighted in several locations on the Forest, including Willow 

Creek on Big Valley RD, Lost River on Doublehead RD, and along the Pit River near Alturas. Pond 

turtles use a variety of habitats in areas with permanent or relatively permanent water that have a 

slower current. They require basking sites (e.g. partially submerged logs, rocks, open mud banks) 

and are omnivorous.

Goose Lake Sucker

Species Account

The Goose Lake sucker is a described subspecies of Sacramento sucker. The Goose Lake sucker was 

originally described in 1913 as a subspecies (Fowler 1913) and further studies indicated that the 

subspecies was distinct, but the differences minor. During their second year, Goose Lake suckers 

migrate in April or May, depending on water temperature, to spawn in streams that are tributary to the 

lake (Martin 1967). Adults have been found in the lake, some of the streams, and some of the 

reservoirs throughout the year. During summer, young suckers are very abundant in shallow water 

among aquatic macrophytes. Goose Lake suckers feed primarily on algae and diatoms (Martin 1967).

The uppermost distribution of Goose Lake suckers are on the western boundary of the Forest in 

Willow Creek on the Warner Mountain RD.

Goose Lake Tui Chub

Species Account

In California tui chubs are native mostly to interior drainages, except the Central Valley, and absent 

from all coastal drainages, except where introduced. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage tui 

chubs are native only to Pit River downstream at least as far as Hat Creek and Lake Britton and to 

Goose Lake, although they have been introduced into some reservoirs and ponds in various locations. 

The Goose Lake tui chub is considered by Snyder (1908) to be the native tui chub of the upper Pit 

River from Big Valley upstream to and including Goose Lake. Hubbs et. al. (1979) determined that 

the Pit River form and the Goose Lake form of tui chub were distinct and that the Goose Lake tui 

chub was a distinct subspecies with the thallassina name. Tui chubs in general are opportunistic 

omnivores and consume a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates (Moyle 1976). Tui chubs are 

abundant and widely distributed, and so are not in trouble as a species (Moyle 2002).

Goose Lake tui chubs are not present on the Forest, but are found approximately two miles 

downstream of the Forest boundary in Lassen and Willow Creeks.

Goose Lake Lamprey

Species Account

The Goose Lake lamprey is an undescribed subspecies of the sea-run Pacific lamprey (Lampetra 

tridentata). It is likely that they migrate up suitable tributary streams in winter or spring to spawn. 

They have to move up far enough, possibly 12 to 19 miles upstream of the lake to find gravel for 

spawning and to have enough suitable soft-bottomed habitat downstream of the spawning area for 

survival of the ammocoetes. The ammocoetes probably spend four to six years in streams before 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 347

metamorphosing into adults and moving out into the lake. There is a need to develop an 

understanding of the taxonomy and life history of this form of landlocked population. Goose Lake 

lampreys are found approximately two miles downstream of the Forest boundary in Lassen and 

Willow Creeks. Lampreys are found in Lassen Creek, but are an undescribed lamprey (Entosphenus 

spp.)

Goose Lake Redband Trout

Species Account

The name redband trout is used to cover a confusing complex of distinctive trouts that occur in 

isolated headwater streams of the McCloud, Pit, Klamath, and Columbia River systems of California, 

Nevada, and Oregon. The Goose Lake redband trout is endemic to Goose Lake and its major 

tributaries (Lassen and Willow creeks in California and the extensive Thomas Creek system and 

Crane Creek in Oregon), as well as to smaller streams such as Cottonwood Creek in California and 

several small streams in Oregon. Berg (1987) reported that Joseph, Parker, and East creeks 

(tributaries of the upper Pit River in California) contained trout genetically similar to Goose Lake 

redband. This species has both lake and stream dwelling populations, which both rely on headwater 

streams for spawning. Riffles with clean gravels and suitable water temperatures are required. 

The long-term persistence of this fish depends largely on the health of populations in the headwater 

streams flowing into Goose Lake in Oregon and California, even though much of the conservation 

attention has focused on large fish in the lake itself. The extirpation of the lake population during a 

drought and its subsequent partial recovery indicate the probable importance of downstream 

colonization of the lake from headwater populations. Because of the high level of concern over 

extirpation of Goose Lake redbands (and other native fishes) from Goose Lake when it dried up, 

conservation efforts have been under way in the watershed, by both agencies and private landowners, 

to restore streams (i.e., by changing grazing practices) and to remove or alter migration barriers 

(Moyle 2002). Populations are currently stable.

In addition, there are 13 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Modoc National Forest, 

including one MIS for riverine and lacustrine habitats, aquatic macroinvertebrates. The effects of this 

project on habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates are described in detail in the Modoc National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management Project MIS Report (see the project record).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1—No Action

Alternative 2—Proposed Action 

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

See the effects methodology section above regarding how this analysis was conducted.

Alternative 1—No Action

Under this alternative, no new routes would be added to the road system. There would be no seasonal 

closure of system roads, and mixed use would be allowed only on existing level 2 roads. There would 

be no addition of unauthorized routes to the transportation system. The Boles road would not be 

closed, and the pumice mine roads would not be closed to OHV use. There would be no seasonal 

closures. Cross-country travel that includes the use of the existing unauthorized routes (491 miles)

would not be prohibited.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

348 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to TES species from roads and motor vehicle use include individual mortality due to 

crushing. High levels of mortality due to crushing are not expected, and are essentially not an issue. 

These segments were analyzed in the Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have 

diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 

form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management 

zone (SMZ)” was met. Indirect effects to aquatic and aquatic dependent species resulting from roads 

and motor vehicle use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment 

delivery and, to a lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting).

There are a total of 6.74 miles of unauthorized routes within riparian conservation areas (RCAs) for 

perennial streams and lakes, and 37.84 miles of unauthorized routes within RCAs for seasonally 

flowing streams and lakes. There are 88.71 miles of unauthorized routes within designated critical 

aquatic refuges (CARs), of which 0 miles are within perennial streams and lakes, and 0.66 miles of 

unauthorized routes within seasonally flowing streams and lakes. There are 4.01 miles of 

unauthorized routes within perennial streams and lakes of TES species habitat, and 2.12 miles of 

unauthorized routes within seasonally flowing streams and lakes of TES species habitat. There is 

unlimited potential for extensions of existing routes and creation of new routes, as well as the 

continuation of cross-country travel.

Two-thirds of the routes are less than 1⁄4 mile in length. Only five percent of the routes are over one

mile in length. There are 10 crossings of perennial streams and lakes, and 221 crossing of seasonally 

flowing streams and lakes. Seven crossings are within perennial streams and lakes with TES species. 

Three crossings are within seasonally flowing streams and lakes with TES species. Use was measured 

in the vicinity of three of the seven perennial water crossings with habitat for TES species on July 11 

and 25, 2008. In 24 hours of total observation (between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm), a total of 23 vehicles 

were observed. Of these, 19 were administrative use (permittee, road maintenance, Forest Service 

patrol) and 4 were for recreational use. This amounted to 0.17 vehicles per hour recreational use on 

the system roads that would be used to access the more remote unauthorized routes. This type of use 

is typical for much of the Forest in regards to the use of unauthorized routes. Actual use of 

unauthorized routes is probably lower when averaged throughout the Forest. The impact use on 

aquatic species from this is negligible.

Indirect effects to aquatic and aquatic-dependent species resulting from roads and motor vehicle use 

would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and, to a lesser 

degree, riparian habitat alteration.

Although cross-country travel currently occurs throughout the Forest, the scope and impact from this 

travel would likely not result in a change of conditions for aquatic species. This use is very limited in 

scope and generally occurs outside of riparian habitats. 

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Alternative 1 has seven stream crossings of a stream or lake with Lost River sucker and shortnose 

sucker habitat. Route ML223 is a crossing of an existing dam that was created as part of the Fourmile 

wetland. This is an elevated dike that is lined with rocks along both faces, and is vegetated by willows 

and sedges. This crossing was most recently used (fall 2008) for wetland improvement and stream 

passage improvement for shortnose suckers. This crossing does not come in contact with active 

stream flow during any potential use. Route BA209 is used by a grazing permittee to access a fence 

line used as part of a grazing allotment. Use of this route is very low and limited to the summer. 

Route ML 280 is used to access a dispersed camping site along Willow Creek. Routes ML268 and 

ML277 are used for shoreline access to Clear Lake for recreation and fishing. Use of these routes is 

very low and limited to the summer when the shoreline is dry. Any effects on water quality and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 349

quantity, physical habitat, or biological environment would be very low. Route PUB001 is a road 

used by hunters and range permittees.

It was reported in the Soil and Water section of the FEIS that the standard (from BMPEP T02 form) 

measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management zone 

(SMZ)” was met for Routes ML223, BA209, ML280, and PUB001. Routes ML268 and ML277 may 

generate runoff into Clear Lake which could result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of 

the Lost River and shortnose sucker. Runoff could include erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals 

that may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. Mud from vehicles may be transported 

into the lake and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden waters that could disturb juvenile fish 

that occur along shallow edge areas of the lake. Fish could be adversely affected from exposure to 

toxic chemicals resulting from spillage and runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), 

motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, and solvents.

Direct effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from roads and motorized vehicle use 

include individual mortality due to crushing. The likelihood that a fish would be within the area at the 

same time as a vehicle is very low or discountable, especially since the road use occurs when road are 

dry, outside of the season when suckers are present (March to early June).

Indirect effects to the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker could include degradation of suitable 

breeding and spawning habitat due to decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. 

Runoff could include erosional silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic 

habitats during rain events. Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks 

during subsequent storm events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include 

engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, 

and solvents. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level of the roads. 

Indirect effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle 

use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a 

lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

There are seven routes which are located within critical habitat. Direct effects to Lost River sucker

and shortnose sucker from roads and motorized vehicle use include individual mortality due to 

crushing. There is only one proposed route within occupied Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 

habitat. The likelihood that a fish would be within the area at the same time as a vehicle is very low 

or discountable especially since the road use occurs when road are dry, outside of the season when 

suckers are present (March to early June). It was reported in the Soil and Water section of the FEIS 

that the standard (from BMPEP T02 form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of 

transport to the streamside management zone (SMZ)” was met for routes ML223, ML280, and 

PUB001. Routes ML268 and ML277 may generate runoff into Clear Lake which could result in 

mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of the Lost River and shortnose sucker. Use of these 

routes is very low and limited to the summer when the shoreline is dry. Any effects on water quality 

and quantity, physical habitat, or biological environment would be very low.

Indirect effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level. 

Modoc Sucker

The Modoc sucker is found in the Upper Pit River and associated creeks including Washington, 

Hulbert, Turner, Willow, Ash, Dutch Flat, Johnson, and Rush creeks. 

Alternative 1 serves as an environmental baseline for all alternatives. There are 58 route segments 

within the Turner Creek CAR, ranging from 0.02 to 4.25 miles in length. Most of these unauthorized 

routes have been in existence for over 40 years. There are six routes that are within riparian 

conservation areas of Modoc sucker habitat. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

350 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

These segments were analyzed in the Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have 

diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 

form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management 

zone (SMZ)” was met. There are no unauthorized routes crossing stream channels within habitat of 

the Modoc sucker.

Motor vehicle use was measured in the vicinity of the Turner Creek CAR on June 27, 2008, July 11, 

2008, and July 13, 2008. In 12 hours of total observation (between 9:30 am and 3:30 pm), a total of 

six vehicles were observed. This amounted to 0.5 vehicles per hour recreational use on the system 

road that would be used to access the more remote unauthorized routes in the CAR. Vehicle use on 

roads can generate runoff which could result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of the 

Modoc sucker. Runoff could include erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed 

into aquatic habitats during rain events. Mud from vehicles working on off-road sections may be 

transported into the creek at road crossings and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden waters 

that could smother egg masses or disturb juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge areas of the 

creek. Fish could be adversely affected from exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from spillage and 

runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other 

oils, greases, and solvents. However, mortality is not expected because there are no roads crossing in 

occupied Modoc sucker habitat, and routes are not hydrologically connected to perennial or 

seasonally flowing streams. 

Indirect effects, which could include degradation of suitable breeding and spawning habitat due 

decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion, are anticipated to be negligible or low, based 

on a minimum distance of one mile to the nearest occupied Modoc sucker habitat. 

No critical habitat is within proposed additional route areas; thus, no direct or indirect effects would

occur.

Northwestern Pond Turtle

The lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country use would increase access to habitat from 

system and unauthorized routes. It would also continue the potential for unlimited use of motorized 

vehicles off-road. Northwestern pond turtles are rarely found outside of the water or adjacent riparian 

zone. Direct effects from roads and motorized vehicle use include individual mortality due to 

crushing. High levels of mortality due to crushing are not expected and are essentially not an issue 

because recreational use of off-highway vehicles has been found to be extremely low in the riparian 

areas on the Forest. Furthermore, there are a limited number of cross-country motorized use stream 

crossings within suitable habitat. Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment 

delivery, leakage of petroleum products into the habitat, habitat alteration, and collection. These 

effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the 

roads. None of the routes were identified as being hydrologically connected to the stream network, or 

having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water report, Modoc Travel Management 

FEIS, Chapter 3).

Goose Lake Sucker

The lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country use would increase access to habitat from 

system and unauthorized routes. There are no stream crossings of occupied habitat and no routes 

within 300 feet of suitable habitat. Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment 

delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to 

the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the roads and none of the routes was identified as being 

hydrologically connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes 

(Soils and Water report).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 351

Goose Lake Tui Chub, Goose Lake Lamprey

The lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country use would increase access to habitat from 

system and unauthorized routes. There are currently no stream crossings of occupied habitat and no 

routes within 300 feet of suitable habitat. Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to 

sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or 

low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the roads and none of the routes was identified 

as being hydrologically connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or 

lakes (Soils and Water report).

Goose Lake Redband Trout

The lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country use would increase access to habitat from 

system and unauthorized routes. There are three stream crossings of occupied habitat. These crossings 

are at dispersed recreation sites and are used by recreationists on a limited scale. Direct effects from 

roads and motorized vehicle use include individual mortality due to crushing. High levels of mortality 

due to crushing are not expected and are essentially not an issue. There are currently 31 unauthorized 

routes within 300 feet of suitable habitat (see Table 3-159) with a total length of 2.06 miles. While the 

routes are located within the RCAs for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically 

connected to the stream courses, nor are they contributing sediment to the water column (Soil and 

Water Report). There are currently 275 unauthorized routes within CARs with a total length of 67.49 

miles. These routes are predominately old skid trails or existing temporary roads that have functional 

water bars, and are generally not actively eroding. These routes did not display either diversion 

potential or hydrologic connectivity to the stream courses. In addition, the routes near the higher 

elevations are generally located on very rocky ground with a high concentration of surface rock that is 

cobble sized (Soil and Water Report). Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to 

sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or 

low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the road crossings. None of the routes within 

300 feet of the stream, or within CARs were identified as being hydrologically connected to the 

stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water report). An 

increase in illegal collection could occur with an increase in access by travel off designated areas, as 

Goose Lake redband trout are a game species. Current regulations prohibit the possession of redband

trout.

Cumulative Effects

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

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

treatments and fire, range management, dam construction and maintenance, recreation, timber 

management and vegetation treatment, reforestation, road management, special uses, and 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 appendix E, 

which was developed by reviewing the July – September 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions.

Many actions have some potential for increasing road density either temporarily or permanently, 

including timber management (site preparation, planting, thinning, harvesting), prescribed fire, 

juniper removal and aspen enhancement, wetlands creation and maintenance, and recreational site 

development and maintenance. 

Based on species-specific natural history characteristics, the primary direct and indirect effects to 

aquatic species from motor vehicle use are related to increased sediment delivery to stream channels,

and alteration of riparian vegetation. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

352 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

English (2004) estimates that the Modoc National Forest receives 22,755 recreational visits from 

people participating in OHV use, and 897 visits annually from people participating in OHV use as a 

primary reason for their visit.

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities within TES habitat include the use of system roads, 

recreation activities, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. These activities occur throughout the 

habitat of the TES, and have occurred in the past. These actions could cumulatively affect habitat by

the contribution of sediment, petroleum products and removal or alteration of vegetation. Alternative 

1 would have the highest risk of mortality of individuals due to direct and indirect effects, mostly 

related to the continuation of cross country travel, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5

Forest-wide, the impacts from the proposed project, combined with the cumulative impacts from 

roads, recreation, timber harvest, and grazing are not expected to impact the population of the species.

Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, there are 1,168 unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the 

transportation system. The average road length to be added would be less than a third of a mile. 

These routes add approximately 339 miles and constitute approximately 616 acres of roadway. This 

alternative has the most unauthorized routes being added to the transportation system. A total of 6.3 

percent of the number of routes (approximately 5.9 percent of the total miles) proposed to be added to 

the transportation system would have some form of seasonal closure. The Boles road would be closed 

to all use, and the pumice mine road would be closed to OHV use.

There would be 1.8 miles of unauthorized routes added to the transportation system within the RCAs 

for perennial streams and lakes. There would be 17.6 miles of unauthorized routes added within the 

RCAs for seasonally flowing streams and seasonally wet lakes. There would be 38.93 miles of 

unauthorized routes within CARs for perennial streams and lakes, and 0.5 miles of unauthorized 

routes added within CARs for seasonally flowing streams and lakes. There would be 1.16 miles of 

unauthorized routes within perennial streams and lakes of TES species habitat, and 0.62 miles of 

unauthorized routes within seasonally flowing streams and lakes of TES species habitat. There would 

be five crossings of perennial streams and lakes, and 114 crossing of seasonal flowing streams and 

lakes. Two crossings are within perennial streams and lakes with TES species. Two crossings are 

within seasonally flowing streams and lakes with TES species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to TES species from roads and motor vehicle use include individual mortality due to 

crushing. High levels of mortality due to crushing are not expected, and are essentially not an issue. 

These segments were analyzed in the Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have 

diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 

form) measurement, “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management 

zone (SMZ)” was met. Indirect effects to aquatic and aquatic dependent species resulting from roads 

and motor vehicle use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment 

delivery and, to a lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting).

Currently, cross country travel occurs that includes approximately 491 miles of unauthorized routes 

that may be used for OHV travel. This alternative proposes to add 339 miles of those routes; 20 

miles, or 5.9 percent, would receive seasonal closure for resource protection. The most typical 

condition is the trail tread having a strip of grass on both sides with a strip in the middle. This is 

characteristic of use by ATVs or pickup trucks, rather than motorcycles. OHV use on the Forest is 

highest during hunting season. Seasonal closure would result in a slight reduction of in-channel 

sediment delivery during periods of closure, but the use of these roads is very limited.

Use of unauthorized routes would most likely be around the 0.17 vehicles per hour recreational use 

estimated above. This type of use is typical for much of the Forest for the use of unauthorized routes. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 353

Actual use of unauthorized routes is probably lower when averaged throughout the Forest. The impact 

from this use on aquatic species is negligible.

