United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Record of Decision

Forest

Service Motorized Travel Management

Pacific 

Southwest

Region

Lassen National Forest

R5-MB-207

Jan 2010

Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Tehama and Siskiyou Counties, 

California
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-

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

provider and employer.
Lassen National Forest

Motorized Travel Management 

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Kathleen S. Morse, Forest Supervisor

Lassen National Forest

2550 Riverside Dr.

Susanville, CA 96130

For Further Information Contact:

Chris J. O‘Brien, Public Services Staff Officer

Lassen National Forest

2550 Riverside Dr.

Susanville, CA 96130

(530) 252-6698
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Location............................................................................................................................. 2

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................ 3

Purpose #1: Cross-country Travel................................................................................................. 3

Purpose #2: Dispersed Recreation, Diversity of Recreational Opportunities................................ 3

Travel Management Regulations .................................................................................................. 4

Decision ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Modifications to Alternative 5 in Response to Comments and Public Safety Concerns ............... 5

Reasons for My Decision .................................................................................................................. 10

Compelling Need for Change ...................................................................................................... 11

Balanced Approach ..................................................................................................................... 12

Addressing the Purpose and Need and the Travel Management Regulations ........................... 13

Listening to Public Input .............................................................................................................. 16

Fostering Citizen Stewardship in National Forest Management of Roads and Trails................. 17

Lassen National Forest Implementation Strategy .......................................................................... 19

Tier System ................................................................................................................................. 19

Maps/Brochures .......................................................................................................................... 19

Signing......................................................................................................................................... 20

Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 20

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ 21

Scoping for the Notice of Intent ................................................................................................... 23

56-Day DEIS Comment Period and 30 FEIS Review Period. ..................................................... 24

Identification of Issues ................................................................................................................. 25

Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected ....................................................................... 26

Alternative 1 (No-action).............................................................................................................. 26

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action).................................................................................... 27

Alternative 3................................................................................................................................. 28

Alternative 4................................................................................................................................. 28

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

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ....................................................................................... 30

Legal and Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................................... 30

Forest Plan Consistency.............................................................................................................. 31

Travel Management Regulations ................................................................................................ 34

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations .................................................................... 40

Special Area Designations .......................................................................................................... 42

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities ............................................................................ 43

Implementation Date.......................................................................................................................... 43

Contact Person................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table ..................................................................... 45

Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix B: FEIS Errata.................................................................................................................... 77

Transportation Facilities Errata (All of FEIS Chapter 3.2)........................................................... 78

Recreation Resource Errata (From FEIS Chapter 3.3) ............................................................. 111

Seasonal Restrictions Errata (Throughout FEIS)...................................................................... 113

Appendix C: Response to Comments............................................................................................ 114
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

1

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision for the Motorized Travel 

Management Project on the Lassen National Forest (LNF). The purpose of the Travel 

Management Project is to implement provisions of the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

(36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) designed to enhance management of National Forest 

System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective management of 

motor vehicle use; and provide opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on 

National Forest System lands. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

discloses the environmental impacts associated with the agency‘s modified Proposed 

Action, a No Action alternative, and five additional action alternatives developed to meet 

the purpose and need and respond to issues raised by the public.

This document also contains Errata (Appendix B) to the FEIS. The Errata are also 

posted on the Lassen web site and will be updated periodically as need be.

Background

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the Final Travel Management Rule

in the Federal Register (70 Federal Register 216, Nov. 9, 2005 p. 68264-68291). 

Subpart B of the Final Travel Management Rule requires designation of those roads, 

trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use on National Forests (codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 CFR 212.50). Only roads and trails that are part 

of a NFTS may be designated for motorized use. Designations are made by class of 

vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. Part 261 – Prohibitions, 36 CFR 261.13 

Subpart A of the final rule, prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails 

and areas, as well as, use of motor vehicles on roads and trails that are not consistent 

with the designations.

The Lassen NF currently manages and maintains approximately 3,278 miles of NFTS 

roads and 57 miles of NFS motorized trails. The NFTS was developed over many 

decades to meet a variety of needs including vegetation management, fuel treatment, 

access to private in-holdings, fire control, public utilities, special uses management and 

public recreation access. Harvesting of special forest products such as ornamental 

greenery, firewood, mushrooms and plants are among the many opportunities afforded

by the NFTS. The NFTS is managed and maintained to various road standards, ranging 

from paved highways to roughly graded high-clearance roads, depending on the type of 

access needed. The NFTS is displayed on the Forest Transportation Atlas. Details 

concerning the management of individual roads and trails are maintained in the Forest 

Service Infrastructure database (INFRA).
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

2

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

environmental analysis, the Lassen NF will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

identifying all NFTS roads and trails that are designated for motor vehicle use. The 

MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and the times of year for which use is 

designated. Unauthorized routes and areas not included in this FEIS are not precluded 

from future consideration for addition to the NFTS and inclusion in a later version of the 

MVUM.

The unauthorized routes not included in this decision also are not precluded from 

future consideration for either removal from the landscape and restoration to the natural 

condition or addition to the NFTS and designation on the MVUM. Future decisions 

associated with changes to the NFTS and MVUM are dependent on available staff and 

resources and may trigger the need for additional environmental analysis, public 

involvement and documentation.

Project Location

As shown on the Vicinity Map 0 (Map Package), Lassen NF is located in northeastern 

California and totals approximately 1.2 million acres in size. The Forest is located within 

seven counties: Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou, Shasta, and Tehama. Administratively, 

Lassen NF is divided into three ranger districts: Almanor, Eagle Lake and Hat Creek. It is 

bordered by the Plumas NF to the southeast, Modoc NF to the north, and the ShastaTrinity NF to the northwest. The project area includes all NFS lands, existing NFS motor 

vehicle routes and inventoried unauthorized routes within the identified project area 

except for designated wilderness areas. The project area does not include any other 

federal, state, private or tribal lands.

The Lassen NF includes approximately 78,240 acres of wilderness within the Forest 

administrative boundary; Caribou Wilderness (20,546 ac), Ishi Wilderness (41,399 ac) 

and Thousand Lakes Wilderness (16,355 ac). The Lassen NF administrative boundary, 

minus these three wilderness areas and forenamed other land ownerships, is considered 

the project area for this analysis.

High Lakes and Front Country

For the purpose of this decision, I have decided to postpone adding any unauthorized 

routes in High Lakes and Front Country project areas due to on-going planning efforts 

for these two areas. Planning in these two areas was initiated in 2008. Any unauthorized 

routes will be designated during the planning process for these two decisions. However, 

I will not delay the decision to prohibit motorized cross-country travel in these two areas. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

3

Purpose and Need

The following needs have been identified for this proposal:

Purpose #1: Cross-country Travel

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 travel 

management regulations, 36 CFR Section 212. Subpart B, provide 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 this national direction, implementation of 

Subpart B of the travel management rule for the Lassen NF is scheduled for completion 

in 2010.

Purpose #2: Dispersed Recreation, Diversity of Recreational 

Opportunities

There is a need for changes to the Lassen‘s NFTS to:

Purpose #2a. Provide motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation opportunities 

(camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). A 

substantial portion of known dispersed recreation activities are not 

typically located directly adjacent to NFTS roads or NFTS motorized 

trails. Some dispersed recreation activities depend on foot or 

horseback access, and some depend on motor vehicle access. 

Those activities accessed by motor vehicles are typically accessed 

by short spurs that have been created primarily by the passage of 

motor vehicles. Many such unauthorized  ̳user-created‘ routes are not 

currently part of the NFTS. Without adding them to the NFTS and 

designating them on a MVUM, the regulatory changes noted above 

would make continued use of such routes illegal and would preclude 

access by the public to many dispersed recreation activities.

Purpose #2b. Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (4X4 

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 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

4

capability (FSM 2353.03 (2)) (FSM 2006a). Implementation of 

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule will dramatically 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 such as additional routes, changes in vehicle class and 

season of use.

Travel Management Regulations

The criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, trails and areas from 

Subpart B of the travel management regulations (36 CFR 212.55) are outlined in two 

sections and the general criteria (212.55(a)) require that the Responsible Official 

consider:

Effects on natural and cultural resources

Public safety

Provision of recreational opportunities

Access to public and private lands

Conflicts among uses of National Forest

Need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and areas that would 

arise if the uses under consideration are designated

Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas (212.55(b)), in addition to the criteria 

listed above also include minimizing:

Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.

Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat.

Conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses of 

NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands.

Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses on NFS lands or 

neighboring Federal lands.

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

taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.

Specific criteria for designation of NFTS roads (212.55(c)), in addition to the criteria 

listed above also include consideration of:

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

Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.

Maintaining valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way).
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

5

Decision

Based on the analysis in the Lassen National Forest Motorized Travel Management 

Project FEIS and the associated project record, I have decided to implement Modified 

Alternative 5 (Selected Alternative). My decision includes the modifications made to 

Alternative 5 in response to comments I received from the public as well as analysis and 

judgment with regards to public safety, as described below and analyzed in the FEIS. I 

believe the selection of this alternative best meets the purpose and need and responds 

to the issues of access, motorized recreation opportunity, and natural resource 

protection. 

Modifications to Alternative 5 in Response to Comments and 

Public Safety Concerns

After a careful review of the public comments I received in response to the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), I concluded that Alternative 5 was still a solid 

approach to managing motorized travel. However, a few changes could be made to 

improve the recreation value of the alternative and minimize the safety concerns 

associated with it. By incorporating elements analyzed in other alternatives considered in 

the DEIS, I was able to maintain the original theme and intent of Alternative 5 while 

addressing issues that arose during public comment and from engineering analysis 

regarding the public safety aspects of my decision. The resulting alternative, Modified 

Alternative 5, is included in the FEIS to disclose the effect of the following modifications: 

I added four unauthorized routes totaling 2.7 miles.

I am designating seven mixed use routes totaling 9.3 miles (contingent on the 

concurrence of the California Highway Patrol).

These two changes are described in more detail in Chapter 2 of the FEIS and 

analyzed for each affected resource in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. I have selected Modified 

Alternative 5 because I believe it will enhance recreation opportunities while ensuring 

that safety and natural resource values remain intact. I delayed signing the ROD for a 

month to allow the public to review these changes. Comments received during this 

period and responses are summarized in Appendix C: Response to Comments.

Modified Alternative 5 (Selected Alternative)

How the Alternative was Developed

Modified Alternative 5 was designed to enhance and improve motorized recreation 

across the Lassen NF, while addressing economics. In analyzing Alternative 5 (the 

Preferred Alternative for the DEIS), it was recognized that the Forest has an extensive 

road system, 78 percent of which is already available to non-highway legal vehicles as 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

6

well as passenger cars, trucks, and jeeps. However, what is missing is an explicit design 

for loop systems and linkages of short segments of routes to provide the type of off-road 

driving experience visitors are looking for and enjoy. This alternative responds to the 

need for providing diverse riding opportunities without compromising safety. The mixed 

use safety analysis conducted by the Forest Engineers as part of the planning process 

demonstrated that most of the NFTS road segments proposed for mixed use exhibit 

either moderate or high probability of a severe crash. Table G-3 in the FEIS Appendix 

lists the results of the Safety Analysis for all the routes proposed for mixed use under all 

the Action Alternatives (2, 4, 5, and Modified 5). These ratings were used to make my 

decision about which routes should be designated for mixed use in Modified Alternative 

5.

During the scoping period for this project, the Lassen NF received suggestions on a 

number of additional unauthorized routes to be added to the NFTS. These routes were 

reviewed to determine the degree to which they added recreational value–either by 

providing access to dispersed recreation or by linking segments of the existing road 

system–and the environmental sensitivity associated with proposing the route addition 

for motorized use. In addition to the unauthorized routes being added in Alternative 5, an 

additional 2.7 miles of unauthorized routes (4 routes) were found to have important 

recreational value and minimal resource concerns or impacts that could be mitigated. 

These were considered for addition to the NFTS in this alternative. As we looked for 

ways to create the riding loops people told us they wanted; we identified 9.3 miles of

lesser-used ML 3 road segments where mixed use could be designated and 79.6 miles 

where ML 3 objective maintenance levels could be reduced to ML 2. This is an increase 

of 0.6 miles over the 79 miles identified in Alternative 5, because it was discovered in the 

process of conducting the mixed use safety analysis on routes in Alternative 5 that one 

of the segments, 0.6 miles of 28N70, proposed in that alternative had already 

operationally changed from a ML 3 to a ML 2. Over time, all 79.6 miles of these roads 

will be made available for non-highway-legal vehicles and help link currently 

disconnected ML 2 road segments to form more continuous OHV circuits. 

Seasonal closures were included in Modified Alternative 5 to address the need for 

providing diverse recreation opportunities and to minimize user conflicts. Winter closures 

protect Over-snow Vehicle (OSV) trails. Other seasonal closures are designed to provide 

hunting access during limited times of the year. Wet weather closures prevent resource 

damage in erosion-prone areas and also meet the need to reduce road maintenance 

costs by limiting damage to the roadbed. One stretch of road (29N21Y) would have 

seasonal restrictions to protect Spotted Owl nesting (see Appendix B: FEIS Errata and 

Map 31).
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

7

Description of Modified Alternative 5

Cross-Country Travel: Public motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads and 

trails on approximately 1,072,364 acres would be prohibited, except as allowed by 

permit or other authorization.

Additions to the NFTS: A total of 56 miles of unauthorized routes, comprised of 207 

route segments would be added to the NFTS as ML 2 roads (10.3 miles) or as motorized 

NFTS trails (45.7 miles). Winter Recreation season of use would be applied to 6.6 miles 

of proposed additions. Wet weather season of use would be applied to 8.2 miles of 

proposed additions. Proposed route additions are summarized below in Table 1 and 

specific routes are listed in Appendix A. To see an illustration of these proposed 

additions to the NFTS, refer to Maps 32 & 35.

Changes to the NFTS – Vehicle Class: Objective Maintenance Levels would be 

lowered to ML 2 on 79.6 miles of roads currently managed as ML 3. This action would 

serve to increase the amount of NFTS miles available for use by non-highway legal 

motor vehicles and provide additional connectivity between riding loops for longer riding 

opportunities. In addition, 9.3 miles of ML 3 roads are proposed (contingent on the 

concurrence of the California Highway Patrol) for motorized mixed use by both highway 

and non-highway legal vehicles for the same purpose. Additionally, six miles of roads 

that are currently closed to public motor vehicle use through Maintenance Level 1 

designation will be converted to Maintenance Level 2 roads and managed as trails 

allowing all vehicle use. Changes to the NFTS are summarized below in Table 1 and 

listed in Appendix A of this ROD. These proposed changes to the existing NFTS are 

illustrated on Map 33 (Vehicle Class Changes) and Map 34 (Circuits and Loop 

Opportunities).

Changes to the NFTS – season of use: In addition to the 271 miles of seasonal 

restrictions as specified in the existing Forest Orders, an additional 375 miles would be 

seasonally restricted, totaling 646 miles. There are three categories of restrictions that 

would apply under this alternative. Map 31 identifies all seasonal restrictions proposed 

under Modified Alternative 5:

a. Winter Recreation: Use of motor vehicles would remain seasonally restricted 

on NFTS roads groomed for snowmobile and cross-country ski use during 

winter months. These 271 miles of NFTS roads would remain open to motor 

vehicle use from April 1 through December 25. In addition to groomed trails, 

275 miles of other routes identified on the Lassen NF Winter Recreation Guide 

would become seasonally restricted during winter months (Table A-1 of FEIS

Appendix A and Table G-1 of FEIS Appendix G). These include routes 

identified as un-groomed snowmobile trails; dedicated cross-country ski trails, 

and recommended cross-country ski trails during winter months. These 

combined 546 miles of roads would become open to motor vehicle use from 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

8

April 1 through December 25. The additional miles of routes proposed for 

winter motor vehicle use restrictions are listed below in Table 1.

b. Wet Weather: Use of motor vehicles would become seasonally restricted on 

88 miles of NFTS roads, to limit damage to roads from severe rutting due to 

motor vehicle operation during periods when road beds are water-saturated 

and easily impacted. These 88 miles would be open to motor vehicle use from 

May 1 to November 30. Roads with seasonal motor vehicle use restrictions 

during wet weather are listed in Table 1 below, Table A-1 of FEIS Appendix A 

and Table G-1 of FEIS Appendix G.

c. Hunting Access: Use of motor vehicles would be seasonally restricted on 12 

miles of NFTS roads to provide non-motorized hiking opportunities near 

Susanville, except to allow access during the fall hunting season. These 12 

miles of road would become open to motor vehicle use from August 1 through 

October 31. Routes designated for motor vehicle use only during the fall 

hunting season are summarized below in Table 1 and listed in Appendix A of 

this ROD.

d. Spotted Owl Nesting: As noted in Appendix B under Seasonal Restrictions 

Errata, one 2.1 mile long route (29N21Y) will have a seasonal restriction to 

protect Spotted Owl nesting. The route will be open from August 15 to March 1 

each year.

Parking, Big Game Retrieval, and Firewood: Parking will be allowed 1 vehicle 

length off roads. The routes that were added to access dispersed camping areas were 

extended close to the campsites. Cross-country travel will not be allowed for big game 

retrieval, but with a firewood permit, cross-country travel will be allowed to retrieve cut 

firewood.

Amendments to the Forest Plan: One Non-significant Plan Amendment to the 

Lassen LRMP (1992) would be necessary under this alternative, to address the 0.10 

miles of route 270326UC14 being added to the Deer Creek, Eligible Wild and Scenic 

River. Along with other wildlife that typically use Northern Sierra streams, Deer Creek 

has resident rainbow, as well as steelhead and spring-run Chinook salmon that migrate 

to and from the Pacific Ocean. The character of the area remains primitive and the lower 

section near Deer Creek Flats contains the historic Yahi-Yana Indian site known as Ishi 

Caves.

The Amendment will shift the eastern boundary of the ―Wild‖ portion of Deer Creek 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River so that the 0.10 miles will now be in the ―Scenic‖ portion 

rather than in the ―Wild‖ portion of the Eligible Wild and Scenic River. The current 

boundary appears to be a mapping error. The intent when the original boundaries were 

drawn was to go around the end of the road and the associated dispersed campground. 

This Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment will allow continued use of this route and 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

9

the associated dispersed recreation. Appendix E, Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation, 

Table E-2 of the LRMP displays Segment Number 4, a Scenic segment as being 2.5 

miles in length; this adjustment would make the river segment 2.8 miles in length. 

Correspondingly, Segment Number 5, a Wild segment would be displayed as 9.5 miles 

in length instead of 10.0 miles (the LRMP rounded to the nearest 0.5 miles, so the actual 

value to begin with was 9.8 miles without rounding).

Table 1 displays a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative. A complete list 

of roads and trails to be added into the NFTS, including the vehicle class, if applicable, 

and seasonal use restrictions, can be found in Appendix A of this ROD.

Table 1 Modified Alternative 5 - Summary of Actions

Action Type Action Proposed

1. Cross-country Travel

Status of cross-country travel Prohibited on 1,072,364 acres

2. Additions to the NFTS (Routes)a Miles

Trails added 45.7

Roads added 10.3

3. Changes to the Existing NFTS

Vehicle Class Changes a Miles

Allowing highway and 

non-highway vehicles 

(Mixed Use) to use 

the same roads 

through vehicle class 

changes. 1

System roads currently closed to motorized 

use by the public - to be designated as 

motorized trails (< 50‖ motorized trail)

6

Roads managed for highway legal vehicles 

will be allowed to weather to lower 

maintenance levels. These roads will then be 

managed for both high clearance highway and 

non-highway vehicles. (Objective 

Maintenance Level change to eventually allow 

Mixed Use, Maintenance Level 3/4 to 

Maintenance Level 2.)

79.6

Roads managed for highway legal vehicles 

will not be altered, but safety concerns 

addressed (Allowing Mixed Use to occur 

through a change in allowed vehicle classes).

9.3

New Seasonal Restrictions

Reason for 

restriction

Open period Miles

Winter recreation Apri 1 to December 25 275

Wet weather May 1 to November 30 88

Hunting August 1 to October 31 12

Spotted Owl Nesting August 15 to March 1 2

a

All routes added or changed to allow mixed use will be open to all forms of motorized wheeled 

vehicles; Source: GIS query March 22, 2009
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

10

Best Available Science My decision is based on the best available science. All 

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the 

design of the Selected Alternative. I have included all of the mitigation measures and 

monitoring that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on 

resources affected by implementation of the Selected Alternative. My conclusion is 

based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review using the best available 

science. The resource analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS identify the effects 

analysis methodologies, references and scientific sources which informed the analysis, 

and disclose limitations of the analysis. 

Mitigations and Monitoring Mitigations minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts on 

sensitive resources. Specific mitigations listed in Appendix A of this ROD must be 

completed prior to designation of the route for public motorized use on the MVUM. The 

Forest will put together the MVUM in a two tier process. Those routes listed in Appendix 

A that do not require mitigation will be shown on the MVUM immediately in the Tier I 

MVUM. Routes with route specific mitigations will be placed on the Tier II MVUM as the 

mitigations are completed. Route specific monitoring listed in Appendix A of the ROD 

must be conducted as described in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the FEIS.

Reasons for My Decision

The Lassen National Forest is comprised of outstanding landscapes, with a diversity of 

resource values, and a rich history of human use and visitation. Motorized recreation 

plays an important and pivotal role in how people visit and use the Lassen National 

Forest. Many of the backcountry settings on the Lassen are accessed by a network of 

motorized routes that provide opportunities to get away from urbanized settings and 

explore a large expanse of undeveloped landscapes. 

The Forest provides a spectrum of recreation experiences that include opportunities 

to experience the unique challenges of exploration and discovery, as well as 

opportunities for quiet reflection and solitude where one can just get away from it all. 

These landscapes represent some of the largest expanses of undeveloped public lands 

that remain in the nation, and are home to many rare plants, animals and fish, and a vast 

array of valuable cultural sites. 

With these factors in mind, I did not take this decision lightly. In reaching my decision, 

I have considered the purpose and need for action, the issues, the Forest Plan and 

associated amendments, current policies and regulations, effects on natural and cultural 

resources, public comments received, and the full range of alternatives. I considered the 

broad range of concerns expressed throughout this process relating to both motorized 

and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

11

Although my decision will reduce the number of miles of motorized routes available as 

compared to the existing condition, there is a compelling need for change. This decision 

implements a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel and potential future route 

proliferation which will reduce detrimental effects on natural resource conditions. 

Importantly, it implements this prohibition while ensuring continued public motorized 

access to recreation opportunities throughout the Lassen National Forest. 

Compelling Need for Change

My decision consists of three different components. The first component of the decision 

prohibits cross-country travel off the designated route system. The second component of 

the decision selects carefully considered routes to add to the existing NFTS. Finally, the 

third component of the decision provides a strategic framework for working within the 

augmented NFTS to better address the desire for more loop opportunities on the Forest 

as expressed by motorized recreationists.

Prohibiting cross-country travel is a preventative action that will ensure motorized 

recreation is planned and managed in concert with the resource stewardship 

responsibilities of the Forest Service. 

Adding routes to the NFTS will complement the existing system in terms of providing 

access to long-standing recreational uses or links to existing travel segments to enhance 

the value of the NFTS to motorized recreation. In developing this aspect of the decision, 

I drew upon local knowledge of both employees and the public to determine where 

specific unauthorized routes would respond to recreation requests for loop opportunities 

and provide access to dispersed recreation areas with minimal disturbance to natural 

and cultural resources.

Developing loop opportunities cannot be done simply by adding more unauthorized 

routes to the system because the vast majority of the remaining routes are disjointed 

spurs and dead-end segments. Adding these segments would increase road 

maintenance costs and provide little value in terms of access or quality recreation 

experience. However, the existing network provides an opportunity for meaningful 

increases in the loops available to non-street legal vehicle use simply by changing the 

road maintenance level objectives for a select number of road segments. While this 

administrative action is only the first step in increasing the loop riding opportunities on 

the Forest, it sets forth both the intent and the strategy for enhancing the motorized 

recreation opportunities on the Forest in a fiscally responsible manner. 

It is important to recognize that before these road segments are available for nonhighway legal use, the road must physically reflect conditions that slow travel speeds 

and make concurrent use by highway and nonhighway legal vehicles safer. In time, 

some roads are expected to naturally degrade to rougher driving conditions under a less 

frequent maintenance schedule. For others, it may be necessary to accelerate this 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

12

natural process by undertaking additional work to physically alter the operational 

condition of the road. Such work will depend on the current road condition, the potential 

for resource damage, and public safety. Additional environmental analysis may be 

required before any given segment can be physically altered to meet a maintenance 

level more suited to high clearance vehicles. As work is completed and the road is 

deemed safe for all vehicles (including OHVs), the change in vehicle class will be 

reflected in the associated MVUM. 

Balanced Approach

The Selected Alternative provides a balanced approach, weighing resource and 

economic concerns against the need for recreation opportunities. The Selected 

Alternative provides interconnected loops and linkages into backcountry landscapes and 

maintains access to popular dispersed recreation opportunities. While some of the public 

wanted all unauthorized routes to be added and cross-county travel to continue, this 

decision is the result of responsible stewardship that limits the additions of unauthorized 

routes to those that would create the best recreation opportunity while considering the 

magnitude of the existing Lassen National Forest Transportation System and the costs 

associated with maintaining it. This alternative provides ample access through a 

manageable system of roads and trails for local residents and Forest visitors to use. As 

previously mentioned, the Forest has an extensive road system, covering over 3,278 

miles. Additional routes were added with the intent of addressing recreation needs 

where resource concerns did not exist. Careful consideration was given to creating loop 

opportunities in locations that were popular with OHV users and insuring that the routes 

that were added provided adequate access to identified dispersed recreation areas. 

