Lassen Over-Snow EIS 1-28-2016

Lassen Over-Snow EIS 1-28-2016
United States Department of Agriculture
Lassen National Forest
Over-snow Vehicle Use
Designation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Forest
Service
Lassen
National Forest
January 2016
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights
regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating
in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age,
marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs,
or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by
USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program
or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g.,
Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or
USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in
languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint
Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA
office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the
form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or
letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3)
email: [email protected]
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Botany
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Plants
Because OSV use and snow trail grooming may have potential to harm Threatened, Endangered,
Proposed or Sensitive (TEPS) species, this analysis will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects of the alternatives on these botanical resources that could result from the proposed actions.
Survey and Manage and Special Interest Plants
Because OSV use and snow trail grooming may have potential to harm Survey and Manage plants and
Special Interest plants, this analysis will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the
alternatives on these botanical resources that could result from the proposed actions.
Noxious Weeds
Noxious/invasive weeds sections present the weed species that are present and contain an analysis of
effects from weeds and a determination of each alternative’s risk of introducing and/or spreading weed
species in the project area.
Other Botanical Resources
In addition, an evaluation of designated areas pertaining to botanical resources, such as Research Natural
Areas (RNAs) and Special Interest Areas (SIAs) is presented in Other Botanical Resources sections.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Federal Law and Policy
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires
that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat for these species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to
consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their
jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat for these species. This assessment is documented in a Biological
Assessment (BA).
Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670). Forest Service Sensitive species are plant
species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest Service
develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become
threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on national forests. It is Forest Service
policy to analyze impacts to Sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant
trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation
(BE).
Forest Service Manual 2670.32 (USDA Forest Service 2005) directs the Forest to avoid or minimize
impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern, and therefore listed as Sensitive by
the Regional Forester. If impacts cannot be avoided then the Forest must analyze the significance of the
potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a
whole. Impacts may be allowed but the decision must not result in a trend toward federal listing.
Lassen National Forest
303
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Forest Service Manual 2670.22 (USDA Forest Service 2005) directs national forests to “maintain viable
populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed
throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.” To comply with this direction,
Forests are encouraged to track and evaluate effects to additional species that may be of concern even
though they are not currently listed as Sensitive. Such plant species are referred to as Special Interest or
watch list species.
Forest Service Manual 2900 (USDA Forest Service 2011) contains national direction for noxious weed
management. Specific policies included in FSM 2900 include:
•
Determine the risk of introducing, establishing, or spreading invasive species associated with any
proposed action, as an integral component of project planning and analysis, and where necessary
provide for alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate that risk prior to project
approval.
•
Ensure that all Forest Service management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the
possibility of establishment or spread of invasive species on the National Forest System, or to
adjacent areas. Integrate visitor use strategies with invasive species management activities on
aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. At no time are invasive species to be
promoted or used in site restoration or re-vegetation work, watershed rehabilitation projects,
planted for bio-fuels production, or other management activities on national forests and
grasslands.
•
Use contract and permit clauses to require that the activities of contractors and permittees are
conducted to prevent and control the introduction, establishment, and spread of aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use agreement
clauses to require contractors or permittees to meet Forest Service-approved vehicle and
equipment cleaning requirements/standards prior to using the vehicle or equipment in the
National Forest System.
Executive Order 13112 (USDA Forest Service 1999) was signed on Feb 3, 1999, establishing the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to ensure that Federal programs and activities to prevent and
control invasive species are coordinated, effective and efficient. EO 13112 defines an invasive species as
“…an alien (or non-native) species whose introduction does, or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health".
Land and Resource Management Plan
The Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1993) provides standards and
guidelines for the following botanical resources:
TEPS plants (LRMP p. 4-36)
a. Maintain habitat and viable populations to contribute to eventual de-listing of Sensitive
plants that are found on the Forest.
1. Identify, preserve, or enhance Sensitive plant populations.
2. Restrict vegetative or soil disturbance in areas occupied by Sensitive plants,
unless manipulation is needed to perpetuate the species.
Lassen National Forest
304
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3. Within the planning period, develop Species Management Guides for Sensitive
plants that identify population goals and compatible management activities.
b. Manage Sensitive plants to insure that species do not become Threatened or Endangered
because of Forest Service actions.
1. Evaluate all proposed projects for potential Sensitive plant habitat. Conduct
surveys at the correct time of year for species identification if potential habitat
exists in a project area.
2. If Sensitive plants are found in a proposed project, modify the project or take
mitigative action as necessary to protect the habitat.
Noxious/Invasive Weeds (LRMP p. 4-25)
a. Reduce impacts of forest pests on all resources to acceptable levels through integrated
pest management.
1. Use an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to managing pests during the
planning and implementation of all activities that influence vegetation. Consider
a full range of pest management alternatives for each project. Select treatment
methods through an environmental analysis process that considers the
environmental effects, treatment efficacy, and cost effectiveness of each
alternative. Determine monitoring and enforcement plans during this site-specific
process. Also use pest detection, surveillance, evaluation, prevention, suppression
and post-action evaluation as integral components of this IPM approach.
3. Cooperate with the State and counties in control of noxious weeds and predation.
Survey and Manage species
Forest-wide standards and guidelines for “Survey & Manage” old-growth associated species were
revised in January 2001 and described in the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and
Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation
Measures, Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD) (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2001). Category A
and C species that are considered to be within the California Klamath Province require predisturbance field survey prior to implementing management actions that could significantly,
negatively affect the species’ habitat or persistence of the species on the site. Pre-disturbance
surveys are not required if delay in implementation of a proposed action to perform surveys
would result in an unacceptable environmental risk. The adopted standards and guidelines for
Survey and Manage species only applies within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP),
which, on the Lassen National Forest, encompasses approximately 41,893 acres in the northwest
portion of the Hat Creek Ranger District.
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment includes the following direction applicable to motorized travel
management and noxious weeds:
•
Bog and Fen Habitat (SNFPA ROD page 65, S&G #118): Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing
activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or
water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on
these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and
fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles.
Lassen National Forest
305
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
•
•
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
47.
48.
49.
Sensitive Plant Surveys (Corrected Errata, April 19, 2005): Conduct field surveys for TEPS plant
species early enough in project planning process that the project can be designed to conserve or
enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. Conduct surveys according to procedures outlined in the
Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted as
part of project implementation, survey results must be documented in the project file.
(Management Standard & Guideline 125). The standards and guidelines provide direction for
conducting field surveys, minimizing or eliminating direct and indirect impacts from management
activities, and adherence to the Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA Forest Service 2004).
Goals for noxious weed management are to manage weeds using an integrated weed management
approach. Priority 1 is to prevent the introduction of new invaders. Priority 2 is to conduct early
treatment of new infestations. Priority 3 is to contain and control established infestations (SNFPA
ROD page 36). Applicable Standards and Guidelines for noxious weed management (SNFPA
ROD pages 54-55, #36-41, 47-49) are listed below.
Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups, and organizations in
communities near national forests about noxious weed prevention and management.
Work cooperatively with California and Nevada State agencies and individual counties (for
example, Cooperative Weed Management Areas) to: (1) prevent the introduction and
establishment of noxious weed infestations and (2) control existing infestations.
As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessment to determine risks for weed
spread (high, moderate, or low) associated with different types of proposed management
activities. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management.
When recommended in project-level noxious weed risk assessments, consider requiring off-road
equipment and vehicles (both Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation to
be weed free. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management
Strategy.
Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed prevention and control measures into ongoing
management or maintenance activities that involve ground disturbance or the possibility of
spreading weeds. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management
Strategy.
Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing activities to ensure adherence to the Regional
Noxious Weed Management Strategy.
Complete noxious weed inventories, based on regional protocol. Review and update these
inventories on an annual basis.
As outlined in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy, when new, small weed
infestations are detected, emphasize eradication of these infestations while providing for the
safety of field personnel.
Routinely monitor noxious weed control projects to determine success and to evaluate the need
for follow-up treatments or different control methods. Monitor known weed infestations, as
appropriate, to determine changes in weed population density and rate of spread.
Special Area Designations
Research Natural Areas (RNAs) and Special Interest Areas (SIAs) may have specific management
objectives for unique botanical features or other features of interest. On the Lassen National Forest, no
management plans are available for RNAs or SIAs.
The Lassen LRMP (1993, pp. 4-99 to 4-102) contains a prescription for special areas, including
Experimental Forests, RNAs, SIAs, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. The purpose of the prescription is to
preserve areas with unusual historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, or other special
characteristics for public enjoyment and research. These areas are managed primarily to produce benefits
other than timber, range, forage, minerals, and other commodities. Off-road vehicle use is not allowed in
Lassen National Forest
306
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
RNAs, and so these areas should be excluded from OSV use. Restricted off-road vehicle use is allowable
in other types of special areas. This prescription applies to both designated and proposed special areas.
Standards and Guidelines are also described for these special areas, and those that apply to OSV use are
presented below:
•
•
Manage recreation according to the designated Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes.
Prohibit motorized vehicles within Research Natural Areas.
Desired Condition
One goal of the Lassen National Forest Botany Program is to maintain viable populations of TEPS plants,
Survey and Manage plants, and Special Interest plants. In addition, it is desired that invasive weed species
are reduced by a combination of control methods along with prevention practices including education and
requirements for weed-free materials and equipment.
Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis.
Issues
OSV uses may have potential to cause direct and indirect effects to TEPS plants, Survey and Manage
plants, Special Interest plants, and invasive plants, but are most likely to affect those which have living
tissues present within the snow column each season (such as trees or shrubs). Several public comments
have been received that raise concerns about the effects of OSV use on general vegetation and rare
species. Potential effects may be either direct by damage or death to individual plants from OSV (stem
breaking, crushing, etc.), or indirect by increasing the opportunity for pathogens to attack damaged plant
tissues or by altering habitat. Possible effects include but are not limited to: physical damage to plants and
habitats; reduced seed production; decreased plant vigor; changes in hydrology; changes to soils,
especially erosion and sedimentation; changes in physiological responses; and increases in risk of weed
introduction and spread. These potential effects become much more likely if OSV use occurs where/when
there is inadequate snow depth.
Some plant species emerge from the ground very early in the growing season and subsequent snowfall
may accumulate enough afterwards to allow authorized OSV use. In these cases, living plant tissues may
also be impacted by OSV use. Compaction of snow may lead to changes in plant composition and habitat
suitability. Weed seeds may be transported into areas open to OSV use. When snow cover is not adequate,
OSV use on and off established routes has potential to affect some Survey and Manage plants, Special
Interest plants, and their habitats. The proposed minimum snow depth requirements are presumed to be
sufficient to protect the majority of plant species from damage.
Possible effects from invasive plant species will be addressed. The proposal and alternatives will also be
evaluated for appropriate management and Forest Plan consistency for Research Natural Areas (RNAs)
and those Special Interest Areas (SIAs) with a focus on botanical resources.
Lassen National Forest
307
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 106. Botanical resources indicators and measures for assessing effects
Resource
Element
Resource
Indicator
Measure
Used to
address: P/N, or
key issue?
Source
(LRMP S/G; law
or policy, BMPs,
etc.)?
Vegetation
Species
presence
Acres of TEPS, Survey and Manage,
and Special Interest plant
occurrences within open OSV use
areas.
Acres of TEPS, Survey and Manage,
and Special Interest plant
occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV routes.
No
FSM 2670
Vegetation
Qualitative
discussion of
species’
responses to
proposed
activities
TEPS, Survey and Manage, and
Special Interest plants effects
determination.
No
FSM 2670
Vegetation
Noxious/invasive
weed presence
Acres of weed infestations within
open OSV use areas.
Acres of weed infestations within 100
feet of designated OSV routes.
No
FSM 2900
Vegetation
Noxious/invasive
weed response
to proposed
activities
Level of risk (high, moderate, low) for
the project introducing or spreading
weeds.
No
FSM 2900
Vegetation
Presence of
designated
botanical
resource areas
(RNAs, SIAs)
Acres of botanical resource areas
within open OSV use areas.
Acres of botanical resource areas
within 100 feet of designated OSV
routes.
No
LRMP pp. 4-99 to
4-102
Environmental Consequences
Methodology
This analysis uses ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers from the
Lassen National Forest and the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG CNDDB 2015). The GIS
layers of proposed OSV designations and groomed trails were overlain with the botanical resource layers
to identify areas of potential effects.
A full list of plant species was considered for possible effects from the Proposed Action and alternatives.
Table 107 lists USFWS Threatened, Endangered or Proposed plants and their critical habitats, as well as
Region 5 Sensitive plants that may be present or are known within the planning area. Survey and Manage
plants considered in this analysis are presented in Table 108. Special Interest plants that are known to
occur within the planning area are presented in Table 112. The possibility of effects to each species was
evaluated based on growth form, timing of important life cycle elements (i.e., emergence, flowering, seed
production, germination, etc.), identified threats, important habitat components, and the expected
interaction with disturbances associated with OSV use and snow trail grooming.