Big Valley Ranger District

There are a total 39.1 miles of unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the transportation

system across 494,307 acres, or 0.14 percent of the Big Valley Ranger District. None of these routes 

is hydrologically connected to perennial streams or lakes; therefore, there would be no increase in 

sedimentation or alteration of riparian vegetation.

Doublehead and Devil’s Garden Ranger Districts

Approximately 268.5 miles of the 339 miles are located on the Doublehead and Devil’s Garden 

Ranger Districts, or approximately 79 percent of the proposed routes on the Modoc National Forest. 

Of the 268.5 miles, only 0.08 miles, or 0.15 acres, are located within the RCAs for perennial streams 

or lakes. There are approximately 32 acres within seasonally flowing RCAs created by the proposed 

routes. None of these routes was identified as being hydrologically connected to the stream network,

or as being sediment sources; therefore, there would be no increase in sedimentation or alteration of 

riparian vegetation.

Warner Mountain Ranger District

There are a total 31.4 miles of unauthorized routes that are proposed to be added to the transportation

system across 361,564 acres, or 0.02 percent of the WMRD. The routes that are proposed to be added 

are old skid trails and temporary roads that have been made hydrologically stable by the installation 

of water bars. There are 1.72 miles of unauthorized routes, or 3.1 acres within RCAs for perennial 

stream or lakes. The largest concentration is associated with Lassen Creek (0.5 miles, or less than 

one acre) and Northwest Shore Middle Alkali Lake (0.7 miles, or 1.3 acres). While the routes are 

located within the RCAs for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically connected to the 

stream courses, nor are they contributing sediment to the water column (see soil and water resources 

section). There is no habitat present for T&E aquatic species present within any unauthorized routes 

on the Warner Mountain Ranger District. Therefore, there would be no effect on any T&E species.

We do not anticipate a high level of long-term, sustained OHV use as a result of adding unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS. This is because near the population centers (i.e., towns and cities near the Lassen, 

Klamath, and Fremont-Winema National Forests and adjacent BLM lands), there are already OHV 

use areas. Occasionally there is OHV use on the Forest, but it is generally in association with other 

activities, (e.g., camping, woodcutting, hunting or other Forest recreational use). The typical OHV 

use on the Forest is generally restricted to ATVs and other four-wheel-drive vehicles, with limited 

motorcycle use. These users tend to use system roads and skid trails or temporary roads. English 

(2004) estimates that the Modoc National Forest receives 22,755 recreational visits from people 

participating in OHV use, and 897 visits from people participating in OHV use as a primary reason 

for their visit annually. Therefore, there would be no significant increase in sedimentation or 

alteration of riparian vegetation due to the addition of the addition of the unauthorized routes to the 

NFTS.

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Alternative 2 has two stream crossings, ML233 and BA209, of a stream or lake with Lost River 

sucker and shortnose sucker habitat. The direct effects of these crossings are described in Alternative 

1. 

Indirect effects to the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker could include degradation of suitable 

breeding and spawning habitat due to decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. 

Runoff could include erosional silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic 

habitats during rain events. Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks 

during subsequent storm events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

354 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, 

and solvents. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level of the roads. 

Indirect effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle 

use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a 

lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

There are two routes which are located within critical habitat. The direct effects of these crossings 

are described in Alternative 1. 

Indirect effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level and design of the road. 

Modoc Sucker

There are 37 route segments within the Turner Creek CAR, ranging from 0.02-0.90 miles in length. 

Most of these unauthorized routes have been in existence for over 40 years. There is one route that is

within the Riparian Conservation Area of Modoc sucker habitat. 

These segments were analyzed in the Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have 

diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 

form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management 

zone (SMZ)” was met. There are no unauthorized routes crossing stream channels within habitat of 

the Modoc sucker.

Motor vehicle use was measured in the vicinity of the Turner Creek CAR on June 27, 2008, July 11, 

2008, and July 13, 2008. In 12 hours of total observation (between 9:30 am and 3:30 pm), a total of 

six vehicles were observed. This amounted to 0.5 vehicles per hour recreational use on the system 

road that would be used to access the more remote unauthorized routes in the CAR. Vehicle use on 

roads can generate runoff which could result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of the 

Modoc sucker. Runoff could include erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed 

into aquatic habitats during rain events. Mud from vehicles working on off-road sections may be 

transported into the creek at road crossings and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden waters 

that could smother egg masses or disturb juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge areas of the 

creek. Fish could be adversely affected from exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from spillage and 

runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other 

oils, greases, and solvents. However, mortality is not expected because there are no roads crossing in 

occupied Modoc sucker habitat and routes are not hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally 

flowing streams. 

Indirect effects, which could include degradation of suitable breeding and spawning habitat due 

decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion, are anticipated to be negligible or low, based 

on a minimum distance of one mile to the nearest occupied Modoc sucker habitat. 

No critical habitat for this species is affected by this alternative. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel. There are 24 routes within 300 feet 

of suitable habitat for a length of 1.8 miles. None of these routes is identified as being hydrologically 

connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water 

report, Modoc Travel Management FEIS, Chapter 3). There is one stream crossing over suitable 

habitat. This is a crossing of an existing dam that was created as part of the Fourmile wetland. It is an 

elevated dike that is lined with rocks along both faces and is vegetated by willows and sedges. This 

crossing does not come in contact with active stream flow during any potential use. Indirect effects 

could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, leakage of petroleum products into the 

habitat, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to 

the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the roads. All effects would be less because motorized 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 355

travel would only be allowed on authorized routes and these routes would be maintained to USFS 

standards.

Goose Lake Sucker

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel. There would be no routes within 

300 feet of suitable habitat. There would be no stream crossings within suitable habitat. Indirect 

effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. 

These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of 

the proposed routes within the watershed. None of these routes was identified as being hydrologically 

connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water 

report). Goose Lake suckers are not considered a game species and are generally not collected for 

sport or any other purpose.

Goose Lake Tui Chub, Goose Lake Lamprey

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel. There would be no routes within 

300 feet of suitable habitat. There would be no stream crossings within suitable habitat. Indirect 

effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. 

These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of 

the proposed routes within the watershed. None of these routes was identified as being hydrologically 

connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water 

report). Goose tui chubs and Goose Lake lampreys are not considered a game species, and are 

generally not collected for sport or any other purpose.

Goose Lake Redband Trout

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel. There would be 10 routes within 

300 feet of suitable habitat with a total of 1.01 miles. While the routes are located within the RCAs 

for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically connected to the stream courses, nor are 

they contributing sediment to the water column (Soil and Water Report). There would be two stream 

crossings within suitable habitat. These crossings are at dispersed recreation sites, and are used by 

recreationists on a limited scale. Direct effects from roads and motorized vehicle use include 

individual mortality due to crushing. High levels of mortality due to crushing are not expected and are 

essentially not an issue. There are 140 routes within CARs, with a total length of 29.42 miles. These 

routes are predominately old skid trails or existing temporary roads that have functional water bars, 

and are generally not actively eroding. These routes did not display either diversion potential or 

hydrologic connectivity to the stream courses. In addition, the routes near the higher elevations are 

generally located on very rocky ground with a high concentration of surface rock that is cobble sized 

(Soil and Water Report). Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, 

habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the 

limited amount of motor vehicle use of the road crossings. None of the routes within 300 feet of the 

stream, or within CARs was identified as being hydrologically connected to the stream network, or 

having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water report). Indirect effects could include 

habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are 

anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the proposed 

routes within the watershed. An increase in illegal collection could occur as Goose Lake redband 

trout are a game species. Current regulations prohibit the possession of redband trout. 

Cumulative effects

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

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

treatments and fire, range management, dam construction and maintenance, recreation, timber 

management and vegetation treatment, reforestation, road management, special uses, and noxious 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

356 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

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 appendix E, 

which was developed by reviewing the July – September 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions.

Many actions have some potential for increasing road density either temporarily or permanently, 

including timber management (site preparation, planting, thinning, harvesting), prescribed fire, 

juniper removal and aspen enhancement, wetlands creation and maintenance, and recreational site 

development and maintenance. 

Based on species-specific natural history characteristics, the primary direct and indirect effects to 

aquatic species from motor vehicle use are related to increased sediment delivery to stream channels 

and alteration of riparian vegetation. Based on the information presented above and the Soil and 

Water Resources section of this document, at the Forest scale it does not appear that there would be 

discernable differences between this alternative and the other action alternatives in terms of their 

direct and indirect effects on aquatic and aquatic dependent species and their habitat. However, there 

would be a slight reduction in the number and length of streams at a high risk of adverse effects to 

aquatic habitat, when compared to Alternative 1. 

English (2004) estimates that the Modoc National Forest receives 22,755 recreational visits from 

people participating in OHV use, and 897 visits annually from people participating in OHV use as a 

primary reason for their visit.

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities within TES habitat include the use of system roads, 

recreation activities, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. These activities occur throughout the 

habitat of the TES and have occurred in the past. These actions could cumulatively affect habitat by 

the contribution of sediment, petroleum products and removal or alteration of vegetation. 

Forest-wide, the impacts from the proposed project combined with the cumulative impacts from 

roads, recreation, timber harvest, and grazing are not expected to impact the population the species

Forest-wide, this use is not expected to be a significant impact due to the limited amount of motor 

vehicle use in the areas of concern.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, no new unauthorized routes would be added to the road system. There would be 

no seasonal closure of system roads, and mixed use of approximately 3,764 miles of maintenance

level 2 roads would continue. The Boles road would not be closed and the pumice mine roads would 

not be closed to OHV use. There would be no additional seasonal closures. Cross-country travel 

would be prohibited.

There would be 0 miles of unauthorized routes added to the transportation system within the RCAs 

for perennial streams and lakes. There would be 0 miles of unauthorized routes added within the 

RCAs for seasonally flowing streams and seasonally wet lakes. There would be 0 miles of 

unauthorized routes within CARs for perennial streams and lakes, and 0 miles of unauthorized routes 

added within CARs for seasonally flowing streams and lakes. There are 0 miles of unauthorized 

routes within perennial streams and lakes of T&E species habitat, and 0 miles of unauthorized routes 

within seasonally flowing streams and lakes of T&E species habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The impact from this alternative is expected to have the greatest reduction of risk of adverse aquatic 

habitat alteration, as unauthorized route use would be prohibited. Direct effects to aquatic 

macroinvertebrates include individual mortality due to crushing. High levels of mortality due to 

crushing are not expected. It is not an issue because it would be eliminated within areas where use is

prohibited.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 357

Although cross-country travel currently occurs throughout the Forest, the scope and impact from 

prohibition of this travel would not result in a change of conditions for aquatic species. This use is 

very limited in scope and generally occurs outside of riparian habitats. 

Indirect effects to aquatic and aquatic-dependent species resulting from roads and motor vehicle use 

would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and, to a lesser 

degree, riparian habitat alteration.

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Modoc Sucker

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Northwestern Pond Turtle

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Goose Lake Sucker

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Goose Lake Tui Chub, Goose Lake lamprey

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Goose Lake Redband Trout

This alternative prohibits cross-country travel and does not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. 

This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection to the species

Cumulative Effects

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

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

treatments and fire, range management, dam construction and maintenance, recreation, timber 

management and vegetation treatment, reforestation, road management, special uses, and 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 appendix E, 

which was developed by reviewing the July – September 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions.

Many actions have some potential for increasing road density either temporarily or permanently, 

including timber management (site preparation, planting, thinning, harvesting), prescribed fire, 

juniper removal and aspen enhancement, wetlands creation and maintenance, and recreational site 

development and maintenance. 

Based on species-specific natural history characteristics, the primary direct and indirect effects to 

aquatic species from motor vehicle use are related to increased sediment delivery to stream channels 

and alteration of riparian vegetation. 

English (2004) estimates that the Modoc National Forest receives 22,755 recreational visits from 

people participating in OHV use, and 897 visits annually from people participating in OHV use as a 

primary reason for their visit.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

358 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities within TES habitat include the use of system roads, 

recreation activities, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. These activities occur throughout the 

habitat of the TES and have occurred in the past. These actions could cumulatively affect habitat by 

the contribution of sediment, petroleum products and removal or alteration of vegetation. 

Forest-wide, the impacts from the proposed project, combined with the cumulative impacts from 

roads, recreation, timber harvest, and grazing are not expected to impact the population the species.

Alternative 3 would benefit TES the most by eliminating disturbance from vehicles within habitat, 

thereby reducing the cumulative impacts from roads, recreation, timber harvest, and grazing.

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4, 1,025 unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the transportation system. 

The average road length to be added would be less than a third of a mile. These routes would add 

approximately 286 miles and constitute approximately 521 acres of roadways across the Modoc 

National Forest. The Boles road would be closed to all vehicles, and the pumice mine road would be 

closed to OHV use. There are more seasonal closures on the transportation system under this action 

alternative than all of the other alternatives.

This alternative has fewer miles and number of routes to be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System on the Modoc National Forest than does Alternative 2. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no routes proposed to be added to the transportation system that were not analyzed under 

Alternative 2. There would be 0.51 miles of unauthorized routes within perennial streams and lakes of 

TES species habitat and 0.23 miles of unauthorized routes within seasonally flowing streams and 

lakes of TES species habitat. There would be 17.28 miles of unauthorized routes within designated 

CARs. There are five crossings of perennial streams and lakes, and 100 crossings of seasonally 

flowing streams and lakes. Two crossings are within perennial streams and lakes with TES species. 

One crossing is within seasonally flowing streams and lakes with TES species. Reference Alternative 

2 for direct and indirect effects.

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Alternative 4 has one stream crossing of a stream or lake with Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 

habitat. This is a crossing of an existing dam that was created as part of the Fourmile wetland. This is 

an elevated dike that is lined with rocks along both faces and is vegetated by willows and sedges. This 

crossing was most recently used (Fall 2008) for wetland improvement and stream passage 

improvement for shortnose suckers. This crossing does not come in contact with active stream flow 

during any potential use. It was reported in the Soil and Water section of the FEIS that the standard 

(from BMPEP T02 form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the 

streamside management zone (SMZ)” was met. The route that crosses the dam is ML233 and is .28 

miles in length. This is a connector route, which joins two existing system roads. 

Direct effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from roads and motorized vehicle use 

include individual mortality due to crushing. Vehicle use on roads can generate runoff, which could 

result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of the Modoc sucker. Runoff could include 

erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. 

Mud from vehicles working on off-road sections may be transported into the creek at road crossings 

and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden waters that could smother egg masses or disturb 

juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge areas of the creek. Fish could be adversely affected from 

exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from spillage and runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and 

diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, and solvents. There is only one 

proposed route within occupied Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker habitat. The construction of 

the dam and the nature of its use make it unlikely that runoff would occur. In addition, the likelihood 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 359

that a fish would be within the area at the same time as a vehicle is very low or discountable 

especially since the road consists of a raised dike.

Indirect effects to the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker could include degradation of suitable 

breeding and spawning habitat due to decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. 

Runoff could include erosional silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic 

habitats during rain events. Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks 

during subsequent storm events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include 

engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, 

and solvents. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level of the roads. 

Indirect effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle 

use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a 

lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

One route is located within critical habitat. Because of the nature of the route (which is built over a 

dam), it is unlikely that runoff would occur. In addition, the likelihood that a fish would be within the 

area at the same time as a vehicle is very low or discountable, especially since the road consists of a 

raised dike. Therefore, any effects on water quality and quantity, physical habitat, or biological 

environment would be very low or discountable.

Indirect effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level and design of the road. 

Modoc Sucker

There are 37 route segments within the Turner Creek CAR, ranging from 0.02 to 0.90 miles in length. 

Most of these unauthorized routes have been in existence for over 40 years. There is one route that is

within the riparian conservation area of Modoc sucker habitat. These segments were analyzed in the 

Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not hydrologically connected to perennial or 

seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It 

was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no 

evidence of transport to the streamside management zone (SMZ)” was met. There are no 

unauthorized routes crossing stream channels within habitat of the Modoc sucker.

Vehicle use on roads can generate runoff which could result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life 

stages of the Modoc sucker. Runoff could include erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that may 

be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. Mud from vehicles working on off-road sections 

may be transported into the creek at road crossings and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden 

waters that could smother egg masses or disturb juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge areas of 

the creek. Fish could be adversely affected from exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from spillage 

and runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other 

oils, greases, and solvents. However, mortality is not expected because there are no roads crossing in 

occupied Modoc sucker habitat and routes are not hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally 

flowing streams. 

Indirect effects to the Modoc sucker could include degradation of suitable breeding and spawning 

habitat due to decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. Runoff could include 

erosional silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain 

events. Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks during subsequent 

storm events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include engine fuels (e.g., 

gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, and solvents. 

However, based on a minimum distance of one mile to the nearest occupied Modoc sucker habitat, 

the effects due to the above effects are anticipated to be negligible or low.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

360 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

Indirect effects to Modoc sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle use would include 

habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a lesser degree, 

riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

No critical habitat is within proposed additional route areas; thus, no direct or indirect effect would

occur.

Northwestern Pond Turtle

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Sucker

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Tui Chub, Goose Lake Lamprey

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Redband Trout

There would be nine routes within 300 feet of suitable habitat with a total of 0.95 miles. While the 

routes are located within the RCAs for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically 

connected to the stream courses, nor are they contributing sediment to the water column (Soil and 

Water Report). There would be two stream crossings within suitable habitat. These crossings are at 

dispersed recreation sites and are used by recreationists on a limited scale. Direct effects from roads 

and motorized vehicle use include individual mortality due to crushing. High levels of mortality due 

to crushing are not expected and are essentially not an issue. There are 92 routes within CAR’s with a 

total length of 16.79 miles. These routes are predominately old skid trails or existing temporary roads 

that have functional water bars, and are generally not actively eroding. These routes did not display 

either diversion potential or hydrologic connectivity to the stream courses. In addition, the routes near 

the higher elevations are generally located on very rocky ground with a high concentration of surface 

rock that is cobble sized (Soil and Water Report). Indirect effects could include habitat degradation 

due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated to be 

negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the road crossings. None of the 

routes within 300 feet of the stream, or within CARs were identified as being hydrologically 

connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water 

report). Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, 

and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of

motor vehicle use of the proposed routes within the watershed. An increase in illegal collection could 

occur as Goose Lake redband trout are a game species. Current regulations prohibit the possession of 

redband trout.

Cumulative Effects

Reference Alternative 2 for cumulative effects.

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5, 1,168 unauthorized routes are proposed to be added to the transportation system, 

the same as Alternative 2. The average road length to be added would be less then a third of a mile 

long. These routes would add approximately 339 miles, and constitute approximately 617 acres of 

roadways. The Boles road would be closed to all vehicles and the pumice mine roads would be 

closed to OHV use. The seasonal closures to the transportation system under this action alternative 

are the same as Alternative 2, except that there are two versus four different closure dates. There are 

nearly four times as many miles of mixed use (Alternative 5-531 miles compared to Alternative 2-138 

miles). There are five crossings of perennial streams and lakes, and 100 crossings of seasonally 

flowing streams and lakes. Two crossings are within perennial streams and lakes with TES species. 