I believe that the Selected Alternative strikes the best balance in providing motorized 

recreation access, while also protecting cultural and natural resources. By banning

cross-country travel, the Forest enhances protection of more than three cultural resource 

sites per 100 acres. Also considered and addressed in the Selected Alternative were 

habitat protection for endangered species, such as the Federally-listed Threatened fish 

species, Chinook salmon and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. mykiss), the 

Federally listed Threatened owl, Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), the 

Federally listed Threatened plant species, Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis) and the 

Federally Endangered plant species, Greene‘s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei). The Forest 

carefully limited the addition of unauthorized routes that could affect these species and 

identified mitigations that must be completed prior to designating each route on the 

MVUM. The Selected alternative protects these species and will follow through on 

essential monitoring to minimize impacts to these species. For example, the Selected 

Alternative balances the need to provide access to the Forest, while substantially 

reducing impacts from vehicle traffic to aquatic resources. It does this by implementing 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

13

mitigation measures specifically aimed at reducing sedimentation into water bodies. For 

further explanation see the Legal and Regulatory Compliance Section of the Record of 

Decision, outlining in more detail the various natural resources and the Forest‘s efforts to 

protect them.

Addressing the Purpose and Need and the Travel Management 

Regulations

My decision has been carefully designed to respond to all of the needs identified in the 

Travel Management EIS and to implement the provisions of Subpart B of the Travel 

Management regulations (36 CFR 212). 

The first need, to regulate public motor vehicle travel, is accomplished through a 

permanent prohibition on cross-country travel that prevents future route proliferation. As 

previously mentioned, implementation of this permanent prohibition will have countless 

benefits to large numbers of natural and cultural resources across the Forest. 

Some measureable achievements through implementing the Selected Alternative are: 

the elimination of motor vehicle impacts to approximately 60 miles of routes in meadows; 

reduction of the amount and quantity of sediment entering stream channels at 32 stream 

crossings; diminishment of the amount of sediment contributed to perennial streams, 

springs and lakes by 124 miles of unauthorized routes. In addition, 88 miles of seasonal 

restrictions during wet weather would effectively limit the amount of erosion caused by 

users on these routes. Six threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species will 

benefit from the Selected Alternative. For example, prohibition of motor vehicle travel on 

91% of the unauthorized routes in proximity to historic, known, or potentially suitable 

Cascade frog habitat will enhance protection for this sensitive species. 

The two components of the second need, to provide motor vehicle access to 

dispersed recreation opportunities and to provide a diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities, are accomplished through carefully selected additions to the NFTS. 

One might think that the existing NFTS, currently comprised of 3,598 miles of roads 

and motorized trails, should meet the Purpose and Need for providing a diversity of 

motorized recreation opportunities and for providing access to dispersed recreation 

opportunities that historically have been accessed by motor vehicles (Purpose and Need 

2a and 2b). However, the existing NFTS generally provided access to major recreation 

areas and for Forest management activities. The majority of existing high clearance 4x4 

roads were unauthorized low standard, primitive routes that did not receive active 

maintenance. For many years, most roads on the LNF were added to the transportation 

system based on management needs for vegetation management, fuel treatment, 

access to private in-holdings, fire control, public utilities, special uses management, in 

addition to public recreation access. As a result, many important dispersed recreation 

opportunities are not accessible via the present NFTS. The Selected Alternative 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

14

addresses this need by adding 53 miles of road and trail to the NFTS to maintain access 

to long-standing recreational use areas on the Forest. Among these 53 miles there are 

at least 58 individual routes that access dispersed camping opportunities and lead to a 

variety of dispersed recreation areas such as, Turner Mountain, Hogflat Reservoir, Wiley 

Ranch, Potato Buttes, Pine Creek, Four Corners and the Cone Lake Trailhead for the 

Caribou Wilderness (Table 36 of the FEIS). The transportation system will provide 

access to sites and routes that are important to Forest users for camping, backpacking, 

hiking, sightseeing, exploring, rock hounding, fishing, and hunting, among other 

activities. 

The Selected Alternative provides diverse recreation opportunities (Purpose and 

Need 2b) by providing access to a variety of riding experiences through loop 

opportunities created through a combination of additions to the NFTS and changes to 

the NFTS (mixed use and objective maintenance level changes). The Selected 

Alternative provides a total of over 405 miles of loops—each greater than 20 miles in 

length—as described in Table 33 of the Recreation Section of the FEIS. These loop 

opportunities occur in the north, east and west portions of the Hat Creek Ranger District, 

the north, east, west and central portion of the Eagle Lake Ranger District and the 

Lassen Trail/Pegleg/Swain Mountain. and Turner Mountain areas on the Almanor 

Ranger Districts (Map 34). This alternative adds the most mileage of unauthorized 

routes to the NFTS. These unauthorized routes are open to ―all‖ vehicle types. This 

alternative also reduces objective maintenance levels from ML 3 to ML 2 over 79.6

miles. I am aware that it will take some time for the conditions on ML 3 roads to change 

enough for them to be considered operationally an ML 2 road and therefore suitable for 

a vehicle class change and addition to the Motor Vehicle Use Map(MVUM). This 

decision, however, signals my intent to make these roads available for OHV use, to work 

closely with the off-highway vehicle community to prioritize roads to bring onto the 

MVUM, and to find funding sources to accomplish this (Tier III, see Implementation 

Strategy below).

After closely reviewing the Engineering Reports for all passenger car road segments 

(ML 3+) proposed for motorized mixed use in the action alternatives, I can only support 

changing the designation to allow motorized mixed use on seven segments totaling 9.3 

miles. My primary concern is with public safety. Many of the routes that were initially 

analyzed in the preferred alternative (Alternative 5) proved to have a high probability or 

severity of crash risks involving highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles sharing 

the roadways. Only those segments where risks could be mitigated to a reasonable level 

were included in Modified Alternative 5. These seven segments will provide enhanced 

off-highway vehicle opportunities on the Lassen NF. I realize this aspect of my decision

will disappoint a large segment of the riding community, but I could not in good 

conscience make a decision that might put the riding public at risk.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

15

It is important to recognize these seven segments may not be added to MVUM 

immediately. Implementation of mitigation measures for these designations will incur a 

cost and labor expense, as well as a long-term maintenance and monitoring 

responsibility for the Forest. Full implementation of the changes in route designation will 

mean waiting until all Tier II routes and road changes are added to the MVUM. This 

decision was primarily based on the enhancement of recreation opportunities where the 

Forest could reasonably mitigate the associated safety risks with proper signage.

Lastly, the Selected Alternative provides additional access while considering the cost 

of these additions to the NFTS. (The issue of the cost of maintaining the NFTS was 

identified as a significant issue by the public during scoping. See the Public Involvement

section in this ROD and Significant Issue # 2 on page 13 of the FEIS.) Further, I have 

considered the need for and availability of resources for maintenance and administration 

of the roads and trails added to the NFTS in this decision as directed by the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212.55 (a) 6). The change in objective maintenance level 

combined with the additional unauthorized routes is a net savings over the existing 

NFTS as described in the Transportation Section, Appendix B: FEIS Errata. Although the 

additions would result in an implementation cost of approximately $170,000, in the first 

year, the Forest saves close to $700,000 on annual maintenance costs and close to $5.3 

million over 5 years on deferred maintenance costs with this decision due to the 

downgrading of ML 3 and ML 4 roads to ML 2. Maintenance level 3 and 4 roads are 

designed to be passable by passenger cars (Table 13 of the Transportation Section,

Appendix B: FEIS Errata). Maintenance level 2 roads are designed to be passable by 

high clearance vehicles and are not maintained for passenger cars. The higher 

maintenance levels are associated with significantly higher maintenance costs. This 

decision is the second most economical decision of any of the alternatives (Table 19 of 

the Transportation Section, Appendix B: FEIS Errata). Currently, the Forest receives 

approximately $1 million annually for trail and road maintenance funding (Table 17 of the 

Transportation Section, Appendix B: FEIS Errata). Although both appropriated and grant 

funding levels can change from year to year, I believe we will be able to secure 

adequate funding to complete needed maintenance of the transportation system over 

the long-term. I expect that we may need to pursue grant funding more aggressively, 

further prioritize needed maintenance, as well as explore more creative solutions such 

as road maintenance agreements or volunteer trail adoption programs, but that roads 

and trails will be maintained to management objectives.

Subpart B of the Travel Management regulations implements the Executive Orders 

that direct Federal agencies to ensure the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the 

safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of 

those lands. The Travel Management regulations implement those orders by requiring 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

16

designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and prohibiting motor 

vehicle use off the designated system. The Selected Alternative, Modified Alternative 5, 

fully implements this direction. Publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) by 

March, 2010 will complete the designation process by identifying the roads, trails, and 

areas designated for public motorized use. The Temporary Forest Order will be 

superceded and the prohibition of motor vehicle use off the designated system will take 

effect permanently once the MVUM is published. For more about the criteria used to 

make this decision compliant with the Travel Management regulations, see the Legal 

and Regulatory Compliance section, Travel Management Regulations below.

Listening to Public Input

My goal throughout this effort was to work with the full range of stakeholders and 

interests to find an alternative that would sustain resources while providing a diverse set 

of recreation opportunities that satisfies the needs of the public. Despite apparent 

differences in opinion, the public, through their comments, revealed a strong connection 

with public lands on the Lassen National Forest; connections based on generations of 

use and exploration as well as traditions still in the making. Comments that I received 

provided very helpful information on important areas and routes. Public input helped

clarify the need for addition of some of these routes in order to provide access to 

important recreation opportunities and experiences. I also heard about valuable Forest 

resources in need of additional protection or mitigation. 

Each community, whether it is Susanville, Chester or Chico, maintains a unique set of 

characteristics, values, and beliefs that shape its relationship with the forest and its 

resources. The ability of these distinct civic entities to continue to thrive economically, 

physically, and spiritually through their connection with the Lassen National Forest 

cannot be understated. The public has the right to use their Federal public lands, but in 

responsible and sustainable ways–ways that do not diminish the current or future uses 

of the National Forest for others. There were many who made suggestions for 

compromise and who brought much needed information and thoughtful insight into this 

process. Their comments were greatly appreciated and were helpful in working towards 

this decision.

I heard from many individuals and groups with particular goals for the types of 

recreation and uses they consider to be appropriate on National Forest System lands. 

Some feel all existing unauthorized routes are valuable and important and should remain 

available for motorized use. For them, the freedom to choose where to go and how to 

get there is important. Some expressed concern that motorized vehicles degrade the 

quality of their recreation experience. Others asserted protection of natural resource 

values such as roadless area character, water quality, or fish and wildlife habitat should 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

17

take precedence over other needs. They argued that more restrictions on motorized 

travel should be in place. 

Lastly, some have questioned the long-term sustainability of local economies as a 

result of perceived effects of my decision. Some believe implementation of any of the 

action alternatives will harm small businesses, recreation users, the tourism industry, 

local governments, local economies, low-income residents, families with children, and 

people with disabilities, and reduce public access to federal lands. I disagree. I believe 

the Selected Alternative results in a well-planned system of roads, trails, and areas 

available for public motorized use. More importantly, I believe my decision offers better 

opportunities for quality, long-term recreational motor vehicle use and better economic 

opportunities for individuals and communities, than either the existing network of NFTS 

and unauthorized routes or the other action alternatives. Both the opportunity to access 

and enjoy the Lassen National Forest for motorized recreation and the natural and 

cultural resources that draw people to this special place are protected with this decision.

Fostering Citizen Stewardship in National Forest Management of 

Roads and Trails

The successful implementation of this decision will, in large part, be based on local 

community members, visitors, and land managers working together to sign, map, 

restore, implement mitigation measures, and encourage compliance with regulations. I 

am grateful that many individuals and groups from many viewpoints have already 

indicated their willingness to work together towards developing community-based 

solutions for future on-the-ground work. 

It is important that people know that I listened intently to their input even if all of their 

wishes are not directly reflected in the Selected Alternative. We received many articulate 

and heartfelt requests for routes to be added or dropped based on a wealth of 

knowledge from local citizens and visitors. I personally read many of your letters and I 

was greatly impressed by the quality of the responses. As work progressed on the final 

EIS, I met several times with our resource specialists and engineers to look for solutions 

to some of the more puzzling dilemmas. In the end, I still struggled in making a decision 

that prohibited non-highway legal vehicles on some of the routes where people had 

explicitly requested this use. The Philbrook Road (25N05) was mentioned many times 

and with a great deal of passion from the OHV community. I am acutely aware of the 

desire to ride from private residences to the High Lakes area without the burden of 

loading a trailer and driving to legal riding opportunities. However, as I took a harder look 

at the issue, I found it to be quite complicated. 

A substantial investment has been made by the Forest Service and our partners to 

upgrade road 25N05 and to keep it in very good condition to protect the watershed and 

anadromous fish resources in the vicinity. Downgrading the road to a lower maintenance 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

18

level for OHV use would require that more money be spent to reverse these 

improvements. This is not a prudent use of our limited funding, nor does it seem like a 

rational approach. The other immediate solution would be to keep the maintenance level 

at ML 3 and allow mixed use on all or part of the road. However, 25N05 has been 

evaluated by forest engineers and, in its current state, presents an unacceptable risk to 

public safety if designated for mixed use. Complicating the situation is the fact that 

another segment of the population has requested that the road be off-limits to OHVs due 

to concerns over noise and route proliferation in the High Lakes area. After looking at all 

of the issues surrounding this specific road, I have concluded that, although it is not a 

popular decision, the best option at this time is to take the appropriate amount of time to 

gather more information and examine a number of options for addressing this situation. 

Simply put, allowing mixed use on road 25N05 is not ripe for inclusion in this decision. 

Another area where significant interest has been expressed is the Share the Dream 

Trail. The Recreation Outdoors Coalition has dedicated a substantial amount of personal 

time and energy in developing this proposal for an all-vehicles loop that would allow 

riders to circle Lassen Volcanic National Park. This proposal is still conceptual in nature 

and a number of route segments to be included pose logistical challenges and would 

require careful mitigation before they could be added to the NFTS. Nevertheless, it is 

clear there is sustained interest and willing volunteers to continue working to make this 

concept a reality. I know that some have the expectation of seeing this circuit (or parts of 

it) included in my decision. However, I find that there is substantial work to be done, 

including engineering designs, more extensive public involvement, and feasibility 

analyses of different approaches to more difficult sections, for example, before the circuit 

can come to fruition. As a result, it is not possible to fold a proposal of this magnitude 

into this decision. This in no way should be taken as an indication of our abandonment of 

the idea or a dismissal of the hard work that has been done to move the Trail to a more 

tangible state. It is my intent to continue to work with the OHV community to prioritize 

segments of the longer circuit for more focused effort after this decision is issued. 

The Lassen NF has a number of collaborative planning efforts that began prior to the 

travel management project and will continue even as this project draws to a close. 

Ongoing work is directed toward developing special management plans for the High 

Lakes and Front Country OHV areas and a newly-awarded grant project to assess the 

Potato Buttes OHV trails and play areas for future additions to the MVUM. The 

importance of the continued planning for improved management of motor vehicle use on 

the Forest cannot be overstated. By selecting Modified Alternative 5, I have endorsed 

this community-based approach to solving difficult issues. Implementing this alternative 

can and will be successful with a commitment to use the demonstrated success of these 

collaborative efforts to guide decision-making processes well into the future. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

19

Lassen National Forest Implementation Strategy

The Forest Service developed the following management strategies to be used as part 

of all of the action alternatives to improve implementation of the designated route 

system. 

Tier System

A number of follow-up actions are needed to implement this decision, for the disposition 

of all routes to be completed and for the MVUM to fully reflect the travel management 

goals inherent in the decision. To better understand the timeframes associated with 

these follow-up activities, the Forest has grouped them into the following three tiers, or 

stages, of implementation. 

Tier I Routes

Routes listed in Appendix A of the ROD that do not require mitigations will be designated

as open to public motorized travel on the March 2010 Tier I MVUM.

Tier II Routes

Routes listed in Appendix A requiring mitigation, will be addressed as soon as possible

and added as open to public motorized travel in a subsequent Tier II MVUM. Mixed Use 

segments of roads will be added to the MVUM as soon as safety signing and mitigations 

are accomplished. Roads changed from Objective ML 3 to ML 2 status will be added to 

the MVUM as conditions allow changes in allowed vehicle class to be made safely. In 

some cases, this might entail intentional modifications to the roadbed and subsequent 

analyses.

Tier III Routes

There were many routes that were requested by the public for OHV use that could not 

be added without conducting a more complex site-specific analysis that was not possible 

within the current timeframe. For example, they may require ground disturbing activities 

such as bridges or extensive road work in order to add the route to the MVUM. These 

types of activities require site-specific design features. These routes may be added to a

Tier III list of routes requiring more NEPA analysis and a new decision. The Forest will 

work with motorized recreation users to prioritize routes that provide extensive recreation 

opportunities. It is anticipated that many of these routes could be added to the MVUM 

once these issues are resolved. 

Maps/Brochures

Based on the selected alternative, the Lassen NF will produce a primary Motor Vehicle 

Use Map (MVUM) following National Forest Service standards that indicates which 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

20

routes are designated open to the public by type of vehicle per route and season open 

for use. The MVUM will be used for law enforcement and education. This map will be 

made available to the public free of charge. Designations, use restrictions, and operating 

conditions will be revised in future decisions as needed to meet changing conditions or 

management strategies. A Forest brochure will be developed as a companion document 

to the MVUM with clear and simple explanations of the rules and restrictions, and 

examples of signs on the ground.

As a service to visitors, the Forest will also produce a local travel map following 

production of the primary MVUM that indicates which routes are designated open to the 

public by type of vehicle per route and season open for use, and identifies other 

important features on the Forest that would help the public navigate the system. 

Signing

The Forest will supplement the MVUM by signing NFTS roads and trails that are open to 

public use on the ground with a road or trail number and applicable regulatory 

information. Clear, consistent, and adequate signs will be installed to identify trails 

designated open by type of vehicle per route and season open for use corresponding to 

the public MVUM and local travel map. Signing of dead-end routes leading to/stopping at 

rivers, streams, meadows, and other sensitive resources will be a priority to help protect 

resources from public motor vehicle damage.

Public Outreach

Successful implementation of this decision will require a program of public education and 

outreach. The following components have been identified as key elements of this 

program. 

1) Development of a public education strategy to educate Forest visitors about the 

designated route system, to assist with reading and understanding the MVUM and 

local travel map, to educate Forest visitors about the potentially negative effects of 

motorized travel activities, and to discuss how the public can help with 

implementation of the designated system by volunteering for maintenance activities, 

enforcement of the rules, and education of other Forest visitors.

2) Continue collaborating with groups interested in the addition, modification, or 

management of NFTS roads, trails, and areas on the Lassen National Forest in order

to build additional stewardship opportunities for the public and improve our 

transportation system. The activities of these groups could include, but are not 

limited to: 

a) Developing a public volunteer strategy to identify opportunities for the public to

help implement, enforce, maintain, and fund the designated route system. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

21

b) Expanding a core of dedicated volunteers capable of supporting ongoing 

resource protection efforts, expanding the dissemination of public information, 

ensuring the effectiveness of resource monitoring, and maintaining the NFTS 

infrastructure (including signs, kiosks, roads, trails, and restoration efforts). 

c) Developing a public education strategy to educate forest visitors about the 

designated route system, to assist the public with reading the public MVUM, and 

to educate forest visitors about best practices for minimizing impacts resulting 

from motorized travel activities. 

d) Assisting with the implementation of actions included in this decision such as 

mitigations, signage, and disguising unauthorized route entrances. 

3) Continue the examination of the adequacy of the designated system of routes and 

recommend modifications or adjustments to the system to be addressed in 

subsequent NEPA analysis.

4) Continue collaborating with volunteer groups to plan and implement specific 

motorized vehicle recreation projects. Priorities through 2012 would be the following:

a) Planning and development of the Share the Dream trail for all vehicle types. The 

principle partner will be the Recreation Outdoor Coalition and the strategy will be 

to concentrate on implementing segments of the trail as time and resources allow 

for the necessary planning efforts;

b) Development and implementation of an OHV Management Plan for the High 

Lakes region; principle partner will be Friends of the High Lakes. Included in this 

project will be planning and implementation of OHV routes to the High Lakes 

from neighboring communities;

c) Public review and publication of the Front Country OHV management plan;

d) Planning and development of the Potato Buttes OHV riding area.

Public Involvement

The Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation process has been posted on the Schedule 

of Proposed Actions for the Lassen National Forest since April 1st, 2005. 

The Responsible Official and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) relied on public 

involvement to ensure that a full range of alternatives, representing a broad array of 

perspectives, would be analyzed. Public involvement occurred during three key periods: 

first during the public collaboration process that began in 2004; second during the 36-

day public scoping period for the NOI; and third during meetings with public groups to 

explore issues they raised during scoping.

The public involvement process began in 2004 and 2005 with public meetings in 

several key locations around the Forest. Initial meetings held at Susanville, Chico, Fall 

River Mills and Chester in 2004 were designed to provide the public with key information 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

22

on the travel management process. Discussion topics at these meetings included an 

overview of the Travel Management Rule, the proposed Roadless Rule, the route 

designation process and ways in which the public could be involved. Additional public 

meetings in Chico and Susanville were provided to update the public on the travel 

management process and to provide the public with information on the application 

process and timelines for OHV grants. During 2004 and the first half of 2005 

presentations were also made twice to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors, and 

once to the Tehama, Plumas and Modoc County Boards of Supervisors to inform them 

of the travel management process. During this time Forest staff also consulted with area 

tribes, including the Susanville Indian Rancheria, Pit River Tribe and Greenville 

Rancheria on the travel management process. During this period, consultation with the 

tribes occurred on seven separate occasions. 

In mid 2005, public meetings were held again at Chico, Chester, Susanville, Fall River 

Mills, Shingletown and Redding. The purpose of these meetings was to present route 

maps; provide instruction to the public on how to read route inventory maps and provide 

the public with an opportunity to comment on any routes that were missed. This on-theground training provided the public with the knowledge and tools necessary to locate 

and map their favorite riding areas and routes so that they could effectively provide that 

information to the Forest Service. As a result of this public involvement, an additional 

320 miles of routes were added to the Forest inventory. During this period, similar 

consultations were made with the Pit River Tribe, Susanville and Greenville Rancherias 

on four separate occasions. 

In April of 2006, the Forest once again held public meetings to continue updating the 

public on the travel management process and to provide training and instruction on 

developing input to the Forest. Meetings held in Chico, Fall River Mills, Redding, 

Susanville and Chester were designed to (1) present the Forest Service‘s new national 

rule requiring designation of roads, trails and open areas for all types of motorized 

vehicle travel; (2) discuss the specific criteria for road and trail designation in the rule; 

and (3) explain the Temporary Forest Order (effective July, 2006) that restricted 

motorized vehicle use to mapped roads and trails and (4) provide a 60-day public 

notification period. The Greenville Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria and Pit River 

Tribe were also consulted on continued developments in the travel management process 

in mid-2005. In September 2006, public workshops were held to provide the public with 

an opportunity to help the Forest develop a transportation plan that accommodated OHV 

recreation while minimizing resource and social impacts. These were held at Fall River 

Mills, Susanville, Chico, Chester and Redding. The workshops offered individuals or 

groups a format to identify the opportunities and benefits of their favorite routes as well 

as provide a forum for discussion of potential risks and concerns. Maps and tools 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

23

needed to provide feedback were made available via the web or by CD for those 

individuals who could not make one of the workshops. 

From October to November 2006, Lassen NF asked for the public‘s help, through 

release of a ―route designation feedback form‖ made available via the Forest website, to 

identify which unauthorized routes should be added to the FTS for motor vehicle travel. 

The public was asked to provide the following specific information on the forms: which 

non-system routes should be added, what type of vehicles should be allowed to use that 

route and why that particular route should be added. Forms were originally due to the 

Forest by November 3, 2006, however, in late October, the Forest extended the 

feedback comment period another 35 days to better accommodate public involvement. 

Approximately 3,700 feedback forms were received, which provided comments on 

unauthorized routes and identified resource concerns. The Forest used this information 

to assist in development of the original Proposed Action for the NOI. During this time, 

tribal consultations with the Susanville Indian Rancheria and the Pit River Tribe on travel 

management also occurred. 

Additional public open house meetings were held in Chester and Burney in July of 

2007. The purpose of these meetings was to provide an opportunity for the public to 

comment on the ―discussion draft‖ of the Forest‘s proposed transportation system. The 

discussion draft identified proposed routes, loop opportunities and access to recreation 

locations and also included route evaluation criteria. 

Scoping for the Notice of Intent

In October 2007, the Forest Service completed the ―Proposed Action and NOI to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement‖ which was published in the Federal 

Register, October 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 206). Thus the scoping period began 

on October 25, 2007, and ended November 24, 2007. Presentations to a variety of 

groups, phone calls, news releases, website postings, and e-mails were used to alert the 

public of the initiation of scoping. Public meetings were held in Redding, Susanville, and 

Chico to explain the Proposed Action. The agency received 2,309 responses (including 

letters, e-mails, and faxes), of which 152 contained original language. The remaining 

2,157 responses were organized response campaign (form) letters. All of this is 

summarized in the Scoping Report and the Content Analysis Report, Lassen National 

Forest, Travel Management Plan NOI, hereby incorporated by reference and found in 

the Project Record. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and agency 

resource specialists, the IDT developed a list of issues to address.

County governments and planning departments were informed of the Lassen National 

Forest‘s plans and intent throughout this process. The Lassen National Forest shared 

the NOI with public works directors from all counties. In 2007 the forest engineering 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

24

department shared mixed-use guidelines with Butte County‘s planning department in an 

effort to potentially coordinate the designation of system roads.