Lassen National Forest
308
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
This biological evaluation/biological assessment reviews the Proposed Action and alternatives in
sufficient detail to determine the level of effect that would occur to federally listed plants and Region 5
Sensitive plant species. One of four possible determinations is chosen based on the available literature, a
thorough analysis of the potential effects of the project, and the professional judgment of the botanist who
completed the evaluation. The four possible determinations (from FSM 2672.42) are:
•
•
•
•
No impact
Beneficial impact
May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of
viability in the planning area
May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability
in the planning area
Similar categories for federally listed threatened and endangered species are:
•
•
•
•
No effect
Beneficial effect
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
May affect, likely to adversely affect
Information Sources
Information used in this analysis includes pertinent scientific literature, project specific botanical data,
results of surveys and site revisits, local knowledge of Lassen National Forest botanists, and GIS layers of
the following data: project boundary, actions by alternative, Lassen National Forest TEPS plant
occurrences, and the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG CNDDB 2015).
Incomplete and Unavailable Information
There is little research and information available regarding the responses of each plant species or whole
plant communities from OSV uses, including indirect effects from snow compaction and vehicle
emissions during the winter.
Assumptions specific to the botanical resources analysis
• Plants are unlikely to be directly affected by authorized OSV use (with the specified snow depth
requirements) when their living tissues are not present above ground. Therefore, only shrub or tree
species are likely to be directly affected by OSV use.
•
Indirect effects, such as those possibly resulting from snow compaction and vehicle emissions, are
likely to be concentrated in the corridors along designated OSV trails (groomed or ungroomed).
Therefore, an area within 100 feet of designated OSV trails is reasonably foreseeable to be affected
by snow compaction, emissions, or other contamination. Areas open to OSV use outside these
concentrated use corridors are much less likely to experience measurable indirect effects.
•
Over-snow vehicles, towing vehicles, or trailers may carry mud or other debris containing weed
seeds from infested areas to trailheads and possibly into any areas open to OSV use.
•
Only authorized OSV uses will be analyzed. Concerns arising from unauthorized uses will be
addressed as law enforcement issues and may prompt corrective actions.
•
Resource monitoring will identify unexpected types or levels of impacts to botanical resources, and
may also prompt corrective actions as warranted.
Lassen National Forest
309
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
The project area boundary serves as the analysis boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Effects to vegetation would be expected to have occurred or become evident within one or two years of
disturbance and this constitutes the short term. Effects that linger beyond 2 years are considered long-term
effects, and may extend to decades or centuries. Such long-term effects beyond 20 years become
increasingly difficult to predict due to unknown interactions and the many environmental variables with
numerous possible outcomes.
Direct/Indirect Effects Boundaries
The spatial boundary for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to these botanical resources is the
project area boundary, because all expected effects relevant to these resources would occur and remain
within this area.
Cumulative Effects Boundaries
Because effects from the proposed activities would interact with effects from other ongoing or future
projects only within the project area boundary, the cumulative effects boundary is also the project area
boundary.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plants
Official species lists for this project were obtained on September 29, 2015, from the Klamath Falls,
Sacramento, Yreka, and Nevada Field Offices of the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2015a, USDI FWS 2015b, USDI FWS 2015c, USDI FWS 2015d). The lists
identify seven plant species to consider, because they may be present within the general area of the
Lassen National Forest:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Calochortus persistens (Candidate)
Chamaesyce hooveri (Threatened)
Fritillaria gentneri (Endangered)
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica (Endangered)
Orcuttia tenuis (Threatened)
Pinus albicaulis (Candidate)
Tuctoria greenei (Endangered)
The candidate species Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) and Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou Mariposa
Lily) are addressed as Region 5 Sensitive species in this analysis. Calochortus persistens is not suspected
to occur on Lassen National Forest lands, but Pinus albicaulis does occur at some higher elevations on
the Forest.
Chamaesyce hooveri (Hoover’s spurge) occurs in vernal pools from Tehama to Merced counties below
1,000 feet in elevation. Designated critical habitat does not occur on the Lassen National Forest (USDI
FWS 2003a), and suitable habitat for the species is also not present.
Fritillaria gentneri (Gentner’s fritillary) is endemic grows in grassland and chaparral habitats primarily in
Jackson and Josephine counties in southwestern Oregon. It also occurs in northern California very close
to the Oregon border, and all occurrences are within about a 30-mile radius of Jacksonville, Oregon
Lassen National Forest
310
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
(USDI FWS 2003b). The Lassen National Forest is well outside the suspected distributional range for this
species.
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica (Butte County meadowfoam) has not been found here and does not
have designated critical habitat on the Forest (USDI FWS 2003a). The project area is outside the range for
this species which is known only to valley and foothill grasslands of the lower elevations of Butte County.
Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and Tuctoria greenei (Greene’s tuctoria) are the only listed or
proposed plant species whose range or critical habitat is present on the Lassen National Forest. Critical
habitat has been designated for Orcuttia tenuis and Tuctoria greenei including approximately 25,000 acres
located within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Lassen National Forest (USDI FWS 2003a).
Region 5 Sensitive Plants
There are currently 49 Region 5 Sensitive plant species known to occur in the project area. See Table 107
below for the complete list and evaluation of TEPS species and habitat presence.
Table 107. TEPS plant species considered
Scientific Name
Common Name
Chamaesyce hooveri
Hoover’s spurge
Chamaesyce hooveri
designated critical habitat
Orcuttia tenuis
slender orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
designated critical habitat
Fritillaria gentneri
Gentner’s Fritillary
Limnanthes floccosa ssp.
californica
Butte County Meadowfoam
Limnanthes floccosa ssp.
californica
designated critical habitat
Tuctoria greenei
Greene’s tuctoria
Habitat
Threatened Plants
Species Habitat
present present
?
?
Effects analysis
needed?
Vernal pools, typically on alluvial fans or terraces of ancient
rivers or streams, along the eastern margin of California’s
Central Valley, from Tehama County to Merced County.
Below 1,000 ft. Flowers July-October. Annual herb.
Critical habitat is designated in Tehama, Butte, Stanislaus,
Merced, and Tulare Counties.
No
No
No. No Effect.
Habitat does not exist on
Lassen National Forest.
No
No
Vernal pools, in oak and/or pine woodlands. Below 5,800 ft.
Flowers May-July. Annual grass. Species occurs on Lassen
National Forest.
Critical habitat units are designated in Siskiyou, Modoc,
Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Lake, and Sacramento
Counties. 23,317 acres of critical habitat occurs on the
Lassen National Forest.
Yes
Yes
No. No Effect.
Critical habitat does not
exist on the Lassen
National Forest.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grassland and chaparral habitats within, or on the edges of,
dry, open, mixed-species woodlands at elevations below
1,544 meters (5,064 feet). The species is highly localized
within about a 30-mile radius of Jacksonville, Oregon
(USFWS 2003a).
Vernal pools in valley and foothill grasslands of Butte
County, below about 3,000 feet. Flowers March-May.
Annual herb. It is known or suspected to occur in Butte,
Glenn, and Tehama Counties.
Habitat does not occur on Lassen National Forest.
Critical habitat is designated in Tehama and Butte Counties.
No critical habitat exists on the Lassen National Forest.
No
No
No. No Effect.
Habitat does not exist on
Lassen National Forest.
No
No
No. No Effect.
Habitat does not exist on
Lassen National Forest.
No
No
Vernal Pools. On private land at Murken Lake. 3,500 ft. and
below. Flowers May-July. Annual grass. No known
occurrences exist on the Lassen National Forest, but
suitable habitat is present.
No
Yes
No. No Effect.
Critical habitat does not
exist on the Lassen
National Forest.
Yes
Endangered Plants
Lassen National Forest
311
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat
Species Habitat
present present
?
?
No
Yes
Effects analysis
needed?
Tuctoria greenei
designated critical habitat
Critical habitat is designated in Shasta, Tehama, Butte,
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Mariposa, and Madera
Counties. 1,551 acres of critical habitat occurs on the
Lassen National Forest.
Astragalus pulsiferae var.
suksdorfii
Suksdorf's milk-vetch
Boechera constancei
Constance’s rockcress
Botrychium ascendens
upswept moonwort
Sandy volcanic soils in sagebrush or pine within a 25-mile
radius of Mt. Lassen; Pine Creek Valley and near Bogard
Buttes; 4,500-6,500 ft. Flowers May-Aug., Perennial herb.
Habitat of serpentine soils or rock outcrops; 3,500-6,750 ft.
Flowers May-June. Perennial herb.
Perennially wet springs, seeps, and streambanks in mixed
coniferous forests; 5,200-6,240 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb.
Perennially wet springs, seeps, and streambanks in mixed
coniferous forests well-surveyed; 5,040-6,000 ft. Flowers
June-July. Perennial herb.
Habitat of moist subalpine meadows, stream banks, springs
or seeps; 7,000-10,000 ft. Flowers July-Aug. Perennial herb.
Perennially wet springs, seeps, and streambanks in mixed
coniferous forests; 5,240-6,250 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb.
Perennially wet springs, seeps, and streambanks in mixed
coniferous forests; 5,200-6,250 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb.
Springs, seeps or streambanks in upper montane conifer
forest. Flowers in August. Perennial herb.
Perennially wet springs and streambanks in mixed
coniferous forests; 5,200-6,250 ft. Flowers July-Oct.
Perennial herb.
Habitat of bare soil along westside montane stream banks
in mixed conifer forests; One occurrence reported, but
unconfirmed. 3800-8200 ft. Bryophyte, Moss (perennial).
Habitat of highly decayed logs, peaty soil or humus in
westside, moist, shaded conditions. Bryophyte, Moss
(perennial).
Habitat of eastside seasonally wet meadows north of
Highway 299; 4,000-6,300 ft. Flowers June-July. Perennial
herb.
Open, rocky areas, NE Klamath Ranges (Siskiyou County);
3,280-4,921 ft. Flowers June-July. Perennial herb.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Habitat of low-elevation westside foothill open areas; 5003,600 ft. Flowers May-July. Annual herb.
Yes
Yes
No. No Impact. Not
suspected to occur on the
Lassen National Forest.
Yes
Habitat of sandy, often granitic or disturbed soils in lower
montane mixed conifer forests; 1,500-5,200 ft. Flowers
June-July. Annual herb.
Loose volcanic gravel on talus slopes of alpine fell-fields;
7,250-11,500 ft. Flowers July-Oct. Perennial herb. The
single known occurrence on LNF is within the Thousand
Lakes Wilderness.
Habitat of foothill gray pine forest and blue oak woodlands
near the Ishi Wilderness; below 3,700 ft. Flowers April-May.
Annual herb.
Habitat of mid to late seral westside mixed conifer forest
south of Lake Almanor; 2,000-6,000 ft. Flowers March-July.
Perennial herb.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No. No Impact. Not
suspected to occur in areas
proposed for OSV use.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Botrychium crenulatum
scalloped moonwort
Botrychium lunaria
common moonwort
Botrychium minganense
Mingan moonwort
Botrychium montanum
western goblin
Botrychium pedunculosum
stalked moonwort
Botrychium pinnatum
northwestern moonwort
Bruchia bolanderi
Bolander’s bruchia
Buxbaumia viridis
green bug-on-a-stick
Calochortus longebarbatus
var. longebarbatus
long haired star tulip
Calochortus persistens
Siskiyou mariposa lily
Clarkia gracilis ssp.
albicaulis
white-stemmed clarkia
Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae
Mildred’s clarkia
Collomia larsenii
talus collomia
Cryptantha crinita
silky cryptantha
Cypripedium fasciculatum
clustered lady's-slipper
Sensitive Plants
Lassen National Forest
312
Yes.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Scientific Name
Common Name
Cypripedium montanum
mountain lady's-slipper
Eremogone cliftonii
Clifton’s eremogone
Eriastrum tracyi
Tracy’s eriastrum
Eriogonum prociduum
prostrate buckwheat
Eriogonum spectabile
Barron's buckwheat
Frangula purshiana ssp.
ultramafica
caribou coffeeberry
Fritillaria eastwoodiae
Butte County fritillary
Helodium blandowii
Blandow’s bog moss
Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
Lewisia kelloggii ssp.
hutchisonii
Hutchison’s lewisia
Limnanthes floccosa ssp.
bellingeriana
Bellinger's meadowfoam
Lomatium roseanum
adobe parsley
Meesia uliginosa
broad-nerved hump moss
Mimulus evanescens
ephemeral monkeyflower
Monardella follettii
Follett's monardella
Oreostemma elatum
Plumas aster
Packera eurycephala var.
lewisrosei
cut-leaved ragwort
Peltigera gowardia
veined water lichen
Penstemon personatus
closed-throated
beardtongue
Habitat
Habitat of moist mixed coniferous forest and riparian areas
with high canopy cover, north of Burney (Hat Creek RD);
2,800-6,000 ft. Flowers March-July. Perennial herb.
Chaparral and coniferous forests, on granitic sand of road
cutbanks and forest openings. Flowers April-Aug. Perennial
herb.
Chaparral and cismontane woodland, in gravelly clay, in
open areas. 1200-5300 ft. Flowers June-July. Annual herb.
Habitat of eastside juniper woodland or low sage flats;
Harvey Valley; 4,200-8,900 ft. Flowers June-July. Perennial
mat/subshrub.