One crossing is within seasonally flowing streams and lakes with TES species. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 361

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no routes proposed to be added to the transportation system that were not analyzed under 

Alternative 2. Reference Alternative 2 for direct and indirect effects.

Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Implementation of Alternative 5, as amended, would be a net benefit to the species as cross country 

travel would not be allowed, including motorized use of existing unauthorized routes. . 

Alternative 5 has one crossing of a stream or lake with Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 

habitat. This is a crossing of an existing dam that was created as part of the Fourmile wetland. This is 

an elevated dike that is lined with rocks along both faces and is vegetated by willows and sedges. This 

crossing was most recently used (Fall 2008) for wetland improvement and stream passage 

improvement for shortnose suckers. This crossing does not come in contact with active stream flow 

during any potential use. It was reported in the Soil and Water section of the FEIS that the standard 

(from BMPEP T02 form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the 

streamside management zone (SMZ)” was met. The route that crosses the dam is ML 233 and is .28 

miles in length. This is a connector route that joins two existing system roads. 

Direct effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from roads and motorized vehicle use 

include individual mortality due to crushing. Vehicle use on roads can generate runoff, which could 

result in mortality or sublethal effects to all life stages of the Modoc sucker. Runoff could include 

erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. 

Mud from vehicles working on off-road sections may be transported into the creek at road crossings 

and result in micro-plumes of heavily silt-laden waters that could smother egg masses or disturb 

juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge areas of the creek. Fish could be adversely affected from 

exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from spillage and runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and 

diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, and solvents. There is only one 

proposed route within occupied Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker habitat. The construction of 

the dam and the nature of its use make it unlikely that runoff would occur. In addition, the likelihood 

that a fish would be within the area at the same time as a vehicle is very low or discountable 

especially since the road consists of a raised dike.

Indirect effects to the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker could include degradation of suitable 

breeding and spawning habitat due to decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. 

Runoff could include erosional silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic 

habitats during rain events. Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks 

during subsequent storm events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include 

engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, 

and solvents. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level of the roads. 

Indirect effects to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle 

use would include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a 

lesser degree, riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

There is one route which is located within critical habitat. Because of the nature of the route (which 

is built over a dam), it is unlikely that runoff would occur. In addition, the likelihood that a fish would

be within the area at the same time as a vehicle is very low or discountable especially since the road 

consists of a raised dike. Therefore, any effects on water quality and quantity, physical habitat, or 

biological environment would be very low or discountable.

Indirect effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the use level and design of the road. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

362 Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms

Modoc Sucker

Alternative 5 adds 34 route segments within the Turner Creek CAR, ranging from 0.02-0.90 miles in 

length. Most of these unauthorized routes have been in existence for over 40 years. All of the 

segments are located outside of riparian conservation areas. 

All of the proposed segments are greater than one mile from active hydrological systems. These 

segments were analyzed in the Soils and Water section of the FEIS: “The routes are not 

hydrologically connected to perennial or seasonally flowing stream network....” and “...do not have 

diversion potential to streams or lakes.” It was also reported that the standard (from BMPEP T02 

form) measurement “Sediment to channel: no evidence of transport to the streamside management 

zone (SMZ)” was met.

Vehicle use on roads can generate runoff, which could result in mortality or sublethal effects to all 

life stages of the Modoc sucker. Runoff could include erosional silt or spills of toxic chemicals that 

may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. Mud from vehicles working on off-road 

sections may be transported into the creek at road crossings and result in micro-plumes of heavily siltladen waters that could smother egg masses or disturb juvenile fish that occur along shallow edge 

areas of the creek. Fish could be adversely affected from exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from 

spillage and runoff of engine fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and 

various other oils, greases, and solvents. However, mortality is not expected because there are no 

roads crossing in occupied Modoc sucker habitat and the nearest habitat is one mile away. 

Indirect effects to the Modoc sucker could include degradation of suitable breeding and spawning 

habitat due decreased water quality from sedimentation and erosion. Runoff could include erosional 

silt and spills of toxic chemicals that may be washed into aquatic habitats during rain events. 

Chemicals spilled onto travel routes could mobilize into nearby creeks during subsequent storm 

events could adversely affect fish. Examples of toxic materials include engine fuels (e.g., gasoline 

and diesel fuel), motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and various other oils, greases, and solvents. However, 

based on a minimum distance of 1 mile to the nearest occupied Modoc sucker habitat, the effects due 

to the above effects are anticipated to be negligible or low.

Indirect effects to the Modoc sucker resulting from roads and motorized vehicle use would include 

habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment delivery and to a lesser degree, 

riparian habitat alteration and collection (fishing and hunting). 

No critical habitat is within proposed additional route areas; thus, no direct or indirect effects would

occur.

Northwestern Pond Turtle

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Sucker

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Tui Chub, Goose Lake Lamprey

See Alternative 2.

Goose Lake Redband Trout

There would be nine routes within 300 feet of suitable habitat with a total of 0.97 miles. While the 

routes are located within the RCAs for perennial streams and lakes, they are not hydrologically 

connected to the stream courses, nor are they contributing sediment to the water column (Soil and 

Water Report). There would be two stream crossings within suitable habitat. These crossings are at 

dispersed recreation sites and are used by recreationists on a limited scale. Direct effects from roads 

and motorized vehicle use include individual mortality due to crushing. High levels of mortality due 

to crushing are not expected, and are essentially not an issue. There are 131 routes within CARs with 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Aquatic Organisms 363

a total length of 27.03 miles. These routes are predominately old skid trails or existing temporary 

roads that have functional water bars, and are generally not actively eroding. These routes did not 

display either diversion potential or hydrologic connectivity to the stream courses. In addition, the 

routes near the higher elevations are generally located on very rocky ground with a high concentration 

of surface rock that is cobble sized (Soil and Water Report). Indirect effects could include habitat 

degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, and collection. These effects are anticipated 

to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of motor vehicle use of the road crossings. None of 

the routes within 300 feet of the stream, or within CARs was identified as being hydrologically 

connected to the stream network, or having diversion potential to streams or lakes (Soils and Water 

report). Indirect effects could include habitat degradation due to sediment delivery, habitat alteration, 

and collection. These effects are anticipated to be negligible or low due to the limited amount of 

motor vehicle use of the proposed routes within the watershed. An increase in illegal collection could 

occur, as Goose Lake redband trout are a game species. Current regulations prohibit the possession of 

redband trout.

Cumulative Effects

Reference Alternative 2 for cumulative effects.

Summary of Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1 would have the most effects to aquatic species and habitat, primarily from in-channel 

sediment delivery and riparian habitat alteration from unauthorized road use. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest number of miles of unauthorized roads within RCAs, CARs, and TES habitat. It also has the 

greatest number of unauthorized road stream crossings within RCAs and TES habitat. Alternative 3 

would have the least effect to aquatic species and habitat due to the prohibition of unauthorized route 

use. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are intermediate in effects to Alternatives 1 and 3, with Alternative 4 

having a slightly less impacts in regards to miles of unauthorized roads within habitat of TES species. 

Alternative 2 has a slightly higher number (14) of unauthorized crossings of seasonally flowing 

streams within RCAs, and one more unauthorized stream crossing of a seasonally flowing stream of 

TES species habitat than Alternatives 4 and 5.

Summary of Determinations

The analysis in the Biological Assessment of effects of the project determined that there would be “no 

effect” on the Warner sucker and Shasta crayfish. There was a “no effect” determination for the 

Modoc sucker, Lost River sucker, and shortnose sucker with the implementation of Alternative 3. 

There was a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” determination for the Modoc sucker, Lost 

River sucker, and shortnose sucker with the implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. There was 

a determination of “no effect” from all alternatives on Modoc sucker critical habitat. There was a 

determination of “no effect” from Alternative 3 on proposed critical habitat of the Lost River and 

shortnose sucker. There was a determination of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” from 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 for the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker on proposed critical habitat. 

The Biological Evaluation found that there would be a “no impact” determination for the California 

floater, Topaz juga, Cascade frog, northern leopard frog, spotted frog , and Warner Valley redband 

trout. There would be a “may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or loss of viability” determination for the northwestern pond turtle, Goose Lake sucker, Goose 

Lake tui chub, Goose Lake lamprey, and Goose Lake redband trout. 

Compliance with the Modoc LRMP and Other Direction

By prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle traffic, all four of the action alternatives would comply 

with the Modoc LRMP as amended. They also comply with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment and the Endangered Species Act. 

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 365

Roadless and Special Areas

This section describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences for Roadless 

and Special Areas. Roadless Areas are Inventoried Roadless Areas identified in the second Roadless 

Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II). Special Areas are Forest Plan management-area land 

allocations that include Research Natural Areas (RNA), Special Interest Areas (SIA), Wild and 

Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness 

(USDA 2005a).

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, LRMP, and Other 

Direction

The Forest Service conducted RARE II from 1977 to 1979, studying 201,600 acres on the Modoc 

National Forest for their Wilderness values. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 designated 70,385 

of those acres as Wilderness, released about 201,600 acres for non-wilderness uses and identified one 

“further planning area” named Raider Basin (6,481 acres) for more study and future consideration as 

Wilderness. Since that time, Raider Basin has been designated as an RNA in the Wilderness area.

Effects Analysis Methodology

This analysis focuses on how each alternative would affect Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and 

Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRAs), and their characteristics on the Modoc National Forest. 

Roadless and special indicators identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule are listed 

below, along with the data sources and assumptions specific to Roadless and Special Areas.

Data Sources

• MDF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)

• MDF GIS - Special Area Layers for IRAs, SIAs, RNAs, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

• GIS Layer - Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas (Submitted by the Wilderness Society)

• MDF GIS Layer for National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and proposed 

unauthorized routes

Assumptions Specific to Roadless and Special Areas

• All of the unauthorized routes considered for motorized use are currently available for 

motorized use because nothing prohibits such use. The effect of this motorized use is part of 

the existing situation.

• Actions proposed within Wilderness comply with Wilderness designations and the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984. Designated Wilderness is not affected by the proposed 

action or any alternative; motorized activity is prohibited in those areas under all 

alternatives.

• Outside of designated Wilderness, no forest order prohibiting motorized use or crosscountry travel is in effect within Roadless and Special Areas.

Roadless Area Indicators

The environmental consequences described for the alternatives below identify only the individual 

roadless and Special Areas affected by that alternative using the following indicators.

Roadless Area Characteristics: The following values or features often characterize Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (66 Federal Register 9, January 12, 2001; p. 3245):
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

366 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

High-quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air: These three key resources are the foundation upon 

which other resource values and outputs depend. Healthy watersheds catch, store, and safely release 

water over time, protecting downstream communities from flooding; providing clean water for 

domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife 

populations; and form the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation.

Sources of public drinking water: National Forest System lands contain watersheds that are 

important sources of public drinking water. Maintaining these areas in a relatively undisturbed 

condition saves downstream communities millions of dollars in water filtration costs.

Diversity of plant and animal communities: Roadless areas are more likely than roaded areas to 

support greater ecosystem health, including the diversity of native and desired non-native plant and 

animal communities due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and accompanying activities. 

Inventoried roadless areas also conserve native biodiversity by serving as a bulwark against the 

spread of non-native invasive species.

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land: Roadless areas function as biological 

strongholds and refuges for many species.

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized recreation opportunities: 

Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, 

hunting, fishing, nordic skiing, and canoeing. While they may have many wilderness-like attributes, 

unlike Wilderness, mountain bikes and other mechanized uses are often allowed.

Reference landscapes: Knowledge about the effects of management activities over long periods of 

time and on large landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes of relatively undisturbed areas 

serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts of the landscape. 

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality: High-quality scenery, especially scenery 

with natural-appearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people choose to recreate.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, 

structures, art or objects that played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred sites 

are places with special religious significance to a group. Traditional cultural properties and sacred 

sites may be eligible for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, many of 

them have not yet been inventoried, especially those that occur in Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Other locally identified unique characteristics: Roadless areas may offer other locally identified 

unique characteristics and values. Examples include uncommon geological formations, valued for 

their scientific and scenic qualities, or unique wetland complexes.

Special-Area Indicators

Research Natural Area Values: RNA values are specific to each RNA and may include selected 

aquatic, geologic, or vegetative elements.

Special Interest Area Values: SIA values are specific to each SIA and may include unique botanical, 

cultural, geologic, scenic, historical, and memorial features.

Wild and Scenic River Values: For a river to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation, it 

must be free-flowing and, with its adjacent land area, must possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values (Federal Register 1982). For the purpose of this analysis, Wild and Scenic River or 

Outstandingly Remarkable (OR) values are interchangeable. OR values are specific to each river 

segment any may include cultural, ecological, fish, geological, historical, scenic, recreational, 

wildlife, or other special and unique features (USDA 1991b).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 367

Wilderness Characteristics

The principal Wilderness characteristics, as described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, 

that follow are generally, but not necessarily, listed in order of importance or desirability (USDA 

2007).

Natural

Ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization and generally appear 

affected primarily by forces of nature. Effects of modern civilization are—

• The presence of non-native species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal 

communities (such as non-native plants, animals, fish, livestock, invertebrates, and 

pathogens)

• Developments that degrade the free-flowing condition of rivers and streams (such as dams 

or other water diversions and impoundments). 

• The presence of light pollution that degrades night sky quality and night sky quality related 

values

• The presence of pollutants that degrade water quality; and,

• The health of ecosystems, plant communities, and plant species that are rare or at risk.

Undeveloped

The degree to which the area is without permanent improvements or human habitation. A measure of 

undeveloped is the level of human occupation and modification including evidence of structures, 

construction, habitations, or other forms of human presence, use and occupation.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation

The area provides solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation, including a wide range of 

experiential opportunities such as physical and mental challenge, adventure and self-reliance, feelings 

of solitude, isolation, self-awareness and inspiration. Solitude is the opportunity to experience 

isolation from sights, sounds, and the presence of others from the developments and evidence of 

humans. The opportunity to experience isolation from the evidence of humans, to feel a part of nature, 

to have a vastness of scale, and a degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills are measures 

of primitive and unconfined recreation.

Special Features and Values

The area provides other values such as those with ecological, geological, scientific, educational, 

scenic, historical, or cultural significance. Examples include unique fish and wildlife species, unique 

plants or plant communities, connectivity, potential or existing research natural areas, outstanding 

landscape features, and significant cultural resource sites.

Roadless and Special-Areas Methodology by Action

The effects of each alternative are described below according to three actions common to all 

alternatives:

1. Cross-country travel: Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel is included in all 

alternatives except Alternative 1 (No Action).

2. Additions to the NFTS: No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in IRAs or 

Special Areas in any alternative.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

368 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS: This includes changes to vehicle class and season of use on the 

existing NFTS. Impacts caused by changes to vehicle class and season of use on the existing 

NFTS are described generally by alternative. MDF Inventoried Roadless Areas Affected 

Environment Both RARE II and the California Wilderness Act of 1984 resulted in several 

decisions for designation, based on issues and resource values, resulting in the now 20 

specific, named IRAs listed in Table 3-160, along with the Forest Plan management area 

allocations. The Inventoried Roadless Areas are listed in the table below.

Table 3-162. Inventoried Roadless Areas: Categories, Acres, and NFTS Road Miles

Inventoried

Roadless Area

(IRA)

ID#

(Map)

IRA Category* Acres LRMP Acres + Existing System

(NFTS)

Road Miles

Bear Camp Flat 1 1C 2,477 2,300 6.44

Big Canyon 2 1C, 1B 6,615 6,400 3.2

Burnt Lava Flow 3 1B 8,387 8,800 .90

Callahan Flow 4 1B, 1C 6,574 8,000 6.25

Crane Mountain

(600)**

5 1C 1,255

2,400

0.27

Damon Butte 6 1C 25,022 24,700 50.85

Dobie Flat 7 1C 15,078 12,900 28.88

Dry 8 1B,1C 7,726 7,100 1.33

Hat Mountain 9 1C 9,475 9,900 25.64

Knox Mountain

(200)**

10 1C 5,976

5,900

13.22

Lavas 11 1B, 1C 25,864 25,400 37.74

Mount Bidwell 12 1C 11,657 11,600 18.17

Mount Hoffman

(200)**

13 1B,1C 9,780

10,800

2.35

Mount Vida 

(80)**

14 1B, 1C 7,770 9,100 5.99

Parsnip 15 1B, 1C 8,485 8,200 5.57

Powley 16 1C 6,268 6,200 0.26

Sears Flat 

(500)**

17 1C 12,957 12,500 19.51

Soldier 18 1B, 1C 10,095 9,400 4.63

Steele Swamp 19 1C 18,958 20,000 26.39

Mill 20 1C 315 315 1.04

Total* 200,734 201,600 258.63

*1B: Inventoried Roadless Area where road construction or reconstruction is not allowed

*1C: Inventoried Roadless Area where road construction or reconstruction is allowed

** Numbers in parentheses are private acres included in total acreage for the roadless area

+ Since the time the LRMP was created, GIS technology has advanced and allows for a more accurate measurement of acres. 

The boundaries of the IRA have not changed but the ability to measure more accurately has. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 369

The information about the Roadless Areas is summarized from appendix E of the Modoc National 

Forest Land and Resources Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LRMP FEIS)

prepared in 1991. 

Review of the LRMP Roadless Areas and transportation maps indicate that the LRMP FEIS 

published in 1991 underestimated the number and amount of roads contained in many of the areas. In 

addition, the descriptions identify those areas that do not have water resources within the boundaries.

After the 1978 Roadless Area Review and Evaluation, the Forest Service recommended adding 1,940 

acres to the South Warner Wilderness. On September 28, 1984, The California Wilderness Act 

(Public Law 98-425) amended the boundary of the South Warner Wilderness to include those 

recommendations and released the remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas from wilderness 

consideration for this planning period. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Bear Camp Flat – 2,300 acres 

Bear Camp Flat adjoins the South Warner Wilderness. The terrain is gently sloping until it 

approaches the Wilderness, where it steepens sharply to the ridge tops that form the boundary on the 

west, north, and east sides of Bear Camp Flat. Lodgepole pine, mahogany, and meadows dominate 

the landscape. Primary uses include hunting and cattle grazing. Current uses include livestock 

watering ponds and drift fences, and approximately six miles of primitive road. 

Big Canyon – 6,400 Acres 

Big Canyon is located in the central portion of the Forest and is bisected by the Pit River. The terrain 

is mountainous and extremely steep along the sides of the river. Elevations range from 4,320 feet to 

5,730 feet at the summit of Noble Bluff to the west. The boundary is irregular and ill-defined. Roads 

surround the area. 