Between January 2009 and May 2009 presentations were made to county 

governments and agencies to seek additional input on modification of the proposal and 

development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Presentations were 

made before the full Board of Supervisors for Lassen and Plumas Counties. Lassen 

National Forest staff made presentations to a smaller group of Supervisors for Tehama, 

Shasta, and Butte counties and county planning staff from Modoc County. Lassen 

National Forest staff also offered to meet with all county staffs for further discussion and 

comments on proposed travel management, including ―study sessions‖ with both Lassen 

and Plumas counties, but no additional meetings were requested by county 

governments.

In early 2009, the Lassen National Forest invited representatives to a meeting to view 

maps and discuss the process of travel management with agencies and local 

governments. Staffs from Butte, Plumas and Lassen counties were present, as were 

representatives from county Sheriff‘s Departments, California Highway Patrol, California 

Fish and Game, Lassen Volcanic National Park and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Lassen National Forest staff participated in two Stakeholders Conference calls in 2009 

to discuss the travel management process and field questions from organizations, 

county governments and others in attendance. Lassen National Forest staff held monthly 

conference calls with the Regional Office and other forests to discuss the progress of 

travel management and discuss any issues. Throughout the travel management 

process, the Lassen National Forest has offered organizations, governments and 

agencies and tribes numerous opportunities to provide substantive comment and 

discuss potential coordination and cooperation.

56-Day DEIS Comment Period and 30 FEIS Review Period.

Following four years of work and over 45 public meetings, tribal consultations and local 

government presentations, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was 

released for public comment.

Interested parties, tribes and reviewing agencies were sent a letter (via email or by 

mail) on May 20, 2009. The DEIS and maps were posted on the web the same day at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/projects/NEPA_projects/route/downloads.php. Hard 

copies and/or CDs of the DEIS were sent to tribes, reviewing agencies and any 

individuals or organizations that requested one. All agencies, tribes and individuals 

received a summary and website location for downloading documents and maps. The 

notice of availability was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 

Federal Register on June 5, 2009, which initiated the 45-day comment period. A legal 

notice was published in the Lassen County Times on June 2, 2009. Public open house 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

25

meetings were held in June in Susanville and Chico to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment and to ask questions regarding the DEIS.

The Lassen NF received several comments requesting an extension to the comment 

period. The Forest Supervisor decided to extend the comment period an additional 11 

days. On July 21, 2009, a legal notice explaining the extension was published in the 

Lassen County Times. A letter was also sent to interested parties, reviewing agencies 

and tribes on July 20, 2009. The Environmental Protection Agency published an 

amended notice in the Federal Register extending the comment period on July 24, 2009. 

The Lassen NF received 268 total responses to the DEIS, including 252 original 

responses and 16 form letters. An executive summary of the comments appears in 

Appendix J of the FEIS.

While the EIS was being prepared, the Temporary Forest Order #06-09-01, banning 

cross-country travel and restricting motorized travel to the inventoried unauthorized 

routes was revised on May 27, 2009, lasting through July 12, 2010.

Lastly, the Lassen National Forest also offered a 30 day review period between 

release of the FEIS on December 18, 2009 and January 19, 2010. This review period 

was provided to the public because a new Alternative was developed (Modified 

Alternative 5) which differed substantially from the Alternative 5 that the public had an 

opportunity to comment upon during the DEIS comment period. This Modified Alternative 

5 was developed because Mixed Use Safety Analyses were completed after the DEIS 

Comment Period. When the Forest Supervisor, Kathleen Morse (the Responsible 

Official), reviewed these safety analyses, she determined that only 9.3 miles of the 51 

miles originally proposed for Mixed Use in Alternative 5 were actually safe enough for a 

vehicle class change allowing non-highway legal vehicles to share the roads with 

highway legal vehicles. In order to allow the public an opportunity to review these 

changes, signing of the Record of Decision was delayed for a month. Comments 

received during this review period did not convey appeal rights, but they were 

considered.

Identification of Issues

Comments from the public, other agencies, Pit River Tribe, Susanville Indian Rancheria 

and Greenville Rancheria were used to formulate issues concerning the Proposed 

Action. An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the Proposed Action and its 

environmental impacts. The Forest Service separated these issues into two groups: 

significant issues and non-significant issues. 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, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; 3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made; or 4) conjectural without supporting scientific or factual evidence. 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

26

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation 

in Section 1501.7, ―...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)... ‖ 

A summary of issues, comments, questions, and suggested alternatives is located in the 

Scoping Report, which is incorporated by reference in the Project Record.

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during 

scoping: 

Issue 1: The original Proposed Action (in the NOI) unreasonably restricts motorized 

recreation use by prohibiting cross-country travel. The proposed addition of only 30 

miles of NFTS roads and 7 miles of NFTS trails to the NFTS provides insufficient public 

access to Lassen NF lands and unfairly limits motorized recreation. 

Issue 2: The Lassen NF 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.

Issue 1 was addressed in Alternative 5 and Modified Alternative 5 by increasing the 

number of miles being added to the NFTS by 23 miles over the Proposed Action. Issue 2 

was addressed in Alternative 3 by not adding any routes to the NFTS thus limiting the 

costs associated with new route additions. Alternative 4 addressed this issue as well, by 

adding 10 miles of roads to the NFTS, changing the objective maintenance level on 79 

miles of ML 3 and ML 4 roads, and changing the season of use on 375 miles of roads. 

Alternative 5 and Modified Alternative 5 compromised by adding 53 miles and 56 miles 

respectively of routes while simultaneously lowering the objective maintenance level and 

placing season of use restrictions as discussed above in Alternative 4. These changes 

cut costs associated with maintaining those facilities. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered five other alternatives in detail, which 

are summarized below. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found 

in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

Alternative 1 (No-action)

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 No-action Alternative represents the continuation of cross-country travel. 

Under the No-action Alternative, no changes would be made to the NFTS and there 

would be no prohibition of cross-country travel. Current management plans would 

continue to guide project area management. The Travel Management Rule would not be 

implemented, and no Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would be published. Motor 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

27

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

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

There are a number of reasons I did not select this alternative. It does not implement 

the Travel Management Rule and does not meet the need for regulation of unmanaged 

wheeled motor vehicle travel as required by the Rule because cross-country travel with 

continued route proliferation would cause continued adverse resource impacts. This 

alternative has the most resource impacts, conflicts with adjacent landowners and 

impacts on non-motorized or quiet recreation activities of any of the alternatives. It 

includes existing seasonal closures and restriction without the additional resource 

protection provided by the season of use restrictions in the other Alternatives 4, 5 and 

Modified Alternative 5. It does not allow mixed use to occur on any of the ML 3 or ML 4 

roads, tying it with Alternative 3 for the alternative with the least number of miles 

available for loop riding opportunities. This alternative is the most expensive alternative 

to maintain because NFTS maintenance costs remain high and ongoing resource 

impacts from continued use of the 1,089 miles of unauthorized routes would require 

remediation.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The Proposed Action, as described in the NOI published in the Federal Register on 

October 25, 2007 (USDA FS 2007b includes the following,): prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel, proposed changes to the existing NFTS, and additions to the NFTS. 

This alternative was developed during the course of a year‘s worth of public meetings, 

including workshops where the public identified important routes for addition. The focus 

of this alternative was to meet OHV recreation needs by adding some unauthorized 

routes and providing for some mixed use opportunities. However, the alternative largely 

assumes existing OHV recreation opportunities are adequate for most user needs and 

also attempts to meet the need of limiting road maintenance costs. Subsequent to 

publishing the NOI, routes that did not have resource concerns were included in a 

―Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2). Public input subsequent to NOI publication 

suggests that Alternative 2 in fact offers fewer OHV recreation opportunities than desired 

by OHV user groups and individuals.

Alternative 2 nevertheless represents a starting point for the development of 

Alternatives 4, 5, and Modified 5 . It was developed with public input and comment. It 

regulates unmanaged motor vehicle use; however, it does not provide the same degree 

of access to dispersed recreation opportunities (Purpose and Need 2a) as compared to 

the selected alternative. It provides 7 miles less dispersed recreation access as 

compared to the selected alternative. It also adds only 38 miles of additional loop 

opportunities compared to the current NFTS (Diversity of motorized recreation 

opportunities (Purpose and Need 2b)). By contrast, the selected alternative provides 178 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

28

miles of additional riding loop opportunities beyond the current NFTS, 140 miles more 

than Alternative 2. Because there are additions of unauthorized routes, but no lowering 

of maintenance levels on system roads, Alternative 2 also costs around $45,000 more

per year than the current NFTS to maintain (Issue 2) (Appendix B: FEIS Errata, 

Transportation Facilities section, Table 19). 

Alternative 3

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

additions or changes to the NFTS. This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the 

impacts of other alternatives that propose changes to the NFTS. None of the currently 

unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS under this alternative and motorized 

access beyond existing NFTS routes would be prohibited except as allowed by permit or

other authorization. No maintenance levels would be changed on system roads and 

mixed use would not be allowed on ML 3+ roads. Season of use restrictions already in 

place would remain as they are. This alternative responds to the issue of cost by not 

adding any new facilities to the NFTS, but does not realize savings from maintenance 

level changes such as realized in Alternatives 4, 5, and Modified 5 (Appendix B: FEIS 

Errata, Transportation Facilities section, Table 19).

There are a number of reasons that I did not select this alternative. Although this 

alternative meets the need to regulate unmanaged motor vehicle use, the diversity of 

motor vehicle recreation opportunities and access to dispersed recreation are all 

confined to the existing NFTS. This alternative does not incorporate routes suggested by 

the public that provide additional important dispersed recreation opportunities. The 

Selected Alternative, by contrast, adds 9.0 miles of additional routes that access 

dispersed recreation and 79 miles of ML 3 and ML 4 roads have their objective 

maintenance level changed in order to allow non-highway and highway vehicles to 

access the same routes. The Selected Alternative provides 178 miles more loop 

opportunities than this alternative. Similar to the No-action Alternative (Alternative 1), it 

does nothing to address the costs to maintain the existing NFTS; however it is 

environmentally better than the No-action Alternative, in that unauthorized routes are no 

longer available for travel and resource related damage caused by continued use of the 

unauthorized routes would not occur. The Selected Alternative provides greater 

recreation access and a greater diversity of riding opportunities without adversely 

affecting Forest resources; thus better meeting public needs. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 addresses access, economics and natural resource protection. This 

alternative was developed to meet the need of providing diverse OHV riding 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

29

opportunities by attempting to improve existing riding opportunities rather than add 

additional routes. Under this alternative a combination of vehicle class changes and 

minimal addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS are used to address concerns 

about both dispersed recreation access and OHV riding opportunities, while constraining 

the resource and economic impacts from addition of routes. It adds a few unauthorized 

routes and makes some changes to the maintenance level (ML) of some system roads. 

Improvements focused on providing unauthorized routes and vehicle class changes on 

existing roads to better link ML 2 roads. This would create riding opportunities of 

increased length, allowing a diversity of riding opportunities of varying length and riding 

duration. Improving linkages between roads already available for OHV use also allows 

for increased access to dispersed recreation opportunities via OHVs. Winter, wet 

weather and hunting closures were developed to meet the need of providing diverse 

recreation opportunities and reducing user conflicts by protecting winter OSV trails and 

providing hunting access during limited times of the year. Wet weather closures meet the 

need of reducing road maintenance costs by limiting damage from motorized use. 

Although this alternative regulates unmanaged motor vehicle travel, provides a 

diversity of recreation opportunities and riding experiences in the context of the existing 

NFTS, and contains costs by adding just 10 miles to the NFTS; it was not chosen 

because it does not provide the quality of recreation diversity and access to dispersed 

recreation that are offered by the Selected Alternative. For many years, most roads on 

the LNF were added to the transportation system based on management needs for 

vegetation management, fuel treatment, access to private in-holdings, fire control, public 

utilities, special uses management, in addition to public recreation access. As a result, 

many important dispersed recreation opportunities are not accessible via the present 

NFTS, even with the addition of 10 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. The 

Selected Alternative adds 8.2 miles of additional routes that access dispersed recreation 

than this alternative. Additionally, it does nothing to address the need for loop riding 

opportunities by changing vehicle class to allow for mixed use when compared to the 9.3 

miles being changed to mixed use in the Selected Alternative. 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 addresses access, motorized recreation opportunity, economics, as well as 

resource concerns in its recognition that Lassen NF‘s ML 2 road system provided over 

2,500 miles of OHV riding opportunity that could be improved upon by linking the 

system. In this way, the alternative meets the needs of access to dispersed recreation 

and diverse riding opportunities. During scoping, Lassen NF received suggestions for 

additional routes and alternative routes that would improve access to dispersed 

recreation and motorized recreation opportunities. These routes were reviewed for their 

access to dispersed recreation, ability to provide linkages between ML 2 roads and lack 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

30

of resource concerns. Unauthorized routes that met these criteria were considered for 

addition to the NFTS. In addition there were opportunities to provide further linkages by 

proposing Maintenance Level changes on some ML 3+ roads to accommodate OHVs 

and to propose some mixed-use that would provide further links. Maintenance Level 

changes also served to meet the need of reducing overall road maintenance costs. As 

with Alternative 4, winter, wet weather and hunting closures were developed to meet the 

need of providing diverse recreation opportunities and minimizing user conflicts by 

protecting winter Over-snow Vehicle (OSV) trails and providing hunting access during 

limited times of the year. Wet weather closures meet the need of reducing road 

maintenance costs by limiting damage from motorized use. 

Although this was originally the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, I did not select this alternative. It meets the Purpose and Need as 

described; however, I was concerned about public safety and the change in designation 

of 43.7 miles of ML 3 roads to mixed use. I also felt that adding the 2.3 miles of 

unauthorized routes to the Selected Alternative created more loop opportunities that 

would help compensate for the fact that I chose to drop all but 9.3 miles of the 43.7 miles 

of mixed use proposed in this alternative.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is often interpreted as the alternative that 

causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, but other factors 

relevant to this determination are provided in Section 101 of NEPA. These include 

fulfilling the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations; assuring safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings for all Americans; and achieving a balance between 

population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life‘s amenities. Based on my consideration of these factors and the effects 

disclosed in the FEIS, I consider Alternative 4 to be the environmentally preferable 

alternative because it adds just 10 miles of roads while providing wet season protection 

on 80 miles of existing NFTS roads. My reasons for not selecting Alternative 4 are 

provided above.

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

My decision complies with the laws, policies, and executive orders listed below and 

described in Chapter 2 and 3 of the FEIS. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

31

Forest Plan Consistency

My decision includes one amendment to the management direction contained in the 

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as 

amended. 

Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment

This is a project specific plan amendment to move the eastern boundary of the Deer 

Creek Eligible Wild and Scenic River so that unauthorized route 270326UC14 will be 

designated in the ―Scenic‖ portion (Segment 4) of the Eligible Wild and Scenic River, 

rather than the ―Wild‖ portion (Segment 5). The current mapping of that boundary 

appears to be a Geographic Information System mapping error attributed to a time when 

the mapping accuracy was not as detailed as it is presently (Figure 1). 

Evaluation of Significance

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires evaluation of whether proposed 

forest plan amendments would constitute a significant change in the long-term goods, 

outputs and services projected for the National Forest. The following criteria are used to 

determine the significance of forest plan amendments (FSM 1926.51-52). 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

32

Figure 1 Deer Creek Eligible Wild and Scenic River boundary change.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

33

FSM 1926.51 - Changes to the Forest Plan that are Not Significant. 

Changes to the Forest Plan that are not significant and can result from:

1) Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for 

long-term land and resource management;

The Eligible Wild and Scenic River amendment is consistent with the Forest Plan 

goals to manage Wild and Scenic Rivers and their immediate environments to 

preserve their free flowing condition and to protect their outstandingly remarkable 

values. 

2) Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions 

resulting from further on-site analysis when adjustments do not cause 

significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management;

The boundary adjustment does not change management area objectives for longterm land and resource management of the Eligible Wild and Scenic River. Although 

the LRMP states that a few inconspicuous roads leading to the boundary of the river 

area will not disqualify the ―Wild‖ river classification, the Forest finds this to be a 

mapping error that is best addressed by an adjustment to the actual boundary. This 

non-significant Forest Plan Amendment will allow continued use of this route and the 

associated dispersed recreation without compromising the integrity of the ―Wild‖ 

portion of the Eligible Wild and Scenic River. 

3) Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and,

This plan amendment would not change the standard and guides because it would 

adjust the boundary of the management area instead.

4) Opportunities for additional management practices that will contribute to 

achievement of the management prescription.

The adjustment to the boundary will help to achieve the desired condition of the Wild 

and Scenic River should it become designated as such, by leaving the natural 

condition of the Deer Creek ―Wild‖ portion intact. This change in the boundary will 

help to define the character of this segment by removing the influence of human 

improvements and habitation.

FSM 1926.52 - Changes to the Land Management Plan That are Significant. 

The following examples indicate circumstances that may cause a significant change to a 

land management plan:

1) Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between 

levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected (section 

219.10(e) of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (36 

CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2000).
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

34

The adjustment to the boundary only allows continued use of one existing 

unauthorized route to access a dispersed campsite. It does not alter the long-term 

relationships between the levels of goods and services projected in the Forest Plan.

2) Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management 

plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning 

area during the planning period. 

The boundary adjustment is a project level site-specific Plan Amendment that does 

not have implications for the entire Forest Plan. 

Conclusions

As discussed in the Evaluation of Significance above, the Forest Plan Amendment 

included in my decision:

a. Does not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.

b. Does not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for 

long-term land and resource management.

c. Represent minor changes in Standards and Guidelines.

d. Provide opportunities for additional management practices that contribute to 

achievement of the management prescription.

e. Does not alter the long-term relationships between the levels of goods and 

services projected in the Forest Plan.

f. Does not change land allocations or management direction for other elements of 

the Forest Plan.

g. Based on consideration of the factors above and the analysis contained in the 

EIS, I determined that this Forest Plan Amendment is not significant in the 

context of NFMA. I hereby amend the Forest Plan with the non-significant 

amendments shown in Figure 1.

Travel Management Regulations

The Travel Management regulations require that certain criteria be considered when 

designating routes for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.55(a) through (e)). These criteria 

have been considered at all stages of this process beginning with the development of 

the underlying Purpose and Need (Section 1.3), development of the alternatives, 

analysis of effects (as documented in the  ̳Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other 

Direction‘ sections of each analysis in Chapter 3 of the EIS), and ultimately my selection 

of Modified Alternative 5. Throughout the ROD and the FEIS, there are many specific 

examples of how I considered the Travel Management Rule criteria in making this 

decision. The criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, trails and areas 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

35

from Subpart B of the travel management regulations (36 CFR 212.55) are outlined in 

three sections, 212.55 (a, b, & c). I considered these criteria in my decision:

Section 212.55 (a)

Impacts to natural and cultural resources.

My decision will not adversely affect cultural resources (FEIS Section 3.5). For sites 

where the FEIS discloses uncertainty regarding effects, this decision includes monitoring 

of these sites per the stipulations in the Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement. 

Further, this decision is in full compliance with Programmatic Agreements with the State 

of California. 

For information on natural resources see Travel Rule 212.55 (b) 1 and 2 below.

Public safety.

The Selected Alternative authorizes the use of proposed Maintenance Level 2 roads or 

motorized trails that have been determined to be generally safe (Section 3.2). In 

addition, public safety has been my top priority when considering whether to allow mixed 

use on passenger car roads (Section 3.2, Appendix G and the Mixed Use Analysis 

Reports). Public safety was the major premise for the Modified Alternative 5 that has 

become the Selected Alternative.

Provide for recreational opportunities.

I carefully considered diversity of recreational opportunities and access to dispersed 

recreation in adding selected unauthorized routes in this decision. Although the existing 

NFTS generally provides access to major recreation areas and for Forest management 

activities; it does not contain some routes that were important for accessing long-used 

dispersed recreation opportunities. The Selected Alternative addresses this need by 

adding 53 miles of roads and trails to user-identified dispersed recreation areas or 

diverse riding opportunities. Among these 53 miles there are at least 58 individual routes 

with known dispersed campsites that in turn are starting points for exploring larger 

dispersed recreation areas such as, Turner Mountain., Hog Flat Reservoir, Wiley Ranch, 

Potato Buttes, Pine Creek, Four Corners and the Cone Lake Wilderness Trailhead 

(Table 35 of the FEIS). The enhanced transportation system in the Selected Alternative

will provide access to sites and routes that are important to Forest users for camping, 

backpacking, hiking, sightseeing, exploring, rock hounding, fishing, and hunting, among 

other activities. 

The Selected Alternative also provides diverse recreation opportunities by providing 

access to a variety of riding experiences; specifically through additional OHV loop riding 

opportunities created through a combination of additions to the NFTS and changes to 

the NFTS (mixed use and lowering of maintenance levels on some roads). The Selected 

Alternative provides 405 miles of loops greater than 20 miles (Table 33 of the FEIS). 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

36

These loop opportunities occur in the north, east and west portions of the Hat Creek 

Ranger District, the north, east, west and central portion of the Eagle Lake Ranger 

District and the Lassen Trail/Pegleg/Swain Mtn. and Turner Mountain areas on the 

Almanor Ranger Districts (Map 34). This alternative adds the most mileage of 

unauthorized routes to the NFTS. These unauthorized routes are open to ―all‖ vehicle 

types. This alternative also downgrades objective maintenance levels from ML 3 to ML 2 

on over 79.6 miles of NFTS roads. This change will eventually accommodate OHV use 

as operational maintenance levels change to allow safe use by both highway legal and 

non-highway legal vehicles. 

Access to public and private lands.

When identifying trails to add to the NFTS, I focused on meeting the needs of the public 

by providing access to the most desired trails and roads on the Forest. In addition, my 

decision will not impact access to private lands, as this project does not designate roads 

or trails through private lands where the Forest Service does not have right-of-way, nor 

will it change existing rights-of-way for adjacent private landowners. Private landowners 

that need to use one of the unauthorized routes that were not added through this effort 

can work with the Forest on an individual basis to obtain special use permits that will 

grant them the needed access. 

Conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands.

When developing the alternatives to the proposed action, the issue of use conflicts was 

addressed by placing winter recreation and hunting season of use restrictions on various 

routes in order to avoid user conflicts. The winter recreation season of use was 

employed in order to eliminate conflicts between over-snow recreation users and other 

potential uses of these routes. 

Need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and areas that 

would arise if the uses under consideration are designated. 

The Forest currently has a maintenance backlog for trails and roads of $182 million. This 

alternative carefully considers the availability of resources for maintenance and 

administration of roads, trails and areas given a combination of additions and changes to 

the existing NFTS maintenance levels. As stated previously, the additions would result in 

an implementation cost of approximately $170,000 (Effects Analysis for Alternative 

Modified 5, Appendix B: FEIS Errata for the Transportation Facilities section), in addition 

to the approximately $1.1 million (Table 17 of Appendix B: FEIS Errata, Transportation

Errata section) needed to maintain the existing NFTS. The selected alternative saves 

approximately $700,000 per year in annual maintenance costs compared to the current 

road and trail system because Objective Maintenance levels are lowered on 79.6 miles 

of ML 3 roads, reducing maintenance costs immediately. Wet seasonal closures also will 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

37

reduce damage and need for maintenance on 88 miles of roads. I have determined that 

the Forest would have sufficient resources to administer and maintain the additional 

NFTS within the Selected Alternative.

Section 212.55 (b)

I also considered the following specific criteria for designation of trails and areas, in 

addition to the criteria listed. They include minimizing:

Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.

Routes added to the NFTS as part of my decision are expected to maintain and improve 

water quality and satisfy all federal and state water quality requirements. No route 

additions to the NFTS cross perennial stream channels. My decision minimizes impacts 

to both soil and water resources, including riparian and aquatic habitats, by only adding 

routes where adverse impacts could be either avoided or mitigated to acceptable levels. 

This decision adds 4 routes totaling 1.3 miles to the NFTS that go through meadows. All 

of these routes have wet season restrictions to prevent erosion, rutting and gully 

formation. These routes were carefully considered and will not impact the meadow 

hydrology. One of these routes goes on the outside edge of a meadow and does not 

cross any drainage features. Two other routes go through a seasonal dry lake bed that 

hardens in the summer. The last route goes through a dry meadow with upland sedge 

and sage brush and the route does not cross any drainage features. The full analysis 

displaying these effects can be found in the Hydrology Section 3.9 of the FEIS and in the 

Riparian Conservation Objective Analysis in Appendix F of the FEIS.

Regarding Botanical Resources, the analysis contained within Section 3.11 of the 

FEIS determined that my decision is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or 

loss of viability for any sensitive or watch list plant species or fens. The project includes 

species-specific mitigation to reduce or avoid potential impacts to rare plants. Mitigations 

include signing to discourage off-road travel in high risk areas and monitoring of higher 

risk routes to ensure rare plants are protected (Appendix D). Lastly, my decision 

includes mitigation to control the eight high priority weed occurrences adjacent to 

designated routes and direction to clean road maintenance equipment to prevent further 

weed spread (Section 3.12). 

Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat.

I considered whether there would harassment of wildlife or significant disruption to 

wildlife in this decision. There are no additions within threatened or endangered wildlife 

species Critical Habitat or high-value occupied habitats (Section 3.13). For example, the 

Federally-listed Threatened Northern spotted owl has no known observation points along 

any of the proposed additions (FEIS Table 140) and no miles of Critical Habitat are 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

38

affected by this decision (FEIS Table 141). None of the 5 miles of routes were found to 

affect the owl. 

For all sensitive species, it was determined that the Selected Alternative would not 

result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of population viability. The California 

spotted owl would have 2.4 miles of routes added that intersect PACs (FEIS pg. 483). 