Habitat of glaciated andesite soil in open red fir/lodgepole
forest south of Lassen Volcanic NP; 6,600-6,640 ft. Flowers
July-Aug. Shrub
On substrates of serpentinized peridotite in the Bucks Lake
area, Red Hill. 2,700-5,150 ft. Flowers May-July. Shrub.
Habitat of lower westside mixed conifer or brushy areas;
100-4,000 ft. One occurrence reported in Indian Creek RNA,
but is unconfirmed. Flowers March-June. Perennial herb.
Habitat of wet meadows, seeps or fens in westside
subalpine coniferous forest or alpine; 6,000-8,100 ft.
Bryophyte, Moss (perennial).
Habitat of lower elevation vernal pool or seasonally wet flats
north of Hwy 299; 175-3,300 ft. Flowers April-June.
Perennial herb.
Wet, sandy soils of seeps, meadows, vernal pools, streams,
and roadsides. 985-6,695 ft. Flowers April-July. Perennial
herb. One reported occurrence at Papoose Meadows has
not been relocated.
Ridge tops or relatively high elevations in Sierran or
Klamath mountains; 5,100-7,000 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb.
Seasonally wet areas in oak or oak/juniper woodlands north
of Highway 299, below 3,600 ft. Flowers April-June. Annual
herb.
Shallow, rocky soil on open, wind-swept ridge tops,
Diamond Mountains. 5880-7280 ft. Flowers April-May.
Perennial herb.
Habitat of logs in westside fens; 4,300-8,200 ft. Bryophyte,
Moss (perennial).
Seasonal lake margins or vernally wet areas in sagebrush/
juniper zone. 3900-5580 ft. Flowers June-Aug. Annual herb.
Habitat of serpentine soil; 2,800-5,500 ft. Flowers June-Aug.
Sub-shrub.
Habitat of westside wet meadows and fens; 3,800-6,200 ft.
Flowers in August. Perennial herb. One occurrence reported
but unconfirmed.
Habitat of serpentine soil; 1,000-6,200 ft. Flowers AprilJune. Perennial herb.
Habitat of cool, clear and shallow spring-fed westside
streams. Aquatic jelly lichen.
North-facing slopes in upper mixed conifer forest, southern
Almanor RD; 4,500-6,500 ft. Flowers July-Sept. Perennial
herb.
Lassen National Forest
313
Species Habitat
Effects analysis
present present
needed?
?
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Scientific Name
Common Name
Penstemon sudans
Susanville beardtongue
Phacelia inundata
playa phacelia
Pinus albicaulis
whitebark pine
Poa sierra
Sierra bluegrass
Pyrrocoma lucida
sticky pyrrocoma
Rorippa columbiae
Columbia yellow cress
Rupertia hallii
Hall's rupertia
Scheuchzeria palustris
American scheuchzeria
Sedum albomarginatum
Feather River stonecrop
Silene occidentalis ssp.
longistipitata
long-stiped campion
Thelypodium howellii ssp.
howellii
Howell’s thelypody
Habitat
Open, rocky volcanic soils in yellow pine forest or juniper
woodlands near Susanville; 3,900-5,600 ft. Flowers JuneJuly. Perennial herb.
Habitat of eastside subalkaline flats; 5,000-6,600 ft. Flowers
May-July. Annual herb.
Upper red fir forest to timberline. 6,560-12,140 ft.
Coniferous tree.
Steep, shady, rocky slopes in lower montane conifer forest.
1,195-3,805 ft. Flowers April-June. Perennial grass (herb).
Spring-wet, alkaline, clay soils below 6,000 ft., especially in
sagebrush-meadow ecotone. Flowers July-Oct. Perennial
herb.
Habitat of large, open, seasonally wet eastside flats
(playas); 4,000-5,950 ft. Flowers May-July. Perennial herb.
Lower westside mixed conifer forest in Campbellville/Butte
Meadows area; below 4,800 ft. Flowers June-Aug.
Perennial herb.
Habitat of floating sphagnum fens in cold, moderately high
elevation lakes; 3,000-9,000 ft. Flowers July. Perennial
herb.
Habitat of serpentine rock outcrops; 1,500-6,400 ft. Flowers
June. Perennial herb.
Openings in mid-elevation, westside mixed coniferous
forests south of Highway 36. 3,300-6,100 ft. Flowers JulyAug. Perennial herb.
Alkaline meadows, seeps and pastures,
sagebrush/rabbitbrush scrub. One occurrence at Dow Butte
reported, but unconfirmed. 4,100-6,700 ft. Flowers MayJune. Perennial herb.
Species Habitat
Effects analysis
present present
needed?
?
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Possible
Yes
Most species which have no known occurrences in the planning area are omitted from detailed analysis
because it is not known whether the species could exist on the Lassen National Forest and there is
considerable uncertainty about whether suitable habitats are present. The exception is for two Sensitive
Botrychium species, which are more likely to occur due to their tendency to occur together with other
Botrychium species that are known on the Lassen National Forest. Their small size also makes them very
easy to overlook.
Because they are not present and not suspected of occurring within areas currently or proposed for OSV
use, the following species would not be affected and are not carried forward into the effects analysis:
Threatened or Endangered Plants
Chamaesyce hooveri
Chamaesyce hooveri designated critical habitat
Fritillaria gentneri
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica designated critical habitat
Sensitive Plants
Calochortus persistens
Collomia larsenii
Lassen National Forest
314
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Listed Species and Critical Habitat Information
Orcuttia tenuis (slender orcutt grass)
Habitat Description
Orcuttia tenuis is a small, annual grass that occupies portions of drying and dried beds of relatively deep
vernal pools or vernal pool type habitat with clay soils. The main habitat requirement for Orcuttia tenuis
is standing water of sufficient quantity and duration to drown out most competition and supply Orcuttia
tenuis’ physiological requirements for prolonged inundation, followed by a period of gradual (becoming
total) desiccation (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2012).
Status and Distribution
Orcuttia tenuis was listed as Threatened by the USFWS on March 26, 1997, along with other members of
the Orcuttiae grass tribe and two vernal pool herbs (USFWS 1997).
Orcuttia tenuis is endemic to northern California, with the majority of occurrences in Tehama and Shasta
Counties, mostly found on private lands, but it also extends into the Modoc Plateau. It is currently known
from 82 occurrences, of which 76 are presumed to be extant (USFWS 2005). The 21 occurrences of
Orcuttia tenuis on the Lassen National Forest (totaling 74 acres) are known from all three Ranger
Districts. Seven of these are not found within designated critical habitat.
Life History
Orcuttia tenuis seeds germinate in the spring while under water, and plants send up long, floating leaves.
As the pool dries, plants produce shorter terrestrial leaves, and then flowering stalks. Orcuttia tenuis
plants generally mature later than other vernal pool annuals, so often they are the only vegetation still
green by mid-summer on the vernal pool bed. As an annual, Orcuttia tenuis depends on seed production
to replenish the seed bank for continued survival. Population sizes can fluctuate dramatically with
differing amounts of precipitation each year.
Threats
Habitat loss and fragmentation is the single largest threat to the survival and recovery of listed vernal pool
plants (USFWS 2005). Habitat loss generally is a result of urbanization, agricultural conversion, and
mining. The principal threats to Modoc-Cascades occurrences of Orcuttia tenuis are associated with
human-caused hydrologic alterations, livestock activity, recreational/OHV use, and vegetative
competition (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2012). Nine of the 21 occurrences on the Lassen National Forest
have been at least partially fenced to protect them from livestock and OHV impacts (USDA FS and USDI
BLM 2012).
When wheeled vehicles are driven through vernal pools, they may impair hydrological functions by
displacing soil, causing erosion, or damaging the swale or riparian connectivity, thus resulting in
hydrological changes to these systems. In addition, poorly designed trail and roads systems near vernal
pools may cause additional erosion and result in siltation of the vernal pool, which may inhibit
germination of listed plant species. Impacts from trampling of plants by OHVs may reduce the
reproductive output of vernal pool species, and plants may be crushed or killed (USDI FWS 2005). All of
these impacts may have occurred to Orcuttia tenuis and its habitat (Sanger 2010) before cross-country
travel was discontinued on the Lassen National Forest in 2010 (USDA FS 2010), and some of their effects
may be persisting to the present day.
Lassen National Forest
315
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Existing Conservation Documents/Agreements
•
Orcuttia tenuis Species Management Guide (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1989):1) All
populations will be protected from direct disturbance by Forest Service management activities.
Disturbance here includes excessive grazing, vehicle traffic within vernal pools, and hydrologic
manipulation within pools. When necessary, fencing will be the primary method of protection. 2)
Vernal pool hydrology of all pools containing Orcuttia tenuis will be maintained by designing all
earth-moving projects within the drainage area to allow unchanged drainage into the vernal pools.
•
Conservation Strategy for Orcuttia tenuis on Federal Lands of the Southern Cascades and
Modoc Plateau (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2012): 1) Protect all occurrences of O. tenuis from
direct disturbance by Forest Service management activities. Disturbance as defined here may
include, for example, vehicle impacts or hydrologic manipulations that negatively affect vernal
pool habitat. When necessary, fencing will be the primary method of protection. 2) During project
design, identify any sources of potentially detrimental hydrologic impacts to vernal pools, such as
borrow pits or stream headcuts. If needed, identify measures to restore vernal pool hydrology at
sites where O. tenuis habitat has been degraded by hydrologic alteration. 3) During project
planning, evaluate existing recreational impacts to vernal pool areas, and incorporate measures to
eliminate these impacts, where possible. If necessary, fence or use barriers to eliminate impacts.
Orcuttia tenuis Designated Critical Habitat
Critical habitat was designated in 2003, with the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) including
(USFWS 2003b):
1. Vernal pools, swales, and other ephemeral wetlands and depressions of appropriate sizes and
depths and the adjacent upland margins of these depressions that sustain Orcuttia tenuis
germination, growth and reproduction, including but not limited to, Northern Volcanic Ashflow
and Northern Volcanic Mudflow vernal pools with iron-silica and bedrock hardpan impervious
layers, and that typically become inundated during winter rains, but are dry during the summer
and do not necessarily fill with water every year.
2. The associated watershed(s) and hydrologic features, including the pool basin, swales, and
surrounding uplands (which may vary in extent depending on pool size and depth, soil type and
depth, hardpan or claypan type and extent, topography, and climate) that contribute to the filling
and drying of the vernal pool or ephemeral wetland, and that maintain suitable periods of pool
inundation, water quality, and soil moisture for Orcuttia tenuis germination, growth and
reproduction, and dispersal, but not necessarily every year.
Eleven of the 21 critical habitat units occur on the Lassen National Forest, with a total of 22,258 acres.
The threats to Orcuttia tenuis critical habitat on the Lassen National Forest are also human-caused
hydrologic alterations, livestock activity, recreational/OHV use, and vegetative competition (USDA FS
and USDI BLM 2012).
Tuctoria greenei (Greene’s tuctoria)
Habitat Description
Similar to Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenei is a summer annual grass that grows in vernal pool habitats.
Tuctoria greenei is partially differentiated from Orcutt grasses by the spiral arrangement of spikelets and
lack of floating juvenile leaves. Tuctoria greenei adults are unable to tolerate prolonged periods of
inundation. Thus, Tuctoria greenei in the Central Valley tends to occur in relatively small, early-drying
Lassen National Forest
316
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
pools. When Tuctoria greenei is found in larger pools, these are either the shallow playa type or the
species is restricted to the shallow pool margins.
Status and Distribution
In 1997, Tuctoria greenei, Greene’s tuctoria, was federally listed as Endangered (USFWS 1997) and it is
State-listed as Rare. There are currently 44 known occurrences, but only 23 are presumed to be extant.
Within the administrative boundary of the Lassen National Forest, there is one known occurrence of
Tuctoria greenei, found on private lands within the Murken Lake Vernal Pool. This occurrence is disjunct
from the other populations within the Central Valley and two occurrences recently found in Modoc
County. Despite numerous surveys within vernally wet areas across the forest, no occurrences have been
found on Lassen National Forest lands.
Life History
Tuctoria greenei seeds do not germinate while the vernal pool is still full, but only after they are exposed
to light, when the water is almost completely evaporated (USFWS 2005). Germination occurs about 2
months following inundation. During the warm growing season, plants grow and produce seeds for the
next year. Individual plants die at the end of the growing season.
Threats
Habitat loss and fragmentation is the single largest threat to the survival and recovery of listed vernal pool
plants (USFWS 2005). Habitat loss generally is a result of urbanization, agricultural conversion, and
mining. Specific threats to Tuctoria greenei are agricultural conversion, urbanization, inappropriate
livestock grazing, small population sizes, and herbivory by grasshoppers (USFWS 2005). The Murken
Lake Vernal Pool was completely fenced from livestock and OHV in 2010.