Big Canyon to the west is a long, narrow, moderately sloped canyon, with scattered ponderosa pine 

with dense pockets of timber at the head of the canyon. Pit River Canyon is extremely steep, 

dominated by large rocky outcrops. A major feature is Hanging Rock. The east side of the canyon 

contains numerous steep sided draws which contain scattered, dense pockets of ponderosa pine. The 

canyon walls are vegetated with sagebrush and grass. Current uses include cattle grazing, hunting, 

and fishing. 

Burnt Lava Flow – 8,800 Acres 

Burnt Lava Flow is located on the western portion of the Forest and extends onto the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest. The configuration is generally oval with the boundary following the lava flow. 

The flow consists of a recent flow of jumbled, black lava surrounding three large islands of timber on 

old cinder cones that protrude above the flow, as well as several small islands of timber in 

depressions caused by lava dividing and flowing around them. The prominent feature is High Hole 

Crater at the north, a semi-barren cinder cone rising 386 feet above the flow, with a crater 

approximately 150 deep. Several ice caves are located at the northern edge of the flow and others 

probably exist in the largely unexplored interior region. Well-traveled roads are visible from most 

points within the area. There is no water source.

The Burnt Lava Flow was withdrawn from mineral entry in 1967, following its original classification 

as a Virgin Area in 1957. On May 21, 1982, the area was classified as a Geological Area by the 

Pacific Southwest Regional Forester. This classification requires that the area remain in as near 

natural condition as possible. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

370 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

Callahan Flow – 8,000 Acres 

The Callahan Flow is located in the northwestern portion of the Forest and rests against the south and 

west boundaries of the Lava Beds National Monument. The configuration is long and narrow. The 

north, west, and south boundaries meander along the Callahan Lava Flow. 

The topography is formed by two major lava flows and is characterized by broken rough lava, gently 

flowing into two wavy fan shapes. The oldest flow to the north is extensively covered by native 

bunchgrass, while the southern area is rugged and difficult to travel. No water exists. 

Current uses are principally cattle grazing, occasional sightseeing, hunting, and educational and 

scientific study. An historic logging railroad grade parallels the southern boundary. 

Crane Mountain – 2,400 Acres 

Crane Mountain is located in the north Warner Mountain Range, extending into Oregon on the 

Fremont National Forest. This discussion is confined to the 10 percent portion in California. The 

south boundary parallels the road north of Cave Lake and Lily Lake campgrounds. 

The topography is steep and mountainous, ranging from 5,000 feet along the west boundary to 7,000 

feet at the summit of an unnamed peak near the Oregon border. 

Mixed conifer, white fir, juniper, lodgepole pine, and mountain mahogany dominate the area. Primary 

uses include a little cattle grazing and sightseeing. Non-conforming uses include two miles of 

primitive roads providing access into private property, and remnants of past gold mining activity. 

Damon Butte - 24,700 Acres

Damon Butte is located in the western portion of the Forest. The area nestles between the Burlington 

Northern Railroad to the west and State Highway 139 to the east. Beyond the boundary to the north 

and south projects Timber Mountain and Damon Butte. 

The terrain is defined by vast expansions of relatively rough lava. Large areas of juniper and 

sagebrush to the north and established timber stands to the south provide some variety. Current uses 

include sheep grazing, hunting, and wood gathering. 

Nearly 10,000 acres of the area was burned in the 1996 Damon-Long Fire. Over 65 miles of dozer 

lines were established during this 23,373 acre fire, many in the Damon Butte area. Timber salvage 

occurred on the scattered timber stands over 2,600 acres. Much of the area is in plantations and 

managed for timber production. Over 48 miles of roads are contained in the area. 

Dobie Flat – 12,900 Acres

Dobie Flat is located in the western portion of the Forest. The boundary runs parallel to the Southern 

Pacific Railroad, a 500-kilovolt power line on the east, and the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNR) 

on the west. The Lavas Roadless Area lies across the tracks to the west of the BNR. The terrain 

consists of expansive areas of flat, broken, rough lava. Grasses, interrupted by extensive stands of 

sagebrush and juniper, dominate the landscape. The predominant feature of the area is Casuse 

Mountain, a barren hill. The climate is generally windy year-round. The topography provides little 

available refuge. Wildfires are common. 

Dry – 7,100 Acres 

Dry is located in the central portion of the Warner Mountain range, adjacent to the Forest boundary, 

and north of the Parker Creek Road. Terrain is mountainous and steep, ranging from 5,200 feet to 

6,840 feet at the summit of an unnamed peak east of Dry Creek Basin. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 371

Vegetation consists of heavy timber in the canyons with juniper on the ridges. Primary uses include 

hunting and cattle grazing. Non-conforming uses include livestock ponds scattered throughout the 

area, and a fence which borders the private land to the north. 

The area contains habitat for mule deer winter and summer range, fawning areas, and prairie falcon 

nest sites. 

Hat Mountain – 9,900 Acres 

Hat Mountain is located at the extreme southern end of the Warner Mountains adjacent to the Forest 

boundary. The terrain is generally mountainous, ranging from 7,000 feet to 8,700 feet at the summit.. 

Lodgepole pine and mixed conifers, mountain mahogany, and grasses dominate the landscape. 

Hunting and livestock grazing are primary uses. Non-conforming uses including livestock watering 

ponds, approximately 27 miles of primitive road and 2.5 miles of road providing logging truck access 

to a 730-acre commercial firewood cutting area. 

Wildlife habitat consists of mule deer summer range and fawning areas; existing and potential 

goshawk habitat; potential for pileated woodpecker, osprey, and prairie falcon; and nesting and brood 

rearing sites for waterfowl. 

Knox Mountain – 5,900 Acres

Knox Mountain is located at the southern edge of the Forest and straddles the Modoc-Lassen County 

line. Sears Flat Roadless Area is located to the east. The west boundary follows a ridge, but the 

northwest and eastern boundaries lack definition. Knox Mountain, the prominent feature, runs north 

and south through the central part. The eastern slopes of Knox Mountain are dominated with open 

stands of ponderosa pine. Wildfires are typical. The western slopes of Knox Mountain are dominated

with sagebrush and scattered young juniper, with large stands of mountain mahogany. 

Primary uses of the area include hunting and cattle grazing. Suitable wildlife habitat consists of 

summer range for pronghorn, and winter and summer range for mule deer with localized areas used 

for fawning. 

Lavas – 25,400 Acres 

Lavas is located in the western portion of the Forest. The boundary runs parallel to the Lava Beds 

National Monument on the west, and the BNR on the east. Dobie Flat roadless area lies across the 

tracks to the east of the BNR. The terrain consists of expansive areas of flat, broken, rough lava. 

Grasses interrupted by extensive stands of sagebrush and juniper dominate the landscape. The climate 

is generally windy year-round. The topography provides little available refuge. Wildfires are 

common. 

Primary uses of the area are sheep grazing and big-game hunting. The area provides key winter range 

for deer and pronghorn. 

Mount Bidwell – 11,600 Acres 

Mount Bidwell is located north of the Warner Mountain Range, extending into Oregon on the 

Fremont National Forest. This discussion is confined to the 72 percent portion in California. This 

roadless area is bordered on the east by the Forest boundary, and the road from Fort Bidwell to New 

Pine Creek forms most of the western boundary. About 620 acres of private land are located within 

the area. 

Topography is generally mountainous and extremely steep, ranging from 5,400 feet to 8,290 feet high 

at the summit of Mount Bidwell, the dominant feature. Vegetation consists of lodgepole pine and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

372 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

mixed conifer at higher elevations, giving way to mountain mahogany, aspen, willows, and grasses at 

the lower elevations. 

Primary uses include hunting and livestock grazing. Non-conforming uses include fences and 

primitive roads. Old mining cabins, related facilities, and mine tailings are visible along the 

northwestern boundary. 

Mount Hoffman – 10,800 Acres

Mount Hoffman is located in the western portion of the Forest to the north and northeast of Medicine 

Lake recreational complex. The area consists of two distinct contrasting features - forested slopes of 

Mount Hoffman to the west and Glass Mountain volcanic glass flow to the east. The configuration is 

wide and narrow and generally surrounded by primitive logging and mining roads. The western 

portion extends into the Klamath National Forest. 

The gentle slopes of Mount Hoffman sweep upward, rising to a peak of 7,913 feet where the 

surrounding area, including Mount Shasta and Lassen Peak, can be viewed. Over 5,000 acres of fir, 

lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer cover the landscape in an unbroken pattern. 

To the east, in stark contrast, is Glass Mountain, which is devoid of vegetation. Formed through the 

accumulation of three independent lava flows, the area displays a great mass of volcanic extrusion 

and a wide variety of obsidian, pumice, and minerals. Glass Mountain is a monolith reaching to 7,622 

feet, the highest elevation of any lava flow in the Medicine Lake Highlands. Visitation to the area is 

generally confined to the exterior because of the rough, rugged lava terrain. There is no water. 

Mount Vida – 9,100 Acres 

Mount Vida is located on both sides of the main crest in the north Warner Mountains. It is bordered 

on the west by the Forest boundary and meanders in a southeasterly direction. Its configuration is 

long and narrow, and its boundary difficult to locate on the ground. The topography is mountainous 

with steep canyons. Elevations range from 5,200 feet along the western boundary to 8,200 feet at the 

summit, the dominant feature. Mount Vida provides an excellent vista of California, Nevada, and 

Oregon. 

Vegetation consists of scattered mixed conifer stands at the higher elevations, giving way to sage and 

grasses at the lower elevations. Primary uses are cattle grazing and hiking. Non-conforming uses 

include livestock water developments and fences associated with grazing. The Highgrade National 

Recreation Trail bisects the area in a southwest to northeast direction, passing immediately west of 

the Mount Vida summit. 

Suitable habitat for bald eagles has been identified in the area. Other habitat includes mule deer. 

summer and winter range, existing and potential habitat for goshawk, and potential nesting sites for 

prairie falcon and peregrine falcon. 

Parsnip – 8,200 Acres 

Parsnip is located in the southwest corner of the Warner Mountain range adjacent to the Forest 

boundary. Blue Lake is located just east of the area, with West Valley Reservoir to the west, outside 

the Forest boundary. 

Terrain is gently sloping in the western portion, becoming gradually steeper in the eastern portion 

with elevations ranging from 5,000 feet to 7,000 feet. Vegetation consists of mixed conifer at the 

higher elevations, giving way to juniper and mahogany at the lower elevations. 

Primary uses include hunting and cattle grazing. Non-conforming uses include livestock ponds, trails, 

fences, a water diversion ditch not currently in use, and four miles of primitive roads. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 373

Portions of three cattle allotments and one special-use pasture exist within the area, producing 

approximately 650 AUMs annually. 

Powley – 6,200 Acres 

Powley is located in the north-central portion of the Warner Mountain range between Lake City 

Canyon on the south and Heath Creek on the north. The area is contiguous to the eastern boundary of 

the Forest. The community of Lake City is located to the east in Surprise Valley. The Lake City 

Canyon road separates this area from the Soldier Roadless Area to the south. 

Situated on the eastern facing escarpment of the Warner Mountains, Powley is mountainous and extremely steep. Elevations range from 5,000 feet to 7,600 feet at the crest of the Warner Mountains. 

Vegetation in the area consists of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, white fir, and ponderosa pine at the 

higher elevations, giving way to bitterbrush, mahogany, sage, and grasses at the lower elevations.

Primary use is limited by the steep terrain and consists of hunting and cattle grazing. There are no 

physical improvements within the area. 

Sears Flat – 12,500 Acres 

Sears Flat is located at the southeastern edge of the Forest and straddles the Modoc and Lassen 

County lines. The Knox Mountain roadless area is positioned to the west. Likely Mountain and a 

major ridge running north and south dominate the eastern landscape. 

The topography is characterized by moderate terrain dominated by sage, juniper, and mountain 

mahogany. Several small pockets of ponderosa pine are located in the western portion. 

Primary use of the area is cattle grazing and big-game hunting. 

Wildlife habitat consists of pronghorn summer range and kidding grounds, and mule deer 

intermediate and summer range.

Soldier – 9, 400 Acres 

Soldier is located in the central portion of the Warner Mountain range between Lake City Canyon on 

the north and Highway 299 on the south. The area is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Forest. 

The communities of Lake City and Cedarville are immediately east in Surprise Valley. The Lake City 

Canyon Road separates this area from Powley Roadless Area to the north. 

Situated on the eastern facing escarpment of the Warner Mountains, Soldier is mountainous and extremely steep. Elevations range from 5,000 feet to 8,270 feet at the summit of Bald Mountain. 

Vegetation consists of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, white fir, and ponderosa pine at the higher 

elevations, giving way to mountain mahogany, sage, and grasses at the lower elevations. 

Primary use is limited by the steep terrain and consists of hunting and cattle grazing. There is 

evidence of past logging on some of the lower slopes (abandoned road, mill site, old stumps) but the 

area has almost returned to a natural state. There are no other improvements existing in the area. 

Steele Swamp – 20,000 Acres 

Steel Swamp is located east of Clear Lake Reservoir, approximately three miles south of the Oregon 

border. It is a remote area, and seldom visited except for occasional recreational hunting and livestock 

operations. Most of the land is open; topography is flat. Regular patterns of juniper and grass 

dominate the landscape. The boundary is not well defined by topographic or readily identifiable land 

features. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

374 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

Wet meadows exist on about 30 percent of the area. Current uses in the area include livestock 

watering tanks, fences, an old telephone line right-of-way, and approximately 15 miles of primitive 

road. The historic Applegate Trail crosses the southwest portion.

Figure 3-24. Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Modoc NF
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 375

Special Areas Affected Environment

These areas consist of Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Special-Interest Areas (SIAs), Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and National Natural Landmarks (NNLs). Both SIAs and NNLs are of special interest 

because of unusual scenic, historic, prehistoric, cultural, scientific, natural, or other values, excluding 

wilderness values. RNAs are designated for research, study, observation, monitoring and 

non-destructive, non-manipulative educational activities. They provide for genetic diversity of flora 

and fauna, and protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitat. There are no 

designated Wild and Scenic rivers on the Forest. In the Modoc Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) Willow and Boles Creeks were recommended for possible recommendation. Upon closer 

examination it was determined that these creeks are not suitable candidates for recommendation.

Size and configuration of the areas vary. Some are large, contiguous areas, while others may be 

isolated, small inclusions. Acreage for the Raider Basin Research Natural Area is included in the

South Warner Wilderness. All of the IRAs contain existing NFTS roads. There are no proposed 

additions of unauthorized roads in any of the IRAs or Special Areas in any of the alternatives.

The currently designated RNA and SIA areas are as follows:

• Devil's Garden Research Natural Area

• Burnt Lava Flow Geologic Area

• Glass Mountain Lava Flow Geologic Area

• Medicine Lake Lava Flow Geologic Area

• Raider Basin Research Natural Area

LRMP Direction for Managing Special Areas

• Special Areas Management Prescription Standards and Guidelines (facilities), p. 4-81 – 1 

(S): “Roads required for administrative or scientific purposes will be controlled by locked 

gates. Other roads will be closed or obliterated.”

• Special Areas Management Prescription Standards and Guidelines (facilities ), p. 4-81 – 2 

(S): “Return obliterated roads to resource production and barricade them where necessary.”

• Special Areas Management Prescription Standards and Guidelines (recreational areas), p. 4-

82, 1a (G): “Sign or fence RNAs as necessary to discourage general recreational use and 

especially restrict off-highway vehicle use.”

Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are typical and distinctive natural ecosystems and habitats that are 

generally retained in an unmodified condition. They provide unique opportunities for scientific 

research on plant and animal communities, and associations in environments free of human 

intervention. RNAs provide a baseline for comparison with ecosystems that have been disturbed. 

They also serve as gene pools and preserve endangered natural components of our environment. 

Table 3-163. Existing Research Natural Areas and Size (in acres)

Research 

Natural Area

Type of RNA Acres Existing NFTS 

Road Miles

Devil’s 

Garden RNA

Approved 800 0
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

376 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

Research 

Natural Area

Type of RNA Acres Existing NFTS 

Road Miles

Raider Basin

RNA

Approved 6,481 0

RNAs are managed to maintain select vegetative, aquatic, or geologic elements in natural conditions. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 4063.3 provides protection against any activities that directly or 

indirectly modify ecological processes (USDA 2005b). RNAs, established for research and study 

purposes, are a discrete land area large enough to represent a specific natural ecosystem. RNAs are 

important because they provide benchmarks for comparison of present and future management of the 

national forests and are an invaluable asset. There are no proposed additions of unauthorized roads in 

the Research Natural Areas, in any of the alternatives.

Modoc LRMP Standards and Guidelines for RNAs

Facilities

(S) “Roads required for administrative or scientific purposes will be controlled by locked gates. Other 

roads will be closed or obliterated (p. 4-81).”

(S) “Return obliterated roads to resource production and barricade them where necessary.” (p. 4-81)

Recreation

1. a. (S) “Sign or fence RNAs as necessary to discourage general recreational use and especially 

restrict off-highway use.” (p. 4-82)

Special-Interest Areas

Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are those recognized by the Forest Service as having special 

significance for recreational, scientific, cultural, or educational use. These areas are set aside and 

protected for their scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological or other special 

characteristics with an emphasis on public use, study, and enjoyment.

Table 3-164 : Geologic Special-Interest Areas

Special 

Interest Area

Type of 

SIA

Status Acres Existing NFTS 

Road Miles

Glass 

Mountain 

Glass Flow

1B Geologic 

SIA

Approved 4,210 0

Burnt Lava 

Flow

1B Geologic 

SIA

Approved 8,387 0.9

Medicine Lake 

Glass Flow

1B Geologic 

SIA

Approved 570 0

Officially designating an SIA begins with the Forest Supervisor's recommendation. The Regional 

Forester's approval of the Forest Land Management Plan signifies approval of recommended SIAs. 

Each formally designated area is managed with its own set of standards and guidelines which may 

range from no special management, to seasonal restrictions on certain activities to year-round 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 377

prohibitions on all activities. There is one botanical SIA on the Forest called Dismal Swamp. There 

are no proposed additions of unauthorized roads in the Research Natural Areas, in any of the 

alternatives.

Wilderness Areas

The Modoc National Forest manages the 70,385 acres of the South Warner Wilderness. Actions 

proposed comply with Wilderness designations and the California Wilderness Act of 1984. 

Designated Wilderness is not affected by the proposed action or any alternative. Motorized activity is 

prohibited in those areas under all alternatives. 

The Wilderness areas are managed as Primitive ROS class, and motorized vehicle use is prohibited 

both on and off road. 

Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRA)

This analysis also considers twelve areas recommended as Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas. These 

areas were submitted by a coalition of environmental groups that advocate the expansion of roadless 

areas. They provided us with a GIS layer containing these areas. Unfortunately, the creator of the 

layer is no longer with the organization that provided us the data. Therefore, we have no way of 

knowing how accurate these layers are. Furthermore, we have found discrepancies in the data and 

cannot vouch for its accuracy. 