The maintenance level change of route 29N21Y has the potential to disturb California 

spotted owl PACs, therefore a seasonal restriction would be placed in order to minimize 

effects during the breeding season with additional monitoring to assure the csoPACs 

remain productive breeding areas. In the case of the northern goshawk, 9 ngoPACs 

have routes within them for a total of 1.02 miles within ngoPACs (FEIS Table 150). In all 

of the instances where routes intersect ngoPACs there would be a low risk of noise 

disturbance, therefore no seasonal restrictions are required. The routes that intersect the 

ngoPAC are all greater than 1⁄4 mile from any activity centers or there was no identified 

activity center within the ngoPAC. This decision affects 9 observation points totaling 1.0 

miles within 1⁄4 mile of the recorded observation (FEIS Table 151). No American marten

den sites have been verified or recorded within the vicinity of any route additions. Given 

the short distances, most routes are less than 0.10 miles within the 1⁄4 mile observation 

point, noise disturbance is anticipated to be absent or of short duration when natal or 

maternal dens would be occupied (Feb-July). In the case of the Pacific fisher, there are 

no verified observation points within 1⁄4 mile of existing unauthorized routes, likewise no 

breeding den sites have been verified or recorded on the Lassen NF. 

Regarding Aquatic resources, I also considered whether there would be direct effects 

to Federally-listed Chinook salmon and Steelhead or significant disruption to these fish 

habitat in this decision. This decision does not add any routes that would directly cross 

perennial creeks that provide habitat for federally listed aquatic species; therefore there 

would be no direct effects. Additionally, for all Federally-listed and Forest Service 

sensitive aquatic species, it was determined that the Selected Alternative would not 

result in an effect and/or result in a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability

(FEIS Table 94).

Conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational 

uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands.

This decision does not add any routes in Wilderness Areas, ―Wild‖ portions of the Wild 

and Scenic River, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Semi-primitive Motorized and Nonmotorized. It addresses route conflicts between recreationists, on the existing NFTS and 

new additions connected to the existing NFTS, by placing seasonal restrictions on winter 

recreation and hunting. Out of the 1,032 miles of Roaded Natural this decision adds just 

6.2 miles (FEIS Table 23). The Roaded Natural is the area with the highest likelihood for
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

39

potential conflict (FEIS Recreation Section 3.3). This decision does not add any routes 

that dead-end at the National Park boundary. 

Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses on NFS lands or 

neighboring Federal lands.

My decision minimizes the potential for conflicts, in part by ensuring the compatibility of 

route additions with recreation direction contained in the Forest Plan. My decision does 

not include any Recreational Opportunity (ROS) class changes (FEIS Recreation 

Section 3.3).

Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated 

areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.

Most of the routes added to the NFTS are located far from populated areas. The 

Selected Alternative adds no routes within 1/2 mile of communities, areas with higher 

densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites (FEIS 

Recreation Section 3.3, pgs. 135 & 136).

Section 212.55 (c)

Finally, regarding criteria for roads and trails, I considered:

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

Based on the analysis disclosed in the EIS, I have determined that the terrain, sight

distance, and condition of the road surface of the 56 miles of unauthorized routes being 

added to the NFTS makes them suitable as low standard roads or motorized trails rather 

than higher standard roads. I believe 45.7 miles are appropriately classified as trails and 

10.3 miles as roads. The number of roads and trails added in the Selected Alternative 

coupled with the existing road and trail system are expected to result in a low traffic 

density on most of the NFTS, although I expect some congestion near staging areas and 

on more popular routes. Signs to warn drivers of the class of vehicles authorized and 

expected on particular routes will be posted as part of the implementation of the route 

designation process. Authorized vehicles will be shown on or adjacent to all route 

markers. Maintenance Level 3 NFTS routes designated for mixed use will be signed 

appropriately to warn drivers of mixed use (Ch. 2 Mitigation Measures).

Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.

As described above, routes added to the NFTS will be entered into the system as either 

Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails based on vehicle compatibility 

considerations and the need to provide a range of different recreational opportunities. 

The analysis of each Maintenance Level 3 road proposed for motorized mixed use 

considered the compatibility of each vehicle class with the road geometry and surfacing 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

40

based on an assessment of the type and size of vehicle in conjunction with the driver‘s 

level of skill. 

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

When identifying trails to add to the NFTS, I focused on meeting the needs of the public 

by providing access to the most desired trails and roads on the Forest. In addition, my 

decision will not impact access to private lands, as this project does not designate roads 

or trails through private lands where the Forest Service does not have right-of-way, nor 

will it change existing rights-of-way for adjacent private landowners. Private landowners 

that need to use one of the unauthorized routes that were not added through this effort 

can work with the Forest on an individual basis to obtain special use permits that will 

grant them the needed access. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs ―to the fullest extent 

possible, agencies shall prepare draft EIS concurrently with and integrated with ...other 

environmental review laws and executive orders.‖ Each resource section in the FEIS 

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 

specifically addressed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. These laws include:

National Forest Management Act. See the Forest Plan Consistency section above. 

Clean Water Act. All Action Alternatives and the Selected Alternative were designed 

to comply with The Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing regulations and 

policies. The decision involves no dredging, filling, or ground disturbing activities. There 

are no crossings of perennial streams and no construction to cross any such streams. All 

mitigations regarding the addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS include

implementation of Best Management Practices (FEIS Chapter 3.9 and Appendix I). 

Endangered Species Act. All Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered plant, 

wildlife and aquatic species considered in the FEIS that are under the jurisdiction of the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were analyzed considering the existing regional 

programmatic consultation completed for route designation (USDA FS PSW Region 

2006; USDI FWS 2006). No project specific consultation with USFWS was required as a 

―no effect‖ determination was made for the Federally-listed plant and wildlife species 

(refer to the Biological Assessment for Orcuttia tenuis and Tuctoria tenuis, and Biological 

Assessment and Evaluation for Wildlife Species) In addition, the potential effects of 

implementing the Selected Alternative were analyzed for two Federally-listed 

anadromous fish that occur on the LNF and are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No consultation with NMFS was required as 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

41

a ―no effect‖ determination was made (refer to the Biological Assessment for Federallylisted Anadromous Salmonids). 

Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999).

Consistent with this Order, this project has incorporated feasible and prudent mitigation 

measures in the Selected Alternative to minimize risk of harm caused by invasive plant 

species. All high risk routes that have known high priority weeds within 100 feet will be 

treated in the early stages of project implementation, as per the SNFPA requirement to 

mitigate high risk actions (FEIS Noxious Weed Section 3.12 (containing the Weed Risk 

Assessment). Required weed treatment mitigations are listed in Appendix A of this ROD.

National Historic Preservation Act. This project was designed to meet this act by 

following the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, 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 (2005). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 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 Lassen National Forest has 

conducted an assessment of existing roads and trails within Forest boundaries. Any new 

construction, reconstruction and maintenance of system roads or trails will be conducted 

under a separate NEPA analysis and decision. Because current travel management 

efforts are directed at identifying which existing unauthorized routes will be formally 

added to the National Forest Transportation System while prohibiting cross-country 

travel, and because there is no expectation of new construction or development, no 

changes in the distribution or abundance of habitats available to migratory birds are 

anticipated. Changes in authorization are not anticipated to contribute to measurable 

increase in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel is expected to result in 

less use across the landscape. Therefore, habitat functionality is expected to remain 

similar or improve, and levels of disturbance related to use are expected to remain 

similar to or decline, from pre-decision levels.

Northwest Forest Plan. A very small portion of the northwest corner of the Lassen 

National Forest falls within the boundaries of the Northwest Forest Plan. No routes were

considered for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) in this area

under any alternative. No Survey and Manage species are affected by the project.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

42

Special Area Designations

I have determined that the Selected Alternative complies with laws, regulations, and 

policies that pertain to the following special areas. In addition, I believe that this decision 

enhances the values that make these special areas unique. 

Research Natural Areas. No routes are added to the NFTS for public use within any 

of the Research Natural Areas.

Special Interest Areas. The Murken Special Interest Area has two short segments 

being added to the northern portion of the SIA, route UNC016 (0.14 miles) and UNC105 

(0.06). These two routes will not impair the beneficial and unique characteristics of this 

SIA. These short spurs will simply act as places to pull off and park off of the system 

road, 35N10; where people can access and enjoy the natural beauty of the SIA.

Inventoried Roadless Areas. IRAs comprise a significant portion of the LNF land 

base (14% of the total Forest). As documented in Section 3.14 of the FEIS, the Selected 

Alternative would result in beneficial effects to the overall character of IRAs on the 

Forest. I have carefully considered the issue of adding motorized routes to the NFTS 

within IRAs. None of our alternatives added any of the approximately 25 miles of 

unauthorized routes inventoried in our roadless areas to the NFTS. My decision to 

select Modified Alternative 5 will, therefore, likewise add no NFTS motorized trails within 

IRAs. Roadless characteristics will be maintained in all our IRAs by not adding routes 

and by banning cross country travel which contributed to previous route proliferation. 

Wilderness Areas. No routes are added to the NFTS for public use within wilderness

areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers. There are no Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on the 

Lassen National Forest. The Non-significant Plan Amendment mentioned in the Forest 

Consistency Review to adjust the boundary of the ―Wild‖ portion of the Deer Creek 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River will mean that no routes are added to the ―Wild‖ portion of 

the Eligible Wild and Scenic River in this decision. As previously mentioned this appears 

to be a mapping error and will enhance the ―Wild‖ characteristics of the Wild and Scenic 

River if it should become designated in the future.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

43

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. In accordance with the April 

24, 2006 order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Missoula Division of the District 

of Montana in Case No. CV 03-119-M-DWM, only those individuals and organizations 

who provided comments during the DEIS comment period are eligible to appeal [36 CFR 

215.11(a), 1993 version]. Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the publication date 

of the legal notice in the Lassen County Times. Notices of appeal must meet the specific 

content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. An appeal, including attachments, must be filed 

(regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service) with the 

appropriate Appeal Deciding Officer [36 CFR 215.8] within 45 days following the 

publication date of the legal notice. The publication date of the legal notice is the 

exclusive means for calculating the time period to file an appeal [36 CFR 215.15 (a)]. 

Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided 

by any other source.

Appeals must be submitted to Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, 1323 Club 

Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592, (707) 562-8737. Appeals may be submitted by FAX [(707) 

562-9091] or by hand-delivery to the Regional Office, at the address shown above, 

during normal business hours (Monday-Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm). Electronic appeals, in 

acceptable [plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf) or Word (.doc)] formats, may be submitted to 

appeals-pacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us with the Subject: Lassen Motorized 

Travel Management.

For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated 

electronic acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender 

does not receive an automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the appeal, it is the 

sender‘s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means [36 CFR 215.6(a)(4)(iii)].

Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day appeal period, implementation of the decision 

may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing 

period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th 

business day following the date of the last appeal disposition.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest 


January 2010 Motorized Travel Management 


Contact Person 


The FEIS and supporting documents are available for public review at the Lassen 

National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 2550 Riverside Dr., Susanville, CA 96130, (530) 

257 -2151. For further information on this decision, contact Chris O'Brien 

(cjobrien@fs.fed.us; (530) 252-6698) or David Pilz (dpilz@fs.fed.us; (530)-252-6659), 

Project Team Leaders. 

Signature and Date 

KATHLEEN S. MORSE 


Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest 

Susanville, CA 

44 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 45

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Introduction

Appendix A displays the road and trail information, monitoring plans, and mitigation 

measures for all unauthorized routes that will be added to the National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) with this decision, as well as any Maintenance Level 1 

(ML 1) roads that will be opened to public motorized use.

About Table A-1

Table A-1 below displays the information for each new road or trail as follows:

The unique Route ID number for each route which was used throughout the 

document and on maps.

The Prior Status of each route. The prior status is one of the following: (1) an 

unauthorized route or (2) an ML 1 road not previously authorized for motorized 

use.

The Class of Vehicle and Season of Use that will be designated for each new 

road or trail. Codes for the combinations of Class of Vehicle and Season of Use 

are:

Class of Vehicle

T – Trails open to all vehicles

R – Roads open to all vehicles

Season of Use

W – August 15 to March 1

X – May 1 to November 30

Y – April 1 to December 25 

Z – Open All Year
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

46 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Table A-1 Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

250510UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.13

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Maintain only established access into 

site. Sign to keep vehicles on 

established route, and off of the PCT. 

Post leave no trace/light on the land 

use ethics message. Sign adjacent 

unauthorized routes for vehicle 

restrictions. 

260225UC21 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.25 Aquatics – Annually monitor use of 

designated route to evaluate if mitigation 

is effective in containing motorized use. If 

monitoring determines mitigation is 

ineffective, document any impacts.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor for closure of 

unauthorized accesses bi-annually, if 

ineffective re-establish closures within 30 

days of assessment and documentation.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Maintain only established route into 

Gaither Camp. Define travel way by 

rocking access, or other means to 

delineate route. Post leave no trace 

message. Sign adjacent unauthorized 

routes for vehicle restrictions.

260608UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.15 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 47

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

260608UC04 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.13 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

270326UC14 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.25 Aquatics – Annually monitor use of 

designated route to evaluate if mitigation 

is effective in containing motorized use. If 

monitoring determines mitigation is 

ineffective, document any impacts.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Maintain only established route into 

Upper Deer Creek dispersed site. 

Sign adjacent unauthorized routes for 

vehicle restrictions. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics 

message. Sign area to keep vehicles 

on designated route.

27N11W Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TZ 0.22 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Install proper drainage. 

280310UC03 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.23 None. Maintain existing waterbars.

280512UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.03 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Maintain only established access into 

site and sign area to keep vehicles on 

designated route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics

message. Sign adjacent unauthorized 

routes for vehicle restrictions.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

48 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

280512UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Maintain only established access into 

site, sign area to keep vehicles on 

designated route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics

message. Sign adjacent unauthorized 

routes for vehicle restrictions.

280608UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

280608UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

28N29H Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TX 1.57 Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Conduct GYR 

monitoring for soils. If monitoring 

assessments result in a yellow or red 

condition, then remediation will be 

required according to Best Management 

Practices.

Improve drainage and institute a 

seasonal wet weather closure. 

290522UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 None. None.

290522UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.01 None. Harden surface.

290522UC03 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. None.

290606UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.21 None. Install proper drainage. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 49

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

290606UC04 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 None. Install proper drainage.

29N21Y Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TW 2.10 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.

30N08A Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TY 0.05

None. None.

310716UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.01

None.

Sign unauthorized routes for vehicle 

restrictions. Sign area to keep 

vehicles on established route, post 

leave no trace and light on the land 

use ethics.

310716UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05

None.

Sign unauthorized routes for vehicle 

restrictions. Sign area to keep 

vehicles on established route, post 

leave no trace and light on the land 

use ethics.

31N17H Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TZ 0.32

None. Install proper drainage. Open route.

320306UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

RY 0.37 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

50 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

320924UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 None. None.

320924UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 None. None.

320924UC03 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 None. None.

321009UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.14 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

32N08YA Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TZ 0.39

None. None.

32N09A1 Maintenance 

Level 1 System 

Road

TZ 0.09

None. None.

330329UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 None. None.

330812UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.30 None. None.

340327UC01 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.10 Botany – Monitor Hypericum perforatum

(Klamathweed) annually to assess 

treatment efficacy. Monitoring will cease if 

no noxious weeds are observed for three 

consecutive years.

Treat Klamathweed if monitoring 

shows recurrence.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 51

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

340327UC02 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 1.25 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

340327UC03 Unauthorized 

Route

RX 0.19 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Monitor for 

vegetative changes and accelerated 

erosion from 1 to 3 years after 

implementation. If site meets Best 

Management Practices then move to 

Phase 2.

Sign area to keep vehicles on 

established route, post leave no trace 

and light on the land use ethics. 

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure. Existing barriers need to be 

repaired and enhanced and/or install 

more barriers to keep vehicles out of 

meadow.

340328UC05 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.26 None. None.

38N03F Maintenance 

Level 1 System

Road

TZ 1.48 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UBB031 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.16 None. None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

52 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB076 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.03 None. None.

UBB081 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.11 None. None.

UBB412 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04

Watershed – Monitor for vegetative 

changes and accelerated erosion from 1 

to 3 years after implementation. If site 

meets Best Management Practices then 

move to Phase 2.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route and block access to adjacent 

meadow. Post leave no trace and

light on the land use ethics. 

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB414 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.45 Watershed – Monitor for vegetative 

changes and accelerated erosion from 1 

to 3 years after implementation. If site 

meets Best Management Practices then 

move to Phase 2.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route and block access to adjacent 

meadow. Post leave no trace and 

light on the land use ethics.

UBB416 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.12 Watershed – Monitor for vegetative 

changes and accelerated erosion from 1 

to 3 years after implementation. If site 

meets Best Management Practices then 

move to Phase 2.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route and block access to adjacent 

meadow. Post leave no trace and 

light on the land use ethics.

UBB618 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.10 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UBB689 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.05 None. None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 53

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB690 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.08 None. Confirm need for Right of Way, 

easement, or special use.

UBB727 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.07 None. None.

UBB744 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.38 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB746 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.15 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB746A Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB746B Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.03 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB794 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11 None. None.

UBB796 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. None.

UBB797 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.03

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

54 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB798 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.11

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics.

UBB799 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.02

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics.

UBB800 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.21

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no trace 

message.

UBB806 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 None. None.

UBB809 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.08 None. None.

UBB858 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.02 None. None.

UBB860 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. None.

UBB865 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.03 Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Conduct GYR 

monitoring for soils. If monitoring 

assessments result in a yellow or red 

condition, then remediation will be 

required according to Best Management 

Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no trace 

message.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 55

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB866 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. Install proper drainage.

UBB867 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Watershed – Monitor route for 

sedimentation of Little Tule Lake and for 

the effectiveness of barriers.

None.

UBB872A Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.18 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UBB872B Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UBB872C Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.02 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UBB873A Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.09 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

56 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB873B Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UBB874 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.03 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UBB876 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.26 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route. Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UBB877 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.17 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 57

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBB878 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UBB886 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.02 None. None.

UBB887 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.02 None. None.

UBB888 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.02 None. None.

UBB889 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.08 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UBB898 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 None. None.

UBB902 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.09 None. None.

UBC021 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Sign and block to keep vehicles on 

established route and prevent access 

to seasonal lake. Post leave no trace 

message.

UBC025 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.21 None. Open route.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

58 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UBC115 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.32 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.

UCC089 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 None. None.

UCC090 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.17 None. None.

UCC127 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.08

None.

Close route at fence line to prevent 

direct access to shoreline of Swains 

Hole.

UCC317 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. None.

UCC331 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.28 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UCC368 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UCC385 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.03 None. None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 59

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UCC387 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.29 None. None.

UCC560 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.23 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UCC571 Unauthorized 

Route

RY 0.24 None. Sign to keep vehicles off the PCT.

UCC572 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.07 None. None.

UCC576 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.73 None. None.

UCC587 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.12 None. None.

UCC600 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.30 None. None.

ULA059 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.07 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure. Sign to keep vehicles on 

established route, post leave no trace 

and light on the land use ethics.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

60 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA061 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route; install barriers at end of route to 

prevent motorized use within RCA. 

Post leave no trace and light on the 

land use ethics.

ULA079 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.04 None. None.

ULA084 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.45 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Install proper drainage.

ULA095 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

ULA098 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 61

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA136 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.07 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

ULA156 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.12 None. None.

ULA158 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Sign and block to keep vehicles on 

established route and prevent access 

to seasonal lake. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics.

ULA163 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

62 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA164 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.07 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Install proper drainage.

ULA174 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.05 Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Conduct GYR 

monitoring for soils. If monitoring 

assessments result in a yellow or red 

condition, then remediation will be 

required according to Best Management 

Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics.

ULA187 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.12

None.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

ULA190 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.92 None. Install proper drainage.

ULA219 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.15

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Install proper drainage. Coordinate 

with the agency of jurisdiction to 

obtain the appropriate encroachment 

and implement the associated 

requirements.

ULA230 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.37 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 63

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA231 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.59 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure and sign to keep vehicles on 

established route, post leave no trace 

and light on the land use ethics.

ULA234 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.54 None. Repair gullies; install proper drainage.

ULA252 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 None. None.

ULA254 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.09 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Sign to prevent encroachment into 

meadow; install proper drainage on 

route (waterbars).

ULA364 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.07 None. None.

ULA415 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.44 None. None.

ULA420 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.07 None. None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

64 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA426 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.51

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Monitor meadow 

impacts.

Add vehicle barrier at treeline 1⁄2 mile 

north of ULA104 to restrict vehicles 

from crossing Susan River. 

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements. Institute a 

seasonal wet weather closure. 

Confirm the need for Right of Way, 

easement, or special use.

ULA454 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.98 None. None.

ULA455 Unauthorized 

Route

TY 0.26

None.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

ULA461 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 3.49

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Monitor route and 

seasonal lake for route proliferation off of 

route and into seasonal lake. Monitor 

meadow impacts.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure; sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Coordinate with the 

agency of jurisdiction to obtain the 

appropriate encroachment and 

implement the associated 

requirements.

ULA461A Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.48 None. None.

ULA479 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.16 None. None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 65

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA485 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.13

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Repair fence and sign to keep 

vehicles on established route, post 

leave no trace and light on the land 

use ethics. Coordinate with the 

agency of jurisdiction to obtain the 

appropriate encroachment and 

implement the associated 

requirements. Institute seasonal wet 

weather closure.

ULA488 Unauthorized 

Route

RX 0.14

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure; sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no trace 

and light on the land use ethics. 

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

ULA488-1 Unauthorized 

Route

RX 0.14 Botany – Monitor Lepidium latifolium

(perennial pepperweed) annually to 

assess treatment efficacy. Monitoring will 

cease if no noxious weeds are observed 

for three consecutive years.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure; sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Treat perennial 

pepperweed if monitoring shows

recurrence. Post leave no trace and 

light on the land use ethics.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

66 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA489A Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.10 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure; sign to keep vehicles on 

established route. Post leave no trace 

and light on the land use ethics.

ULA489B Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.08 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure, terminate route at campsite; 

sign to keep vehicles on established 

route. Post leave no trace and light on 

the land use ethics.

ULA496 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.41 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

ULA505 Unauthorized 

Route

RX 0.26 Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure.

ULA533 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.14 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

Watershed – Monitor for detrimental soil 

compaction, soil erosion, and drainage 

effectiveness.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 67

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

ULA536 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.18 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

ULA546 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.33 None. None.

ULA557 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.39 Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure to mitigate rutting. Install 

proper drainage to correct rilling.

UMN003 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.07 None. None.

UMN004 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.19 None. None.

UMN005 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.05 None. None.

UMN008 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.33 None. None.

UMN009 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.28 None. None.

UMN010 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.03 None. None.

UMN012 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 None. None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

68 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UMN790 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.23 None. None.

UMN853 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.28

None.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UNC050 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.57 None. None.

UNC105 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 None. None.

UNC106 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.14 None. None.

UNC181 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.16 None. None.

UNC395 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.21 None. None.

UNC410 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.52 None. None.

UNC412 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.97 None. None.

UNC513 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.33 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.

UNE001A Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.25 None. None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 69

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNE001B Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.02 None. None.

UNE028 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.09 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UNE047 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.16 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants and adjacent playa. If increased 

impacts are found, consider signing, 

barriers, or closing route to protect 

occurrence.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UNE062 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.35 Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

recreation site yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UNE080 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

Define edge of site to keep vehicles 

out of riparian area and prevent creek 

crossing; sign and install barriers.

Maintain only established route into 

site. Sign area to keep vehicles on 

designated route. Post leave no 

trace/light on the land use ethics. 

Sign unauthorized routes for vehicle 

restrictions.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

70 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNE360 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.16 None. None.

UNE384 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.06 None. Sign road to prevent meadow 

encroachment.

UNE392 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.32 None. Block route at meadow.

UNE394 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.91 None. None.

UNE404 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.31 None. None.

UNE405 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.28 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Sign to keep vehicles on established 

route.

UNE436 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.47 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UNE476 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.34 None. None.

UNE492 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.27 None. None.

UNE493 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.18 None. None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 71

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNE499 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.50 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements. Confirm 

need for Right of Way, easement, or 

special use.

UNE562 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.08 None. None.

UNE564 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.36 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UNE590 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.04 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UNE642 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.07 Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

72 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNE643 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.33

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Sign to control access to Ashurst 

Lake. Maintain only established 

access into site. Sign area to keep 

vehicles on designated route. Post 

leave no trace/light on the land use 

ethics. Sign unauthorized routes for 

vehicle restrictions.

UNE708 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.63 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UNE709 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.35 None. None.

UNE712 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.28 None. None.

UNE714 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.19 Watershed – Monitor dry meadow for 

impacts and for Best Management 

Practices.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure.

UNE749 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11 None. None.

UNE750 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.38 None. None.

UNE787 Unauthorized 

Route

TX 0.28 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Monitor for Best 

Management Practices. Monitor meadow 

and spring impacts.

Institute a seasonal wet weather 

closure.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 73

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNE814 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.26 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Recreation – Monitor route into dispersed 

campsite yearly for travel off of the 

designated trail.

None.

UNH001 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.05 Botany – Monitor for impacts to rare 

plants. If increased impacts are found, 

consider signing, barriers, or closing route 

to protect occurrence.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UNH515 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.54 None. None.

UNH528 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 None. None.

UNH529 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.22 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.

UNO170 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.82 None. None.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

74 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNO171 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.53 None. None.

UNO180 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.34 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.

UNO216 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.36 Botany – Monitor Centaurea solstitialis 

(yellow starthistle) annually to assess 

treatment efficacy. Monitoring will cease if 

no noxious weeds are observed for three 

consecutive years.

Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements. Treat yellow 

starthistle occurrence along route.

UNO219 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11 None. None.

UNO220 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.85 None. None.

UNO222 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.16 None. None.

UNO229 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 1.18 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table 75

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNO230 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.11 None. None.

UNW100 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.40 Heritage Resources – Monitor for 

potential effects per Forest heritage 

monitoring protocols.

Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

Harden within RCA (0.09 miles).

UNW318 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.15 None. None.

UNW337 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.10 None. None.

UNW338 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.77 None. None.

UNW339 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.30 None. None.

UNW340 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.33 None. None.

UNW341 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.12 None. None.

UNW342 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.16

None.

Coordinate with the agency of 

jurisdiction to obtain the appropriate 

encroachment and implement the 

associated requirements.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

76 Appendix A: Route Monitoring and Mitigation Table

Route ID Prior Status Class of 

Vehicle 

and 

Season of 

Use

Length

(miles)

Monitoring Plans Mitigation Measure

UNW353 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.23 None. None.

UNW355 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.56 None. None.

UNW356 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.44 None. None.

UNW358 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.27 None. None.

UNW364 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.28 None. None.

UNW509 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.09 None. None.

UNW602 Unauthorized 

Route

RZ 0.08 None. None.

UNW675 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.12 None. None.

UNW676 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.13 None. None.

UNW804 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.28 None. None.

UNW805 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.35 None. None.

UTD001 Unauthorized 

Route

TZ 0.76 Watershed – Conduct GYR monitoring for 

soils. If monitoring assessments result in a 

yellow or red condition, then remediation 

will be required according to Best 

Management Practices.

None.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: FEIS Errata 77

Appendix B: FEIS Errata

Errata for the Lassen National Forest - Motorized Travel Management - Final Environmental 

Impact Statement include the following as of January 28, 2010:

In the Transportation Facilities Section, 3.2 of the FEIS

The 2009 MOU between the FS and the FHWA mentioned on page 64 of the FEIS 

has not been finalized. Instead we refer to an October 14, 1975 MOU.

Corrections to the Annual Maintenance Costs for Operational Maintenance Level 4 in 

Table 15

Corrections to the mileages for Alternative 5 and Modified 5 on line 3 of Table 19

Addition of a footnote that Annual Maintenance Needs for Roads values on line 4 of 

Table 19 were calculated with monetary values to two digits, so results vary slightly 

from values that might be calculated from Tables 13 & 15

Addition of a footnote that 5 year Deferred Road Maintenance Costs listed on line 5 

of Table 19 include a 7% annual inflation factor, but the Deferred Trail Maintenance 

values on line 8 of Table 19 does not. Also, corrected the Current Deferred Road 

Maintenance value listed in the text on page 78 of the FEIS from $111, 695, 499 to 

$111,695,400.

Added Trail maintenance costs to Table 19

Added total NFTS maintenance costs (roads and trails) and increases or decreases 

by Alternative to Table 19

Changed values in the text under Effects Analysis for each alternative to reflect the 

total deferred maintenance costs for both roads and trails in the NFTS.

Adjusted Table 21 to reflect new maintenance cost values from Table 19.

In the Recreation Section

In Tables 37 and 38 (page 142 of the FEIS) we added Modified Alternative 5 to the 

Tables.

In the same two Tables, we changed the numbers from a raking system (best to 

worst) to a relative rating system (how good they were for the resource or 

opportunity) 

We carried these ratings into Summary Table 2 on page xxv. 

Seasonal Restrictions in the Modified Alternative 5

Spotted Owl Nesting: One 2.1 mile-long unauthorized route (29N21Y) will have a 

seasonal restriction to protect Spotted Owl nesting when it is added to the NFTS. The 

route will be open for motorized vehicle use from August 15 to March 1 each year.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

78 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Transportation Facilities Errata (All of FEIS Chapter 3.2)

Changes Between DEIS and FEIS

Safety analyses for proposed mixed use segments of ML 3 and ML 4 roads were completed 

and are incorporated into the FEIS. The section was restructured to better mirror the 

regional template for transportation and engineering. In addition, clarifying language was 

added throughout the section to better explain concepts and proposals. Finally, 

maintenance and other costs are restructured to better portray the effect on these for each 

of the alternatives.

Introduction

The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) consists of roads, trails, and airfields. 

The NFTS provides for protection, development, management, and utilization of resources 

on the national forests. There are other roads and trails existing on the Forest that are not 

currently part of the NFTS Changes to NFTS must take into account the need to provide for 

both adequate public safety and adequate maintenance of any roads and trails that will be 

designated for wheeled motor vehicle use. The analysis in this section focuses primarily on 

these two features of the NFTS.

The goal of the NFTS is to provide public and administrative access to Lassen N. F. by 

providing a safe, economical, and efficient system of roads and trails, while minimizing 

effects to the local environment. Planning and providing for well-designed access enhances 

opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the forest. 

The NFTS that currently serves motor vehicle users on Lassen NF consists of 

approximately 3,278 miles of NFS roads and approximately 57 miles of motorized NFS 

trails. An additional 1,060 miles of unauthorized routes exist upon the landscape. These 

routes are currently open and available for public use under a temporary forest order 

prohibiting cross-country travel and travel outside of existing, identified routes. This section 

primarily addresses the road network and access. See Chapter 3: Recreation Resources, for 

a detailed discussion of trails.

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

Travel Management Rule

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published a new regulation entitled, Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule (Travel 

Management Rule), which modified motor vehicle use direction for NFS lands under 36 CFR 

Sections 212, 251, 261, and eliminated 36 CFR Section 295. The rule provides guidance to 

the Forest Service on designation and management of motor vehicle use on NFS lands, and 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 79

requires formal designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use on each 

national forest and grassland (USDA FS 2005h).

Other Regulations

Other direction directly influencing road management includes Federal and State laws, the 

1966 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Federal Highways Administration 

(FHWA) and the Forest Service, Forest Service manuals and handbooks in the 7000 series, 

and Forest Plan direction.

Forest Service Manual Sections 2350 and 7700 contains agency policy for management 

of the National Forest Transportation System. Agency policy requires the development of 

trail management objectives (TMO‘s) and road management objectives (RMO‘s). The TMO‘s 

and RMO‘s document the purpose for each trail or road and follow the direction in Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 2309.18, Trails Management Handbook (FSH 1991b), when 

developing, reconstructing, or maintaining trails. 

The purpose for the trail or road sets the parameters for maintenance standards needed 

to meet user needs, resource protection and public safety. Forest Service Handbook 

7709.59 describe the maintenance management system the Forest Service uses and the 

maintenance standards needed to meet road management objectives (RMO‘s) for the road 

system, with emphasis on public safety (FSH 2009b, 2009a). 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. 

Regional Forester‘s letters, file code 7700/2350, dated 08/26/06, 06/20/07, 1/13/09, and 

2/13/09 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 will 

allow both highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic on a road (MMU - motorized mixed 

use). 

In the October 14, 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FHWA, the 

Forest Service agreed to manage a subset of NFTS roads defined as ―public roads‖ 

(maintained for four wheel passenger car vehicles) as directed in FSM 7730.5 with a 

definition of ―safety requirements‖ as directed in FSM 7733. These roads are maintained 

with a Forest Service schedule and frequency assigned as ML 3, 4, and 5. These roads are 

managed as highways in accordance with the CVC. The Forest Service and FHWA agree 

that while these NFTS roads are not ―public roads‖ per se, as for example a deeded 

interstate highway is, most are ―open to public travel.‖ ―Open to public travel‖ defines a 

NFTS road as available for use by the public, except during scheduled periods, extreme 

weather, or emergency conditions, and passable by four-wheeled standard passenger cars.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

80 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Within the context of annual funding (affordability), resource management activity, and 

priorities established by Congress and the Administration, the Forest Service endeavors to 

provide a safe experience for users traveling on NFS roads and trails. It is always the 

ultimate responsibility of users to drive safely and follow all applicable laws. The following 

publications specifically address the design of NFS roads and NFS trails:

AASHTO: Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (AASHTO 2001)

USDA Forest Service EM-7100-15: Sign and Poster Guidelines (USDA FS 2005d)

USDA Forest Service Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700: Transportation System (FSM 

2009b)

USDA Forest Service Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55: Transportation Planning 

Handbook (FSH 1992)

USDA Forest Service FSH 7709.56: Road Preconstruction Handbook (FSH 2003)

USDA Forest Service FSH 2309.18: Trails Management Handbook (FSH 1991b)

Effects Analysis Methodology

Transportation Specific Assumptions:

Any motor vehicle use authorized by State law is occurring on the NFTS unless there 

are forest-specific prohibitions.

Motor vehicle use by special use permit or other permitted activities are outside the 

scope of this proposal (fuel wood gathering, dispersed camping, motorized OHV 

events, recreation residences, mining activities, grazing, timber sales, etc.)

High-clearance vehicles (4WD, etc.), ATV and motorcycles represent the vehicle 

classes most likely to use motorized trails. Low clearance, highway-legal vehicles are 

not prohibited on motorized trails but are not as likely to use them.

Some maintenance costs will be incurred by the Forest Service for any route open to 

motor vehicle use by the public.

State laws pertaining to motor vehicle operators set the safety standards for drivers 

and other users of the NFTS.

Public Safety - 36CFR212.55 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

Transportation System Affordability - 36CFR212.55 requires consideration of the need for 

maintenance and administration of the designated NFTS. Costs for the NFTS address 

needed maintenance work that has not been completed for various reasons (deferred 

maintenance) and maintenance that should be performed routinely to maintain the facility at 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 81

its current standard and serviceability (annual maintenance). In addition there may be 

additional costs associated with proposed changes to the NFTS (implementation costs). 

These may include costs for improvements to unauthorized routes added to the NFTS, costs 

associated with addressing public safety when altering the use pattern on existing roads, 

and costs for seasonally closing routes to restrict motor vehicle use.

Specific Methodology

Approximately 4,400 segments comprising 1,089 miles of unauthorized routes currently 

exist on Lassen NF. During public feedback on the NOI, the public commented specifically 

on segments totaling 768 miles of unauthorized routes. These routes were analyzed for 

possible addition to the FTS in a separate Travel Analysis Process (TAP). An 

interdisciplinary team examined these route segments for resource risks and recreation 

opportunities. Team members reviewed the condition of each route and assessed its 

conformance with the standard and guideline indicators associated with their area of 

expertise. Resource area specialists used field investigation, GIS data review, and resource 

area road-logs/field reports to determine their recommendation for each route. Ultimately the 

forest inventory of unauthorized routes will be reduced by designating some routes as NFTS 

roads or NFTS motorized trails and decommissioning/rehabilitating the routes that are not 

selected for designation. The Route Designation process is the first step in accomplishing 

this goal. 

A main consideration when designing and maintaining road systems is safety. 

Considerations for road use and design are based on modes of travel, amount and variety of 

use, geography, topography, soils, and weather conditions. Signs, gates, turnouts, 

surfacing, road widening, road realignment, speed limits, clearing, parallel routes for 

different modes of travel, and allowing only certain modes of travel (e.g., highway-legal 

vehicles, OHVs, non-motorized travel) are all ways to mitigate for safety.

The following safety sideboards have been developed to aid in determining feasibility of 

changing use on specific NFS roads, NFS trails, and Unauthorized Routes on the Lassen 

NF:

Changing roads managed and maintained for passenger cars to roads managed and 

maintained for high-clearance vehicles (i.e. ML 3ML 2): This change may reduce the 

likelihood of speed-caused accidents between vehicles; however, it may include hazards 

to drivers from roadway rocks, wind-thrown trees and danger trees, access and travel 

time to and from medical treatment facilities, etc. 

Roads managed and maintained for high-clearance vehicles changed to managed and 

maintained for passenger cars (i.e. ML 2ML 3): Changes might affect public safety 

such as increased speeds, ensuring compliant MUTCD road signing, and educating 

drivers.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

82 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Roads changed to Motorized Trails: The use of non-highway-legal vehicles must 

consistent with the current Forest Plan and the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) classification for the area.

Adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: The route or system of routes added should 

provide for a quality recreational riding experience, be compatible with Forest Plan 

direction, and either add to or enhance the opportunities for motorized recreation use on 

the forest.

Motorized Mixed Use: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that motor vehicles 

operated on public highways be highway-legal and be operated by licensed drivers. The 

CVC allows the operation of non highway-legal vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers on 

roughly graded forest roads and logging roads. The Lassen NF considers roads maintained 

for high-clearance vehicles (Forest Service maintenance schedule/level of ML 2) to be

roughly graded. Operation of OHV‘s on these roads is consistent with State law. Roads 

maintained for passenger cars are managed more aggressively to achieve a higher road 

standard. Forest Service maintenance schedules of ML 3, ML 4, and ML 5 apply to these 

roads and they are not considered to be ―roughly graded‖ or logging roads. Thus, roads 

managed in this fashion are considered highways in accordance with the State definition. 

Motorized mixed use is allowed on short (<3 mile in length) segments on these types of 

roads provided an engineering safety analysis supports mixed use. 

Motorized Mixed Use

In the Travel Management Rule supplementary information, the agency acknowledged the 

potential need to mix highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic on some Forest Service 

ML 3 and ML 4 roads, and directed evaluation of safety and engineering considerations for 

motorized mixed use. Engineering analyses reports are used to display consequences of 

these potential designations. The publication, Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of 

Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (USDA FS 2005a) and the Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH 1992: Chapter 30) outline safety risk analysis procedures when 

considering authorizing motorized mixed use.

The Lassen NF conducted engineering analyses for motorized mixed use on certain 

Forest Service ML 3 and 4 road segments. Table G-3 in Appendix G – ―Proposed 

Passenger Car Roads Analyzed for Motorized Mixed Use‖ is a record of the roads currently 

managed to high standard that were analyzed in this project to assess the feasibility of 

allowing use by both highway-legal and non highway-legal vehicles.

Often, these segments are on arterial and collector roads, and thus the main public access 

routes to the forest. Engineering analyses evaluated the probability of a crash and the 

severity of a crash. 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 83

The crash potential ratings were based on roadway factors, (e.g., driving speeds, closing 

speeds, emergency situation vehicle maneuvering zones - road shoulders-adjacent areas to 

road shoulders), surface type and condition, sight distance and vegetation encroachment, 

road alignment (horizontal and vertical curves), traffic volume and type, and whether 

operators are required to be licensed or certified.

Crash severity ratings were based on items such as roadside conditions (e.g., natural 

ground slopes, slope and height of embankments, and large unyielding roadside features), 

speed, and traffic types (i.e., the larger the differences in vehicle sizes, the greater the crash 

severity).

Lassen NF conducted engineering field review for motorized mixed use on approximately 

85 miles of Forest Service ML 3-4 roads currently open to highway-legal vehicles. These 

analyses are documented as engineering reports, and will be used to inform Forest 

Supervisor decisions involving motorized mixed use.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

Development History and Current Need

The grade of terrain and its influence on ease of travel has affected the choice of travel 

paths historically and continues to be a primary influence today. The gentlest grades occur 

along rivers and streams with an average gradient of approximately two percent. Grade is 

the historical reason that game trails followed rivers and streams, which became indigenous 

peoples‘ trade trails and routes, which then became immigrant trails and wagon roads, and 

later became modern transportation routes such as railroad grades and forest roads. In the 

latter half of the 20th century, heavy construction and snow removal equipment were 

designed and built. This enabled the construction and maintenance of cut-and-fill roads, 

away from the gentle river grades and up the sides and ridges of the Cascade and Sierra 

Nevada Mountains.

Historical road access needs, such as for gold mining, livestock grazing and production, 

farm products transport, and timber transport, from forest areas ultimately to metropolitan 

centers, were the impetus for construction of the present forest, county, and state 

transportation systems that exist today. Recent surveys (2000-2005) conducted by Lassen

NF indicate that the current primary use of the NFTS is to facilitate the economic extraction 

of timber products, which reduces concentrations of hazardous forest fuels, as directed by 

the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG). The secondary 

use of the NFTS is recreation activity participation, discussed in Chapter 3: Recreation 

Resources. The tertiary NFTS use is resource area management access and fire protection 

and suppression activities.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

84 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Access

The reduction of hazardous forest fuels under HFQLG, as discussed in Chapter 3: Forest 

Vegetation, requires an efficient road network for forest ingress, access, and egress (USDA 

FS 2003). Roads for direct project access may exist on either a short- or long-term basis, 

depending on immediate project needs and future administrative needs. Many terminal-type 

project roads are temporary and are decommissioned and rehabilitated once management 

activities are completed.

Livestock movement and access to forest products such as firewood similarly require an 

efficient road network, though on a much smaller scale. National Forest System Roads 

provide access to private in-holdings and research and development areas, including the 

three experimental forests on or adjacent to Lassen NF (e.g., Blacks and Swain Mountain, 

managed by the Pacific Southwest Research Station, and LaTour State Forest managed by 

the California Department of Forestry). In some instances permits are sometimes issued to 

individuals and companies for NFS road use to provide access to their approved activities. 

Finally, the Forest Service and other agencies, such as the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection, Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish 

and Game, and the counties of Lassen, Shasta, Plumas, Modoc, Siskiyou, Butte, and 

Tehama, use NFTS roads administratively.

During project initiation (e.g., timber, livestock, or energy), the benefiting commercial 

operator may construct and maintain the roads needed to access the affected project area. 

This cooperative arrangement applies only during the construction and operational phases 

of the project. Many users are authorized to maintain or upgrade NFTS roads in this manner 

to accommodate their specific needs.

Recreation

This document section considers public access to recreational facilities and general forest 

areas for highway-legal motor vehicles. Forest access is critical for accommodating 

recreational uses. The NFTS serves two main types of recreation. One type is destination 

recreation; the roads provide access to a drop-off point where the recreational activity 

occurs, begins or becomes accessible by foot (such as a trailhead, scenic view, or fishing, 

picnic, or camping site). The other type is road-based recreation; when visitors use roads for 

hiking, biking, horseback riding, pleasure driving in highway-legal vehicles, motorcycling, 

ATV riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing on groomed trails.

Within the realm of destination recreation access, another aspect of the road network that 

the Forest is working through with private timberland owners is that of road easement 

agreements. The NFTS road system is a seamless transportation network across the Forest 

landscape which encompasses public and private property. Road use agreements and 

easements are common, are utilized by both forest service and private timberland parties, 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 85

and are beneficial in a myriad of ways including motorized recreation access. As the initial 

MVUM – motor vehicle use map is created, and as future iterations are developed, the 

forest service, private companies, and the public will continue to develop a cooperative and 

comprehensive plan of OHV forest use that respects private land owners and their 

associated easement agreements. 

A second analysis component of forest access is whether to authorize mixed vehicle 

classes of highway- and non-highway-legal vehicles to share certain NFTS roads open to 

public travel and maintained for passenger car traffic. California Vehicle Code prohibits nonhighway-legal motor vehicle use on public roadways maintained for passenger cars, such as 

Forest Service ML 3–5 roads open to public travel. 

Certain NFTS roads have seasonal or year-long use restrictions to protect resources. Some 

restrictions are directed at protecting the road infrastructure. Un-surfaced roads with soils 

prone to erosion can be damaged during spring precipitation events, and are prone to rutting 

during early fall snows. Other road access restrictions to specific geographical portions of 

the Forest provide an annual safe-zone for wildlife during mating-season/birthing season. 

Other biologically sensitive areas may be restricted during critical time-periods such as 

extreme fire danger during fire season. 

The MVUM will identify legal motor vehicle uses on Lassen NF, addressing seasonal or 

yearlong resource protection motor vehicle restrictions. If needed, the Forest Supervisor 

may issue emergency or temporary forest orders restricting access to protect users and/or 

resources. As discussed above, such restrictions are commonly implemented to respond to 

high fire danger and fire suppression, high water, extreme weather conditions, and during 

eradication of forest pests.

According to Lassen Forest Recreation Use Surveys in 2000 and 2005 (USDA FS 2001a, 

2006b), the demographics of drivers on mountain roads in Lassen NF have changed during 

the last 20 years. Today, many forest drivers are from urban and metropolitan areas, are 

unfamiliar with mountainous roads, and are therefore less aware of the risks common on 

different types of forest roads.

Technological advancements in the capabilities of vehicles used to travel forest roads 

have resulted in increases in the number and variety of vehicles on NFS roads. With these 

changes come associated safety concerns. Advancements in OHVs allow visitors to travel to 

more challenging areas with less operating skill than needed in the past. Today visitors 

driving standard passenger cars may encounter full-size four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, 

motorcycles, mountain bikes, and/or large commercial trucks, all on the same road.

As described in preceding sections, the NFTS was developed primarily for timber 

removal, mining access, livestock grazing, and inter-community or intra-regional travel. The 

existing road network is an inherited system that was physically designed for industrial use 

by large and slow commercial vehicles. The recreational vehicles in use today did not exist 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

86 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

when the roads were constructed. Therefore, some segments of the road network are being 

force-fitted to accept vehicles and uses they were not designed for (FSH 2003). In essence, 

much of the road system was not originally designed to safely accommodate the many types 

of motor vehicles that are used today to access and travel through Lassen NF. 

The mission of the agency has evolved during the past 25 years to include an increasing 

emphasis in motorized recreation. With this change in use of the transportation system, 

safety of the motoring public is a priority. The challenge is to keep users of the road system 

safe when they are no longer driving--for example--dual-sport 90cc motorcycles and surplus 

military Jeep 4x4 trucks, but are now riding motorcycles with 125 horsepower/1.5 feet of 

suspension and sport utility trucks that can drive off-road at 60+ MPH. Safety must be a 

principal factor to consider when deciding what types of motorized use to authorize, and 

where to authorize the various types of motorized use.

Seasonal of Use

Roughly surfaced roads located in soils prone to erosion can be damaged during wet 

weather, increasing the potential for rutting, deterioration of the road bed and sedimentation. 

Therefore, certain NFTS roads have seasonal restrictions to protect soil and water 

resources and the road infrastructure. Other restrictions limit disturbances to wildlife and 

other sensitive areas during critical nesting or migration periods. 

The MVUM will identify legal motor vehicle uses on Lassen NF, including seasonal 

restrictions. If needed, the Forest Supervisor may also issue emergency forest orders 

restricting access to protect users and/or resources. Such restrictions are commonly 

imposed in response to high fire danger, ongoing fire suppression efforts, high water levels, 

and extreme weather conditions.

Road Network

Access to Lassen NF begins with two-lane state highways and interconnecting county twolane roads. There are no U.S. or interstate highways within Lassen NF. State Highways 36, 

44, and 299 are the primary east–west routes across Lassen NF. State Highways 89 and 32 

are the primary north–south routes across Lassen NF. Due to the ease of access and 

overall demographic changes, such as population increases in the Sacramento, San 

Francisco Bay, and Reno areas, several resort-type seasonal-influx communities have 

grown rapidly along the Highway 36 corridor and along forest roads that connect to 

Highways 36, 44, and 89. These routes serve the local population for daily commutes and 

forest access, and are continually upgraded by the State (CALTRANS) to meet the 

increasing demand.

Numerous county roads are connected to the state highways. Many of these roads have 

been on the landscape since first constructed by European settlers. Some county roads lead 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 87

directly into Lassen NF. Roads under county jurisdiction are usually designed to 

accommodate passenger cars, but may not always be graveled or hard-surfaced. Roads 

crossing NFS lands may fall under several jurisdictions. The roads located within the 

national forest are predominately under Forest Service jurisdiction (NFTS roads). However, 

as noted above, the forest also contains interconnected county, state, and private roads. To 

keep track of the myriad of jurisdictional responsibilities, the forest maintains an Access 

Management/INFRA database inventory of all roads that cross the forest and their 

jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities. National Forest Transportation System roads 

are necessary for the administration, utilization, and management of NFS lands. The 

counties, State, United States Department of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and private landowners have received rights-of-way, or in some cases obtained 

jurisdiction, over some of the roads or road segments on NFS lands. Formal agreements of 

this nature are not affected by this project. 

Functional Class

The NFTS roads are divided into three classes by function. These classes are arterials, 

collectors, and local roads. The road network can be compared to the structure of a tree. 

The arterial is akin to the trunk of a tree, the collectors are similar to the intermediate 

branches leading from the trunk, and the more numerous and less-developed local roads 

are similar in concept to the smallest branches of the tree.

Arterials are the main trunk roads, designed to handle higher volumes of traffic (ADT –

average daily traffic for the NFTS as defined by FSM/FSH are much lower than FHWA lowvolume traffic definition of under 400 vehicles per day) and to provide access to key areas of 

the forest. Some may connect a State highway, a forest community or major watershed 

drainage system to another. These roads are generally held to higher maintenance 

standards. Collectors are intermediate branch roads that collect traffic from local roads and 

connect local roads to arterials. Collectors vary in both volume of traffic and maintenance 

standard. Local roads are often terminal facilities and were established to service end-ofroad needs such as camping, trailhead access and general forest access. Local roads are 

generally held to lower maintenance standards and receive the lowest volume of traffic. The 

bulk of the NFTS road network is comprised of local class roads followed by collectors and 

then arterials.

Administrative Roads

Administrative roads are, by definition, managed for administrative access to the forest by 

the agency. Maintenance levels for these roads may range from Forest Service ML 2–5, 

depending on operational needs. These roads may have specified access-related 

easements or reservations across private lands for Forest Service needs. Administrative 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

88 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

roads may also be used by timber purchasers and for access to private land when expressly 

authorized by the agency. Administrative roads are generally not open to the public. 

Unauthorized Routes

Referred to as ―unauthorized‖ or ―unclassified‖, unauthorized routes are non-permitted roads 

and trails on NFS lands that are neither managed nor recognized by the Forest Service as 

part of the NFTS. Field observations indicate that off-road recreation, including woodcutting 

and hunting/fishing access, has generated only a small portion of the unauthorized routes 

on Lassen NF. The majority of these unauthorized routes were originally established by the 

Forest Service to serve a short-term land management objective which was to be followed 

by an immediate or scheduled decommissioning of the road. This did not always occur as 

planned. Examples are former timber sale temporary roads, grazing allotment access 

routes, mining access routes, and land exchange areas that had previously been roaded 

and used by private owners.