Tuctoria greenei Designated Critical Habitat
In 2003 the Fish and Wildlife Service designated 12 critical habitat units for Tuctoria greenei (USDI FWS
2003a). One of the 12 units is located partially on the Lassen National Forest. In the Murken Lake area,
1,702 acres of critical habitat was designated on both Lassen National Forest and private lands; however,
only the Murken Lake Vernal Pool itself is believed to contain the primary constituent elements needed to
support this species within this critical habitat unit. The Lassen National Forest has approximately 1,551
acres of critical habitat for this species, which includes all Forest Service lands within and adjacent to
Murken Lake. The large area of unoccupied habitat was included in the unit to provide protection of the
hydrologic processes supporting the species (USDI FWS 2003a).
The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of designated Tuctoria greenei critical habitat include
(USFWS 2003b):
1. Vernal pools, swales, and other ephemeral wetlands and depressions of appropriate sizes and
depths and the adjacent upland margins of these depressions that sustain Tuctoria greenei
germination, growth and reproduction, including but not limited to, Northern Claypan, Northern
Hardpan, and Northern Basalt flow vernal pools that typically become inundated during winter
rains, but are dry during the summer and do not necessarily fill with water every year.
2. The associated watershed(s) and hydrologic features, including the pool basin, swales, and
surrounding uplands (which may vary in extent depending on pool size and depth, soil type and
depth, hardpan or claypan type and extent, topography, and climate) that contribute to the filling
and drying of the vernal pool or ephemeral wetland, and that maintain suitable periods of pool
Lassen National Forest
317
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
inundation, water quality, and soil moisture for Tuctoria greenei germination, growth and
reproduction, and dispersal, but not necessarily every year.
The threats to Tuctoria greenei critical habitat on the Lassen National Forest include human-caused
hydrologic alterations, livestock activity, recreational/OHV use, and vegetative competition from invasive
species.
Existing Condition
Survey and Manage Plants
Manage Known Sites Requirement
The 2001 ROD requires management of known sites of any Category A, B, or E species and high-priority
sites of Category C or D species. High-priority sites are those that are needed to provide for reasonable
assurance of species persistence. No high-priority sites are located on the Lassen National Forest.
Category A, C, and E species
Currently, nine species requiring pre-disturbance surveys are considered to have suitable habitat within
the California Klamath Province. The Lassen OSV Designation Project planning area falls within the
range of all of these except Eucephalus vialis, Schistostega pennata, and Tetraphis geniculata.
Table 108. Survey and manage plant species, categories A, C, and E
Scientific Name
Common Name
Botrychium minganense
Mingan moonwort
Category A
Botrychium montanum
western goblin
Category A
Buxbaumia viridis
green bug-on-a-stick
Category E
Cypripedium fasciculatum
clustered lady's-slipper
Category C
Cypripedium montanum
mountain lady’s-slipper
Category C
Eucephalus vialis
wayside aster
Category A
Ptilidium californicum
California fuzzwort
Category A
Schistostega pennata
luminous moss
Category A
Tetraphis geniculata
Tetraphis moss
Category A
Known sites within
NWFP portion of
project?
Potential
habitat
present?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Lower tree trunks of large-diameter fir or white fir,
3000 to 5000 feet.
Yes
Yes
Moist rootwads in shady coniferous forest.
No
No
Decay Class 3 or 4 logs and stumps in shady, moist
forest.
No
No
Habitat
Edge of willow thickets in coniferous forest. No
known sites in NWFP area. Also a Region 5 Sensitive
species.
Edge of willow thickets in coniferous forest. No
known sites in NWFP area. Also a Region 5 Sensitive
species.
Large decay class 3 or 4 logs in streams in
coniferous forest. No known sites in NWFP area.
Also a Region 5 Sensitive species.
Mesic conifer and/or hardwood forest, especially
riparian zones. No known sites in NWFP area. Also a
Region 5 Sensitive species.
Mesic conifer and/or hardwood forest, especially
riparian zones. One site known in NWFP area. Also a
Region 5 Sensitive species.
Grassy, fire-disturbed openings, sometimes within
conifer forest.
Lassen National Forest
318
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
There are known sites for Cypripedium montanum and Ptilidium californicum within the NWFP portion
of the Lassen National Forest. Because Cypripedium montanum is also a Region 5 Sensitive species, it is
also being addressed forest-wide in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for the Lassen OSV
Designation Project.
Category B species
The 2001 ROD provides direction to perform equivalent effort (project level) field surveys for all
Category B Survey and Manage fungi in old-growth habitat in which province-wide strategic surveys
(broad scale) have not been completed by September 30, 2010, when ground-disturbing actions are
proposed. In 2001, there were 124 Category B fungi on the Survey and Manage list. Strategic survey
requirements have been met for 66 of these species, leaving 58 species that call for equivalent effort
surveys prior to completion of NEPA analysis. These species are listed in table 109.
Table 109. Survey and manage category B fungi with equivalent effort survey requirement
Albatrellus caeruleoporus
Albatrellus ellisii
Albatrellus flettii, In Washington and
California
Alpova olivaceotinctus
Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia nigra)
Chamonixia caespitosa (Chamonixia
pacifica sp. nov. #Trappe #12768)
Choiromyces venosus
Chrysomphalina grossula
Clavariadelphus ligula
Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus
Cortinarius boulderensis
Cortinarius cyanites
Cudonia monticola
Destuntzia fusca
Destuntzia rubra
Entoloma nitidum (Rhodocybe nitida)
Gastroboletus ruber
Gastroboletus vividus (Gastroboletus
sp. nov. #Trappe 2897; Gastroboletus
sp. nov. #Trappe 7515)
Gastrosuillus umbrinus (Gastroboletus
sp. nov. #Trappe 7516)
Gymnopilus punctifolius, In
California
Gyromitra californica
Ramaria coulterae
Ramaria cyaneigranosa
Helvella elastica
Hydnotrya inordinata
(Hydnotrya sp. nov. #Trappe
787, 792)
Hydropus marginellus
(Mycena marginella)
Ramaria maculatipes
Hypomyces luteovirens
Leucogaster microsporus
Marasmius applanatipes
Martellia fragrans
Ramaria stuntzii
Ramaria verlotensis
Rhizopogon abietis
Rhizopogon brunneiniger
Rhizopogon chamaleontinus
(Rhizopogon sp. nov. #Trappe 9432)
Martellia idahoensis
Octavianina cyanescens
(Octavianina sp. nov. #Trappe
7502)
Otidea smithii
Phaeocollybia californica
Phaeocollybia piceae
Phaeocollybia scatesiae
Ramaria rainierensis
Ramaria rubribrunnescens
Phaeocollybia sipei
Podostroma alutaceum
Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (Alpova sp.
nov. # Trappe 9730)
Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus
Rhizopogon exiguus
Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus
Rhodocybe speciosa
Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella
setipes)
Sarcodon fuscoindicus
Polyozellus multiplex
Sedecula pulvinata
Ramaria aurantiisiccescens
Tricholomopsis fulvescens
Tuber asa (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe
2302)
Lassen National Forest
319
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
The following seven Category B fungi are known to occur within the NWFP portion of the Lassen
National Forest:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alpova olivaceotinctus
Bondarzewia mesenterica
Clavariadelphus truncatus
Mythicomyces comeipes
Ramaria rubrievanescens
Rhizopogon truncatus
Spathularia flavida
As an alternative to equivalent effort surveys at the project level, proposed actions may incorporate
project design features that meet the management recommendations for conserving fungi habitat in the
following ways (derived from Castellano et al. 1999, Castellano et al. 2003, and USDA FS and USDI
BLM 1994):
•
retention of overstory canopy cover to maintain shade and soil moisture
o
•
retention of a component of older overstory host trees specific to each fungi species to provide for
nutrient transfer
o
•
the largest/oldest trees in each unit will be retained, as well as trees with large cavities
and other types of deformities
retention of a component of forest floor organic matter to provide nutrients and fungal diversity,
and maintain soil moisture for decomposition processes
o
•
50% or higher canopy cover will be maintained in all thinning units
soil productivity standards require maintenance of 50%+ fine organic matter cover and at
least 5 logs per acre in a range of decay classes
retention of large, woody debris on the forest floor to provide nutrients and fungal recruitment
diversity
o
all snags 19 inches or larger in diameter and an average of 5 tons of logs per acre will be
retained
Special Interest Plants
Often referred to as “watch list” species, Special Interest plants are species which do not meet all of the
criteria to be included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List, but are of sufficient concern that we
need to consider them in the planning process. These include species that are locally rare, are of public
concern, occur as disjunct populations, are newly described taxa, or lack sufficient information on
population size, threats, trend or distribution. To better identify these species, forests have been
encouraged to develop watch lists for these Special Interest species. These watch lists are dynamic and
updated as the need arises to reflect changing conditions and new information. Such species make an
important contribution to forest biodiversity and are addressed as appropriate through the NEPA process.
Effects to these species are evaluated when they are known to occur in project areas. Seventy-eight
Special Interest plants are known to occur on the Lassen National Forest. Species which are not known to
occur in areas that may be open to OSV use are not included in this analysis. See Table 110.
Lassen National Forest
320
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 110. Special interest plant species considered
Scientific Name
Common Name
Allium sanbornii var. sanbornii
Sanborn's onion
Anthoxanthum nitens ssp. nitens
vanilla grass
Arnica fulgens
hillside arnica
Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita
threetip sagebrush
Asplenium septentrionale
northern spleenwort
Astragalus inversus
Susanville milk-vetch
Astragalus pauperculus
depauperate milk-vetch
Betula glandulosa
bog birch
Botrychium simplex
Yosemite moonwort
Brasenia schreberi
watershield
Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis
Butte Co. morning glory
Cardamine bellidifolia var. pachyphylla
alpine bittercress
Carex davyi
Davy’s sedge
Carex geyeri
Geyer's sedge
Carex lasiocarpa
woolly-fruited sedge
Carex limosa
mud sedge
Carex petasata
Liddon's sedge
Caulanthus major var. nevadensis
slender jewel-flower
Claytonia palustris
marsh claytonia
Dimeresia howellii
doublet
Drosera anglica
English sundew
Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris
hot rock daisy
Erigeron nivalis
northern daisy
Erigeron petrophilus var. sierrensis
northern Sierra daisy
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. depressum
depressed wild buckwheat
Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium
pyrola-leaved buckwheat
Eriophorum gracile
cotton grass
Habitat
Life Form
Granite, volcanic, or serpentine outcrops. West of Mineral, Battle
Creek. Flowers May-Sept.
Meadows or under lodgepole. Bunchgrass Valley and Brokeoff
Meadows. 4,900-6,200 ft. Flowers April-July.
Eastside meadows. Open damp depressions in sagebrush scrub
or grasslands. Clover/Grays Val. Flowers May-Aug.
Upper montane coniferous forest, in rock, volcanic openings.
7,200-8,500 ft. Flowers in August.
Dacite rock outcrops or cliffs. LVNP, Manzanita Chutes &
Christie Hill. Flowers Jul-Aug.
Plains and sparsely wooded hills in sagebrush scrub and yellow
pine forests. Frequent. Flowers May-Sept.
Blue oak woodland and chapparrel, or rocky grassland areas.
Indian Creek RNA. Flowers March-May.
Boggy meadows. Bridge Creek, Big Springs, Humbug Valley.
Flowers April-June.
Wet meadows. Uncommon. LT Creek, Milkhouse Flat, Magee
Lake. Flowers July-Sept.
Wetlands, Lakes, Fens. Domingo, Wilson, Shotoverin and
Cameron Lakes. Flowers June-Sept.
Open dry slopes in pine or oak and pine forests. Graham Pinery
RNA. 2,000-4,000 ft. Flowers May-July.
Rocky outcrops and scree slopes. 7,100-9,200 ft. Flowers JuneAug.
Dry, often sparse meadows and slopes. 4,595-10,830 ft. Flowers
May-Aug.
Dry slopes and open woods. Cornelia Lott Sank Memorial
Spring. Flowers May-June.
Pond edges and fens. Willow Lake, Domingo Lake, Cooper
Swamp, Hay Meadows. Flowers June-July.
Fens. Willow & Domingo Lakes, Cooper Swamp, Green Island
Lake. Flowers June-Aug.
Meadows, lower montane conifer forests. Patterson Flat. Halls
Flat and Burgess Springs. Flowers June-July.
Juniper woodland, open rocky areas. Dow Butte (location
uncertain). Flowers June-July.
Montane marshes and swamps; Jonesville, Colby, etc. Flowers
June-Aug.
Dry volcanic areas. North of Sheepshead. Flowers May-July.
Perennial herb
Perennial grass
Perennial herb
Shrub
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Deciduous
Tree/Shrub
Perennial herb
Aquatic, perennial
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Annual herb
Cold bogs in yellow pine or fir forests. Willow Lake, Domingo
Lake, Big Springs. Flowers July-Aug.
Sandy, volcanic soils. Frequent. Flowers June-Sept.
Perennial herb
Subalpine lava outcrops. Lassen Peak, Mt. Harkness, Mt.
Shasta; Bogard Buttes. Flowers July-Aug.
Rocky foothills to forests, sometimes on serpentine. Near Middle
Camp. Flowers June-Sept.
Low mounds around playas. 5,700 ft. Windy Hollow. Flowers
June-Aug.
High elevation volcanic talus. Red Cinder (Caribou) and LNVP.
Known site on Forest but not mapped in GIS. 5,200-10,800 ft.