The CIRAs provided to us are primarily expansions of the existing Inventoried Roadless areas. Only 

the Fandango Peak area is not an expansion. All of the CIRAs contain existing NFTS roads. 

The following table displays the Citizen’s Roadless Proposal. It contains a list of the proposed 

roadless areas, together with a crosswalk to the Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Table 3-165. Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Citizens’ 

Proposed 

Wilderness 

Name

Number of Individual 

and Separate Units 

(Area divided by roads 

or land mass)

Corresponding 

Forest Service 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

Name

ROS 

Class

Acres of FS 

Ownership 

only

Existing 

System 

Road Miles

Captain Jack 12 Lavas, Dobie 

Flat, Callahan 

Flow

SPNM, 

RN

3,851 11.02

Cedar Mountain 3 Soldier SPNM, 

RN

10,053 3.43

Dry Creek 1 Dry SPNM, 

RN

3,118 3.86

Fandango Peak 2 RN 8,732 7.85

Lost River 12 Steele Swamp SPM, 

RN

47,037 33.83

Medicine Lake 3 Burnt Lava, Mt. 

Hoffman

SPNM, 

RN

6,994 18.01

Mt Bidwell 2 Mt Bidwell SPM, 

RN

150 .22

Mt. Vida 3 Mt. Vida RN, 

SPNM

5,690 4.70

Parsnip 2 Parsnip RN, 

SPNM

2,315 3.02

Powley Creek 1 Powley SPNM, 

RN

9,216 19.36
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

378 Chapter 3— Roadless & Special Areas

Citizens’ 

Proposed 

Wilderness 

Name

Number of Individual 

and Separate Units 

(Area divided by roads 

or land mass)

Corresponding 

Forest Service 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

Name

ROS 

Class

Acres of FS 

Ownership 

only

Existing 

System 

Road Miles

Signal 

Rattlesnake

2 Big Canyon SPNM, 

RN

26,270 33.43

South Warner 3 Bear Camp RN 6,360 4.28

Total 129,786 143.01

All of the CIRAs contain existing NFTS roads. The proposed additions of unauthorized roads range 

from 0.22 to 33.83 miles per unit, with a total of 14.82 miles across all of the units (see next table). 

This is a very small number of miles compared to the very large total acreage (129,786) covered. 

PW and PWA are abbreviations for Potential Wilderness and Potential Wilderness Additions, 

respectively. Years ago, the California Wilderness Coalition inventoried all roadless areas with the 

qualities of Potential Wilderness. Potential Wilderness was used to describe areas would be new to 

the wilderness system, while Potential Wilderness Additions was used to describe lands that would be 

added to already existing wilderness areas (Example: Death Valley PWAs would be contiguous to 

existing Death Valley wilderness areas). This information was then put into a GIS data base.

Acreages were then determined and added to the Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory Data Attribute 

Table. (Personal communication, Julia Kernitz, California Wilderness Coalition, August 2009).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 379

Figure 3-25. Wilderness Interests on the Modoc NF

The following table contains the miles and number of proposed unauthorized routes, by 

alternative, for each CIRA.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

380 Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas

Table 3-166. CIRAs: Miles of Proposed Road for Each Alternative 

Alternatives (Miles of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Addition in 

CIRAs)

Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Captain 

Jack

0 0 0 0 0

Cedar 

Mountain 

0 0.54 0 0.11 0.54

Dry Creek 0 0 0 0 0

Fandango 

Peak 

0 1.03 0 0.11 1.03

Lost River 0 5.64 0 0.72 5.64

Medicine 

Lake 

0 2.97 0 0.14 2.97

Mt Bidwell 0 0 0 0 0

Mt. Vida 0 1.19 0 0.56 1.19

Parsnip 0 0 0 0 0

Powley 

Creek

0 3.03 0 0.06 3.03

Signal 

Rattlesnake

0 0.17 0 0 0.17

South 

Warner

0 0.25 0 0.09 0.25

Total 0 14.82 0 1.79 14.82

Environmental Consequences

This section describes the environmental consequences on Inventoried Roadless Areas and the 

area of the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal.

Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-country Motor Vehicle 

Travel

There would be no prohibition of cross-country travel under this alternative. Present miles of 

routes, both within the NFTS and unauthorized, as well as density of routes within the roadless 

areas, are shown in Table 3-164 for the short term. Non-vegetative areas, due to cross-country 

travel routes, may continue to be non-productive because of potential compaction or soil loss. 

Further routes may be created and the overall condition in roadless areas may deteriorate. At the 

same time, routes may become disused and in the long term, overall condition may improve as 

ground re-vegetates and de-compacts. Hydrologic function would generally recover in the long 

term.

The diversity of plant and animal species and habitat for threatened and endangered species 

(TES) dependant on undisturbed areas would continue in the present condition or, with the 

possibility of new routes being pioneered, may continue to degrade.

Recreational activities, such as hiking, backpacking, and wildlife viewing that benefit from a 

degree of isolation, could be further degraded by creation of new routes. Other pursuits such as 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 381

fishing and hunting would continue to be better served by continuation of present access routes, 

and the ability to create new ones.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized 

roads and trails) to the NFTS, Including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class

There would no unauthorized routes added into the NFTS under this alternative. Miles of 

available NFTS routes within the roadless areas and density of routes would be unchanged from 

values shown in Table 3-165 for the short term. Present extent of access for recreation, and 

conversely disturbance, or intrusiveness, of motor vehicles on some qualities of roadless areas 

(Table 3-165) would continue. Present seasons of use and vehicle class on NFTS routes would 

continue.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS (Changes in 

Vehicle Class)

There would be no changes in vehicle class for any route currently in the NFTS under this 

alternative.

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle 

Travel 

The prohibition of cross-country travel would result in a long term reduction of fine sediment 

production that could be transported by surface flow into channels from unauthorized routes. 

There would also be immediate benefits with reduction of noise, dust, and intrusiveness of motor 

vehicles. Hydrologic function would probably return in the long term with reestablishment of 

ground cover. Over the long term, soil productivity would improve because of natural revegetation and de-compaction of unauthorized routes. 

Plant and animal diversity or TES habitat, when dependent on undisturbed areas, should improve 

for some species and some areas in the short term. Some degree of intrusiveness might continue 

because of non-motorized passage by bike riders, backpackers, and hikers, depending on cover 

type or terrain (for example, dense brush is less likely to be crossed than forest), as well as 

pioneering by these visitors. 

Some recreational access would decrease, especially for fishing and hunting. However, the 

isolation incurred by the travel prohibition is generally beneficial to backpackers, picnickers, 

wildlife viewers and other pedestrian pursuits. There would be a decrease in trammeling of 

natural areas by vehicles, and unintentional impacts such as spread of noxious weeds along roads 

or trails. Recovery of natural vegetation would occur along with the reduction in motor vehicle

activities. Because no roads would be built, there would no addition or improvement in structures 

construed with roadways, such as drainage features. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (Presently Unauthorized 

Roads and Trails) to the NFTS, Including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class 

No routes would be added to the NFTS within any of the IRAs, and 14.82 miles total would be 

added in eight CIRAs (Table 3-164). These slight increases would result in minor to 

immeasurable change overall to soil and water resources of the affected areas, as well as minimal 

changes in animal and plant diversity, or TES habitat dependant on undisturbed areas. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

382 Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas

CIRAs overlap and extend beyond the boundaries of IRAs; therefore, the routes are shared 

between them. Also, added routes within a CIRA may not be counted as added to the IRA 

because the segments are outside the IRA. 

This portion of the analysis—of the area adjacent to the roadless area—is concerned primarily 

with the intrusiveness of motor vehicle travel, noise, and dust on primitive and semi-primitive 

qualities, and on animal habitat that depends on a degree of non-disturbance. The added routes 

are mostly small segments that connect an access point on an IRA boundary. Therefore, the 

disturbance these additional routes cause to primitive qualities and animal habitat are considered 

minor or insignificant. Vehicle class and season of use for added routes would be the same as 

connecting system roads.

Parking and dispersed camping would be allowed within 30 feet of a designated route. In regards 

to characteristics of solitude or primitiveness in roadless or wilderness areas, or wildlife habitat, 

the effect would be minimal. There could be some resource damage to soil, trammeling of 

vegetation, and increased erosion from ground disturbance. The scope of damage is uncertain and 

would depend largely on hill slope gradient conducive to parking and camping. Hence, damage 

may be considered minimal because the most erodible and thinnest soils are on steep slopes that 

would be largely unaffected by the proposal. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS (changes in 

vehicle class) 

The proposal to allow motorized mixed use exists on some NFTS roads. None of the routes is

within either an IRA or CIRA. Change in vehicle class may or may not induce a change in traffic 

volume. No significant effect is therefore expected to those characteristics previously identified 

for Roadless or Wilderness areas.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-County Motor Vehicle 

Travel 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited under this alternative. Within the long term there would 

be a reduction of fine sediment production that could be transported by surface flow into 

channels. There would also be immediate benefits with reduction of noise, dust, and intrusiveness 

of motor vehicles. Hydrologic function would probably return with reestablishment of ground 

cover in the long term. Over the long term, soil productivity would improve because of natural revegetation and de-compaction of routes. 

Plant and animal diversity or TES habitat, when dependant on undisturbed areas, should improve, 

for some species and some areas in the short term. Some degree of intrusiveness might continue 

because of non-motorized passage by bike riders, backpackers, and hikers, probably depending 

on cover type or terrain (for example, dense brush is less likely to be crossed than forest), as well 

as pioneering by these visitors. 

Recreational access would decrease, especially for fishing and hunting. However, the isolation 

incurred by the travel prohibition would be generally beneficial to backpackers, picnickers, 

wildlife viewers, and other pedestrian pursuits. There would be a decrease in trammeling of 

natural areas, and unintentional impacts such as spread of noxious weeds along travel routes, 

resulting in a proportional potential recovery of natural vegetation. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 383

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (Presently Unauthorized 

Roads and Trails) to the NFTS, Including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class 

There would no unauthorized routes or areas added to the NFTS under this alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS (Changes in 

Vehicle Class) 

There would no change in vehicle class under this alternative.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle 

Travel 

With the prohibition of cross-country travel there may be reduction of fine sediment production 

that could be transported by surface flow into channels. There would also be short-term benefits 

with reduction of noise, dust, and intrusiveness of motor vehicles. Hydrologic function would 

probably return, in the long term, with reestablishment of ground cover of at least 50 percent on 

disused routes. Over the long term, soil productivity would improve because of re-vegetation and 

de-compaction of routes. 

Plant and animal diversity or TES habitat, when dependent on undisturbed areas, should improve 

for some species and some areas in the short term. Some degree of intrusiveness might continue 

because of non-motorized passage by bike riders, backpackers, and hikers, probably depending 

on cover type or terrain (for example, dense brush is less likely to be crossed than forest), as well 

as pioneering by these visitors. Recreational access would decrease, especially for fishing and 

hunting. However, the isolation incurred by the travel prohibition is generally beneficial to 

backpackers, picnickers, wildlife viewers, and other pedestrian pursuits. There would be a 

decrease in trammeling of natural areas, and unintentional impacts such as spread of noxious 

weeds along roads and trails. A concomitant and proportional potential recovery of natural 

vegetation would occur on unused roads and trails. Because no new roads would be built, there 

would be no improvement or addition of structures, such as roadway drainage features. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized 

roads and trails) to the NFTS, Including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class 

No routes would be added to any IRAs, and only 1.79 miles would be added in seven of the 

CIRAs with this alternative. The unauthorized routes proposed to be added are in seven units 

totaling 94,082 acres. All of the proposed routes would be spurs that come off existing NFTS 

roads. The small number and miles of routes, compared to the existing NFTS roads and the 

amount of acreage, would not result in the Wilderness characteristics of these areas being 

diminished.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS (changes in 

vehicle class) 

Under this alternative there would be no changes to vehicle class on any routes within an IRA or 

CIRA.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

384 Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-County Motor Vehicle 

Travel 

The prohibition of cross-country travel would result in a reduction of fine sediment production 

that could be transported by surface flow into channels. There would also be short-term benefits 

with reduction of noise, dust, and intrusiveness of motor vehicles. Hydrologic function would 

probably return over the long term with reestablishment of ground cover. Over the long term, soil 

productivity would improve because of re-vegetation and de-compaction of routes. 

Plant and animal diversity or TES habitat, when dependant on undisturbed areas, should improve 

for some species and some areas in the short term. Some degree of intrusiveness might continue 

because of non-motorized passage, by bike riders, backpackers and hikers, probably depending 

on cover type or terrain (for example, dense brush is less likely to be crossed than forest), as well 

as pioneering by these visitors. 

Motorized recreational access would decrease, especially for fishing and hunting with the 

prohibition of cross country travel. However, the isolation incurred by the travel prohibition is 

generally beneficial to backpackers, picnickers, wildlife viewers and other pedestrian pursuits. 

There would be a decrease in trammeling of natural areas, and unintentional impacts such as 

spread of noxious weeds along transportation routes. Concomitant with reduction of intrusive 

motor vehicle activities would be a recovery of natural vegetation. As no new roads would be 

built, there would be no improvement or addition of structures, such as roadway drainage 

features. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized 

roads and trails) to the NFTS, Including Identifying Seasons of Use and 

Vehicle Class 

There would be no routes added in any of the IRAs; 14.82 miles, would be added to eight CIRAs. 

These routes would add about 10 percent of the total motorized routes to the combined CIRAs. 

Vehicle class and season of use for added routes would be same as connecting system roads, and 

a continuation of current condition. 

These values, miles of added roads, and total road densities, would result in minor to 

immeasurable change overall to soil and water resources of the affected areas. As well, changes 

in animal and plant diversity, or TES habitat dependant on undisturbed areas are expected to be 

insignificant or minor.

This portion of analysis, of the adjacent area to the roadless, is concerned with the intrusiveness 

of motor vehicle travel, noise, and dust, on primitive and semi-primitive qualities, and on animal 

habitat that depends on a degree of non-disturbance. The added routes are mostly small segments 

that connect an access point on an IRA boundary. Insofar as these routes are not within The 

Roadless Areas themselves, and the total increase is minor, the effects are expected to be 

minimal. 

Parking and dispersed camping would be allowed within 30 feet of a designated route. In regards 

to characteristics of solitude or primitiveness in roadless or wilderness areas, or wildlife habitat 

the effect is most probably minimal. There might be some resource damage to soil, trammeling of 

vegetation, and increased erosion from ground disturbance. The scope of damage is uncertain and 

would depend largely on hill slope gradient conducive to parking and camping. In this regard,

damage may be considered minimal because the most erodible and thinnest soils are on steep 

slopes that would be largely unaffected by the proposal. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS (Changes in 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3—Roadless & Special Areas 385

Vehicle Class) 

There would be no changes in vehicle class in this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives 

Table 3-162 displays the miles of existing NFTS roads and NFTS additions within IRAs for each 

alternative. None of the alternatives proposes new road construction or other development in 

IRAs. 

Motor vehicle use has historically taken place in IRAs, resulting in the existing network of 258.63 

miles of NFTS roads. Records indicate that motor vehicle use (of NFTS roads and unauthorized 

routes) was occurring at the time IRA boundaries were established during the RARE II 

evaluations in 1978. 

The greatest potential threats to maintaining roadless characteristics, as described in the 2001 

Roadless Rule, are road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting (USDA Forest 

Service 2000). These activities pose disproportionately greater risks of altering and fragmenting 

natural landscapes at regional and national scales (Roadless Area Conservation Rule Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1, p. 1-15 to 1-16). Therefore, consideration of cumulative 

effects resulting from present and foreseeable future activities (see appendix E) was limited to 

proposals to construct or reconstruct roads or harvest timber within IRAs. There are no proposals 

to harvest timber in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (the agency schedule for land-management 

activities). 

For CIRAs, the action alternatives are expected to result in extremely minor adverse direct and 

indirect effects to semi-primitive motorized recreation experiences. Semi-primitive motorized 

experiences are characterized by the presence and use of primitive roads and trails. Primitive 

roads are not constructed, and are used by vehicles not primarily intended for highway use (ROS 

Users’ Guide, p. 16). All unauthorized routes in CIRAs (and Forest-wide) are considered to be 

primitive roads or trails. 

No present or reasonably foreseeable actions are known that would increase semi-primitive 

motorized experiences by constructing new primitive roads within CIRAs. As a result, the action 

alternatives would have the cumulative effect of reducing semi-primitive motorized experiences 

in CIRAs by decreasing the miles of primitive roads and trails available for motor vehicle use 

from existing conditions. This effect is expected to be most pronounced in Alternative 3, which 

would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, followed by alternatives 4, 2, and 5. For all 

other characteristics, direct and indirect effects are either not expected or are expected to be 

beneficial overall. Therefore, adverse cumulative effects to these characteristics are not expected. 

Compliance with the Modoc LRMP and Other Direction

Alternative 1 does not meet the requirements of the Modoc LRMP as amended, nor does it meet 

the requirements of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) or the Travel 

Management Rule. All action alternatives are consistent with the Modoc LRMP, as amended, and 

the Travel Management Rule.

Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4—Consultation & Coordination 387

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

Listed below are the Modoc National Forest employees who contributed to this final

environmental impact statement.