Temporary timber sale roads are generally used for one season, and do not adhere to NFTS 

road engineering standards (grade, density compaction, drainage requirements). Temporary 

roads which were not decommissioned with the timber sale or associated vegetation 

management project become unauthorized routes and tend to be problematic as annual 

producers of sediment and agents of resource damage. These routes are commonly singleand two-track travel ways, nine feet wide or less, relatively short – perhaps less than onequarter mile long – and/or overgrown with vegetation. Over the years, Ranger District efforts 

have worked through project NEPA protocol to decommission or rehabilitate many of these 

routes, especially in places of identified resource damage or sedimentation into impaired 

watersheds or anadromous fisheries.

Unauthorized routes are neither NFTS roads nor NFTS trails, and are not included in the 

forest transportation atlas. According to the current Lassen NF inventory and Unauthorized 

Route Travel Analysis (USDA FS PSW Region 2008c), there are currently 1,089 miles of 

unauthorized routes across the Lassen National Forest.

Access to private property in holdings may be served by duplicate roads/routes, including 

existing unauthorized routes. These routes may not be added and/or designated as 

reasonable access may already be provided over the designated NFTS system roads or 

permitted non-system routes. Commercial road-use permits are utilized for commercial use 

of a NFTS road and special-use permits may be used for the use of an unauthorized route. 

During the special-use period the route would not be considered ―unauthorized‖.

Maintenance of NFTS Roads - Maintenance Levels (ML)

NFS roads are planned, designed and constructed for different modes of travel. These 

planned modes of travel require an associated maintenance schedule and maintenance 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 89

intensity which is determined by the planned use, (e.g. fuel reduction projects, recreation 

residence access), the road management objectives, and road design components, (e.g., 

design speeds, inter-visible turnouts), for each specific road. 

The NFTS road system receives annual and scheduled maintenance with associated 

internal Forest Service Maintenance Level (ML) designations listed numerically as one 

through five (1–5) as shown in Table 12. Roads have an Objective ML, which indicates the 

long-term planned maintenance strategy for that road, and an Operational ML, which is the 

current physical condition of the road. Operational and objective maintenance levels may or 

may not be the same for a given road. In this FEIS, maintenance levels listed for roads are 

their assigned Objective ML unless otherwise noted. A summary of road miles in each 

maintenance level is presented in Table 13.

The Lassen NF is relatively dry (basin and range) and flat (volcanic) topography that 

dominates the Eagle Lake and Hat Creek Ranger Districts with the exception of the Hat 

Creek Rim (strike-slip fault) and the Pit River channel. Roads on these Districts that receive 

annual maintenance and/or project pre-haul road maintenance tend to weather-out less and 

at a slower-rate of erosion and are typically at a higher operational level. This fact is 

reflected in a higher numerical operational road maintenance level than their assigned 

planned objective maintenance level.

On the Almanor Ranger District, the topography is quite varied, as is the geology (the 

confluence of the Cascade volcanic range with the Sierra granitic range). The associated 

mountainous terrain and terrenes are vertically variable with an associated increase in 

precipitation (snow and rain) and road weathering. The operational and objective 

maintenance levels are usually in agreement (e.g., an ML 2 looks like an ML 2, and an ML 3 

will require regular maintenance to remain an ML 3).

Currently, NFTS roads are designed by Forest Service engineers and often constructed 

with the private capital of independent contractors. Just as in cities across this country, 

private developers use their capital to construct the city streets to enable access to home 

subdivisions and commercial sites/factories. Once the contractor builds the streets to 

designed engineering standards, cities are willing to take public ownership to maintain these 

streets, all of which allows the city to grow and prosper. The same public/private 

methodology is utilized to construct many roads on National Forests. 

Maintenance Level 1 roads are managed for intermittent use and can be allowed to 

deteriorate and return to a more natural vegetative state. These roads can be put into 

service by being brought to an ML 2–5 standard during a timber sale or other intermittent 

project need, then later taken out of service and put back into long term ―storage‖ and ML 1 

status. The roads are kept in storage until a subsequent need arises. While in storage, they 

are an ML 1 category, which allows no motor vehicle access. Non-motorized access, such 

as horseback riding, bicycling and hiking, may occur on ML 1 roads while they are in 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

90 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

storage, however, the Forest Service will generally not maintain these ML 1 roads for such 

uses. 

Maintenance Level 2 roads are generally local and managed for relatively slow rates of 

speed with low speed design features (5-15 mph) and advised for travel by high-clearance 

vehicles only. Maintenance Level 2 roads are considered single-purpose roads. Traffic is 

normally light, usually consisting of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other 

specialized uses. These roads provide for the greatest extent of dispersed recreation access 

on the forest and account for 2,568 miles, or 72 percent of the existing Lassen NFTS road 

network. Lassen NF completed a Travel Analysis on its ML 1-2 road system in April 2008.

Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads account for 710 miles of road on Lassen NF. These 

roads form the backbone arterial and collector system that enables relatively fast (25–55 

mph) efficient transportation across the forest. The Forest completed a Roads Analysis on 

its ML 3–5 road system in July 2006 and it was accepted and signed by the Forest 

Supervisor in January 2007.

Tabel 12 National Forest System Road Maintenance Level (ML) Attributes on Lassen 

NF

Maintenance Level Attributes

5

Subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Navigable/Passable by passenger car.

Highest traffic volume and/or speeds.

Typically connect to state and county roads.

Bridges/Culverts provide drainage.

Usually arterial and collector.

May include some developed recreation roads.

Usually paved or chip-sealed.

4

Subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Moderate traffic volume and speeds.

Navigable/Passable by passenger car.

Typically connect to county/state roads.

Bridges/Culverts provide drainage.

Usually collector or arterial.

May include some developed recreation roads.

Usually provide crushed-rock or volcanic cinder road surfacing.

3

Subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Moderate/low traffic volume.

Navigable/Passable by passenger car.

Typically connect to arterial and collector roads.

A combination of dips and culverts provide drainage

May include some dispersed recreation roads.

Potholing or wash-boarding may occur.

May provide various road surfacing to include native soil, crushed rock, cinder.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 91

Maintenance Level Attributes

2

Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act.

Low traffic volume and moderate to low speeds.

Navigable/Passable by high-clearance vehicles. Not maintained for passenger 

cars.

Typically local roads.

Typically connect to collectors and other local roads.

Dips are the preferred drainage treatment, culverts common

Surface smoothness is not a consideration.

1

Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act.

Motor vehicle traffic is restricted, including administrative traffic.

Physically blocked or entrance is disguised.

Maintenance conducted to minimize resource impacts.

Aside from a condition survey, no maintenance may be required if there is no 

likelihood of resource damage.

Source: USDA FS 2005b.

Annual and Deferred Maintenance Costs: Roads

Annual maintenance involves the regular, cyclical maintenance required to keep a road 

functioning in accordance with the assigned maintenance level. Annual maintenance needs 

for ML 2 roads average $2,094 per mile. Maintenance for these low standard roads typically 

involves addressing resource concerns, including drainage. User-comfort is not a 

consideration.

Table 13 Current Miles of National Forest System Roads

Maintenance Level Miles

5 17

4 149

3 544

2 2,568

1 280

Source: Current INFRA database inventory. Note: Includes roads where right-of-way may cross nonNFS lands.

Annual maintenance needs for ML 3 roads average $12,806 per mile, and ML 4 roads 

average $15,915 per mile. Costs are higher because these roads tend to be wider, require a 

higher standard of maintenance (road number signing, sight-distance vegetation clearing, 

cleaning road drainage culverts, cleaning drainage catch basins, cleaning culvert outlets, 

road traffic signing, cleaning drainage ditches, surface blading and road shaping, aggregate 

replacement), and usually have smooth aggregate surfacing for passenger car vehicle use 

and comfort. Lassen NF completes an average of approximately 318 miles of ML 3+ road 

maintenance per year.

Deferred maintenance tasks are the cumulative total of all annual maintenance tasks that 

are not accomplished as needed or scheduled. Deferred maintenance costs for ML 3 and 4 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

92 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

roads currently average $45,738 to $82,957 per mile. If annual maintenance funds and 

accomplishments do not keep up with the required tasks, deferred maintenance backlogs 

continue to grow. Smaller tasks not accomplished over time may result in major 

reconstruction needs.

Annual and deferred maintenance costs reflect necessary expenditures to keep roads at 

the Road Management Objective (RMO) standard. Improvement costs are also necessary 

when Lassen NF needs to upgrade or enhance a road. These improvements include 

informational, regulatory or warning signs; aggregate surfacing or hardening of the road 

surface; adding turnouts; replacing old culverts with arch culverts to enhance fisheries; road 

widening; road realignments; and adding safety features such as guardrails, etc. Lassen NF 

also monitors road conditions and safety by conducting engineering analyses and road 

condition surveys. 

Additional Maintenance of NFTS Roads/Access to – NFRTA (forest roads and trails act), 

Cooperative Road Rights of Way, Construction and Use Agreements, and In holdings.

The Forest Service implements the authority found in the NFRTA – National Forest Roads 

and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 as amended (16 USC 532-538, Pub. L. 88-657) and FSM 

7705/7732 which provides that commercial users perform maintenance of roads and a 

variety of easements made necessary by their use. 

Some NFS roads are cooperatively planned, designed and constructed for different 

modes of commercial and public travel. These planned modes of travel require an 

associated set of regional agreements with private landholders, implementation of an 

associated set of the CFR – Code of Federal Regulations, and an associated set of FSM -

Forest Service Manuals and FSH - Forest Service Handbooks. These agreements are 

exempt from the MVUM – Motor Vehicle Use Map requirements.

A substantial amount of Lassen NFTS road maintenance (between 2001 – 2005 the 

Forest had prepared road maintenance sale packages on 575 miles of ML 3-5 roads) is 

accomplished annually in this manner.

Costs for Trail Maintenance

Fifty-seven miles of motorized NFS trails are included in the project area. Most of these trails 

are located on the Almanor RD. Motorized trails are typically managed in a ―rougher is 

better‖ condition to provide users with a challenging 4x4 driving experience. Maintenance is 

therefore typically limited to addressing emerging or ongoing resource concerns. The only 

other basic maintenance on these trails is roadside brushing to accommodate planned 

vehicle traffic.

General costs for various types of motorized trail maintenance were derived from national 

USDA Forest Service Enterprise Team data for motorized trail maintenance, and the 

resulting costs per mile are listed below:
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 93

Light maintenance $2,500/mile

Heavy maintenance $6,000/mile 

New construction $6,000 – $25,000/mile

Maintenance of the motorized trail system is only one cost associated with the trails 

program. Other costs include planning, trail system design and construction, management, 

and volunteer program coordination, tracking, and reporting.

The annual forest budget includes an allocation specifically for the maintenance and 

operation of forest trails. Motorized NFS trails, however, are a very small component of the 

entire Lassen NF trail system. Table 14 shows the recent budget allocations received by the 

forest to accomplish work on all types of forest trails.

Table 14 Funding allocated to Lassen NF for trails construction and maintenance 

(CMTL) (all trails – motorized and non-motorized)

Fiscal 

Year

Amount 

Allocated

2007 $59,000

2008 $133,000

2009 $141,000

Source: Lassen National Forest Work Plan.

Unauthorized Routes

After the scoping period for this project, scoping comments went through a formal content 

analysis and the resulting report was utilized for a GIS-based roads analysis of the 768 

miles of unauthorized routes for which the public provided specific comments. These routes 

were important components of the Forest ML 1-2 TAP and the associated data and 

recommendations can be found in the TAP document, which is included in the project 

analysis, file/planning record.

The rating data for Lassen NF unauthorized routes, was documented and includes 

interdisciplinary analyses and recommendations for specific route segments. Unauthorized 

routes considered for addition to the NFTS were examined on the ground and reviewed to 

ensure were needed, and are in good enough condition to be added to the NFTS as either 

an ML 2 road or a motorized NFTS trail. Table 13 shows the current miles of Lassen 

National Forest Transportation System roads by programmatic maintenance level. Although 

only ML 2 roads are available for OHV use, these currently represent 72% of the system‘s 

mileage.

Current projected deferred maintenance for roads on the Lassen National Forest for FY 

2009 is $111,695,400. This figure can be used as an indicator of maintenance needs for the 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

94 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

existing road system and how proposed changes would affect the deferred maintenance 

backlog.

Forestwide annual average maintenance costs per-mile by operational maintenance level 

(ML) were estimated as in Table 15. These costs estimates were applied across the NFTS 

to calculate the total maintenance expense associated with each alternative.

Table 15 Current Operational Maintenance Levels and Associated Annual 

Maintenance Costs/Mile

Operational 

Maintenance 

Level

Annual 

Maintenance 

Cost per Mile

1 $500

2 $2,094

3 $12,806

4 $15,912

5 $7,691

Motorized Trail $2,600 - $6,000

Source: Current INFRA database inventory. Note: Includes roads where right-of-way may cross nonNFS lands.

Direct Costs

Each year, Lassen NF is responsible for maintaining its NFTS roads. Table 16 displays 

number of miles accomplished of ML 3+ for 2002–2006. Roads require various levels of 

maintenance and investment to remain functional. These roads have annual maintenance 

such as surface grading, ditch cleaning, culvert cleaning, dust abatement, gravel 

replacement, and roadside brushing/clearing. The NFTS roads also have deferred 

maintenance expenses, the amortized regular-maintenance which was not completed. If a 

road is scheduled for substantial road maintenance, or if it is delinquent, it is listed in the 

Forest Service infrastructure database known as INFRA, as a deferred maintenance item. 

Forest road maintenance tracking determines listing as planned or overdue.

Table 16 Road work accomplishments by year

Year Road Maintenance ML 3+ 

(miles)

2002 483

2003 368

2004 325

2005 141

2006 275

5 Year Total 1,592

5 Year Average 318
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 95

Source: USDA FS PSW Region 2006d.

Lassen NF receives funding each year to cover costs of maintaining the NFTS, and for 

program support, such as transportation planning, transportation system design and 

construction, transportation management and operation, coordination with local counties, 

tracking, and reporting. Table 17 reflects the funding levels for the past five years in this 

funding category (CMRD). These allocations for 2008 are slightly higher than in 2007. 

Because the funding increase is offset by increased operating costs, the increase in 2008 is 

negligible. A flat to slightly decreasing funding trend is anticipated to continue at least 

through Fiscal Year 2012.

Table 17 CMRD funding – annual construction and maintenance of roads

Fiscal Year Amount Allocated

2004 $938,000

2005 $1,255,000

2006 $870,100

2007 $889,800

2008 $1,089,000

5 Year Average $1,008,400

Source: Lassen National Forest Financial Management Department.

Lassen NF has Road Use Agreements with each of the counties within its boundary. 

These agreements allow Lassen NF and counties to cooperatively share in maintenance 

and reconstruction of NFS roads and county roads. A limited amount of additional funding 

comes from commercial road use permits and deposit accounts from road users.

Other roads are maintained/funded under project work such as in hazardous forest fuels 

reduction treatments and timber sales. The type, location, and amount of project work varies 

from year to year. Certain roads are managed under the special use permit program, which 

can place maintenance responsibilities on the holder of the special use permit.

In addition to the above-mentioned long-term costs, there would also be an immediate 

implementation cost associated with the ML 3+ roads designated for motorized mixed use in 

this alternative. These motorized mixed use segments would cost approximately $3500-

$5000 per segment for signage. Adding unauthorized routes to the system would also have 

a cost. Accounting for route identification signing, Forest transportation atlas updates, and 

obtaining necessary agreements for those routes within public road rights-of-way managed 

by other jurisdictions, an estimated implementation cost of approximately $3000 per mile 

would be associated with these additional routes. Once added to the system, these routes 

would also require maintenance and therefore contribute to the applicable annual and 

deferred maintenance expenses.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

96 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1– No action

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

The current Forest transportation system was designed to provide for administrative and 

public access to NFS lands. It was not specifically designed to provide non-highway-legal 

vehicle opportunities. If no action is taken, 2,568 miles of NFS roads remain available for 

non-highway-legal vehicles; however, the situation does not address improving safe access 

for these types of vehicles across the Forest. In addition, the unauthorized routes would not 

be managed or addressed, and any existing safety concerns with these routes and impacts 

to the adjacent managed system would continue to exist. Continued use of unmanaged 

routes would also likely have resource impacts requiring future rehabilitation efforts.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

By not adding routes to the system, nor making any changes to the existing FTS, no 

additional costs would be incurred associated with implementation and increasing 

maintenance responsibilities. The costs associated with repairing resource damage 

associated with unmanaged use under Alternative 1 can be anticipated but not quantified. 

No Forest-wide tool would exist to display where motor vehicles can be legally operated 

on NFS roads and NFS trails.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

Road Maintenance Expense: This alternative proposes the addition of unauthorized routes 

as either motorized trails or ML 2 roads. None of the routes added to the system would have 

safety concerns because the roughly graded condition of ML 2 roads and motorized trials 

accommodates OHV use in a safe manner. However, changes to improve and 

accommodate current uses and needs would improve safe public motorized opportunities on 

the Forest. In general, providing connector opportunities by adding unauthorized routes to 

the system would improve access and safety. Safety concerns along the designated system 

would be managed when appropriate, and use on those unauthorized routes not being 

managed by the Forest would be prohibited.

Motorized Mixed Use: Thirteen miles of motorized mixed use is being proposed under 

this alternative. Allowing motorized mixed use on higher standard passenger car roads (ML 

3+) would increase the risk of crashes – both crash probability and crash severity. Of the 13 

road segments proposed for mixed use, ten exhibit moderate crash probability and eleven 

exhibit a high probability of a severe crash if one were to happen. It will be important for the 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 97

Responsible Official to weigh the increased risk with the associated benefit of improved nonhighway-legal vehicle access when making changes to allow motorized mixed use on the 

Forest.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: There are no roads being proposed for 

objective maintenance level changes under this alternative. 

Seasonal Closures: There are no roads being proposed for seasonal closures under this 

alternative.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Changes to the Forest transportation system would have an associated implementation cost 

as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. Compared to baseline (Alternative 1), 

costs for maintenance of the entire NFTS (Roads and Trails) under Alternative 2 change as 

follows:

Annual maintenance needs: + $46,498

Projected deferred maintenance (need) in 2013: + $309,124

Annual maintenance not funded or accomplished with the annual Forest roads allocation 

becomes deferred maintenance; backlogs continue to grow each year and a projection for 

2013 is included above. Adding unauthorized routes to the system would also have an 

implementation cost. Accounting for route identification signing, Forest transportation atlas 

updates, and obtaining necessary agreements for those routes within public road rights-ofway managed by other jurisdictions, an estimated implementation cost of approximately 

$3,000 per mile would be associated with these additional routes. For this alternative, that 

would result in an implementation cost of approximately $63,000 to cover these tasks. Once 

added to the system, these routes would also require maintenance and therefore contribute 

to the applicable annual and deferred maintenance expenses. Additional expenses, 

although unquantifiable at this time, would arise from implementing resource mitigation 

measures prior to adding the unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Also factored into these 

changes in costs is the expense of additional motorized trails (See Table 19).

Motorized Mixed Use: In addition to the above-mentioned long-term costs, there would 

also be an implementation cost associated with the motorized mixed use designated on ML 

3+ roads in this alternative. These motorized mixed use segments would cost approximately 

$3,500-$5,000 per segment for warning signing. With 13 proposed MMU segments, this 

would result in an approximate implementation cost of $65,000 for signing and labor.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: There are no roads being proposed for 

objective maintenance level changes under this alternative. 

Seasonal Closures: There are no roads being proposed for seasonal closures under this 

alternative.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

98 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Alternative 3

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

Adding Unauthorized Routes to the FTS: No new routes would be added to the FTS 

under this alternative, therefore there are no safety concerns. Motorized travel would be 

prohibited on unauthorized routes and any existing safety concerns with these routes and 

impacts to the adjacent managed system would be minimized under this alternative.

Motorized Mixed Use: No motorized mixed is proposed under this alternative.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: There are no roads being proposed for 

objective maintenance level changes under this alternative. 

Seasonal Closures: There are no roads being proposed for seasonal closures under this 

alternative.

Alternative 3 provides the safest riding conditions of all alternatives as cross-country 

travel is prohibited and no mixed use is proposed. Vehicles would be limited to those roads 

safely accommodating their particular class.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Road Maintenance Expense: By not adding routes to the system, nor making any changes 

to the existing FTS, no additional costs would be incurred associated with implementation 

and increasing maintenance responsibilities.

Minimal implementation costs would occur with the production of the MVUM and any 

annual changes occurring to that map.

Alternative 4

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS: This alternative proposes the addition of 

unauthorized routes as ML 2 roads. None of the routes added to the system would have 

safety concerns as the roughly graded condition of ML 2 roads and motorized trials 

accommodates OHV use in a safe manner. However, changes to improve and 

accommodate current uses and needs would provide for safer public motorized 

opportunities on the Forest. In general, providing connector opportunities by adding 

unauthorized routes to the system would improve access and safety. Safety concerns along 

the designated system would be managed when appropriate, and use on those 

unauthorized routes not being managed by the Forest would be prohibited.

Motorized Mixed Use: No motorized mixed is proposed under this alternative.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Under Alternative 4, 79 miles of ML 3 and 

ML 4 roads are proposed for changing to objective ML 2 roads. Changing objective 

maintenance levels would be a step towards allowing non-highway-legal vehicle of current 

operational maintenance level 3 roads. Through ―weathering‖ over time and through specific 
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 99

downgrading activities analyzed and implemented during subsequent projects, these roads 

could be converted to high-clearance vehicle roads that would more safely allow shared use 

involving both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles.

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed on a number of roads under this 

alternative. There are no safety concerns with seasonal closures. Since most closures are 

related to keeping motorized vehicles off roads during seasons when they may be slick or 

icy and therefore increasing the risk of vehicle accident, these would have the effect of 

providing added safety for the public.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Road Maintenance Expense: Changes to the Forest transportation system would have an 

associated implementation cost as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. 

Compared to baseline (Alternative 1), costs for maintenance of the entire NFTS (Roads and 

Trails) under Alternative 4 change as follows:

Annual maintenance needs: - $825,353

Projected deferred maintenance (need) in 2013: - $5,903,987

Annual maintenance not funded nor accomplished with annual Forest roads allocation 

becomes deferred maintenance; backlogs continue to grow each year and a projection for 

2013 is included above. Adding unauthorized routes to the system would also have an 

implementation cost. Accounting for route identification signing, Forest transportation atlas 

updates, and obtaining necessary agreements for those routes within public road rights-ofway managed by other jurisdictions, an estimated implementation cost of approximately 

$3,000 per mile would be associated with these additional routes. For this alternative, that 

would result in an implementation cost of approximately $30,000 to cover these tasks. Once 

added to the system, these routes would also require maintenance and therefore contribute 

to the applicable annual and deferred maintenance expenses. Additional expenses, 

although unquantifiable at this time, would arise from implementing resource mitigation 

measures prior to adding the unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Also factored into these 

changes in costs is the expense of additional motorized trails (See Table 19).

Alternative 4 is the most economical for the annual maintenance of the ML 3-5 road 

system, the cyclical maintenance of the ML 2 road system, the deferred maintenance of the 

ML 1-5 system, and meets national engineering and ecosystem standards and guidelines. 

Current and projected annual budgets do not cover current annual road maintenance costs 

and the backlog of deferred maintenance continues to increase. Although it does not solve 

this problem, Alternative 4 costs less than the current NFTS due to the proposed lowering of 

maintenance levels on 79 miles of ML 3 roads (changed to ML 2) and six miles of ML 2 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

100 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

(changed to motorized trails). The advantages are increased access miles for motorized 

recreation enthusiasts, a reduction of $825,353 in NFTS annual maintenance needs and a 

subsequent substantial annual reduction in deferred maintenance needs.

Motorized Mixed Use: No motorized mixed is proposed under this alternative.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Seventy-nine miles of roads are being 

proposed for objective maintenance level changes from ML 3 to ML 2 under this alternative. 

This change will lower maintenance costs, resulting in a reduction of approximately 

$825,000 in annual maintenance needs over the No Action Alternative (see summary 

discussion above and Table 19).

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed under this alternative. It is 

assumed the MVUM will be sufficient to effectively close these roads to public motorized 

travel. Should other measures be required, Implementation costs could include potential 

signing and/or gating of road segments seasonally closed. 

Minimal implementation costs would occur with the production of the MVUM and any 

annual changes occurring to that map.

Alternative 5

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

Adding Unauthorized Routes to the FTS: This alternative proposes the addition of 

unauthorized routes as either ML 2 roads or motorized trails. None of the routes added to 

the system would have safety concerns as the roughly graded condition of ML 2 roads and 

motorized trails accommodates OHV use in a safe manner. However, changes to improve 

and accommodate current uses and needs would provide for safer public motorized 

opportunities on the Forest. In general, providing connector opportunities by adding 

unauthorized routes to the system would improve access and safety. Safety concerns along 

the designated system would be managed when appropriate, and use on those 

unauthorized routes not being managed by the Forest would be prohibited.

Motorized Mixed Use: Fifty-one miles of motorized mixed use are being proposed under 

this alternative. Allowing motorized mixed use on higher standard passenger car roads (ML 

3+) would increase the risk of crashes – both crash probability and crash severity (Appendix 

G, Table G-3). Of forty-seven road segments proposed for mixed use, twenty three exhibit a 

moderate probability (after mitigation) of a vehicle collision. All proposed mixed use road 

segments exhibit either moderate (9 segments) or high (38 segments) severity of a crash, 

should it occur. It will be important for the Responsible Official to weigh the increased risk 

with the associated benefit of improved non-highway-legal vehicle access when making 

changes to allow motorized mixed use on the Forest.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 101

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Under Alternative 5, 79 miles of ML 3 and 

ML 4 roads are proposed for changing to objective ML 2 roads. Changing objective 

maintenance levels would be a step towards allowing non-highway-legal vehicle of current 

operational maintenance level 3 roads. Through ―weathering‖ over time and through specific 

downgrading activities analyzed and implemented during subsequent projects, these roads 

could be converted to high-clearance vehicle roads that would more safely allow shared use 

involving both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. 