Flowers July-Sept.
Fens and wet meadows in upper conifer forests. Almanor Fens.
Flowers May-Sept.
Perennial herb
Lassen National Forest
321
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial
herb/subshrub
Perennial
herb/subshrub
Perennial herb
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Scientific Name
Common Name
Gratiola heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Hackelia amethystina
amethyst stickseed
Hackelia cusickii
Cusick's stickseed
Hesperocyparis bakeri
Baker cypress
Hulsea nana
little hulsea
Iliamna bakeri
Baker’s globe mallow
Juncus hemiendytus var. abjectus
Center Basin rush
Lilium humboldtii ssp. humboldtii
Humboldt lily
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. floccosa
woolly meadowfoam
Lupinus dalesiae
Quincy lupine
Lycopus uniflorus
northern bugleweed
Lysimachia thyrsiflora
tufted loosestrife
Meesia triquetra
3-ranked hump-moss
Mimulus glaucescens
shield-bracted monkeyflower
Mimulus pygmaeus
Egg Lake monkeyflower
Muhlenbergia jonesii
Jones' muhly
Navarretia subuligera
awl-leaved navarretia
Nemophila breviflora
basin nemophila
Packera indecora
rayless mountain butterweed
Penstemon cinicola
ash beardtongue
Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis
Shasta beardtongue
Penstemon janishiae
Janish's beardtongue
Phlox muscoides
moss phlox
Piperia colemanii
Coleman’s rein orchid
Pogogyne floribunda
profuse-flowered pogogyne
Polyctenium fremontii var. fremontii
Fremont's combleaf
Polygonum bidwelliae
Bidwell's knotweed
Habitat
Vernal pools and wet edges of lakes and reservoirs.
Conservation Strategy 1994. Flowers Apr-Aug.
Openings in forest and meadows, dry slopes. Diamond Mts.
Flowers June-July.
Under large old-growth junipers. Ebey Lake area. Flowers AprJuly.
Dry volcanic or serpentine soil, in chaparral or yellow pine
forests. Cub Ck, Burney Mtn, and Timbered Crater areas.
Flowers all seasons.
High elevation Cascade peaks. LVNP, Burney Mt., and Magee
Peak in 1000 Lakes Wilderness. Flowers July-Aug.
Volcanic loam or lava beds, especially post-fire. Juniper
woodland, chaparral. 3,200-8,200 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Damp or vernally wet open areas. Flowers June-July.
Chaparral and lower montane conifer forests on dry forest floor
or dry brushy slopes. Near Deer Creek (Barkley Fire). Flowers
May-July.
Vernal pools, drainages, etc. in woodlands. Cayton; Finley Lake,
etc. Flowers Mar-June.
Dry, often rocky slopes in mixed conifer forest on slate soil.
2,500-6,500 ft. Flowers May-July.
Fens, marshes, swamps. Willow Lake and Willow Creek,
Domingo Lake. Flowers July-Sept.
Lake and stream margins, meadows. Willow Lake. 2,625-5,495ft.
Flowers May-August.
Fens and seeps, South of Lassen National Park, Big Springs,
Little Grizzly Creek. Flowers any season.
Wet places in foothill woodland, grassland. Front Country.
Frequent. Flowers Mar-May.
Moist soil in open meadows, drainages or edges of pools, in
open woods, sage. Flowers May-June.
Moist soil in open meadows, drainages or edges of pools, in
open woods, sage. Flowers June-Aug.
Rocky plains and slopes, foothill woodland, yellow pine forest.
Indian Creek RNA. Flowers Apr-Aug.
Streambanks, meadows, thickets. Ponds south of Soldier Mt.
4,000-7,910 ft. Flowers May-July.
Meadows and seeps, Type locality near Pine Creek. Flowers
July-Aug.
Dry or moist volcanic sands, yellow pine or lodgepole forests.
Caribou, Butte Ck. Flowers June-Aug.
Meadowy, open grassy sites in yellow pine to red fir. Flowers
June-Aug.
Life Form
Annual herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Conifer tree
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Annual herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Bryophyte, moss
(perennial herb)
Annual herb
Annual herb
Perennial grass
Annual herb
Annual herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Rocky areas or openings in sagebrush or juniper. Diamond Mt.
Flowers May-July.
Rocky alpine slopes. Lassen, Loomis Pk. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb
Chaparral, duff in lower montane coniferous forest, often shaded.
3,600-7,000 ft. Flowers June-Aug.
Vernal pools and similar habitat on Modoc Plateau. 3,200-5,000
ft. Flowers June-Aug.
Vernally moist depressions. Government Lake and Pine Creek.
3,200-6,800 ft. Flowers May-June.
Open areas in pine or pine and oak forests. Cayton Valley area,
and Indian Creek RNA. Flowers Apr-June.
Perennial herb
Lassen National Forest
322
Perennial herb
Annual herb
Perennial herb
Annual herb
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Scientific Name
Common Name
Polystichum kruckebergii
Kruckeberg's swordfern
Polystichum lonchitis
northern hollyfern
Potamogeton robbinsii
Robbins’s pondweed
Potamogeton praelongus
white-stemmed pondweed
Potentilla newberryi
Newberry’s cinquefoil
Rhynchospora alba
white beaked-rush
Schoenoplectus heterochaetus
slender bulrush
Schoenoplectus subterminalis
water bulrush
Scutellaria galericulata
marsh skullcap
Senecio hydrophiloides
sweet marsh ragwort
Silene occidentalis ssp. occidentalis
western campion
Sparganium natans
small bur-reed
Stellaria longifolia
long-leaved starwort
Stellaria obtusa
obtuse starwort
Stenotus lanuginosus
woolly stenotus
Streptanthus longisiliquus
long-fruit jewelflower
Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
slender-leaved pondweed
Subularia aquatica ssp. americana
water awlwort
Thermopsis californica var. argentata
silvery false-lupine
Trifolium andersonii ssp. andersonii
Anderson's clover
Trillium ovatum ssp. oettingeri
Salmon Mtns wakerobin
Utricularia intermedia
flat-leaved bladderwort
Utricularia minor
lesser bladderwort
Utricularia ochroleuca
cream-flowered bladderwort
Habitat
Life Form
Cliff crevices and talus slopes, mid to high elevation. Humboldt
Pk, Mt. Harkness (LVNP). Green Island Lake RNA. Flowers JulyAug.
Subalpine and upper montane conifer forests/ granitic or
carbonate. Green Island Lake RNA. 5,400-7,800 ft. Flowers
June-Sept.
Deep water. Saucer Lake (Green Island Lake RNA). 4,98511,485 ft. Flowers July-Aug.
Deep water. Willow Lake. Flowers July-Aug.
Perennial herb
Seasonally flooded flats. Butte Creek Pit and Huckleberry
Meadows. Flowers May-Aug.
Fens, freshwater marshes in yellow pine, mixed conifer, or fir.
Willow Lake. Flowers July-Aug.
Lake margins and marshes. Wilson Lake only known location in
CA. Flowers in August.
Fen and montane lake margins. Near Wilson Lake, Hay Mdws,
Cameron Meadows & Philbrook Reservoir. Flowers July-Aug.
Marshes, swamps. Fall River; Lake Almanor near Last Chance.
Flowers June-Sept.
Wet meadows in eastside pine or lodgepole. Flowers May-July.
Montane coniferous forest, open dry sites, chaparral. Flowers
June-Aug.
Fens and lake margins, cooler places. Green Island Lake; Bear
Flat, etc. Flowers in Aug.
Fens, wet meadows and riparian zones. Jonesville, Goose
Valley, Philbrook Res., Last Chance and Mill Creeks. Flowers
May-Aug.
Moist soil in red fir or yellow pine forests. Frequent. Flowers
June-Aug.
Meadow margins or low sage; shallow rocky soil. Flowers MayJuly.
Broadleaf upland and lower montane conifer forests. Rattlesnake
Creek. Flowers Apr-Sept.
Shallow freshwater marshes and swamps. Green Island Lake
RNA. 985-7,055ft. Flowers May-July.
Lake margins and streambanks in upper montane conifer
forests. On LNF, but location unmapped. 5,700-9,300 ft. Flowers
July-Sept.
Somewhat alkaline flats, yellow pine forests. Many locations on
district. Flowers Apr-Aug.
Open eastside pine, sandy soil. Elysian Valley. 3,000-8,000 ft.
Flowers June-July.
Damp, shaded mixed conifer forests at the edge of wet or moist
drainages. Screwdriver area and Mill Ck. below LVNP. Flowers
Feb-July.
Shallow water/fens. Boundary Fen, Willow Lake, Last Chance
Marsh, lake near Hay Mdw, near Snag Lake. Flowers July-Aug.
Shallow water/fens and marshes. Coon Hollow, Papoose
Meadows, and Green Island, Willow, and Wilson Lakes. Flowers
in July.
Shallow water, lake margins. Last Chance Marsh (per Rondeau),
Boundary Fen, Willow and Little Willow Lks. Flowers June-July.
Lassen National Forest
323
Perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Aquatic annual herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Aquatic perennial herb
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Aggregating Species for Analysis of Effects
Because OSV effects to various plant species are expected to be most similar according to their life form
and growth habits, the species considered in this analysis are grouped into the following categories:
•
Trees, shrubs, or sub-shrub species, whose living tissues may be present above or within the
snow column, and thus may experience direct effects from OSV uses (physical damage or
immediate exposure to exhaust).
•
Perennial herbaceous species, including grasses and mosses, whose living tissues are at or below
the soil surface, and thus are unlikely to experience direct effects, but they will be evaluated for
impacts by exhaust contaminants trapped by the snow cover or by possible effects from snow
compaction.
•
Annual plant species are generally not growing during the period of authorized OSV use, and thus
would not experience direct effects. This group is the least likely to be impacted by the indirect
effects of exhaust contaminants and snow compaction.
•
Aquatic plant species grow underwater and would not be directly affected by OSV use. If an
occurrence is located within 100 feet of OSV trails, it is possible that snowpack contaminants could
reach the occupied aquatic habitat when the snow melts. Snow compaction is not expected to affect
aquatic habitats in any meaningful or predictable manner.
Other Botanical Resources
Special Interest Areas (SIAs)
All three SIAs designated as Botanical Areas are currently and proposed open to OSV use.
•
Montgomery Creek Grove Botanical Area, 4.6 acres
•
Murken Botanical Area, 480 acres
•
Willow Lake Bog Botanical Area, 59 acres
Research Natural Areas (RNAs)
Off-road OSV use is prohibited in designated and proposed RNAs per the Lassen LRMP (1983), so OSV
use in RNAs is not allowed away from existing roads and trails.
•
Blacks Mountain
•
Cub Creek
•
Graham Pinery (proposed)
•
Green Island Lake (proposed)
•
Indian Creek (proposed)
•
Mayfield (proposed)
•
Soda Ridge (proposed)
•
Timbered Crater (proposed)
Lassen National Forest
324
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequences
Effects common to all alternatives
Because the alternatives are very similar, with the same activities proposed, and the differences are
mainly the spatial extent of OSV use, most of the effects are described in this section. The varying areas
of authorized OSV use will result in mostly small differences in degree of potential effects. Therefore,
each alternative’s effects will mainly summarize the extent of botanical resources affected, and provide
the basis for determinations. A summary comparison of alternatives will follow, providing the decisionmaker a quick reference for evaluating the alternatives along with the other resources that need to be
considered.
TEPS plants
Effects discussions for TEPS plants are presented in categories of plant life forms because the greatest
possible impacts from OSV activities are dependent upon the presence of their living tissues within the
snow or above the snow surface and whether each species is biologically active during the times that
direct and indirect effects may occur. Effects to each life form category are presented after an introduction
of direct and indirect effects.
Survey and Manage Species
For all alternatives, no OSV trails are proposed in the NWFP portion of the Lassen National Forest, so
none of the known Survey and Manage sites are within 100 feet of OSV trails. However, all of the Survey
and Manage sites are in areas open to cross-country OSV travel.
Because the proposed action and alternatives would not produce ground-disturbing impacts, there would
be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their persistence within the project area;
therefore, field surveys and site management for these species are not required. Without the loss of
overstory canopy cover, specific host trees, forest floor organic matter, or large woody debris, habitat
characteristics would be retained for conserving Survey and Manage fungi. Occurrences of Cypripedium
montanum would not be affected because the species is dormant and underground when OSV uses take
place. Occurrences of Ptilidium californicum would not be affected because the species grows low on the
bases of large trees and minimum snow depths would prevent impacts as well as the fact that OSV
operators avoid making contact with large trees for safety reasons and to prevent damage to their vehicles.
Special Interest Plants
Effects discussions for Special Interest plants are presented in categories of plant life forms because the
greatest possible impacts from OSV activities are dependent upon the presence of their living tissues
within the snow or above the snow surface and whether each species is biologically active during the
times that direct and indirect effects may occur. Effects to each life form category are presented after an
introduction of direct and indirect effects.
Separate sections follow for invasive plant species and other botanical resources (SIAs and RNAs).