Core Interdisciplinary Team Members

Name Contributions Degree(s) Years of Experience

Peter Adams Hydrology & Soils BS, Watershed Science 18

Forest Gauna Botany BA, Plant Biology 3

Judy Perkins Botany BA, MS English

BS, Botany

PhD, Organismal Biology 

and Ecology

8

Kathleen Borovac Team Leader BS, Natural Resource 

Management

18

Boyd Turner Wildlife Biology BS, Wildlife Management 20

Gerald Gates Cultural Resources BA and MA, 

Anthropology

31

Marty Yamagiwa Aquatic Biota BS, Wildlife Management 22

Robert Haggard Visual Resources BS, Forest Management 35

Support Interdisciplinary Team Members

Traci Silva, GIS specialist

David Bolsover, writer-editor

Consultation

The Modoc National Forest consulted the following governmental agencies, organizations, and 

individuals during the writing of this final environmental impact statement.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

Alturas City Council Klamath Tribes

California Department of Forestry, Alturas Forest Fire 

Station

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control 

Board

Bureau of Land Management, Alturas Field Office Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office Lassen National Forest
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

388 Chapter 4—Consultation & Coordination

Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Field Office Mayor, City of Alturas

CalPine Corporation Modoc County Board of Supervisors

Fremont-Winema National Forest Modoc County Sheriff

Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges Modoc County

Klamath National Forest Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Tribal Governments

Pit River Tribal Council - Hewisedawi Band

Pit River Tribe - Koselktawi Band

Alturas Rancheria

Cedarville Rancheria

Klamath Tribes

Pit River Tribe

Distribution of the Final EIS

In compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations on the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the Modoc National Forest is circulating the final EIS to the following 

agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Federal Agencies 

Agency City & State

Director, Planning and Review

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Washington, DC

Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Environmental Coordinator

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

National Marine Fisheries Service

Habitat Conservationist’s Division

Southwest Region

Long Beach, CA

Deputy Director

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

Riverdale, MD

USDA National Agricultural Library

Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch

Beltsville, MD

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

EIS Review Coordinator

San Francisco, CA
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4—Consultation & Coordination 389

Agency City & State

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

US Department of the Interior

Washington, DC

Klamath National Forest Yreka, CA

Lassen National Forest Susanville, CA

Plumas National Forest Quincy, CA

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Redding, CA

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service Klamath Falls, OR

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service Tulelake, CA

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service Alturas, CA

USDI Bureau of Reclamation Sacramento, CA

USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Klamath Falls, OR

USDI Lava Beds National Monument Tulelake, CA

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Alturas Field Office Alturas, CA

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Field Office Cedarville, CA

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Susanville Field Office Susanville, CA

State Agencies

Agency City & State

California Department of Fish & Game Sacramento, CA

State of California Resources Agency Sacramento, CA

California Department of Food & Agriculture Sacramento, CA

California Department of Transportation Sacramento, CA

California Department of Forestry Sacramento, CA

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Sacramento, CA

CDFA-IPC Sacramento, CA

Honey Lake Wildlife Area Wendel, CA

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board South Lake Tahoe, CA

California Department of Forestry, Alturas Forest Fire 

Station

Alturas, CA

Other Governments

Agency City & State

Modoc County Agriculture Commission Alturas, CA

Modoc County Land Use Committee Alturas, CA

Modoc County Library Alturas, CA

Modoc County Public Works Alturas, CA

Modoc County Board of Supervisors Alturas, CA

Big Valley Joint Unified School District Bieber, CA

Lassen county Board of Supervisors Susanville, CA

Lassen County Road Department Susanville, CA

Lava Beds Resource Conservation District Tulelake, CA
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

390 Chapter 4—Consultation & Coordination

Agency City & State

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Yreka, CA

Pit River Resource Conservation District Lookout, CA

Modoc County Alturas, CA

Mayor - City of Alturas Alturas, CA

Alturas City Council Alturas, CA

Modoc County Sheriff Alturas, CA

Tribal Governments

Organizational Name City and State

Alturas Rancheria Alturas, CA

Cedarville Rancheria Cedarville, CA

Ft. Bidwell Indian Community Council Ft. Bidwell, CA

Hewise Band Alturas, CA

Modoc Indian Health Project Alturas, CA

Shasta Nation Mcdoel, CA

The Klamath Tribes Chiloquin, OR

The Native Coalition to Save the Medicine Lake Highlands Mt. Shasta, CA

The Pit River Tribe Burney, CA

The Shasta Tribe, Inc. Ft. Jones, CA

Pit River Tribal Council - Hewisedawi Band Burney, CA

Pit River Tribe - Koselktawi Band Burney, CA

Organizations 

Modoc County Farm Bureau Klamath Forest Alliance

4-runners Sierra Access Coalition

Modoc Cattlemen’s Association Center for Biological Diversity

Wildlands CPR Blue Ribbon Coalition

The Wilderness Society Howard County (MD) Bird Club

Trout Unlimited CalPine Corporation

Sierra Club Recreation Outdoors Coalition
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Glossary 391

Glossary

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)—Established by the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), the Advisory Council is an independent federal agency headquartered 

in Washington, DC that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of the 

nation’s cultural resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic 

preservation policy. By statutory authority, the USDA has a member seat on the Advisory 

Council. The Advisory Council conducts regular business review of NHPA responsibilities 

within federal agencies, including but not limited to, resource stewardship, public education, 

heritage tourism, tribal relations, resource protection, and implementation of Executive Order 

13287—Preserve America. Disputes under NHPA Section 106 review that cannot be resolved 

between the SHPO and the federal agency, are presented to the Advisory Council.

Allotment—A grazing allotment is a parcel of federal land that is managed under one permit, to 

be used by livestock under certain conditions.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV)—A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more lowpressure tires; has handlebar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat 

designed to be straddled by the operator.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978—(AIRFA)(P.L. 92 STAT. 469) establishes, 

as a policy of the United States, protection and preservation for American Indians of their 

inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. The act 

directs agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve Native American religious cultural rights and practices.

Animal unit month (AUM)—The amount of forage required by one animal unit (AU) for one 

month. One animal unit is defined as a 1,000 lb. beef cow with or without a nursing calf, with a 

daily requirement of 26 lb. of dry matter forage.

Basal area—The area of the cross-section of a tree stem near the base, generally at breast height 

and inclusive of bark.

Best management practices (BMPs)—Forest Service water-quality maintenance and 

improvement measures. They were developed in compliance with section 208 of the Federal 

Clean Water Act, PL92-500, as amended. They were approved by the US EPA and certified by 

the California Water Resources Control Board. They 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.

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program—A standardized method of monitoring the 

implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in protection and maintenance of water quality.

Biological assessment (BA)—Information prepared by, or under the direction of, a federal 

agency to determine whether a proposed action is likely to (1) adversely affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat, (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed for 

listing, or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

Biological evaluation (BE)—A documented Forest Service review of activities in sufficient 

detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any Forest Service “Sensitive” 

species. This review is similar in scope and intensity to a BA (defined above).

Cavity—The excavated hollow in trees by birds or other natural phenomena; used for roosting 

and reproduction by many birds and mammals.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

392 Glossary

Critical habitat—Habitat for a species listed under the ESA that has been determined by the 

listing agency to be essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require special 

management considerations or protection.

Cultural (heritage) resources—An object or definite location of human activity, occupation, or 

use identifiable through field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural 

resources are prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or architectural sites; structures, places, or 

objects and traditional cultural properties. In this document, cultural resources include the entire 

spectrum of resources for which the heritage program is responsible—from artifacts to cultural 

landscapes—without regard to eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Designated road, trail, or area—A National Forest System road, National Forest System trail, 

or an area on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 

CFR, part 212.51, on a motor vehicle use map (36 CFR 212.1).

Diameter at breast height (dbh)—The diameter of a tree measured 4 feet, 6 inches above the 

ground.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)—Primary law governing protections for species that are 

threatened or are in danger of extinction (16 USC 1531 et seq.).

Endangered species—Any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range as determined by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service or 

NOAA Fisheries (see also Endangered Species Act ).

Exotic Plant—see noxious weed.

Fen—Groundwater-fed wetland ecosystems that develop where perennially saturated soils and 

cool temperatures slow the decomposition of plant material, allowing it to accumulate and form 

organic soils, called peat.

Five-county study area—For purposes of socioeconomic analysis—Modoc, Lassen, Siskiyou, 

Lake, and Klamath counties

Forb—An herbaceous plant that is not a graminod.

Forest road or trail—A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and use of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources (36 CFR 212.1).

Forest transportation system—The system of National Forest System roads, trails, and airfields 

on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.1).

Habitat type—An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant 

communities at climax stage.

Habitat—The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife 

species or a population of such species.

Highway-licensed vehicle—Any motor vehicle that is licensed or certified under state law for

general operation on all public roads within the state. Operators of highway-legal vehicles are 

subject to state traffic law, including requirements for operator licensing.

Historic Property(ies)—36 CFR 800.16 defines historic properties as “any prehistoric or historic 

district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to 

and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Glossary 393

cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, and that meet the 

National Register criteria.”

Home range core area (HRCA)—An area of 1,000 acres that surrounds each territorial 

California spotted owl activity center. It encompasses the best available spotted owl habitat 

closest to the California spotted owl PAC where the most concentrated owl foraging activity is 

likely to occur.

HUC (hydrologic unit code)—The watershed code; in this document it is usually the 6th order 

watershed.

Indicator species—See management indicator species.

Indirect effects—Secondary effects that occur in locations other than where the initial action 

occured, or that occur significantly later in time.

Interdisciplinary (ID) team—A group of professional specialists with expertise in different 

resources that collaborate to develop and evaluate management alternatives.

Land allocation—The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the 

purpose of achieving goals and objectives. Land allocation decisions are determined in decision 

documents such as the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Litter—An organic surface soil layer usually composed of identifiable leaves, branches, or other 

vegetative material, and animal remains.

Local road—A National Forest System road that connects a terminal facility with collector 

roads, arterial roads, or public highways, and that usually serves a single purpose involving 

intermittent use.

Local visitor—The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program defines local visitors as “those 

visitors who live within 30 straight-line miles of the Forest visited.”

Maintenance level (ML)—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12. 3, as the level 

of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be 

consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. Roads may be maintained 

at one level and planned to be maintained at a different level at some future date. The operational 

maintenance level is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today’s 

needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns; in other words, it defines 

the standard to which the road is currently being maintained. The objective maintenance level is 

the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management 

objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns.

Maintenance level 1 road—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12. 3 as 

intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period 

must exceed one year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent 

resources to an acceptable level, and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management 

activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. 

Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are 

“prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or 

construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they 

are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular 

traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses. These roads have the following 

attributes: (1) vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic; (2) they are 

physically blocked or entrance is disguised; (3) they are not subject to the requirements of the 

Highway Safety Act; (4) maintenance is done only to minimize resource impacts; and (5) no 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

394 Glossary

maintenance other than a condition survey may be required so as long as no potential exists for 

resource damage.

Maintenance level 2 road—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads 

open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is

normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate 

traffic management strategies are either (1) to discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) to

accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles. These roads have the following attributes: (1) they 

have low traffic volume and low speed; (2) they are typically local roads; (3) they typically 

connect collectors and other local roads; (4) dips are the preferred drainage treatment; (5) they are 

not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act; (6) surface smoothness is not a 

consideration; and (7) they are not suitable for passenger cars.

Maintenance level 3 road—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads 

open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in a standard passenger car. User comfort and 

convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single 

lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or 

processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” 

“Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. 

These roads have the following attributes: (1) they are subject to the requirements of the Highway 

Safety Act and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) they have low to 

moderate traffic volume; (3) they typically connect arterial and collector roads; (4) a combination 

of dips and culverts provide drainage; (5) they may include some dispersed recreation roads; and 

(6) development of potholes or washboards may occur.

Maintenance level 4 road—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that 

provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most 

roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some 

roads may be paved or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is 

“encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users 

at certain times. These roads have the following attributes: (1) they are subject to requirements of 

the Highway Safety Act and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) they 

have moderate traffic volume and speeds; (3) they may connect to county roads; (4) culverts 

provide drainage; (5) they are usually a collector road; and (6) they may include some developed 

recreation roads.

Maintenance level 5 road—Defined in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that 

provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, 

paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic 

management strategy is “encourage.” These roads have the following attributes: (1) they are 

subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and the Manual of Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) they have the highest traffic volume and speeds; (3) they 

typically connect state and county roads; (4) culverts provide drainage; (5) they are usually 

arterial and collector roads; (6) they may include some developed recreation roads; and (7) they 

are usually paved or chip-sealed.

Managed late-successional area (MLSA)—A land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

These areas are similar to the late-successional reserve land allocations, but are identified on the 

east side where fire is a natural part of the ecosystem.

Management indicator species—A species selected because its welfare is presumed to be an 

indicator of the welfare of other species sharing similar habitat requirements. A species of fish, 

wildlife, or plants that reflect ecological changes caused by land management activities.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Glossary 395

Maximum modification—A visual quality objective meaning human activity may dominate the 

characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, use naturally established form, line, color, 

and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middle 

ground.

Mixed-use road—Segments of National Forest System roads that are identified and signed as 

open to state-licensed and unlicensed vehicles; generally more than 50 inches in width. They are 

usually, but not always, low-maintenance roads with no high-speed traffic.

Modification—A visual quality objective meaning human activity may dominate the 

characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, use naturally established form, line, color, 

and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middle 

ground.

Modoc-Klamath—Also known as the Klamath Tribes. It consists of members of the Modoc, 

Klamath, and Yahooskin American Indian tribes. The Modoc Tribe is the American Indian group 

that occupied the northern third of the Modoc National Forest.

Motor vehicle—Any vehicle which is self propelled, other than (1) a vehicle operated on rails; 

and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired 

person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR 212.1).

Motorized mixed use—Designation of an National Forest System road for use by both highwaylegal and non-highway legal motor vehicles.

Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement—An agreement between the California and 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices and the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest 

Service designed to guide the Forest Service compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act in regards to motorized vehicle-use management planning.

Motorized trail—A travel way usually, but not always, less than 50 inches in width, and usually, 

but not always, available for use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or motorcycles. These travel ways 

may also be made available to high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicles, and may also be used by 

bicycles, horses, and hikers.

National Forest System road—A Forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 

212.1).

National Forest System trail—A Forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 

212.1).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470), as amended, extends the 

policy in the Historic Sites Act to state and local historical sites, as well as those of national 

significance; expands the National Register of Historic Places, establishes the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation and the state historic preservation officers, and requires agencies to 

designate federal preservation officers.

National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR part 60)—These regulations establish the National 

Register of Historic Places as a planning tool to help federal agencies evaluate cultural resources 

in consultation with state historic preservation officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (Advisory Council). 36 CFR 60.4 provides the criteria for determining 

whether cultural resources are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

1. NHPA Section 101(d)(2) establishes criteria for designating tribal historic preservation

officers to assume the functions of a state historic preservation officer on tribal lands.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

396 Glossary

2. NHPA Section 106 directs all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or 

eligible for the National Register. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations 

at 36 CFR, part 800, implement NHPA Section 106.

3. NHPA, Section 110, establishes inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation

responsibilities for federally owned historic properties.

NOAA Fisheries—The federal agency responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act

in regard to marine or anadromous species.

Non-highway-legal vehicle—Any motor vehicle that is not licensed or certified under state law 

for general operation on all public roads within the state. Operators of non-highway legal vehicles 

are subject to state requirements, if any, for licensing and operation of the vehicle in questions.

Northern Paiute—This American Indian group, known as the Gidu’tikadu, that occupied the 

eastern fringe of the Modoc National Forest along the Warner Mountains and into the adjacent 

Surprise Valley.

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)—A large-scale planning effort that set land and resource goals 

for lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. The decision document for this plan on the 

National Forests is the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Noxious weed—Non-native invasive plant with the ability to disrupt or alter native plant 

communities and ecosystems.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV)—Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel 

on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain 

(36 CFR 212.1).

PAC (protected activity center)—An area delineated around an activity center, usually to 

protect nesting activities. May be for spotted owls, goshawks, or great gray owls.

Partial retention—A visual quality objective that in general means human activities may be 

evident, but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

Pfankuch stability rating—A methodology developed by the Forest Service to determine if a 

stream channel is stable, and whether its trend is up or down. It evaluates stream bank stability 

based on physical factors found in the stream courses.

Pit River Tribe—This tribal group, consisting of 11 autonomous bands, occupied the lower twothirds of the Modoc National Forest. Seven of the 11 bands have territories that overlap the 

Modoc National Forest.

Preservation—A visual quality objective that provides for ecological change only.

PFC (proper functioning condition) rating—standardized methodology to evaluate stream 

conditions on Forest Service lands. 

Propagule—Plant material, such as a seed or rhizome, from which a plant may grow. Propagules 

such as seeds or spores are products of sexual reproduction, producing plants with different 

genetic make-ups than their parent(s), whereas propagules such as rhizomes or bulbs propagate a 

plant asexually, growing out new plants with the exact genetic makeup of the parent.

Public road—The road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public road authority and 

open to public travel (23 U.S.C. 101 (a)).
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Glossary 397

Recreation opportunity spectrum—A continuum of possible mixes or combinations of 

activities, settings, and probable experience opportunities. 

Region 5 Cumulative Watershed Effects Model—A standardized methodology used within 

Forest Service Region 5 to determine if the affected sub-watershed is likely to incur an adverse 

cumulative effect to water quality from an alteration of the rainfall-runoff relationship. The model 

is based on the development of a threshold of concern for the sub-watershed, which is in turn 

based on geomorphic factors (e.g., stability of landforms, stream bifurcation ratio, and soil 

sensitivity to disturbance).

Retention—A visual quality objective that in general means human activities are not evident to 

the casual Forest visitor.

Riparian habitat—Area adjacent to lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams where vegetation has 

access to water.

Road—A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 

CFR 212.1).

Route—A road or trail.

Scenic attractiveness—The scenic importance of a landscape based on human perceptions for 

the intrinsic beauty of land form, rock form, water form, and vegetation pattern. Reflects varying 

visual perception attributes of variety, unity, vividness, intactness, coherence, mystery, 

uniqueness, harmony, balance, and pattern. It is classified as—

a. distinctive

b. typical or common

c. undistinguished

Scenic resource—Attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying 

responses from, and varying degrees of benefits to, humans.

Sensitive species—Those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population

viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers, or density or habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing 

distribution.

Snag—A standing dead tree usually without merchantable value for timber products, but may 

have characteristics of benefit to some cavity-nesting wildlife species.

Soil bulk density—A field measurement that by comparison of undisturbed versus disturbed 

areas, determines the amount of soil compaction that has occurred from forest management 

activities.

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)—Established by the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the SHPO is the appointed official in each state responsible for fostering historic 

preservation programs at the local government level, nominating cultural resources to the 

National Register, creating preservation ordinances, and providing funds and technical assistance 

for preservation activities. In compliance with NHPA, federal agencies must seek the views of the 

appropriate SHPO when identifying historic properties and assessing effects of an undertaking on 

historic properties. Agencies also consult with SHPOs when developing both programmatic and 

project-specific memorandums of agreement. The SHPO and supporting professional staff are 

usually an agency within each state government.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

398 Glossary

Temporary road or trail—A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a Forest road or a Forest trail and 

that is not included in a Forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1).

Threatened species—Any species of plant or animal that is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, as determined by USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.

Traditional cultural property(ies)—A cultural resource that is eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of 

a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. The entity evaluated for eligibility 

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places must be a tangible property; that is, a 

district, site, building, structure, or object as defined in 36 CFR 64.4.

Trail—A route 50 inches or less in width, or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and 

managed as a trail (36 CFR 212.1).

Unauthorized route—A route that is not a Forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail, and 

that is not included in a Forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1).

Ungulate—A mammal having hooves, e.g., deer, elk, and moose.

Vascular plants—All higher developed plants, including flowering plants, and grasses. Excludes 

lichens and mosses.

Vernal pool—Depression on a land surface with relatively impermeable soils, which fills with 

water in the winter and during spring snowmelt, and gradually dries out as the summer 

progresses. Similar habitats include playas, mud flats, and reservoir edges.

Viable population—A population that has adequate numbers and dispersion of reproductive 

individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species population on the planning area.

Visual quality objective—A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological 

characteristics of an area. Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape.

Wetlands—Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated 

soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, 

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 399

Literature Cited

Allison, John. 1994. The Cultural Landscape of the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Peoples: 

Spirit, Nature, History. National Historic Preservation Grants to Indian Tribes and Alaskan 

Natives, Grant #41-92-NA-411. The Klamath Tribes, Chiloquin, OR.