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed on a number of roads under this 

alternative. There are no safety concerns with seasonal closures. Since most closures are 

related to keeping motorized vehicles off roads during seasons when they may be slick or 

icy and therefore increasing the risk of vehicle accident, these would have the effect of 

providing added safety for the public.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Road Maintenance Costs: Changes to the Forest transportation system would have an 

associated implementation cost as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. 

Compared to baseline (Alternative 1), needs for maintenance of the entire NFTS (Roads 

and Trails) under Alternative 5 change as follows:

Annual maintenance needs: - $688,391

Projected deferred maintenance (need) in 2013: -$5,154,488

Annual maintenance not funded nor accomplished with annual Forest roads allocation 

becomes deferred maintenance; backlogs continue to grow each year and a projection for 

2013 is included above. Adding unauthorized routes to the system would also have a 

implementation cost. Accounting for route identification signing, Forest transportation atlas 

updates, and obtaining necessary agreements for those routes within public road rights-ofway managed by other jurisdictions, an estimated implementation cost of approximately 

$3,000 per mile would be associated with these additional routes. For this alternative, that 

would result in an implementation cost of approximately $159,000 to cover these tasks. 

Once added to the system, these routes would also require maintenance and therefore 

contribute to the applicable annual and deferred maintenance expenses. Additional 

expenses, although unquantifiable at this time, would arise from implementing resource 

mitigation measures prior to adding the unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Also factored into 

these changes in costs is the expense of additional motorized trails (See Table 19).

Current and projected annual budgets do not cover current annual road maintenance 

costs and the backlog of deferred maintenance continues to increase. Although it does not 

solve this problem, Alternative 5 costs less than the current NFTS due to the proposed 

lowering of maintenance levels on 79 miles of ML 3 roads (changed to ML 2) and six miles 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

102 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

of ML 2 (changed to motorized trails). The advantages are increased access miles for 

motorized recreation enthusiasts, a reduction of $688,391 in NFTS annual maintenance 

needs and a subsequent substantial annual reduction in deferred maintenance needs.

Motorized Mixed Use: In addition to the above-mentioned long-term costs, there would 

also be an implementation cost associated with the motorized mixed use designated on ML 

3+ roads in this alternative. These Motorized mixed use segments would cost approximately 

$3,500-$5,000 per segment for warning signing. With 47 proposed MMU segments, this 

would result in an approximate implementation cost of $235,000 for signing and labor.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Seventy-nine miles of roads are being 

proposed for objective maintenance level changes from ML 3 to ML 2 under this alternative. 

This change will require fewer maintenance costs resulting in a reduction of approximately 

$699,391 in annual maintenance needs over the No Action Alternative (see summary 

discussion above and Table 10).

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed under this alternative. It is 

assumed the MVUM will be sufficient to effectively close these roads to public motorized 

travel. Should other measures be required, Implementation costs could include potential 

signing and/or gating of road segments seasonally closed. 

Minimal implementation costs would occur with the production of the MVUM and any 

annual changes occurring to that map.

Modified Alternative 5 

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

Adding Unauthorized Routes to the FTS: Modified Alternative 5 was designed to enhance 

and improve motorized recreation across the Lassen NF, responding to the need for 

providing diverse riding opportunities without compromising safety. This alternative 

proposes the addition of unauthorized routes as either ML 2 roads or motorized trails. None 

of the routes added to the system would have safety concerns as the roughly graded 

condition of ML 2 roads and motorized trails accommodates OHV use in a safe manner. 

However, changes to improve and accommodate current uses and needs would provide for 

safer public motorized opportunities on the Forest. In general, providing connector 

opportunities by adding unauthorized routes to the system would improve access and 

safety. Safety concerns along the designated system would be managed when appropriate, 

and use on those unauthorized routes not being managed by the Forest would be 

prohibited.

Motorized Mixed Use: The mixed use safety analysis demonstrated that all of the NFTS 

road segments proposed for mixed use exhibit either moderate or high probability of a 

severe crash (Appendix G, Table G-3). The routes with moderate probability of high severity 

crash are analyzed in this alternative and the high probability routes are dropped.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 103

As we looked for ways to create the riding loops people told us they wanted; we identified 

9 and 3 tenths miles of lesser-used ML 3 road segments where mixed use could be 

designated and 79.6 miles where ML 3 objective maintenance levels could be reduced to 

ML 2, this is an increase of 0.6 miles over Alternative 5. It was discovered in the process of 

conducting the mixed use safety analysis on routes in Alternative 5 that one of the 

segments, 0.6 miles of 28N70, proposed in that alternative had already operationally 

changed from a ML 3 to a ML 2. Over time, all 79.6 miles of these ML 2 roads will be made 

available for non-street-legal vehicles and link currently disconnected ML 2 road segments 

to form continuous OHV circuits. 

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Under Modified Alternative 5, 79.6 miles of 

ML 3 and ML 4 roads are proposed for changing to objective ML 2 roads. Changing 

objective maintenance levels would be a step towards allowing non-highway-legal vehicle of 

current operational maintenance level 3 roads. Through ―weathering‖ over time and through 

specific downgrading activities analyzed and implemented during subsequent projects, 

these roads could be converted to high-clearance vehicle roads that would more safely 

allow shared use involving both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. 

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed on a number of roads under this 

alternative. There are no safety concerns with seasonal closures. Since most closures are 

related to keeping motorized vehicles off roads during seasons when they may be slick or 

icy and therefore increasing the risk of vehicle accident, these would have the effect of 

providing added safety for the public.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Road Maintenance Costs: Changes to the Forest transportation system under Modified 

Alternative 5 would primarily be realized in decreased implementation costs, discussed 

below, as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. Compared to baseline (Alternative 

1), costs for actual maintenance of the entire NFTS (Roads and Trails) under Modified 

Alternative 5 change negligibly from Alternative 5, and are as follows:

Annual maintenance needs: - $702,181

Projected deferred maintenance (need) in 2013: -$5,262,524

Annual maintenance not funded nor accomplished with annual Forest roads allocation 

becomes deferred maintenance; backlogs continue to grow each year and a projection for 

2013 is included above. Adding unauthorized routes to the system would also have a 

implementation cost. Accounting for route identification signing, Forest transportation atlas 

updates, and obtaining necessary agreements for those routes within public road rights-ofway managed by other jurisdictions, an estimated implementation cost of approximately 

$3,000 per mile would be associated with these additional routes. For this alternative, that 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

104 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

would result in an implementation cost of approximately $167,100 to cover these tasks. 

Once added to the system, these routes would also require maintenance and therefore 

contribute to the applicable annual and deferred maintenance expenses. Additional 

expenses, although unquantifiable at this time, would arise from implementing resource 

mitigation measures prior to adding the unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Also factored into 

these changes in costs is the expense of additional motorized trails (See Table 19).

Current and projected annual budgets do not cover current annual road maintenance 

costs and the backlog of deferred maintenance continues to increase. Although it does not 

solve this problem, Modified Alternative 5 costs less than the current NFTS due to the 

proposed lowering of maintenance levels on 79 miles of ML 3 roads (changed to ML 2), 6 

miles of ML 1 (changed to motorized trails), and proposing motorized-mixed-use on 9.3 

miles of current ML 3-4 roads. The immediate, first-year advantages are increased access 

miles for motorized recreation enthusiasts, an immediate reduction of $702,181 in NFTS 

annual maintenance needs and a subsequent substantial annual reduction in deferred 

maintenance needs.

Although Alternative 4 is the least costly alternative because it does not add any 

unauthorized routes as motorized trails, the motorized trails added in Alternatives 5 and 

Modified 5 are a small fraction of the entire NFTS. Alternative 5 and Modified 5 are also very 

similar in cost savings to Alternative 4 as a result of the significant savings from 

Maintenance Level changes to 79 miles of ML 3 roads in all three of these alternatives. 

Motorized Mixed Use: In addition to the above-mentioned long-term costs, there would 

also be an implementation cost associated with the motorized mixed use designated on ML 

3+ roads in this alternative. These Motorized mixed use segments would cost approximately 

$3,500-$5,000 per segment for warning signing. With 7 proposed MMU segments, this 

would result in an approximate implementation cost of $35,000 for signing and labor.

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Seventy-nine miles of roads are being 

proposed for objective maintenance level changes from ML 3 to ML 2 under this alternative. 

This change will require fewer maintenance costs resulting in a reduction of approximately 

$702,181 in annual maintenance needs over the No Action Alternative (see summary 

discussion above and Table 10).

Seasonal Closures: Seasonal closures are proposed under this alternative. It is 

assumed the MVUM will be sufficient to effectively close these roads to public motorized 

travel. Should other measures be required, Implementation costs could include potential 

signing and/or gating of road segments seasonally closed. 

Minimal implementation costs would occur with the production of the MVUM and any 

annual changes occurring to that map.

Cumulative Effects
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 105

Alternative 1– No action

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

The No-action Alternative does not address improving safe and efficient access for nonhighway-legal vehicles across the Forest. In addition, the unauthorized routes would not be 

managed or addressed, and any existing safety concerns with these routes and impacts to 

the adjacent managed system would continue to exist. Continued use of unmanaged routes 

would also likely have resource impacts requiring future rehabilitation efforts. Future public 

use would not be restricted to a designated and managed system, increasing the risk of 

users encountering unmitigated hazards.

Transportation System Affordability

By not adding routes to the system, no additional costs would be incurred associated with 

implementation and increasing maintenance responsibilities.

Action Alternatives – Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, Modified 5 

Measurement Indicator 1 – Public Safety

In general, changes to improve and accommodate current uses and needs would improve 

safe public motorized opportunities on the Forest. Providing connector opportunities by 

adding unauthorized routes to the system would improve access and safety when 

designated. Safety concerns along the designated system would be managed when 

appropriate, and use on those unauthorized routes not being managed by the Forest would 

be prohibited.

Allowing motorized mixed use on higher standard passenger car roads (ML 3+) would 

increase the risk of crashes – both crash probability and crash severity. Under these 

conditions OHV users will share the routes with a variety of vehicles of different sizes: from 

other OHVs to commercial log trucks and chip vans. It will be important for the Responsible 

Official to weigh the increased risk with the associated benefit of improved non-highwaylegal vehicle access when making changes to allow motorized mixed use on the Forest. In 

addition, other projects taking place on the Forest and adjacent lands often use these higher 

standard roads as primary access and major haul routes. This would translate to an 

increasing frequency of encounters with large, commercial vehicles as well as significant 

passenger and high-clearance vehicles accessing the forest for a variety of recreation 

purposes. There would be an increased exposure to high severity crashes associated with 

these uses.

Measurement Indicator 2 – Transportation System Affordability

Changes to the Forest transportation system would have an associated implementation cost 

as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. Costs associated with changes to the 
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

106 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Forest transportation system would be incurred associated with implementation and 

increasing maintenance responsibilities. Depending on the changes being made, there may 

either be an increase to long-term management costs (additions to the system, increased 

safety mitigations) or a savings (downgrading of roads).

Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives

Public Safety Summary

The goal of motorized travel management is to create a safe, affordable and sustainable 

National Forest Transportation System. The potential changes in public safety from each 

alternative are not definitive, but can be discussed in qualitative terms based on the results 

of engineering safety analysis conducted for each route where motorized mixed use is being 

considered under one or more alternatives. The information needed to provide this 

qualitative, comparative assessment is provided in Table 18. This table lists the number of 

miles for which changes to the operational road maintenance objectives are proposed under 

each alternative by category of change. In particular, and of greatest concerns are the 

changes in authorized use patterns that will result from permitting mixed use on ML 3 roads 

and from changing the operational maintenance levels for some ML 3 roads to ML 2. In 

either case, an engineering safety analysis provides additional information from which the 

public safety implications of the proposed changes can be assessed.

Adding unauthorized routes to the FTS: Most of the routes added to the system would not 

have safety concerns due to low design speeds, rough surfaces and infrequent use. If safety 

concerns arise during project implementation, corrections can be made during trail 

maintenance work. 

Motorized Mixed Use: The Travel Management Rule (TM), 36 CFR 212, 251, 261, and 

295, supersedes past practices and enforcement of OHV use on the National Forests. In 

consideration of public safety and to best comply with State traffic laws, as required by 36 

CFR 212.5a, the Pacific Southwest Region, R5,equates Forest Service roads maintained for 

passenger vehicle use (ML 3, 4, and 5) to roads defined as ―highways‖ under the California 

Vehicle Code (CVC). In making this determination, the Forest Service has aligned OHV use 

on ML 3, 4 and 5 roads to CVC restrictions and requirements for OHV use on highways. 

This policy was further clarified by the Regional Forester by letter, dated January 13, 2009, 

entitled Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. 

Travel Management on the Lassen NF is consistent with this direction.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 107

Table 18 Miles of roads/trails/unauthorized routes changing maintenance levels

Maintenance Level 

Change 

Recommendations

Alt. 1 

(miles)

Alt. 2 

(miles)

Alt. 3 

(miles)

Alt. 4 

(miles)

Alt. 5 

(miles)

Alt. 5 

and 

Mod 5 

(miles)

ML 1 miles to be added as 

motorized NFS trails 0 0 0 0 6 6

Unauthorized routes to be 

added as ML 2 roads 0 16 0 10 10 10

Unauthorized routes to be 

added as motorized NFS 

trails

0 5 0 0 43 46

ML 2 miles to be changed 

to ML 1 miles 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Mixed Use, ML 2 

miles 2,568 2,584 2,568 2,657 2,657 2,657

ML 3-4 miles to be 

Changed to ML 2 miles 0 0 0 79 79 79

ML 3-4 miles to be 

Changed to motorized 

mixed-use

0 13 0 0 51 9

Source: Lassen National Forest, GIS data.

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on high clearance roads (ML 2): All of the high clearance 

roads currently open to the public on the Lassen National Forest were determined to have 

minimal safety concerns and will be designated as open to all vehicles.

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on passenger car roads (ML 3+): depending upon the 

alternative, 9 to 51 miles of passenger car roads have been proposed for mixed use. 

Appendix G, Table G-3 presents the results of the engineering analyses conducted to 

assess crash risk, including both crash probability and crash severity, for those segments of 

passenger car roads proposed for motorized mixed use in the various alternatives. The table 

displays the risk without mitigation and the risk after mitigation measures take place. 

Mitigation measures include warning signs to assist road users in identifying when entering 

a designated motorized mixed use section of operational maintenance level 3+ roads.

Crash probabilities represent the likelihood of a crash occurring. Crash severities 

document the potential damage that would occur in the event of a crash. Because nonhighway-legal operators often are more exposed than operators protected in a cab with a 

seatbelt, crash severities are naturally higher for these vehicle types. Low severities indicate 

situations where little vehicle damage or bodily injury is expected. High severities represent 

expected major vehicle damage and serious bodily injury or death in the event of a crash.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

108 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Changing Objective Maintenance Levels: Under Alternative 4, 5, and Modified 5, 79 

miles of ML 3 and ML 4 roads are proposed for changing to objective ML 2 roads. Changing 

objective maintenance levels would be a step towards safely allowing non-highway-legal 

vehicle of current operational ML 3 roads. Through ―weathering‖ over time and through 

specific downgrading activities analyzed and implemented during subsequent projects, 

these roads could be converted to high-clearance vehicle roads that would more safely 

allow shared use involving both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles.

Seasonal Closures: There are no safety concerns with seasonal closures. Since most 

closures are related to keeping motorized vehicles off roads during seasons when they may 

be slick or icy and therefore increasing the risk of vehicle accident, these would have the 

effect of providing added safety for the public.

Affordability Summary

Table 19 identifies the relative affordability of FTS roads and trails under each alternative. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 reflect the current NFTS and associated maintenance costs. Alternative 

2 cost more because it adds 5 miles of trails and 16 miles of roads. Alternatives 4, 5, and 

Modified 5 all save about 5% in annual maintenance costs because they would convert 79 

miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 roads which are maintained less frequently. Slight differences in 

costs among these three alternatives reflect the number of miles and trails that are proposed 

for addition. Alternatives 5 and modified 5 also differ from alternative 4 in that 6 miles of 

current ML 1 roads are changed to motorized trails.

The Forest may incur significant implementation costs to physically manage routes 

consistently with the Motor Vehicle Use Map, (such as installing road/route signage in 

accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as implemented by the 

Forest Service in EM 7100-15 December 2005 Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest 

Service and the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices2003 Edition), physically altering road entrance treatments, and managing roadside 

vegetation.

In addition to the above-mentioned long-term costs associated with each alternative, 

Table 20 summarizes the estimated one-time implementation costs for each alternative. 

These estimates include the costs of additional signing, agreement facilitation, and atlas 

data management that are associated with the proposed changes to the transportation 

system.

Over time and as funding permits, RAP/TAP recommendations may provide the travel 

management program with a strategic transportation plan. With publication of the MVUM, 

the public will be able to clearly identify the modes of travel permitted on specific NFTS 

roads and NFTS trails.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Transportation Errata 109

Table 19 Measurement Indicator 2 - Affordability

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 5 Mod

NFTS Road Miles open to all motorized use 3,278 miles 3,294 miles 3,278 miles 3,288 miles 3,288 miles 3,288 miles

NFTS Road Miles open to Highway Legal 

Vehicles 710 miles 697 miles 710 miles 631 miles 631 miles 631 miles

NFTS Road Miles open to Non-Highway 

Legal Vehicles 2,568 miles 2,597 miles 2,568 miles 2,657 miles 2,663 miles 2,657.6 miles

Annual Maintenance Needs for Roads, 

current1 $14,984,719 $15,018,217 $14,984,719 $14,159,366 $14,168,928 $14,149,938

Deferred Maintenance Needs for roads at 5 

years2 $182,331,377 $182,571,001 $182,331,377 $176,427,390 $176,495,789 $176,359,953

NFTS Trail Miles open to Motorized Use 57 62 57 57 106 108

Annual Maintenance Needs for Motorized 

Trails, current

$148,200 $161,200 $148,200 $148,200 $275,600 $280,800 

Deferred Maintenance Needs for Motorized 

Trails at 5 years2

$692,300 $761,800 $692,300 $692,300 $1,373,400 $1,401,200 

Total Annual Maintenance Needs for the 

NFTS (Roads & Trails), current

$15,132,919 $15,179,417 $15,132,919 $14,307,566 $14,444,528 $14,430,738

Total Annual Maintenance Needs for the 

NFTS (Roads & Trails) at 5 years

$183,023,677 $183,332,801 $183,023,677 $177,119,690 $177,869,189 $177,761,153

Annual increase or decrease from current 

NFTS

N.A. $46,498 N.A. -$825,353 -$688,391 -$702,181

% Change from Current NFTS N.A. 0.31 N.A. -5.45 -4.55 -4.64

Deferred increase or decrease from current 

NFTS

N.A. $309,124 N.A. -5,903,987.00 -5,154,488.00 -5,262,524.00

% Change from Current NFTS at 5 years N.A. 0.17 N.A. -3.23 -2.82 -2.88

Footnotes:

1. These values were calculated with a spreadsheet that used $ amounts to two digits, so results do not exactly match calculations based on values provided in Tables 13 & 15

2. Five year deferred maintenance values for roads include a 7% per annum cumulative inflation factor. Deferred trail maintenance costs were not adjusted for inflation.

Assumptions: 

1. Annual maintenance needs for motorized NFS Trails = $2,600/mile/year

2. $20,000 per year of motorized trail annual maintenance is accomplished with allocated funds. Additional funds are allocated to maintaining non-motorized trails (Table 14).

3. Current deferred maintenance for motorized trails = $900/mile
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

110 Appendix B: Transportation Errata

Table 20 Estimated Implementation Costs for Agreements, Signing & Data 

Management

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Alt 5 

Modified

Cost ($) $0 $128,000 $0 $30,000 $394,000 $202,000

Through subsequent planning efforts, Lassen NF will continue to evaluate the NFTS 

in order to provide a safe, economically sustainable, and environmentally sound 

transportation system that provides multiple users with a quality experience.

Table 21 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Effects for 

Facilities

Indicators – Facilities Resources

Ratings of Alternatives for Each Indicator1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. Mod 5 

Public Safety 1 2 5 4 3 4

Transportation System Affordability 2 3 2 4 4 4

Average for Facilities Resources 2 3 4 4 4 4

1 A score of 5 indicates the alternative is the best for facilities resources related to the indicator; A 

score of 1 indicates the alternative is the worst for facilitiesl resources related to the indicator

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives comply with the Lassen National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan and other regulatory directions.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Recreation Errata 111

Recreation Resource Errata (From FEIS Chapter 3.3)

FEIS Page 141-142

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Tables 37 and 38 provide a summary of the effects analysis for each alternative as it 

relates to non-motorized recreational activities (Table 37) and motorized recreational 

activities (Table 38). An indicator core of 5 indicates the most beneficial for recreation 

resources and an indicator score of 1 indicates the least beneficial to recreation 

resources.

Table 37 Non-motorized Recreation Summary

Indicators – Recreation Resources Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alt. 

3

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

5

Modified 

Alt 5

Non-motorized recreation opportunity 1 4 5 4 4 4

Impact of proposed changes to the NFTS on 

neighboring private and Federal lands (dust, 

noise, use conflicts)

1 4 5 4 4 4

Average rating for non-motorized Values 1 4 5 4 4 4

Table 38 Motorized Recreation and Access Summary

Indicator Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alt. 

3

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

5

Modified Alt 

5

Motorized recreation opportunity 5 3 3 4 4 4

Type of motorized access to dispersed 

recreation 5 3 3 4 4 4

Average rating for motorized values 5 3 3 4 4 4

Cross-country travel currently includes 1,072,488 acres, including 1089 miles of unauthorized 

routes; Currently there are 271 miles of winter recreation closures
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

112 Appendix B: Recreation Errata

FEIS Page xxv

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 2 Comparison of Alternatives with regards to Purpose and Need for Action, 

the Issues raised in Public Scoping, and route designation criteria in Subpart B of 

the Travel Management Rule. 

Resource Area

Ratings for Alternatives, averaged across indicators 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Mod 

Alt 5

Purpose and Need/Issue Measures

Prohibition on Cross-Country 

TravelPN1 1 5 5 5 5 5

Motorized Dispersed 

Recreation Access PN2a 5 3 3 4 4 4

Diversity of Motorized 

Recreation Opportunities PN2b 5 3 3 4 4 4

Need for maintenance and 

administration of roads, trails 

and areas that would arise if 

the uses under consideration 

are designated.PN2c, I2, TR(a)6, 

1 2 1 3 5 5

Motorized recreation 

opportunity TR(a)2 5 3 3 4 4 4

Conflicts between motor 

vehicles and existing or 

proposed recreational uses 

of NFS lands or neighboring 

Federal lands. (Nonmotorized Recreation)TR(b)3

1 3 5 4 2 2

Compatibility of motor vehicle 

use with existing conditions 

in populated areas, taking 

into account sound, 

emissions, and other factors. 

TR(b)5

1 3 5 4 2 2

Provide Public Safety TR(a)2 1 2 5 4 3 4

Effects to Resources

Cultural ResourcesTR(a)1 1 4 5 4 3 3

Botanical ResourcesTR(b)1 3 4 5 4 4 4

Soil ResourcesTR(b)1 2 4 5 4 4 4

Hydrologic ResourcesTR(b)1 2 4 4 5 4 4

Noxious WeedsTR(b)1 1 4 5 4 4 4

Aquatic BiotaTR(b)2 1 4 5 4 4 4

Wildlife ResourcesTR(b)2 1 4 5 4 4 4

Visual Resources 1 4 5 4 4 4

Air Quality 1 5 5 5 5 5

Overall Rating 2 4 4 4 4 4

Superscript notations in the Resource Area column refer to the Travel Management Rule sections.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix B: Seasonal Restrictions Errata 113

Seasonal Restrictions Errata (Throughout FEIS)

Throughout the document, where Seasonal Restrictions are mentioned for Modified 

Alternative 5, a Seasonal Restriction should be added for unauthorized route 29N21Y to 

restrict the season of use during Spotted Owl nesting when it is brought onto the NFTS. 

The 2.1 miles of this route would be open to all vehicles from August 15 to March 1 as a 

motorized trail. This route is noted correctly in Tables A-1 and A-2 of the FEIS 

Appendices.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

114 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Appendix C: Response to Comments

This appendix provides the Lassen National Forest Response to Comments received 

during the 30 day review period between release of the FEIS on December 18, 2009 and 

January 19, 2010. This review period was provided to the public because a new 

Alternative was developed (Modified Alternative 5) which differed substantially from the 

Alternative 5 that the public had an opportunity to comment upon during the DEIS 

comment period. This Modified Alternative 5 was developed because Mixed Use Safety 

Analyses were completed after the DEIS Comment Period. When the Forest Supervisor,

Kathleen Morse (the Responsible Official), reviewed these safety analyses, she 

determined that only 9.3 miles of the 51 miles originally proposed for Mixed Use in 

Alternative 5 were actually safe enough for a vehicle class change allowing non-highway 

legal vehicles to share the roads with highway legal vehicles. In order to allow the public 

an opportunity to review these changes, signing of the Record of Decision was delayed 

for a month. Comments received during this review period do not convey appeal rights, 

but they were considered.

During and after this period, comments were received from 12 individuals, 4

organizations, 2 government agencies, 3 county governments and 1 company. The 

individuals were Deniz Bolbol, Steve Borchers, Larry Cabodi, Larry Crisman, Ryan W. 