Direct Effects Introduction
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. A key difference between
OSV use and other types of motor vehicle use is that, when properly operated and managed, OSVs do not
make direct contact with soil, water, and ground vegetation, whereas most other types of motor vehicles
operate directly on the ground (USDA FS 2014). OSV use and grooming of OSV trails can damage
vegetation through direct contact with plant tissues that are present above the snow or within the snow
column that is compacted by the vehicles. Because woody species (trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs) are the
Lassen National Forest
325
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
only plants present within the snow, they are the only plants that may be directly damaged. All other plant
life forms are not expected to be directly affected by OSV use because minimum snow depths are
expected to prevent direct effects to vegetation at ground level.
It is generally recognized that disturbance to soil and vegetation by OSV use is reduced as snowpack
depths increase. Damage to soil and low-growing vegetation is much more likely when OSV use occurs
under low snow conditions (Greller et al. 1974, Fahey and Wardle 1998). Thus, the minimum snow depth
requirements of all alternatives are expected to prevent or minimize damage to soil and vegetation.
In a study on Niwot Ridge in the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains, repeated snowmobile
use occurred on snow-covered and snow-free areas between two weather stations, and the effects of this
use were evaluated (Greller et al. 1974). General conclusions included: (1) in communities that are snowfree in winter, damage by snowmobiles was severe to lichens, Selaginella, and to relatively prominent,
rigid cushion-plants. Part of the damage to these communities may have been due to the manual removal
of rocks, necessary for the operation of snowmobiles in snow-free areas. (2) Kobresia, present in isolated
tussocks in a cushion-plant community, absorbed the major portion of snowmobile impact. As Kobresia is
thought to form the climatic climax community in this ecosystem, differential damage to it could
seriously retard succession.( 3) Snowmobile travel in uniform, closed Kobresia meadows inflicted much
less damage to most plants, including Kobresia itself, than did similar travel on a sparsely vegetated
community. (4) Plants best able to survive the heaviest snowmobile impact were those with small stature
and little woodiness, or with buds well-protected at or below the soil surface. (5) Snowmobile traffic
should be carefully restricted to snow-covered areas. Whenever this is not feasible, the least destructive
and easiest alternative is travel on mature, well-vegetated Kobresia meadows or similar well-drained plant
communities.
On the Lassen National Forest, OSV travel on snow-free areas is prohibited in the current and proposed
scenarios. By not allowing OSV use when and where there is less than 12 inches snow depth, the Lassen
National Forest minimizes the possibility of direct damage to soils and ground vegetation.
Indirect Effects Introduction
Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are
still reasonably foreseeable. Three specific topics of indirect effects were identified: snow compaction,
pollutants, and invasive plant species. Potential effects from snow compaction and pollutants are
described below, and a discussion of potential invasive plant effects will follow in its own section because
it is a required analysis topic itself.
Snow Compaction
Snow is compacted by any of the allowed OSVs, including snowmobiles, snow cats, and snow grooming
equipment. Snow compaction mechanically alters snow grains and redistributes them. This mechanical
disturbance breaks off the small points of new snow crystals, destroying the weak existing bonds between
them, and bringing the new grains into much closer contact than occurs naturally. Snow metamorphism is
artificially accelerated, and snow density and hardness are increased. In addition, the layered structure of
the snowpack is changed (Fahey and Wardle 1998). All this has both thermal and hydrological
implications, resulting in lower soil temperatures (Fahey and Wardle 1998, Eagleston and Rubin 2012)
and delayed snowmelt (Keddy et al. 1979, Fahey and Wardle 1998, Davenport and Switalski 2006, Gage
and Cooper 2013). The thermal conductivity of compacted snow is greater than undisturbed snow, and
can reduce the buffering effect against temperature extremes and fluctuations. Thermal conductivity of
compacted snow was 11.7 times greater than non-compacted snow (Neumann and Merriam 1972).
Lassen National Forest
326
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Keddy and others (1979) studied the effects of snowmobile use on snow compaction, vegetation
composition, and soil temperatures on an abandoned farm in Nova Scotia. They found that snow melted
later in areas with compacted snow and that some species showed differences in cover between
treatments. Considering the multitude of possible effects and the variety of plant structures and life
histories, they were not surprised to find no overall trend for species composition changes. They also
noted that the first pass by a snowmobile caused the greatest increase in snow compaction – roughly 75
percent of that observed after 5 sequential passes. While some species composition changes were
observed in old field vegetation, they found no changes in species composition in a marsh area, possibly
because of solid ice cover during the winter.
In a study of the impact of snowshoe/cross-country ski compaction and snowmelt erosion on groomed
trails, Eagleston and Rubin (2012) reported that these non-motorized uses caused snow to remain on the
compacted areas an average of 5 days longer than non-compacted areas. They also found that the
compacted snow caused increased erosion. Soil temperatures under compacted snow stayed frozen for
3 days longer, and, averaged over the entire winter season, remained 0.1 degree Celsius colder than soil
under non-compacted snow.
Fahey and Wardle (1998) examined the effects of snow grooming for downhill ski areas in subalpine and
alpine environments. They found that the compacted snow increased frost penetration and delayed snow
melt.
However, research does not always support the generalization of lower soil temperatures and delayed
snowmelt due to snow compaction. In a study of snow compaction effects from snowmobiles on fens on
the Routt National Forest, Gage and Cooper (2013) found no statistically significant differences in the
temperature of peat soils between compacted and non-compacted areas. They also found no differences in
timing of snow melt, biomass production, or plant phenology. From additional, unpublished data from the
Telluride Ski Area, where intense compaction occurred daily, they observed a delayed snowmelt and
thawing of the soil of about one month in compacted areas. They noted that the continuous influx of
groundwater in fens may limit freezing and maintain more constant soil thermal conditions. They found
no evidence conclusively linking snowmobile compaction to impairment of fen function.
Different plants have different levels of vulnerability and ability to recover from the effects of snow
compaction. The characteristics which determine their vulnerability are the timing of flowering, and
growth form and size (Fahey and Wardle 1998). Prolonged snow lie may adversely affect early spring
flowering plants because they could have a shorter growing season and thus possibly reduced seed
production due to delayed phenology and perhaps a misalignment of timing with their preferred
pollinators. Due to snow compaction, early spring growth of some plant species may be retarded or may
not occur under an OSV trail; however, the current and proposed OSV trails are underlain by existing
roads and trails which are already compacted and/or disturbed and little, if any, additional impacts are
expected to the vegetation.
Trail grooming on the Lassen National Forest occurs over an existing road and trail network and does not
alter landforms or result in significant soil disturbance that would change water flow patterns or quantities
of surface water runoff. Trail grooming does not cause substantial impacts to water quality, perennial,
intermittent or ephemeral streams, wetlands or other bodies of water (McNamara 2015).
In summary, the available research supports the assumption that more intensive snow compaction
occurring along groomed or heavily used trails would have considerably greater effect on soil
temperatures and delayed snowmelt than the compaction caused by dispersed uses in areas open to crosscountry OSV use. Due to the intensive, repetitive, and predictable compaction of snow along designated
OSV trails (groomed or not), these areas are much more likely and reasonably foreseeable to have a
Lassen National Forest
327
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
degree of compaction that could influence vegetation. Therefore, in this analysis, areas within 100 feet
of designated OSV trails are assumed to be at risk from the effects of snow compaction. Outside the
designated OSV trail corridors, dispersed OSV travel is much less likely to compact snow with enough
intensity and repetition to measurably or predictably affect ground vegetation, and therefore is not
considered in this analysis as a reasonably foreseeable source of indirect effects.
Pollutants
Emissions from over-snow vehicles, particularly two-stroke engines on snowmobiles, release pollutants
including ammonium, sulfate, benzene, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
aldehydes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic compounds into the air. A portion of these
compounds may become trapped and stored in the snowpack, to be released during spring runoff. Fourstroke snowmobile engines produce considerably lower amounts of pollutants.
Pollutants emitted from exhaust can cause a variety of impacts on vegetation. Carbon dioxide may
function as a fertilizer and cause changes in plant species composition (Bazzaz and Garbutt 1998);
nitrogen oxides also may function as fertilizers, producing similar effects along roadsides (FalkengrenGrerup 1986). Sulfur dioxide, which can be taken up by vegetation, may result in altered photosynthetic
processes (Winner and Atkison 1986, Mooney et al. 1988). Other toxic compounds may result in reduced
metabolism or retarded growth.
Some of the airborne pollutants would enter the snowpack and be released during snowmelt. Similar
responses can be assumed to occur in plants that ingest these compounds from snowmelt, although the
compounds may undergo chemical changes while in the snowpack, confounding the predictability of
effects.
Airborne pollutants can enter the snowpack from both local and regional sources, including but not
limited to vehicle emissions, dust storms, and smog. The concentrations of basic cations and acidic anions
in the snowpack can be altered and, when released quickly during snow melt, can temporarily lower the
pH of surface waters in a process known as “episodic acidification” (Blanchard et al. 1988). Soil
acidification and vegetation changes were examined in southern Sweden, where Falkengren-Grerup
(1986) found that increased nitrogen deposition and the increased acidity in the humus layer may have
caused changes in plant cover, with some species increasing and some species decreasing.
Demonstrating that snowpack chemistry can be used as a quantifiable indicator of airborne pollutants
from vehicular traffic, a correlation was shown between pollutant levels and vehicle traffic in Yellowstone
National Park (Ingersoll et al. 1997). Ammonium and sulfate levels were consistently higher for the inroad snow compared to off-road snow, but nitrate concentrations did not decrease within a distance of 100
meters from the emission source; thus, the nitrate ion may be used to distinguish between local and
regional emission sources (Ingersoll et al. 1997). Studying snow chemistry in Yellowstone National Park,
Ingersoll (1998) found that concentrations of ammonium, nitrate, sulfate, benzene, and toluene were
positively correlated with snowmobile use. Concentrations of ammonium were up to three times higher
for the in-road snow compared to off-road snow. Concentrations decreased rapidly with distance from
roadways.
Arnold and Koel (2006) also examined volatile organic compounds in Yellowstone National Park, and
found that the snow in heavily used areas contained higher levels of benzene, ethylbenzene, m- and pxylene, o-xylene, and toluene compared with a control site only 100 meters from the traveled roadways.
Even at the most heavily used area (Old Faithful) they found that the concentrations of volatile organic
compounds were considerably below U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality criteria for
these compounds. In situ water quality measurements (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific
Lassen National Forest
328
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
conductance, and turbidity) were collected; all were found within acceptable limits. Five volatile organic
compounds were detected (benzene, ethylbenzene, m- and p-xylene, o-xylene, and toluene). The
concentrations were found below EPA criteria and guidelines for the volatile organic compounds analyzed
and were below levels that would adversely impact aquatic ecosystems (Arnold and Koel 2006).
Studying air quality and snow chemistry effects from snowmobiles in the Snowy Range, Wyoming,
Musselman and Korfmacher (2007) found that heavier snowmobile use resulted in higher levels of
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, but ozone and particulate matter were not significantly different.
When compared with air quality during the summer, they found that carbon monoxide levels were higher
in the winter, but nitrogen oxides and particulate matter were higher in the summer. Air pollutants were
well-dispersed and diluted by winds, and air quality was not perceived as being significantly affected by
snowmobile emissions. Pollutant concentrations were generally low in both winter and summer. These
results differ from those studies examining air pollution from snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
However, snow chemistry observations did agree with studies from Yellowstone National Park. Compared
with off-trail snow, the snow sampled from snowmobile trails was more acidic with higher amounts of
sodium, ammonium, calcium, magnesium, fluoride, and sulfate. Snowmobile activity apparently had no
effect on nitrate levels in the snow.
In the winter, plant metabolic rates are drastically reduced. Airborne compounds would only be taken up
by respiring woody plants. Airborne pollutants normally disperse quickly in mountain environments that
are prone to windy conditions, such as the Sierra Nevada. Different plants may have different responses to
the different pollutants in the snowpack, including damage from toxic, volatile compounds and possibly
some benefits from additional nutrients and trace minerals. The levels of OSV exhaust contaminants on
the Lassen National Forest (considerably less than those observed in Yellowstone National Park) are not
expected to impair water quality (McNamara 2015).
In a natural plant community with many species competing for resources, and very little research done on
each species’ responses to OSV emissions or the competitive interactions that may be affected, it is nearly
impossible to predict what changes, if any, would occur. It can only be reasonably assumed that there may
be some changes in plant species cover and composition. The uptake of harmful pollutants is not expected
to result in the death of any individual plants. On the Lassen National Forest, no mortality of roadside
TES plants due to vehicle pollutants has been observed, even considering year-round vehicle uses.
Therefore, the level of effect to TES plants from OSV pollutants is expected to be minimal, and would not
result in loss of individuals.
The available research on OSV pollutants (both airborne and in the snowpack) indicate that some effects
to vegetation may occur in the immediate vicinity of heavy use areas. Pollutants that become trapped in
the snowpack are also concentrated in areas of heavy OSV use. Therefore, in this analysis, areas within
100 feet of designated OSV trails (groomed or not) are assumed to be reasonably at risk from the
effects of OSV pollutants. Outside the designated OSV trail corridors, dispersed OSV travel is much less
likely to contribute harmful contaminants with high enough levels and repetition to measurably or
predictably affect ground vegetation, and therefore is not considered in this analysis as a reasonably
foreseeable source of indirect effects.