Allison, John. The Cultural Landscape of the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Peoples: Spirit, 

Nature, History. Prepared for the Klamath Tribes. In fulfillment of the National Historic 

Preservation Grants to Indian Tribes and Alaskan Natives. Grant # 41-92-NA-411. 1994.

Altman, Bob, Margaret Boulay, Steve Dowlan, Dan Crannell, Kevin Russell, Kat Beal, and Jeff 

Dillon. 2003. Willow flycatcher nesting ecology and habitat relationships in the Willametter 

Basin, Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology No. 26:73-80.

Alturas Chamber of Commerce. <http://www.alturaschamber.org> May 2, 2008.

Aubry, Keith B., Kevin S. McKelvey, Jeffrey P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale 

habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71(7):2147-2158.

Austin, Jane E. and Michael R. Miller. 1995. Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/163

Banks, A., P. Lesica, M. Pokorny, and C. Weeden. 2004. Roads Enhance Exotic Plant Invasions. 

Montana Native Plant Society Conservation Committee. Available from 

<www.umt.edu/MNPS/roads_and_weeds.pdf> [Accessed 2008 Jul 15].

Bartolome, J. W., D. C. Erman, and C. F. Schwarz. 1990. Stability and change in minerotrophic 

peatlands, Sierra Nevada of California and Nevada. Research Paper PSW-198, USDA Forest 

Service, Berkeley, CA.

Bartolome, James W., Pamela C. Muick and Mitchel P. McClaran. 1987. Natural Regeneration of 

Californian Hardwoods. In Proceedings of the Symosium on Multiple-Use Management of 

California’s Hardwood Resources. USFS General Technical Report PSW-100.

Belcher, J.W. and S.D. Wilson. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass 

prairie. Journal of Range Management 42:172-175.

Bombay, Helen L., Theresa M. Benson, Brad E. Valentine, Rosemary A. Stefani. 2003. A Willow 

Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. US Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s 

Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkely, USA. 

Brady, Nyle C, 1974. Nature and properties of soils. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 

New York

Brooks, M. L. and B. Lair. 2005. Ecological Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert Ecosystem. 

Report prepared for the United States Geological Survey, Recoverability and Vulnerability of 

Desert Ecosystems Program. 2 March 2005. 

http://www.dmg.gov/documents/Desert_Road_Ecology_report.pdf

Brooks, M. L., and B. Lair. 1995. Ecological Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert Ecosystem. 

Report prepared for the United States Geological Survey, Recoverability and Vunerabilty of 

Desert Ecosystems Program, United States Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research 

Center, Las Vegas Field Station, Henderson, NV.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

400 Literature Cited

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 

54:677-688.

Brown, Wm. S., Sr. History of the Modoc National Forest United States Forest Service -

California Region. USDA Forest Service, California Region. September 1, 1945.

Bull, Evelyn L. and Jerome A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/148

Busse, M.D.; Beattie, S.E.; Powers, R.F., Sanchez, F.G., Tiarks, A.E. 2006. Microbial community 

responses to forest soil compaction, organic residue removal, and vegetation control. Can. J. For. 

Res. 36: 577–588.

Byers J.E. 2002. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic 

alterations of selection regimes. Oikos 97: 449-458.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2008. ENCYCLOWEEDIA: Notes on 

Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by California 

Law. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm. Accessed June 

2008.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 2002. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. CWHR 

version 8.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Employment Development Department. Industry Employment Forecast. 

(http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov). May 12, 2008.

“California Off-Highway Vehicle Noise Study: A Report to the California Legislature as 

Required by Public Resources Code Section 5090.32 (0) Prepared for: State of California 

Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division”; Martin, 

Leung, Pallini. Wyle Laboratories, 2005.

Cal-IPC 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California 

Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org.

Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators. <http://www.calvert-henderson.com/> June 12, 

2008.

Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment 

on Salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. in: Proceedings 

from Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest p. 38-74. Report 

39. State of Washington Water Research Center, Pullman.

Center for Economic Development. “Lassen County 2006: Economic and Demographic Profile.” 

Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico Research Foundation. 

2006.

Center for Economic Development. “Modoc County 2006: Economic and Demographic Profile.” 

Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico Research Foundation. 

2006.

Center for Economic Development. “Siskiyou County 2006: Economic and Demographic 

Profile.” Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico Research 

Foundation. 2006.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 401

Chase, Mary K., Nadav Nur, and Geoffrey R. Geupel. 2005. Effects of weather and population

density on reproductive success and population dynamics in a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

population: a long-term study. The Auk 122(2):571-592.

Chimner, R. A. and D. J. Cooper. 1998. Carbon dynamics of pristine and hydrologically modified 

fens in the southern Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Botany, 81:477-491.

Chimner, R. A., D. J. Cooper, and W. J. Parsons. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in Rocky 

Mountain fens. Wetlands, 22:100-110.

Christen, D. C. and G. R. Matlack. 2008. The habitat and conduit functions of roads in the spread 

of three invasive plant species. Biological Invasions, DOI 10.1007/s10530-008-9262-x.

Cole, D. N. and N. G. Bayfield. 1993. Recreational trampling of vegetation: standard 

experimental procedures. Biological Conservation, 63:209-215.

Cooper, D. J., R.A. Chimner, and E. Wolf. 2005. Livestock use and the sustainability of Sierra 

Nevada fens. Report prepared for Inyo National Forest.

Cordell, H.K. and C. Oversdevest. Footprints on the Land: An Assessment of Demographic 

Trends and the Future of Natural Lands in the United States. Sagamore Publishing: 2001.

Curran, M.P.; Maynard, D.G.; Heninger, R.L.; Terry, T.A.; Howes, S.W.; Stone, D.M.; Niemann, 

T.; Miller, R.E.; Powers, R.F. 2005. An adaptive management process for forest soil 

conservation. Forestry Chron. 81(5): 717–722.

D’Antonio, C. M. and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire 

cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 23:63-87.

D’Antonio, C.M., N.E. Jackson, C.C. Horvitz and R. Hedberg. 2004. Invasive plants in wildland 

ecosystems: merging the study of invasion processes with management needs. Frontiers in 

ecology and the environment 2:513-521.

Davidson, E., and M. Fox. 1974. Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert 

vegetation and soil. Madrono. 22: 381-390.

Divine, A. K. and P. E. Foti. 2004. Learning to Live with Off-Highway Vehicles: Lessons 

Learned from the Dixie National Forest. Pp. 106-111 in Proceedings of the Fourth Social Aspects 

and Recreation Research Symposium; 2004 February 4-6; San Francisco, California. San 

Francisco State University.

Dixon, Rita D. and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/509

England, A. Sidney, Marc J. Bechard and C. Stuart Houston. 1997. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo 

swainsoni), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265

“Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A 

Literature Synthesis, Annotated bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies and Internet 

Resources”; Ouren, Haas, Melcher, Stewart, Ponds, Sexton, Burris, Francher, Bowen, US 

Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, 2007.

Evans, R. D., R. Rimer, L. Sperry, and J. Belnap. 2001. Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen 

dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11:1301-1310.

Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring, NVUM
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

402 Literature Cited

“Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation,” 

English, Kocis, Zarnoch and Arnold, Southern Research Station, May 2002 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs057.pdf

Frenkel R.E. 1970. Ruderal Vegetation Along Some California Roadsides. Univ of California 

Press, Berkeley, p 163

Frenkel, R.E. 1970. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, USA.

Gaines, W.L.; Singleton, P.H.; Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79p. 

Garmin. What is GPS? (http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/) [2008 July 31]

Gates, Gerald R. 1983. Cultural Resource Overview: Modoc National Forest. On file, USDA 

Forest Service Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

Gates, Gerald R. 2007. A Thematic Evaluation of Small Prehistoric Foraging and Logistic 

Locations on a Portion of the Modoc Plateau of Northeastern California. On file, USDA Forest 

Service Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

Gates, Gerald R., Curt Fair, Dee F. Green, and Deborah Zolnay. 1998. Modoc National Forest 

Heritage Resource Management Strategic Plan, 1998-2008. On file, USDA Forest Service Modoc 

National Forest, Alturas.

Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid 

landscape. Conservation Biology, 17:420-432.

Gelbard, J. L. and S. Harrison. 2005. Invasibility of roadless grasslands: an experimental study of 

yellow starthistle. Ecological Applications, 15:1570-1580.

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: 

interactions with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415.

Gilbert, Brian A., Kenneth J. Raedeke, John R. Skalski, and Angela B. Stringer. 2007. Modeling 

black-tailed deer population dynamics using structured and unstructured approaches. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71(1): 144-154. 

Gutiérrez, R. J. and David J. Delehanty. 1999. Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/457

Hanson, Chad T. and Malcolm P. North. 2008. Postfire woodpecker foraging in salvage-logged 

and unlogged forests of the Sierra Nevada. The condor 110(4):777-782.

Hawthorne, Lori. 1995. History of the Devil’s Garden Plateau of the Modoc National Forest. On 

file, USDA Forest Service Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

Headwaters Economics. Economic Profile System (EPS). 2007 Version. 

<http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/> May 14, 2008.

Hewings, Geoffrey. Regional Input-Output Analysis. Sage 1985 Regional Input-Output Analysis. 

[Geoffrey J D Hewings University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign]. Scientific Geography Series; 

Volume:7 Published 1986; 96 pages
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 403

Hickman, J. C., editor. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of 

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.

Holland, R. F. 2006. Mapping Vernal Pools and Fens in the Modoc National Forest. Report to 

Modoc National Forest.

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ 

Indians.org. American Indian Resource Directory. 

<http://www.indians.org/Resource/resource.html> May 29, 2008. 

Ivey, Gary L. and Caroline P. Herziger. 2001. Distribution of greater sandhill crane pairs in 

California, 2000. California Department of Fish and Game and US Forest Service. Scaramento 

CA, and Vallejo, CA.134 pg.

Jackson, Jerome A., Henri R. Ouellet and Bette J. Jackson. 2002. Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides 

villosus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/702

Jenkins, J. Mark. 1992. Ecology and Behavior of a Resident Population of Bald Eagles. 

Dissertation. University of California, Davis. Davis, CA.

Jennings, M.R.1996. Status of Amphibians. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to 

Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis: University 

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Kaltenecker, Julie and Marcia Wicklow-Howard. 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts in sagebrush 

habitats of southern Idaho. Boise State University 48 p.

Klamath County, OR. <http://www.co.klamath.or.us/> May 2, 2008.

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684

LaDeau, Shannon L., Peter P. Marra, A. Marm Kilpatrick, and Catherine A. Calder. 2008. West 

Nile virus revisited: consequences for North American ecology. BioScience Vol 58(10): 937-946.

Lake County, OR. <http://www.lakecountyor.org/> May 2, 2008.

Lee, Raymond M., James D. Yoakum, Bart W. O’Gara, Thoma M. Pojar, and Richard A. 

Ockenfels eds. 1998. Prongorn Management Guides. 18th Pronghorn Antelope Workshop, 

Prescott, AZ 110pp.

Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-Distance Dispersal of Plants by Vehicles as a Driver of 

Plant Invasions. Conservation Biology, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 986-996.

Lovich, J. E. and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the Southern California 

desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management, 

24:309-326.

Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer and D. A. Spector. 1999. Yellow Warbler 

(Dendroica petechia), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/454
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

404 Literature Cited

Mack, R.N. and W.M. Lonsdale. 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we 

bargained for. BioScience 51:95-102.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic 

invasion: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10(3): 

689-710.

Melgoza, G. and R. S. Nowak. Competition between cheatgrass and two native species after fire: 

Implications from observations and measurements of root distribution. Journal of Range 

Management 44:27-33.

Miller, Michael R., and David C. Duncan. 1999. The northern pintail in North America : status 

and conservation needs of a struggling population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1999, 27(3):788-800.

Miller, Michael R., John Y. Takekawa, Joseph P. Fleskes, Dennis L. Orthmeyer, Michael L. 

Casazza, and William M. Perry. 2005. Spring migration of northern pintails from California’s 

Central Valley wintering area tracked with satellite telemetry: routes, timing, and destinations.. 

Can. J. Zool. 83: 1314-1332. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2006 IMPLAN Data.

Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Pacific Southwest Region 1991

Moore, E.M., M. Miller, K. Riddell and M. Gorton. “Employment Projections by Industry 2004-

2014: Oregon and Regional Summary.” Oregon Employment Department. July 2005.

Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, 

Vol. II, Assessment and Scientific Basin for Management Options. Univ. of Calif. Davis, Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources.

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E. Wikramanayake. 1996. Fish Species of 

Special Concern in California. Sacramento, California. Department of Fish and Game.

National Visitor Use Monitoring Results For Modoc National Forest, August 2001, USDA Forest 

Service Region 5.

Newton, I. 2007. Weather-related mass-mortality events in migrants. Ibis Vol 149: 453-467

Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. <http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/index.shtml> July 23, 

2008.

Ouren, D. S., C. Haas, C. P. Melcher, S. C. Stewart, Ph. D. Ponds, N. R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. 

Fancher, and Z. H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive 

Bibliographies, and Internet Resources. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353.

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C. P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. 

Fancher, and Z.H. Bowen. 2007., Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of 

Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive 

bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353.

Parendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant 

invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation 

Biology 14(1): 64-75.

Poole, Alan F., Rob O. Bierregaard and Mark S. Martell. 2002. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/683
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 405

Poole, L.D., N.V. Marr, and S.M. Corquodale. 1998. Productivity, mortality, and response to 

disturbance of nesting Swainson’s Hawks on the Hanford Site. Prepared for the US Department 

of Energy Pacifc Northwest Laboratory under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830 by Battelle 

Memorial Institute. 26 p. 

Powers, R.F.; Alves, T.M.; Spear, T.H. 1999. Soil compaction: can it be mitigated? Reporting a 

work in progress. p. 47–56. In: Proceedings, 20th Annual Forest Vegetation Management 

Conference. Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, CA.

Powers, R.F.; Scott, D.A.; Sanchez, F.; Voldseth, R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Elioff, J.D.; Stone, 

D.M. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: findings from the first 

decade of research. For. Ecol. Manage. 220: 31–50.

Pritchett, William L, 1979. Properties and management of forest soils. John Wiley and Sons, New 

York.

Prose, D.V., S.K. Metzger and H.G. Wilshire. 1987. Effects of substrate disturbance on secondary 

plant succession – Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 24(1): 305-313. 

“Protecting Natural Sounds in National Parks: Soundscape Workshop Visitor Experience and 

Soundscapes Annotated Bibliography March 1-2”; Pilcher and Turina, National Park Service and 

Colorado State University, 2006.

Reid, Leslie 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Research Station GTR-141, March 1993.

Roybal-Evans Associates. 1982. Site With Cultural Significance for the Upriver Bands of the Pit 

River Tribe. Prepared for the USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Susanville, CA. Roybal-Evans 

Associates, Orlinda, CA.

Rundel, P. W., D.T. Gordon, and D. J. Parsons. 1977. Montane and subalpine vegetation of the 

Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges, California. Wiley, New York, USA.

Sax, D.F. 2002. Native and naturalized plant diversity are positively correlated in scrub 

communities of California and Chile. Diversity and Distributions 8: 193-210.

Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor cars. Vegetatio 80: 147-152.

Schommer, Timothy J. and Melanie M. Woolever. 2008. A review of disease related conflicts 

between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-209 Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young and C. E. Braun. 1999. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/425

Schwartz, Michael K., Keith B. Aubry, Kevin S. McKelvey, Kristine L. Pilgrim, Jeffrey P. 

Copeland, John R. Squires, Robert M. Inman, Samantha M. Wisely, Leonard F. Ruggiero. 2007. 

Inferring geographic isolation of wolverines in California using historical DNA. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71(7):2170-2179.

Sher, A.A., D.L. Marshall, J.P. Taylor. 2002. Establishment patterns of native Populus and Salix 

in the presence of invasive nonnative tamarisk. Ecological Applications 12(3): 760-772.

Siskiyou County, CA. <http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us> May 2, 2008.

Skye, Clifton. Tribal Relations Specialist, Modoc National Forest. Telephone Interview. April 

30, 2008. 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

406 Literature Cited

Smith, S. and B. Davidson. 2003. User’s Manual Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) 

Land Type Associations Modoc National Forest. USDA Forest Service, R5-TP-015 Version 1.0.

Smith, Winston P. 2007. Ecology of Glaucomys sabrinus: habitat, demography, and community 

relations. Journal of Mammalogy 88(4): 862-881

Snyder, C. T., D. G. Frickel, R. F. Hadley, and R. F. Miller. 1976. Effects of Off-Road Vehicle 

Use on the Hydrology and Landscape of Arid Environments in Central and Southern California. 

Water-Resources Investigations 76-99, PB-260, National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA.

Steger, George N., Thomas E. Munton, Kenneth D. Johnson, and Gary P. Eberlein. 2002. 

Demography of the California spotted owl in the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia/Kings 

Canyon National Parks. Gen Tech Rep. PSW-GTR-183 pg 107-115. Albany CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Sustained Yield Act. 16 U.S.C. 583. March 29, 1944.

Tacha, T. C., S. A. Nesbitt and P. A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031

TMECA Spreadsheet: 

http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/Travel%20Management%20Economics.html

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 18-30.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

Tyrvainen, Liisa. “The Amenity Value of the Urban Forest: An Application of the Hedonic 

Pricing Method.” Landscape and Urban Planning. 37 (1997): 211-222.

Tyser, R.W. and C.A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors 

in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A). Conservation Biology 6(2): 253-262.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. 

<http://www.doi.gov/pilt/> February 20, 2008.

United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. <http://factfinder.census.gov> April 21, 

2008. 

United States Census Bureau. County-to-County Worker Flow. 

<http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html> May 22, 2008.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. “Land Areas of the National Forest System: As of 

September 30, 2007.” FS-383. January 2008.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Modoc National Forest. History and Heritage 

Resources. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/modoc/about/modoc-history> May 30, 2008.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 407

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Modoc National Forest. Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. 1991.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Modoc National Forest. Projects and Plans. Big 

Valley Federal Sustained Yield Unit. <www.fs.fed.us/r5/modoc/projects/bvfsyu/bvfsyu-ams1982> June 10, 2008.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Payments to States. 

<https://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us/r4/payments_to_states.nsf> May 14, 2008.

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. County Employment and Income Data, 

2001-2006. <http://data.bls.gov> May 12, 2008. 

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. County Unemployment Data 2000-2007. 

<http://data.bls.gov> May 12, 2008. 

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) at BLS. <http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm> May 13, 2008.

US Forest Service (USFS). 2007. Modoc National Forest Management Indicator Species 

Accounts. Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA. 

US Forest Service (USFS). 2007. Remote Sensing Lab. Existing vegetation layer for the Modoc 

National Forest.

US Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Sage Steppe Ecosystem 

Restoration Strategy final Environmental Impact Statement. Alturas, CA. 422 pages.

US Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Sensitive 

Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed on 11/13/2000. Unpublished. 90 

pages.