Hadley, Norma Harrison, Kent Hatch, Robert & Renee Hoover, Phil Nemir, Robert 

Parker, Howard Peterson and T. K. Wang. Organizations providing inputs (and the 

individual submitting the input) were the California Wilderness Coalition (Ryan Henson), 

Recreation Outdoors Coalition (Sylvia Milligan), Sierra Access Coalition (Mike Lazzarino) 

and Trails West, Inc. (Rod Latimer). The two government agencies were the California 

Regional Water Quality Board - Lahontan Region (Taylor Farnum) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (Kathleen M. Goforth). The Butte County, 

Department of Public Works (Mike Crump) submitted two letters. The Lassen County 

Board of Supervisors (Robert Pyle) and Shasta County Board of Supervisors (Les 

Baugh) also submitted letters. Fruit Growers Supply Company (Dean A. Lofthus) 

likewise commented with a letter. The letters from the EPA and Shasta County were 

received after the comment period had ended.

The Lassen National Forest also held an open house for educating the public about 

these changes and collecting feedback. This event was held in the Chester Memorial 

Hall, Chester, CA from 2 to 6 PM on Thursday, January 7, 2010. Twenty individuals 

attended and Lassen Travel Management staff held in-depth conversations with these 

participants.

The topics of the comments we received and our summarized responses are listed in 

Table C-1.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 115

Table C-1 Responses to Comments received during the 30 public review period after release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Topic Comment Response

Access Several commentors supported Alternative 1, the No 

Action Alternative because they felt banning cross country 

travel took away their rights to access public lands. Others 

felt that outreach and education were much preferable to 

restricting ATV access.

Other individuals, in addition to Lassen County, Shasta 

County, and Recreation Outdoor Coalition asked us to 

adopt a modified Alternative 1 that would prohibit cross 

country travel but incorporate all the unauthorized routes 

into our National Forest Transportation System. They also 

stated that only adding 56 miles of unauthorized routes to 

our system was not a reasonable or balanced outcome, 

given the 1,089 miles originally inventoried or the 768 

miles upon which the public commented.

The Travel Management Rule stipulates that cross-country travel 

must be prohibited and routes that are not currently part of the 

Lassen National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) are by 

definition ―cross-country travel.‖ Hence, current unauthorized 

routes must be added to the NFTS if continued use is to be 

allowed. The Travel Management Regulations have 14 criteria and 

considerations (listed under CFR 212.55 (a, b, & c)) that must be 

taken into account when selecting which unauthorized routes 

should be added to the NFTS. Forests must also comply with their 

Forest Plan and all applicable laws, rules, policies, regulations, 

directions, and inter-agency agreements. Adding roads and trails 

to the transportation system also entails increased maintenance 

costs; this fiscal responsibility must also be considered.

Although the public commented on 768 miles of the 1,089 miles of 

unauthorized routes originally inventoried, many of these routes 

were simply listed because some members of the public wanted 

them all to remain available for use; that is, no specific access or 

riding opportunity was identified for many of these unauthorized 

routes.

Given that adding all these routes would be fiscally irresponsible 

and entail unacceptable resource impacts, the Forest followed a 

logical step by step process of identifying which routes 

represented important recreational opportunities for OHV users 

and that either had no natural resource impacts or impacts that 

could be mitigated. All of the criteria mentioned in the previous 

paragraph were applied by specialists in the Supervisors Office 

and the Districts to thorough evaluate each route for the 

appropriateness of inclusion into our Transporation System. As 

described in the Public Involvement section of the FEIS (Chapter 

1.7 starting on page 9) and the Public Involvement section of this 

ROD, multiple opportunties to further evaluate and comment upon 

our choices were available.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

116 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Access At the Open House in Chester, one group of veterans 

were concerned that they would no longer have access to 

an area of the Front Country where they traditionally held 

annual gatherings.

Al Vasquez, District Ranger for the Almanor District, encouraged 

the group to become active in the ongoing planning efforts for the 

Front Country.

Access Several individuals suggested that no new routes should 

be added to the NFTS until the OHV community assumes 

greater responsibility for teaching environmental ethics

and controlling alcohol use and other inappropriate 

behavior.

The Purpose and Need for this action stipulates the need to 

provide continued access to dispersed recreational activities and a 

diversity of motorized recreational opportunities in accordence with 

the Lassen NF Management Plan. Law enforcement pertains to all 

forest users.

Access One individual stated that motorized use should be limited 

to lower elevations to minimize impacts to the pristine 

character of most of the Lassen.

The Lassen NF already has an extensive road system at most 

elevations. We feel this action provides an appropriate balance 

between resource conservation and public access and recreational 

opportunities for all users.

Access One individual stated that OHV users are a minority of 

Forest users and of society and Alternative 3 should be 

selected to limit the impacts that OHVs have on natural 

resources

We feel this decision provides an appropriate balance between 

resource conservation and public access and recreational 

opportunities for all users.

Access Several commentors asked that more exceptions should 

be allowed for big game and firewood retrieval.

Recreation Outdoor Coalition felt it was disingenuous to 

analyze the prohibition cross-country travel in general, but 

not such travel associated with special use permits.

Comment noted. Special use permits allow cross-country travel to 

retrieve cut firewood (not to search for it). This limits impacts from 

OHV use to the distance a person is willing to carry a chainsaw 

and fuel off our road system to cut the wood in the first place. The 

permits, therefore, do not allow open use of all our unauthorized 

routes. See Table J-2 of Appendix J of the FEIS (pg. 494) for 

further response.

Access Several letters stated that vehicles should be allowed to 

park a greater distance off roads than one car length. 

This unrealistically restricts dispersed camping because 

cars on next to roads are subject to theft and vandalism 

and car-camping gear needs to be carried too far.

Comment noted. The Responsible Official considers this 

requirement to be reasonable because more lenient regulations 

would serve to countervene the prohibition of cross-country travel 

and many unauthorized routes that were added to access 

dispersed camping spots were defined so they lead close to the 

campng area. See Table J-6 of Appendix J of the FEIS (pg. 510).

Alternatives Sierra Access Coalition reiterated that we should have 

completely analyzed their Alternative (Alternative 14 in the 

FEIS, pages 55-56.)

We explain in the FEIS (pp 55-56) why we did not analyze this 

Alternative in detail.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 117

Topic Comment Response

Alternatives Sierra Access Coalition, Recreational Outdoor Coalition 

and Lassen County felt we had an inadequate range of 

alternatives and asked us to start our analysis over, 

collaborate more closely with stakeholders and develop a 

plan with a ―better balance.‖

Each stakeholder will naturally have a unique perspective on the 

best balance for motorized travel management on the Lassen 

National Forest. It is the job of the Lassen NF management staff to 

evaluate all of these perspectives for the best information each 

has to offer and then to apply this information to the development 

of alernatives that we feel best meet the needs of the public as a 

whole and which complies with all the constraints on Forest 

Management that are listed in the first ―Access‖ comment above. 

Within that context, we believe that the DEIS and FEIS present a 

suitable range of alternatives, differing from emphasis on resource 

protection to emphasis on recreational opportunities.

No plan can be perfect, but we believe this is a very carefully 

conceived, well-informed, and well-balanced first step towards 

developing a transportation system that appropriately serves the 

entire public and protects natural resoruces.

Coordination 

with local 

governments

Several commenters stated that we did not adequately 

coordinate our planning efforts with local governments.

Our coordination efforts were extensive. Organizations, 

governments, agencies, and tribes that were consulted are listed 

in Chapter 4 of the FEIS and our outreach efforts and consultation 

are described in the Public Involvement Section of this ROD. 

Coordination does not imply consensus or decisions that everyone 

likes. We do endeavor to reach balanced decisions that protect 

resources and serve the public as a whole.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

118 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Coordination 

with County 

governments

The Boards of Supervisors from counties that the LNF 

overlaps have commented that the Forest should have been 

more proactive at coordinating with the counties to provide 

more riding loop opportunities that used county roads as 

connectors. Specifically:

The Lassen County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 

(09-043) on August 18, 2009 (after our DEIS comment period) 

supporting OHV use on selected unpaved county roads. This 

resolution was provided to us on the last day the FEIS review 

period, January 19, 2010. 

Plumas County, in their comments for the DEIS stated, in part, 

―Plumas County‘s Department of Public Works has prepared a 

draft ordinance that proposes mixed use of certain county 

roads located with in the Lassen National Forest....the DEIS 

needs to be more affirmative in assuring that the policy 

decisions...of Plumas County become integrated into the 

Forest‘s travel management program, even if such County 

actions occur following completion of the EIS process.‖ 

During the FEIS review period, Butte County sent us a copy of 

a November 18, 2009 letter to Regional Forester Randy 

Moore, as well as a map and list of roads. The letter states, in 

part, ―we join with Congressman Herger, the counties of 

Lassen, Plumas, and Shasta in support of mixed use on 

county maintained roads leading and connecting to the 

National Forest System (NFS) roads. We also support OHV 

access to NFS level 3 and 4 designated roads within the 

Lassan and Plumas National Forests.‖ 

After the DEIS comment period, on August 25, 2009, Shasta 

County provided us with comments encouraging us to allow 

mixed use on Forest Service roads but did not elaborate on 

county roads nor provide us with any county resolutions. In 

the letter sent after the FEIS review period they stated they 

believed coordination with their county had been inadequate.

The LNF has proactively engaged the counties in this project 

since its inception. This coordination is documented in this 

ROD in the Public Involvement Section. 

We understand that historically the counties have not 

regulated OHV use on unpaved County Roads and that the 

Counties have been proactive in representing OHV user 

groups for continued use.

In light of the recent County developments, it is important to 

note that this is not the end of Travel Management Planning 

on the Forest. When we undertake the analysis for Subpart A 

of the Travel Management Rule, we will be looking for cost 

savings opportunities. These might well include lowering 

maintenance levels on more of our ML 3 roads. We invite the 

County Engineering Staffs to work with our Engineers 

regarding the standards we use for road maintenance and for 

determining safe and appropriate mixed use. Such

coordination might identify additional opportunities for 

extended OHV riding opportunities.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 119

Topic Comment Response

Coordination 

with adjacent 

National 

Forests

Recreation Outdoor Coalition asked us to describe our 

collaboration with adjacent National Forests (Plumas, 

Shasta-Trinity, and Modoc) to ensure an interconnected 

road system, especially for OHV use.

The Lassen NF administers a small portion of the Shasta Trinity 

National Forest surrounding Lake Britton, and we have been 

following the Shasta Trinity planning efforts, including their 

considerations of motorized mixed use.

The Lassen does administer parts of the Shasta and Modoc NFs 

adjacent to lands managed by the Modoc NF, and insofar as all 

the Modoc‘s ML 3 roads have been designated for mixed use, 

connection of our ML 2 roads with their road system will provide 

additional riding and loop opportunities.

Coordination with surrounding BLM Districts and the Plumas NF 

on Motorized Travel Management Planning was complicated by 

the fact that their planning efforts were a year or more advanced 

than the Lassen. If missed opportunities present themselves for 

additional loops, we will consider them in future revisions of the 

MVUM.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

120 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Economics Butte County, Lassen County, and Recreation Outdoor 

Coalition (ROC) felt that our Economic Analyses were 

inadequate and predicted severe economic impacts to 

rural communities from restrictions on OHV use, 

especially on top of previous reductions in timber 

harvesting. Lassen County and ROC also pointed out that 

our population figures for Lassen county included the 

inmates from two state prisons and that it was 

inappropriate to include these individuals in forecasts of 

economic activity. We were asked to redo our Economic 

Analyses and make it much more thorough.

Without inmates, Lassen County has a population of 26,414 rather 

than 35,757. This smaller number is more appropriate, but if it had 

been used, the smaller population would have indicated fewer 

economic impacts.

Perhaps more importantly, the Recreation Section of the FEIS 

(Figures 1-4 and Tables 28-31) show OHV use to be a small 

percentage of the primary reasons why people recreate on the 

Lassen National Forest.

The commenters acknowledge this same fact when arguing that 

OHV use on ML 3 roads is safe due to low OHV traffic levels and 

when arguing that OHV use on roads and trails added to our 

Transportation System will not significantly impinge on adjacent 

quiet recreation because such use is so infrequent.

That said, we understand that OHV ridership and economic activity 

is more common and important in the Butte Meadows area of 

Butte County than elsewhere on the Forest and that riding 

opportunities will diminish somewhat with this decision (in many 

cases, because ML 3+ roads were not legal to ride on in the first 

place). Please see our response to this issue in the first paragraph 

of the ―Local Economic Impacts‖ Subject of Table J-4 in Appendix 

J of the FEIS (pg 500).

Regarding the difficulties of specific economic analyses, please 

see the second paragraph. Given the low levels of OHV use noted 

above, we do not believe that putting more effort into such 

analyses would likely alter the factual outcome of our analyses 

nor, as a result, this decision.

Analyzing the economic effects of reduced timber harvests or the 

combined effects of all Forest Service decisions is outside the 

scope of this analysis, but would be appropriate for inclusion in the 

upcoming revision of the Lassen Forest Management Plan. We 

encourage the counties and all members of the public to become 

involved in that process.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 121

Topic Comment Response

FEIS Errors Recreation Outdoor Coalition identified many instances in 

our FEIS where there were apparent errors or 

inconsistencies.

Thank you for thoroughly reviewing our document and identifying 

instances that require corrections. We will strive to remedy noted 

errors by posting the corrections in the FEIS Errata that we have 

on our web site. We intend for this Errata to be periodically 

updated as additional errors are found. We believe that none of 

the errors noted effect the overall outcome of our analyses or the 

decision described in this ROD.

Maintenance 

Costs and 

NFTS 

Affordability

Recreation Outdoor Coalition made numerous critiques of 

how our engineers calculate maintenance costs and 

evalute the affordability of our National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS). They also pointed out 

mistakes in our FEIS.

As noted above we will strive to remedy noted errors by posting 

the corrections in the FEIS Errata that we have on our web site. 

That said, this analysis is based on the professional judgement 

and work of our engineers. None of the issues noted change the 

underlying fact that adopting Modified Alternative 5 will save 

approximately $700,000 per year in annual maintenance needs. 

It should also be noted, that the large current and foreseeable 

maintenance backlog does not mean that our roads are 

inadequately maintained. They are adequately maintained for 

safety and resource protection. The backlog is, in part, reflective of 

the type of condition survey used to generate these costs, based 

on an ideal scenario for maintenance conditions.

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Recreation Outdoor Coalition also made numerous 

critiques of our engineering procedures and how Mixed 

Use Safety Analyses were conducted.

Our procedures and analyses comply with Forest Service 

standards and reflect the best information available. The 

guidelines that our staff use are far too numerous to cite here. (By 

way of example, see the publication ―Guidelines for Engineering 

Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System 

Roads EM 7700-30‖ available at this web site: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/transp/em770030.htm.)

We appropriately rely on the professional judgement of our 

engineering staff for conducting our analyses and informing our 

decisions.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

122 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Recreation Outdoor Coalition also asked why we did not 

mention or evaluate the engineering study in 2005 of 

potential mixed use on the Share the Dream Trail.

We recognize the efforts made by ROC to conduct the study in 

2005 and are aware of the document. The proposed motorized 

mixed use segments considered by the Lassen NF were different 

from those included in the ROC Share the Dream proposal, and 

therefore our own engineering analyses were used to inform this 

decision. Unlike the ROC proposal, only short segments less than 

3 miles were proposed by the Lassen NF for motorized mixed use 

connectors. Our engineers used the latest FS policy direction to 

conduct analyses on these particular segments, and in some 

cases, there were differences from the ROC study– such as speed 

approximations and crash severities. 

Motorized 

Mixed Use

ML 3 gravel roads on the Forest should not be considered 

―highways‖ and all of them should be open for OHV use.

Recreation Outdoor Coalition has especially made very 

clear arguments in this regard.

We understand there is disagreement on this issue. The Lassen 

National Forest has chosen to follow National and Regional 

Guidance for managing our Transportation System. 

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Plumas County and Recreation Outdoor Coalition cite a 

December 11, 2009 letter from T. A. Morrison, 

Lieutenanat and Acting Commander for the Redding Area 

of the California Highway Patrol to Regional Forester 

Randy Moore contesting the Forest Service definition of 

―highways.‖

Please note that 6 days later C. D. Jenkins, Chief of the Northern 

Division of the California Highway Patrol also wrote a letter to 

Randy Moore stating, in part, that ―The conclusions of Lieutenant 

Morrison regarding the definition of a highway and the CHP‘s role 

in federal forestry roadway designations are not to be construed as 

a statement of fact. Lieutenant Morrison was expressing an 

opinion, which on review, is inconsistent with CHP policy.‖

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Lassen County and Recreation Outdoor Coalition cited 

the fact that the Modoc National Forest has chosen to 

designate all ML 3 roads as available for motorized mixed 

use as an example of what the Lassen could do also. 

They therefore encouraged us to do so.

It is true that Forest Supervisors have the authority to supercede 

the California Highway Code and Regional and National Direction 

regarding the appropriate application of Mixed Use on ML 3+ 

roads in National Forests. As noted, the Lassen NF has chosen to 

follow National and Regional Guidelines. In addition, other 

adjacent Forests including the Plumas and Shasta-Trinity have 

taken an approach that is similar to the Lassen‘s.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 123

Topic Comment Response

Motorized 

Mixed Use

One individual believed that even if the ML 3 roads are 

administratively considered ―highways‖ by the Forest 

Service, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a 

significant safety risk from mixed use because there have 

been no (zero) recorded mixed use accidents on the 

Lassen National Forest since records have been kept.

Accident records for the Lassen NFTS go back less than 10 years 

and are not all inclusive. The Mixed Use Safety Analyses were 

based on a systematic approach to evaluating the likelihood of 

accidents and their likely severity if they do occur. The 

professional judgement of the Lassen NF engineering staff also 

informed these analyses. The Responsible Official deemed the 

analyses appropriate for this decision.

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Several commentors noted that OHVs have long ridden 

on unpaved ML 3 roads on the Lassen National Forest 

with few, if any, problems, so this use should be allowed 

to continue.

It is important to note that, regardless of past enforcement, this 

use of ML 3 roads has not been legal.

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Butte County noted that many families enjoyed outings 

that involved loop riding from residences through the 

Forest and back, and that now these recreational 

experiences will involve trailering to segments of roads 

where OHV use is allowed.

Please see the response to the ―Trailering‖ Subject of Table J-6 in 

Appendix J of the FEIS on page 513.

Language Sierra Access Coalition made the point that our use of the 

term ―unauthorized routes‖ is inappropriate because the 

Forest Service actually created most of the routes for 

management purposes. They suggest the term 

―unauthorized‖ creates a prejudiced evaluation and that 

the term ―unclassified‖ would be more neutral.

The definition of an ―unauthorized route‖ is provided in the Travel 

Management Rule (TMR), Subpart A, § 212.1. Discussion of the 

appropriateness of this term and how it was selected is provided in 

the Comments and Responses to Comments that proceed this 

section of the TMR. For access to the text, see Federal Register / 

Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Rules and 

Regulations, pages 68264-68291. The Lassen National Forest 

complied with this definition in its planning.

Motorized 

Mixed Use

OHV use should be allowed in campgrounds to access 

adjacent OHV routes without trailering into and out of the 

campgrounds. Alternately, OHV parking areas (even with 

a fee) should be provided at campground entrances. 

Allowing OHV use in campgrounds raises many issues regarding 

safety and potential conflicts with other campers. In cases where

campground roads lead directly to roads where non-highway-legal 

vehicles can ride, mixed use within the campground might be 

considered on a case by case basis after appropriate analyses. 

OHV parking areas at the entrance to campgrounds might be 

feasible. Such decisions should be pursued at the District Level.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

124 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Recreational 

Opportunities

Recreation Outdoor Coalition criticized a statement on 

page 139 of the FEIS as an exaggeration of the impact of 

OHV use on non-motorized and ―quiet‖ recreation.

The criticism ignores preceeding sentences in the same paragraph 

that describe the positive recreational benefits of adding more 

roads and trails for OHV use. The statement did not evaluate the 

degree of impact of either the benefits or negative impacts, only 

that they exist.

Errors in some of our recreation tables (regarding conflicts and 

compatability between OHV use and other uses) had previously 

been pointed out by questions we received during the review 

period. These errors have been corrected in the Errata in 

Appendix B of this ROD and on-line. The corrections did not 

change the bottom line of the analyses for differences among 

Alternatives in how they meet the Purposes and Needs and 

Effects to Resources (Table 2, page xxv of the FEIS and of the 

Errata).

Recreational 

Opportunities

Sierra Access Coalition and Recreation Outdoor Coalition 

both critizied the fact that our alternatives do not include 

Open OHV Riding Areas.

Please see our response to this subject in Table J-6 of Appendix J 

of the FEIS on page 512.

Resource 

concern

Large 4W highway legal vehicles do much more damage 

than lighter OHVs with balloon tires.

Comment noted. This action is designed to keep all such damage 

to a minimum.

Resource 

concern

The California Wilderness Coalition commended us for 

not adding any unauthorized routes to our system that 

they believed caused resource concerns. They stated that 

they looked forward to working with us on future planning 

efforts.

Thank you. We look forward to working with you too.
Lassen National Forest Record of Decision

Motorized Travel Management January 2010

Appendix C: Response to Comments 125

Topic Comment Response

Resource 

concern

The LahotanRegion of the California Water Quality 

Control Board expressed concerns that unauthorized 

routes that are not added to our NFTS will continue to be 

used illegally causing ongoing resource concerns 

regarding water quality and that the Forest should have 

committed in this action to prioritizing routes for physical 

blocking. Similarly, the California Regional Office (IX) of 

the Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns 

about inadequate analyses of sedimentation rates 

resulting from downgrading maintenance levels of some 

of our ML 3 roads.

These concerns are valid. However, the Forest has an ongoing 

commitment to operate within the context of all all applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, rules, directions and inter-agency 

agreements, as well as our Forest Plan. This includes protecting 

hydrological resources. Blocking roads would likely involve 

ground-disturbing activities outside the road prism (for instance, 

excavating bolders for blockages) and we have chosen to address 

such mitigations on a case by case basis subsequent to this 

analysis. Sedimentation rates from roads involve a complex 

balance of considerations. For instance, removing culverts and 

outsloping to accommodate less frequent maintenance can also 

prevent culverts becoming blocked and washing out in storm 

events. The Forest constantly strives to maintain roads in a 

manner that adequately prevents, mitigates, or eliminates potential 

resource damage. This is true of lower maintenance roads also.

Specific routes 

and roads

Trails West wishes us to seasonally open ULA 426 for use 

in following the East Branch of the historic Lassen Trail. 

This route segment involves crossing the Susan River. 

Trails West suggests that the crossing is typically dry 

during the summer and that seasonal restrictions would 

prevent resource impacts while allowing trail enthusiasts 

to follow a popular route.

We do recognize interest in following historic trails to be an 

important public use of the Forest. The Forest did consider this 

route, but for now has chosen not to add it because it repeatedly 

crosses a meadow and also the Susan River once. Unfortunately, 

in selecting the route, pioneers likely did not have the same 

resource concerns that are now salient for our densely populated 

country. If Trails West representatives believe such concerns can 

truly be mitigated, we do welcome further discussions about this 

route. There are no constraints on non-motorized access.
Record of Decision Lassen National Forest

January 2010 Motorized Travel Management

126 Appendix C: Response to Comments

Topic Comment Response

Specific routes 

and roads

At the Chester Open House, it was pointed out that there 

was still one small segment of Road 28N70 on Turner 

Mountain (between its connection with roads 28N28 and 

29N48) which prevents riding the entire outer loop (even 

after the southern half, Road 29N48, becomes an 

operational ML 2). 

The Forest chose to downgrade the southern road, 29N48, from 

ML 3 to ML 2, in spite of recent improvements to the road, with the 

specific intention of creating a riding loop around the mountain. 

The portion of 28N70 to the top of the mountain was designated

for mixed use to allow OHVs to ride to the top and to create a 

northern loop. This section can be accessed by OHVs via the 

northern road 28N28. However, the entire stretch of 28N70 is over 

3 miles in length. Hence, it is ineligible for mixed use designation 

over its entire length. This is an issue that still needs to be 

resolved and the Forest is willing to seek creative solutions. It will 

be several years before the southern road reaches an operational 

ML 2 status, so 29N48 will not be shown on the MVUM during the 

interim until it is deemed safe for a vehicle class change that will 

allow both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles.

Specific routes 

and roads

Several commentors reiterated their disappointment that 

the Forest has not been more proactive and consistent 

with developing the Share the Dream Trail proposed by 

the Recreation Outdoor Coalition

This issue has been addressed in Table J-8 of Appendix J of the 

FEIS. The complexity of this Motorized Travel Management 

analysis has diverted staff, time, and resources from other, more 

specific, planning efforts.

Specific routes 

and roads

One individual requested that OHV use be prohibited on 

Baxter Creek Road (29N07) which crosses their property.

They claimed that the Lassen NF does not have a valid

easement.

We believe our easements are valid with the exception of one 

short stretch across W. M. Beaty & Associates, Inc. land. We will 

not show this stretch of road as availble to OHV use on this year‘s 

Motor Vehicle Use Map and will endeavor to resolve this dispute 

within the coming year.

Specific routes 

and roads

Fruit Growers Supply Company noted that a road that we 

show as a county road connecting with the Lassen NF 

road 36N14 actually is their private road for three miles 

before it connects. They point out that we do not have an 

easement and that this portion of the road should not be 

shown on our maps or the MVUM

If this is indeed the case, we will ensure it does not show on the 

MVUM.

Specific routes 

and roads

At the Open House, one resident of the Spalding Tract (a 

residential community on the northwest shore of Eagle 

Lake) lamented the lack of connectivity for OHVs between 

the community and nearby Forest roads that allow OHV 

use.

The individual was encouraged to get involved with the Eagle Lake

Ranger District to remedy this oversight.