Relative Potential Effects to Plant Life Forms
Considering the combination of direct and indirect effects described above, and the minimum snow depth
requirements of all the current alternatives, the effects of proposed OSV uses can be broken down into
relative categories of potential damage to the major plant life forms. From the most likely to least likely to
experience measurable effects:
Lassen National Forest
329
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
•
Evergreen trees and shrubs – most likely to be directly affected, due to mechanical damage; indirect
effects are reasonably foreseeable if the species occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may
occur in all areas open to OSV use.
•
Deciduous trees and shrubs – somewhat less likely, due to winter dormancy; indirect effects are
reasonably foreseeable if the species occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur in all
areas open to OSV use.
•
Sub-shrubs (low-growing woody species) – less likely due to less exposure to direct effects (but
still reasonably foreseeable); indirect effects may be reasonably foreseeable if the species occurs
near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur in all areas open to OSV use.
•
Perennial herbaceous species – direct effects are unlikely (not reasonably foreseeable) due to
minimum snow depth requirements; indirect effects may be reasonably foreseeable if the species
occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur along designated OSV trails, but are not
likely in areas open to cross-country OSV use.
•
Annual species – direct effects are highly unlikely (not reasonably foreseeable) due to minimum
snow depth requirements; indirect effects might be reasonably foreseeable if the species occurs near
designated OSV trails and spring flowering could be altered by persistent compacted snow. Effects
may occur along designated OSV trails, but are not likely in areas open to cross-country OSV use.
•
Aquatic species – direct effects would not occur because OSV use is not allowed over open water;
indirect effects from pollutants might be reasonably foreseeable if the species occurs near
designated OSV trails. Effects may occur along designated OSV trails, but are not likely in areas
open to cross-country OSV use.
Trees, shrubs, or sub-shrub species
Direct Effects
Snowmobile activities may damage vegetation on and along trails and in area open to cross-country OSV
use. The most commonly observed effect from snowmobiles was the physical damage to shrubs, saplings,
and other vegetation (Neumann and Merriam 1972, Wanek 1971). Winter Wildland Alliance (WWA)
analyzed the Gallatin National Forest regeneration survey data collected between 1983 and 1996 in areas
that were harvested and replanted. That survey data indicated snowmobiles had damaged between 12 and
720 trees per acre (WWA 2009). Damage to vegetation has been observed in the Greater Yellowstone
Area that is caused by winter recreational activities that occur off trail. For example, branches of willows
(Salix spp.) and sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) have been broken, and leaders have been removed from
conifers (Stangl 1999). Neumann and Merriam (1972) found that rigid woody stems up to one inch in
diameter were very susceptible to damage. Stems were snapped off in surface packed or crusted snow.
Neumann and Merriam (1972) also observed that compacted snow conditions caused twigs and branches
to bend sharply and break. Stems that were more pliable bent and sprang back although the snowmobile
track often removed bark from the stems’ upper surfaces. Sub-zero temperatures make stems more prone
to snapping rather than bending. Direct mechanical effects by snowmobiles on vegetation at and above
snow surface can be severe. After only a single pass by a snowmobile, more than 78 percent of the
saplings on a trail were damaged, and nearly 27 percent of them were damaged seriously enough to cause
a high probability of death (Neumann and Merriam 1972). Young conifers were found to be extremely
susceptible to damage from snowmobiles. Broken stems of any woody species would provide places for
pathogens to enter the plant tissues and would reduce the integrity of developing stems or trunks, both of
which could lead to additional damage or death of individuals. These direct effects are expected to be
localized and not result in loss of entire occurrences.
Lassen National Forest
330
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
On the Lassen National Forest, OSV use may directly damage individuals of the Lassen National Forest
Special Interest plants Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var.
depressum, Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium, and Hesperocyparis bakeri.
Indirect Effects
Airborne pollutants from OSVs would be concentrated along OSV trails. Because deciduous trees and
shrubs lose their leaves in the winter months, they cannot photosynthesize during fall and winter. Thus
respiration is dramatically reduced for deciduous trees and shrubs. Although evergreen trees and shrubs
retain their leaves and are thus capable of photosynthesis and respiration during winter, these processes
are also considerably reduced during the cold season. Reduced respiration during the winter means that
smaller amounts of the airborne pollutants would be ingested through gas exchange. For low-growing
woody species that are generally covered by snow when OSV use would occur (Eriogonum ovalifolium
var. depressum and Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium), the exposure to airborne pollutants would
be negligible.
Pollutants which are trapped and then released during snowmelt may (or may not) have some adverse and
some beneficial effects, however the extent and direction of specific effects is unknown. It is expected
that pollutant concentrations would be low enough that water quality would not be impaired, and thus it is
likely that plant responses, if any, would not be noticeable.
Perennial herbaceous species (including bryophytes)
Direct Effects
With minimum snow depth requirements providing protection of the soil surface and ground vegetation,
perennial herbaceous species (which die back each year to buds at or below the soil surface) would not be
directly affected by current or proposed OSV uses.
Indirect Effects
Compacted snow may alter the timing of new foliage emergence in the spring, due to delayed snowmelt
and colder soil temperatures. This is expected to have minimal effects to perennial herbaceous plants
because they are assumed to be adapted to a wide variety of natural snowmelt times.
Airborne pollutants would not affect perennial herbaceous species because the snow layers would prevent
the pollutants from reaching their foliage, that is, if foliage were to even be living during OSV season. As
with any of the plant groups, pollutants which are trapped and then released during snowmelt may (or
may not) have some adverse and some beneficial effects, however the extent and direction of specific
effects is unknown. It is expected that pollutant concentrations would be low enough that water quality
would not be impaired, and thus it is likely that plant responses, if any, would not be noticeable.
Annual plant species
Direct Effects
Plant species that complete their life cycle within one growing season would not be directly affected by
current or proposed OSV uses because they are generally not growing during the authorized period of
OSV use.
Indirect Effects
Compacted snow may alter the timing of seed germination and plant growth in the spring, due to delayed
snowmelt and colder soil temperatures. This is expected to have minimal effects to annual plants because
they are assumed to be adapted to a wide variety of natural snowmelt times.
Lassen National Forest
331
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Airborne pollutants would not affect annual species because the new generation of plants (seeds) would
still be dormant under the snow. As with any of the plant groups, pollutants which are trapped and then
later released during snowmelt may (or may not) have some adverse and some beneficial effects, however
the extent and direction of specific potential effects is unknown. It is expected that pollutant
concentrations would be low enough that water quality would not be impaired, and thus it is likely that
plant responses, if any, would not be noticeable.
Aquatic Species
Direct Effects
Aquatic plant species would not be directly affected by current or proposed OSV uses because OSVs are
not authorized to operate over aquatic habitats.
Indirect Effects
Delayed snow melt and transfer of sub-freezing temperatures from snow compaction is not expected to
affect aquatic plant species.
Airborne pollutants would not affect aquatic species because the plants grow underwater. As with any of
the plant groups, pollutants which are trapped and then later released during snowmelt may (or may not)
have some adverse and some beneficial effects, however, the extent and direction of specific effects is
unknown. It is expected that pollutant concentrations would be low enough that water quality would not
be impaired, and thus it is likely that plant responses, if any, would not be noticeable.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Orcuttia tenuis
OSV uses are not likely to affect vernal pool habitats. Population monitoring on the Lassen National
Forest has not revealed any adverse effects to these habitats from OSV use in previous years. The main
populations of Orcuttia tenuis on the Lassen National Forest are fenced, mainly to exclude OHV and
other impacts of recreational use. These fences also effectively prevent OSV use within the vernal pools
unless snow depth is over four or five feet. Although recreational/OHV uses in vernal pools may affect
these habitats and Orcuttia tenuis plants during the drier seasons, OSV use during the winter would not
result in habitat disturbance because the minimum snow depth of 12 inches is sufficient to prevent contact
between OSVs and the soil surface.
Compacted snow generally causes delayed snowmelt and increases the transfer of freezing temperatures
to the ground due to reduced insulating air spaces (Keddy et al. 1979, Fahey and Wardle 1998, Davenport
and Switalski 2006, Eagleston and Rubin 2012, Gage and Cooper 2013). For Orcuttia tenuis, seed
germination occurs when the vernal pools are filled with water, usually well after the majority of
snowmelt in the pools. The short delay of snowmelt and colder soil temperatures from OSV-compacted
snow would not likely delay or reduce germination of Orcuttia tenuis. The effects of snow compaction
and OSV emissions are concentrated in areas of heavy use, such as along designated OSV trails. Only
very small portions (totaling 0.4 acres) of three Orcuttia tenuis occurrences are present within 100 feet of
existing or proposed designated OSV trails. For the purpose of preventing or reducing OHV and other
recreation impacts, fencing/barriers are present at two of the sites. One of these occurrences has also been
monitored for three consecutive seasons and no evidence of OSV effects has been observed; therefore, it
is anticipated that there would be no measurable or predictable indirect effects to Orcuttia tenuis.
Because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use, Orcuttia tenuis would not be directly
affected. Indirect effects are also unlikely to affect the species or alter its habitat, as described above. With
Lassen National Forest
332
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
no direct or indirect effects expected, there would be no cumulative effects to this species. Therefore, it is
determined that the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no effect on Orcuttia tenuis.
Orcuttia tenuis Critical Habitat
The Lassen OSV Designation project does not involve the construction of any structures which could
impede or redirect flood flows, nor any ground surface modifications which could change drainage
patterns, impervious surfaces, soil permeability, or other hydrological characteristics such as surface
water volumes (McNamara 2015). Water quality is also not expected to be measurably affected in the
vernal pools, and the composition of vegetation, including invasive plant species, is not expected to be
altered by OSV use. Because the primary constituent elements of Orcuttia tenuis critical habitat would be
unaffected by OSV use, it is determined that the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no effect on
Orcuttia tenuis critical habitat.
Tuctoria greenei
OSV uses are not likely to affect vernal pool habitats. Population monitoring on the Lassen National
Forest has not revealed any adverse effects to these habitats from OSV use in previous years. Because
Tuctoria greenei is not known to occur on the Lassen National Forest, there would be no direct effects to
individuals from OSV use on these lands. The indirect effects of snow compaction and OSV emissions
are concentrated in areas of heavy use, such as along designated OSV trails. No Tuctoria greenei
occurrences are present within 100 feet of existing or proposed designated OSV trails; therefore, it is
anticipated that there would be no measurable or predictable indirect effects to the occurrences.
With no direct or indirect effects expected, there would be no cumulative effects to this species.
Therefore, it is determined that the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no effect on Tuctoria
greenei.
Tuctoria greenei Critical Habitat
The Lassen OSV Designation project does not involve the construction of any structures which could
impede or redirect flood flows, nor any ground surface modifications which could change drainage
patterns, impervious surfaces, soil permeability, or other hydrological characteristics such as surface
water volumes (McNamara 2015). Water quality is also not expected to be measurably affected in the
vernal pools, and the composition of vegetation, including invasive plant species, is not expected to be
altered by OSV use. Because the primary constituent elements of Tuctoria greenei critical habitat would
be unaffected by OSV use, it is determined that the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no effect
on Tuctoria greenei critical habitat.
Invasive Species
On the Lassen National Forest, 30 invasive plant species are documented. Appendix A of the botany
specialist’s report includes a list of each species and their acreage of presence near OSV trails and in areas
open to OSV use.
Although seed dispersal by vehicles is a major vector for weed invasions (Ouren et al. 2007, Von der
Lippe and Kowarik 2007, Taylor et al. 2011), no literature or observational evidence was found to support
the idea that invasive plants are spread by OSV use or grooming activities. However, it is possible that
some weed introduction or expansion could result from these uses. OSVs could bring weed seeds into the
project area, especially if the OSVs and/or their trailers are stored outside near weed infestations.
Throughout the seasons of non-use (spring, summer, and fall), weed species are actively growing and
producing seed, which may get deposited on OSVs and trailers that are stored outside, particularly during
windy conditions or if weeds are growing in close proximity. Weed introductions are most likely to occur
Lassen National Forest
333
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
at trailheads, where seeds may be brought into the area on trailers, towing vehicles, and OSVs. The
movement and jarring of this equipment during unloading may dislodge soil and other debris containing
weed seeds. Less likely, but still possible, is that weed seeds may be deposited by the OSVs as they travel
along designated trails and through areas open to cross-country travel, although it is unknown whether
weed seeds deposited on the snow surface would remain viable and germinate when spring arrives. It is
possible that the majority of weed seeds that may be brought into the area would be eaten by birds, mice,
or other animals before spring conditions arrive.
Weeds usually gain a foothold in natural communities where soil disturbance has provided suitable
conditions for weed seed germination, where ground vegetation is disturbed and unable to outcompete the
invaders, and (in forested areas) where tree canopy removal or thinning has allowed additional sunlight to
reach the forest floor. Aside from the possible introduction of weed seeds described above, none of the
other typical factors promoting weed infestations are expected with OSV use.