US Forest Service. 2008. Preliminary DNA analysis completed on California wolverine. 4/2/2008 

News release. Zielinski, Bill, Michael Schwartz and Roland Giller contacts. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/news/2008/080402_wolverine_dna.pdf

USDA Forest Service 2007. The Medicine Lake Highlands Historic Properties Management 

Program: Including a Cultural Assessment and Guidelines for Management. On file, USDA 

Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, 1989. Soil Survey of Modoc National 

Forest Area, California

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1985 R5 Cumulative Effects Analysis Model.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2001. Best Management Practices to protect 

Water Quality in California.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS, Record of 

Decision, 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 1, Agriculture 

Handbook Number 434.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Agriculture 

Handbook Number 462.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

408 Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 1991 Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

USDA Forest Service, Alturas, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. On 

file, USDA Forest Service Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual 2670: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Plants and Animals. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2080. Noxious Weed Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook of Scenery Management, 

Agriculture Handbook Number 462. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and 

Sensitive Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed on 11/13/2000. 

Unpublished. 90 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. – Region 5 - Modoc National Forest - National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Project. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species

management. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005 Integrated Weed Management Strategy. Modoc National Forest, 

Alturas, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel 

Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. On file, USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Integrated weed management strategies. USDA Forest Service, 

Alturas, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2006 Regional Forester letter to Forest Supervisors. Pacific Southwest 

Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe 

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

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

Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on 

the National Forests in California. On file, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Literature Cited 409

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Environmental Assessment: Medicine Lake Highlands Roads 

Closure Order. Doublehead Ranger District, Modoc National Forest. On file, USDA Forest 

Service Modoc National Forest, Alturas.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. - Modoc National Forest – Landscape Character Description. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. - Modoc National Forest – Visual Sensitivity Level Analysis and 

Map. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Rare plant occurrence records. Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA.

USDA Forest Service.. Forest Service Handbook. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2008. Record of Decision Alturas Resource 

Management Plan. Alturas, CA. 21 pages.

USDI/USDA, 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.. USDI –

Bureau of Land Management & USDA - Forest Service, Washington, D.C

USFS. 2001a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

USFS. 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

USFS. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver 

of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 2:986-996.

Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-Distance Dispersal of Plants by Vehicles as a 

Driver of Plant Invasions. Conservation Biology, 21:986-996.

Walters, Eric L., Edward H. Miller and Peter E. Lowther. 2002. Red-naped Sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus nuchalis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/663b

Weixelman, D., S. Weis, F. Linton, and H. Swartz. 2007. Draft condition checklist for fens in the 

montane and subalpine zones of the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges, CA. USDA 

Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest.

Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org> May 2, 2008. 

Williams, D.R. and S. I. Stewart. “Sense of Place: An Elusive Concept That is Finding a Home in 

Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Forestry. May 1998: pgs. 18-23.

Wilshire, H. G. and J. K. Nakata. 1978. Off-road vehicle effects on California’s Mojave Desert. 

California Geology, 29:123-132.

Wilshire, H., S. Shipley, J. Nakata, and K. Prestegaard. 1978. Impacts of vehicles on natural 

terrain at seven sites in the San Francisco Bay area. Environmental Geology, 2:295-319.

Wilshire, H.G., S. Shipley, and J. K. Nakata. 1978. Impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation. 

Paper presented at the Forty-third North American wildlife conference. 

Wisdom, Michael J., Richard S. Holthausen, Barbara C. Wales, Christina D. Hargis, Victoria A. 

Saab, Danny C. Lee, Wendel J. Hann, Terrell D. Rich, Mary M. Rowland, Wally J. Murphy, and 
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

410 Literature Cited

Michelle R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior 

Columbia Basin: Broad-scale Trends and Management Implications. Volume 1 – Overview. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Yorks, T. P., N. E. West, R. J. Mueller, and S. D. Warren. 1997. Toleration of Traffic by 

Vegetation: Life Form Conclusions and Summary Extracts from a Comprehensive Data Base. 

Environmental Management 21:121-131.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, & M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife 

Volume II—Birds and Volume III —Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, CA.

Personal Communications

Buettner, Patricia. District wildlife biologist, Modoc National Forest, Doublehead Ranger District 

June 2008. Discussion of sage-grouse occurrence on the Modoc National Forest.

Flores, Mary. District wildlife biologist, Modoc National Forest, Warner Mountains Ranger 

District June 2008. Discussion of bighorn sheep occurrence in the Warner Mountains.

Yamagiwa, Marty, Elk Area Emphasis Leader, US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region June 

2008 Discussion of elk occurrence on the Modoc National Forest.
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Index 411

Index

A

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...119, 

391, 395, 396, 408

Alisma gramineum .........................................160

all-terrain vehicle............................................395

American Indian ..51, 52, 53, 54, 66, 68, 70, 117, 

118, 120, 125, 391, 395, 396, 403

tribes... 10, 11, 13, 31, 51, 52, 53, 68, 96, 117, 

125, 395

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 52, 120, 

391

analysis area ......28, 50, 154, 159, 160, 166, 168, 

173, 174, 200, 339

aquatic species160, 337, 339, 341, 348, 351, 353, 

356, 357, 363

Arnica fulgens ........................................161, 164

Ash Creek mousetail.......................................160

Ash Valley milkvetch .....................................160

Astragalus anxius ...........160, 164, 187, 195, 196

Astragalus lemmonii.......................160, 195, 196

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis....160, 163, 

187, 195, 196

B

bald eagle. xi, xiii, xiv, xv, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 

21, 22, 23, 25, 32, 221, 222, 268, 270, 271, 

273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 

284, 372

barren......................................156, 168, 369, 370

best management practices......35, 134, 135, 337, 

338, 391, 407

best management practices evaluation program

...................................................................391

Betula pumila var. glandulosa ................161, 163

Big Valley Mountains.....................................158

biological assessment30, 152, 219, 224, 337, 341

biological evaluation30, 153, 160, 219, 224, 248, 

249, 283, 284, 318, 334, 335, 341, 407, 408

Boggs lake hedge-hyssop .......................161, 179

Botrychium ascendens...156, 160, 163, 164, 195, 

196

Botrychium crenulatum..................160, 195, 196

Botrychium lunaria 160, 163, 164, 168, 170, 175, 

195, 196

Botrychium minganense.................160, 195, 196

Botrychium montanum...................160, 195, 196

Botrychium pinnatum....160, 168, 170, 175, 195, 

196

broad-nerved hump-moss...............................153

Bruchia bolanderi ...156, 160, 163, 164, 195, 196

Buxbaumia viridis .154, 156, 160, 163, 164, 167, 

170, 175, 178, 179, 191, 194, 195, 196

C

California spotted owl .....32, 225, 226, 227, 230, 

231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246, 

248, 393, 406

Cal-IPC...........................................199, 202, 400

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus

..160, 163, 167, 169, 170, 175, 180, 181, 191, 

192, 194, 195, 196

Canada thistle .................165, 169, 202, 207, 211

Cardaria chalepensis.......................................204

Cardaria draba ................................................202

Cardaria pubescens.........................202, 212, 213

Carduus acanthoides.......................................202

Carduus nutans ...............................202, 204, 213

Carex halliana 161, 163, 169, 176, 180, 182, 185, 

187, 191, 192, 193, 195

Carex petasata.........................................161, 164

Carex vallicola................................................161

cavity-dependent....225, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 

292, 293, 294, 295, 304

CDFA ....199, 202, 204, 206, 209, 210, 212, 213, 

400

Centaurea diffusa...202, 204, 206, 207, 209, 212, 

213

Centaurea solstitialis.......................202, 209, 214

Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa.....................202

chaparral .........................................158, 163, 164

cheatgrass .......................171, 200, 202, 324, 404

Cirsium arvense .....169, 202, 204, 206, 207, 209, 

212, 214

citizen-inventoried roadless area ............365, 377

Clear Lake Plateau..........................................158

climate change ..........................................34, 149

Cordylanthus capitatus ..161, 163, 164, 171, 176, 

185, 187, 193

critical aquatic refuges............................134, 338

crown milkvetch .............................................162

Crupina vulgaris .....................................202, 214

Cypripedium montanum 153, 160, 163, 170, 176, 

187, 188, 195, 196

D

Dalmatian toadflax .................................202, 208

Decisions to be made......................................... 9

Delphinium stachydeum.........................161, 164

demographics....................................................47

designated area .....................................6, 26, 376

designated road.............6, 15, 26, 69, 74, 77, 203

designated trail................................................167

diffuse knapweed............................................207

Dimeresia howellii.161, 163, 170, 176, 180, 182, 

191
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

412 Index

Drosera anglica.......................................161, 163

E

employment..................49, 55, 59, 60, 62, 65, 69

Endangered Species Act....9, 152, 173, 198, 219, 

226, 248, 337, 363, 392, 396, 398

English sundew...............................................161

environmental justice..................................54, 68

Erigeron acris ssp. debilis.......................161, 162

Eriogonum prociduum............160, 164, 195, 196

F

fens.. 32, 138, 153, 156, 157, 162, 163, 169, 186, 

188, 189, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 220, 401, 

409

five-county area........................48, 51, 55, 62, 65

Forest road or trail ..................................392, 398

Forest transportation system..2, 6, 29, 31, 35, 46, 

85, 392

forested .... 35, 156, 158, 162, 170, 233, 258, 285, 

292, 372

G

Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense ....160, 162, 

163, 164, 195, 196

Gratiola heterosepala .....153, 156, 161, 164, 165, 

171, 172, 176, 179, 180, 185, 188, 191, 192, 

195

Great Basin nemophila ...................................161

great gray owl. 226, 230, 232, 235, 236, 249, 396

greater sage-grouse.........................................226

H

highway-legal vehicle... xiii, xiv, 4, 8, 10, 21, 23, 

37, 38, 82, 89, 98, 392, 396

historic property ....120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 

392

Hulsea nana ....................................161, 162, 185

Hypericum perforatum ...........................202, 214

I

Iliamna bakeri 161, 164, 176, 177, 182, 183, 185, 

188, 191, 193, 195

income .............. 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69

invasive species..12, 31, 152, 165, 199, 366, 408

inventoried roadless area .....11, 20, 21, 365, 366, 

368, 369, 374, 377, 380

Isatis tinctoria .........202, 204, 206, 208, 209, 214

Issues................................................................13

Ivesia baileyi var. beneolens...........161, 162, 163

Ivesia paniculata .....160, 163, 164, 188, 195, 196

J

juniper woodland....................................158, 164

K

Klamathweed..................................................202

knapweed................................................202, 207

L

Lepidium latifolium........................................202

Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica....202, 204, 206, 

209, 214, 215

local area.............................................47, 48, 251

local employment .............................................49

local resident...................................38, 55, 67, 96

local road ............................................18, 46, 394

local visitor.........................................57, 60, 393

Lomatium foeniculaceum var. macdougalii . 161, 

164

Lupinus latifolius var. barbatus .....160, 163, 195, 

196

M

maintenance level .................................40, 73, 82

maintenance level 1 road ..................................40

maintenance level 2 road ................22, 23, 39, 40

maintenance level 3 road ................20, 23, 39, 46

marten....226, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 239, 

241, 243, 249, 250

Medicine Lake Highlands......118, 125, 158, 163, 

164, 180, 232, 372, 407, 409

Mediterranean sage.........................................203

medusahead ....................................................324

Meesia triquetra .....153, 156, 160, 163, 185, 188, 

195, 196

Meesia uliginosa .....................153, 160, 195, 196

Mertensia longiflora ...............161, 164, 188, 195

Mimulus evanescens......156, 160, 164, 165, 195, 

196

mixed-use road .......................................139, 195

modification....102, 152, 165, 219, 337, 367, 395

Modoc bedstraw .............................................160

Modoc Plateau ..................38, 105, 158, 226, 402

Modoc-Klamath......................................117, 395

moonwort........................................................160

motor vehiclexi, xii, xiii, xiv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 

35, 37, 38, 39, 57, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 87, 

88, 89, 91, 93, 97, 101, 117, 119, 123, 124, 

127, 133, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 165, 166, 

167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 180, 189, 190, 

193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 201, 203, 204, 205, 

207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216, 217, 269, 

340, 348, 351, 352, 356, 357, 363, 367, 381, 

382, 383, 384, 385, 392, 395, 396, 397

motorcycle ......................................141, 353, 401

motorized mixed use.................................37, 382

Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement

...........................................119, 120, 123, 395
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Index 413

motorized trail ......................................7, 41, 225

N

National Forest System..2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 

20, 26, 31, 49, 54, 55, 73, 74, 104, 151, 202, 

219, 222, 229, 320, 337, 357, 366, 392, 393, 

395, 406

National Forest Transportation System (NFTS)

....xi, xiii, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 

32, 37, 70, 73, 85, 103, 121, 133, 134, 140, 

147, 148, 157, 204, 221, 339, 358, 365

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)9, 53, 

117, 118, 119, 125, 366, 391, 395, 397, 408

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)117, 

118, 119, 120, 125, 126, 392, 395, 398

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM).....55, 

76, 104

Nemophila breviflora......................161, 163, 164

non-highway legal vehicle.....xi, xiv, xv, 7, 8, 89, 

95, 98, 396

non-local visitor..........................................57, 60

northern goshawk ..226, 230, 231, 236, 237, 238, 

240, 242, 243, 248

Northern Paiute...............................117, 118, 396

northern spotted owl 32, 230, 231, 235, 236, 238, 

240, 242, 248, 396

O

off-highway vehicle (ohv) .... xi, xiii, 1, 7, 10, 15, 

33, 38, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 102, 120, 

134, 160, 166, 220, 271, 337, 375, 391, 404

Onopordum acanthium..203, 204, 207, 208, 209,

210, 212, 215, 216

Orcuttia tenuis154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 165, 168, 

172, 173, 177, 183, 184, 189, 190, 193, 194, 

195, 196

Oregon campion .............................................161

P

pallid bat.........................................284, 285, 287

perennial streams and lakes...140, 144, 348, 352, 

353, 356, 358, 360

Pfankuch stability rating.................................396

Phacelia inundata....156, 160, 164, 165, 195, 196

Phacelia sericea var. ciliosa ....161, 162, 164, 185

Phlox hoodii ssp. muscoides...161, 162, 164, 186

Pit River Tribe ..............10, 11, 52, 117, 396, 405

planning area ............................16, 159, 365, 398

Pogogyne floribunda .....156, 161, 164, 165, 171, 

172, 177, 179, 180, 186, 188, 191, 192, 195

population.... 2, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 68, 70, 80, 

141, 152, 155, 159, 166, 179, 181, 183, 184, 

199, 205, 207, 208, 219, 222, 232, 235, 249, 

250, 251, 258, 260, 261, 264, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 276, 278, 280, 285, 286, 287, 290, 291, 

292, 293, 294, 301, 303, 306, 308, 311, 313, 

315, 316, 320, 324, 327, 329, 331, 338, 353, 

392, 397, 398, 401, 402, 404, 406

and growth trends.........................................47

Potamogeton filiformis...................................160

Potamogeton zosteriformis.............................160

Potentilla newberryi.......156, 161, 164, 165, 171, 

172, 177, 188, 195

preservation ....118, 119, 132, 391, 395, 396, 397

Proposed Action ................................................ 8

public road......................................392, 395, 396

R

recreation opportunity spectrum....32, 73, 74, 78, 

79, 80

region.2, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 65, 66, 68, 134, 144, 

156, 162, 369

research natural area365, 366, 367, 375, 376, 377

response coefficients...................................60, 65

retention..................138, 232, 289, 298, 301, 396

Riella americana .............................................160

riparian.11, 12, 32, 134, 138, 139, 156, 157, 163, 

171, 179, 225, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 288, 298, 

338, 339, 340, 348, 351, 352, 353, 356, 357, 

363

riparian conservation area.11, 134, 139, 338, 339

riparian conservation areas.....................338, 339

road maintenance........25, 41, 174, 195, 200, 348

Rorippa columbiae..........153, 160, 177, 195, 196

route.......102, 104, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 

127, 131, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 232, 233, 

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 

243, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 

258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 

268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 

279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 

290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 

299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 

308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 

318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 

328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334

S

sage-steppe 3, 156, 158, 160, 164, 171, 172, 182, 

225, 258, 261, 289, 300, 322, 324, 326, 327, 

329, 331, 332

Salix bebbiana ........................161, 164, 171, 178

Salvia aethiopis...............................203, 204, 216

scenic attractiveness .......................................101

scenic resource................................105, 114, 115

Scotch thistle ..................................202, 203, 208

Scutellaria galericulata ...........................161, 164

seasonally flowing stream......137, 138, 142, 146, 

339, 340, 341, 348, 352, 356, 358, 360, 363

seeps .......................................................163, 198

sensitive plant species.............................151, 153
Modoc NF Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

414 Index

Silene oregana ........................................161, 163

slender Orcutt grass........................................159

sooty grouse...226, 230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 240, 

242

Sphagnum spp. .......................161, 163, 169, 178

spotted knapweed ...........................................207

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ...120, 

397

Stenotus lanuginosus..............................161, 164

stream bifurcation ratio...................................397

T

temporary road ..29, 30, 140, 141, 143, 146, 174, 

189, 353, 398

terrestrial ecological unit inventory.......155, 156, 

161, 406

three-ranked hump-moss................................153

trail .... 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 38, 75, 87, 92, 96, 99, 

102, 103, 136, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 167, 

222, 225, 339, 352, 392, 395, 397, 398, 406

transportation.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 

40, 46, 57, 73, 77, 81, 85, 113, 119, 139, 140, 

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 234, 238, 

347, 352, 353, 356, 358, 360, 361, 369, 384, 

398

Triteleia grandiflora ssp. howellii...........161, 164

U

unauthorized route....xi, 101, 107, 110, 113, 123, 

124, 127, 130, 131, 221, 222, 223, 233, 234, 

235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 251, 

252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 

264, 265, 266, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 

277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 287, 288, 289, 290, 

291, 292, 293, 294, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 

305, 306, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 

320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 

330, 331

ungulates.........................................225, 259, 264

Utricularia intermedia.....................................160

V

vernal pools .....32, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 

162, 164, 165, 173, 179, 180, 184, 186, 188, 

189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

visual quality objective..101, 103, 104, 395, 396, 

397

W

Warner Mountain bedstraw ............................160

Warner Mountains...38, 118, 137, 138, 139, 140, 

141, 158, 163, 164, 178, 181, 193, 211, 258, 

269, 285, 287, 294, 371, 372, 373, 396, 410

watch list plant species...................185, 190, 194

weed risk assessment..............................199, 217

wet meadows..155, 156, 163, 168, 169, 273, 398

wetland ..162, 225, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 

316, 317, 366, 392

wide-ranging carnivores 225, 250, 252, 253, 254, 

255, 257

willow flycatcher...226, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 

274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 284

Y

Yakima bird’s-beak ........................................161

yellow pine forest ...........................158, 163, 164

yellow starthistle.............................................402