As with the other indirect effects described above, the most likely places for possible weed introductions
is in areas of concentrated OSV use. OSV trailheads are also accessible by wheeled vehicles during the
summer seasons, so the presence of weeds does not necessarily indicate that they were brought to the sites
as a result of OSV activities. Although there are some differences in designated OSV trails in each
alternative, the locations and uses of five OSV trailheads would be the same for all alternatives. The
following weed species have been found at the OSV trailheads:
•
Ashpan – no weeds documented
•
Fredonyer – Lepidium latifolium and Leucanthemum vulgare
•
Jonesville – no weeds documented
•
Morgan Summit – Centaurea solstitialis
•
Swain Mountain – Lepidium latifolium and Hypericum perforatum
On the Lassen National Forest, there have been no observations of weed introductions or spread
specifically tied to OSV use (Sanger pers. comm. 2015). Roadside weed infestations are routinely treated
during their active growing season each year. Given the uncertainties described above and overall lack of
evidence of OSV use contributing to weed infestations, the risk of weed increases due to OSV use is
expected to be very low for all alternatives.
Other Botanical Resources
Special Interest Areas
The purpose of this SIA analysis is to determine compliance with the intended focus of each of the three
areas that are established as a Botanical Special Interest Area. There is no variation between alternatives
regarding OSV uses in these SIAs, so this section will apply for all alternatives.
Montgomery Creek Grove Botanical Area is less than 5 acres in size, and is heavily forested. Although
the area is open to OSV use, recreational OSV users would not likely visit the area due to the difficulty in
maneuvering snow machines through the dense forest. Therefore, OSV use is not expected to alter any of
the vegetation and habitat characteristics for which the Special Interest Area was established.
At 480 acres, the Murken Botanical Area is the largest of the three botanical SIAs, and is easily
accessible. With the minimum snow depth requirements for all alternatives, OSV use is not expected to
alter any of the vegetation and habitat characteristics for which the Special Interest Area was established.
Lassen National Forest
334
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Willow Lake Bog Botanical Area encompasses 59 acres, most of which is open water. OSVs would not be
authorized to operate over lakes, so the area would receive little OSV use. Due to the restrictions on OSV
use on lakes, and minimum snow depth requirements, OSV use is not expected to alter any of the
vegetation and habitat characteristics for which the Special Interest Area was established.
Research Natural Areas
The purpose of the RNA analysis is to determine compliance with the Lassen LRMP direction. Because
off-road vehicle use is prohibited in RNAs, per the Lassen LRMP, no OSV uses are allowed off
designated roads or trails in these areas, and the current OSV Designation proposal and subsequent
decision would not overrule the current LRMP direction. No OSV trails are currently existing or proposed
in RNAs. However, some RNAs are at least partially open to OSV use in each alternative, as currently
defined by the project’s spatial data. The extent of these open areas will be described under each
alternative. If OSV use were to occur in portions of these RNAs, it would not likely have substantial
effects to the natural characteristics for which these areas were established, other than the noise generated
during OSV operation and the tracks remaining in the snow when OSVs have left the area. It is assumed
that the intent of the Lassen OSV Designation project was to prohibit OSV use within all RNAs, and a
correction of the associated spatial data will most likely be completed with the final analysis.
Cumulative Effects
Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed within the Affected
Environment section. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human
actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.
By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and
natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed to those effects.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Snow plowing at the established OSV trailheads is an ancillary activity associated with the Lassen
National Forest OSV Designation project, and is not analyzed as a part of the proposal. Snow plowing is
not expected to affect botanical resources, other than providing an additional vector for the possible
transport of noxious/invasive weed species. Other ongoing and foreseeable future actions include
livestock grazing, recreation, timber harvest, fuels reduction, woodcutting activities, wildfire suppression,
and other activities. These activities may affect plants individually, but no trends toward federal listing or
loss of species viability are expected due to protective measures deemed necessary during environmental
analysis and implemented as required.
Dutch Fire Salvage and Tamarack Fire Salvage are identified ongoing/future projects in the Hat Creek
area. Beyond the effects of these wildfires, additional impacts may occur to the sensitive species
Astragalus inversus because known sites are present in the Dutch Fire Salvage area.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to Orcuttia tenuis or Tuctoria greenei or their associated
critical habitat, there would be no cumulative effects to consider for these species.
Sensitive Plants
The effects of present and future projects on TEPS species would likely be minimal since all projects are
analyzed and mitigation measures are designed for those species for which viability is a concern, on a
project-by-project basis. When the minimal effects from other projects and activities are combined with
the effects from the current proposal, there would be no loss of viability for any plant species and none
would trend toward federal listing, for all alternatives.
Lassen National Forest
335
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Survey and Manage and Special Interest Plants
The effects of present and future projects on Survey and Manage and Special Interest plants would likely
be minimal because all projects are analyzed and mitigation measures are designed for those species for
which viability is a concern, on a project-by-project basis.
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants are also analyzed for each project, and design features are typically incorporated into
project plans where ground disturbance may occur. In addition, weeds are routinely treated each year as
part of the Lassen National Forest weeds program. The very low weed risk of the Lassen National Forest
OSV Designation project would add minimal risk to the ongoing and foreseeable actions in the planning
area.
Special Interest Areas
Because OSV use would not have direct or indirect effects to Special Interest Areas, there would be no
cumulative effects from OSV use.
Research Natural Areas
With no other vehicle uses permitted within RNAs, there would be no cumulative effects from the OSV
uses as proposed in this draft analysis. With the expected correction to the associated spatial data for the
final analysis, there would be no OSV use in RNAs, and thus no cumulative effects.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1 Effects to Botanical Resources
Detailed indicators and measures for botanical resources are presented in appendix A of the botany
specialist’s report. The following table summarizes these same measures by the major analysis topics.
Table 111. Botanical resources indicators and measures for alternative 1
Total acres on Lassen
National Forest
Acres within 100 feet of
OSV trails
Acres in areas open to
OSV use
8.4 (NWFP area only)
0
8.4
74
0.4
68
Threatened and
Endangered plant Critical
Habitats
23,809
13
22,001
Sensitive plants
2,347
24
1,540
Special Interest plants
5,677
49
5,550
Invasive plants
7,858
55
7,150
544
0
544
13,634
0
1,109
Analysis Topic
Survey and Manage Plants
and Fungi
Threatened and
Endangered plants
Special Interest Areas
Research Natural Areas
There are no additional effects to botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All
Alternatives that are specific to alternative 1. This alternative would generally have the greatest potential
for direct effects to botanical resources due to larger areas of open OSV use.
Lassen National Forest
336
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Threatened and Endangered Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenei, or their critical habitats.
Sensitive Plants
For the five Sensitive woody plant species, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum spectabile, Frangula
purshiana ssp. ultramafica, Monardella follettii, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the potential for direct
damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but
is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For seven of the Sensitive perennial herbaceous plant species, Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii,
Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Meesia uliginosa, Penstemon
sudans, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, due to the potential for indirect effects to occurrences
within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect
individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the
planning area.
For all seven Sensitive annual plant species, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae, Cryptantha crinita, Eriastrum tracyi, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana, Mimulus
evanescens, and Phacelia inundata, because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use
and they do not occur within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV
Designation project will have no impact to these species.
For the Sensitive aquatic plant species, Peltigera gowardii, due to the potential for indirect effects from
pollutants in the snowpack to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the
Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward
Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For all other Sensitive plant not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within 100
feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no impact to
these species.
Survey and Manage Species
As described in Effects Common to All Alternatives, because no ground-disturbing actions are proposed,
there would be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their habitats within the project area.
Special Interest Plants
Special Interest plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as
described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants)
may be directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also
experience indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species,
annual species and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they too may also experience
indirect effects if they occur near designated OSV trails.
Because there is potential for direct damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect
effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, the five Special Interest woody plant
species, Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. depressum,
Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium, and Hesperocyparis bakeri, may be affected by alternative 1
Lassen National Forest
337
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not contribute to a downward trend
or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
Because there is potential for indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails,
eleven of the Special Interest perennial herbaceous plant species, Asplenium septentrionale, Astragalus
inversus, Carex davyi, Carex petasata, Claytonia palustris, Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris, Juncus
hemiendytus var. abjectus, Muhlenbergia jonesii, Penstemon cinicola, Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis, and Piperia colemanii, and one of the annual plant species, Mimulus pygmaeus, may be
affected by alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not
contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
For all other Special Interest plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within
100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 1 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will not affect
these species.
Invasive Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, the risk of weed introduction and/or spread
due to OSV use is very low.
Special Interest Areas
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, all Botanical Special Interest areas would
remain open to OSV use, but this use is not expected to alter any of the characteristics for which each
Special Interest Area was established.
Research Natural Areas
There are no designated OSV trails in RNAs. Black Mountain RNA (521 acres) is currently open to OSV
use according to the project spatial data, but the area is managed as a closed area per LRMP direction.
The portion (472 acres) of Indian Creek RNA outside the Ishi Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area is also
mapped as open to OSV use. Furthermore, due to spatial mapping disagreements along the edges of Cub
Creek and Timbered Crater RNAs, 116 additional acres are mapped as open to OSV use; however, these
areas are clearly intended to exclude OSV use. Graham Pinery, Green Island Lake, Mayfield, and Soda
Ridge RNAs would remain closed to OSV use. If 1,109 acres of RNA would become open to OSV use,
alternative 1 would not comply with the Lassen Land and Resource Management Plan. However, it is not
expected that the current OSV Designation proposal and subsequent decision would overrule the current
LRMP direction, and OSV use within RNAs would be managed as closed areas, thus complying with the
Lassen LRMP.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Alternative 2 Effects to Botanical Resources
Detailed indicators and measures for botanical resources are presented in appendix A of the botany
specialist reports. The following table summarizes these same measures by the major analysis topics.
Lassen National Forest
338
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 112. Botanical resources indicators and measures for alternative 2
Total acres on Lassen
National Forest
Acres within 100 feet
of OSV trails
Acres in areas open
to OSV use
Threatened and Endangered plants
74
0.4
68
Threatened and Endangered plant
Critical Habitats
23,809
13
22,001
Sensitive plants
2,347
24
1,412
8.4 (NWFP area only)
0
8.4
Analysis Topic
Survey and Manage Plants and Fungi
Special Interest plants
5,677
49
5,453
Invasive plants
7,858
55
5,904
544
0
544
13,634
0
116
Special Interest Areas
Research Natural Areas
There are no additional effects to botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All
Alternatives that are specific to alternative 2. The reduction of minimum snow depth from 18 to 12 inches
for grooming would result in no different effects to botanical resources. This alternative would generally
have less potential for direct effects to botanical resources due to larger areas of open OSV use. The area
of potential indirect effects would be the same as for alternative 1.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenei, or their critical habitats.
Sensitive Plants
Sensitive plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as described
above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants) may be
directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also experience
indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species, annual species
and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they too may also experience indirect effects if
they occur near designated OSV trails.
Sensitive Plant Determinations for Alternative 2:
For the five Sensitive woody plant species, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum spectabile, Frangula
purshiana ssp. ultramafica, Monardella follettii, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the potential for direct
damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but
is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For seven of the Sensitive perennial herbaceous plant species, Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii,
Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Meesia uliginosa, Penstemon
sudans, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, due to the potential for indirect effects to occurrences
within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect
individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the
planning area.
For all seven Sensitive annual plant species, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae, Cryptantha crinita, Eriastrum tracyi, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana, Mimulus
evanescens, and Phacelia inundata, because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use
Lassen National Forest
339
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
and they do not occur within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV
Designation project will have no impact to these species.
For the Sensitive aquatic plant species, Peltigera gowardii, due to the potential for indirect effects from
pollutants in the snowpack to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the
Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward
Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For all other Sensitive plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within 100
feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no impact to
these species.
Survey and Manage Species
As described in Effects Common to All Alternatives, because no ground-disturbing actions are proposed,
there would be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their habitats within the project area.
Special Interest Plants
Special Interest plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as
described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants)
may be directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also
experience indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species,
annual species and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they too may also experience
indirect effects if they occur near designated OSV trails.
Because there is potential for direct damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect
effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, the five Special Interest woody plant
species, Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. depressum,
Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium, and Hesperocyparis bakeri, may be affected by alternative 2
of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not contribute to a downward trend
or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
Because there is potential for indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails,
eleven of the Special Interest perennial herbaceous plant species, Asplenium septentrionale, Astragalus
inversus, Carex davyi, Carex petasata, Claytonia palustris, Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris, Juncus
hemiendytus var. abjectus, Muhlenbergia jonesii, Penstemon cinicola, Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis, and Piperia colemanii, and one of the annual plant species, Mimulus pygmaeus, may be
affected by alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not
contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
For all other Special Interest plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within
100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will not affect
these species.
Invasive Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, the risk of weed introduction and/or spread
due to OSV use is very low.
Lassen National Forest
340
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Special Interest Areas
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, all Botanical Special Interest areas would
remain open to OSV use, but this use is not expected to alter any of the characteristics for which each
Special Interest Area was established.
Research Natural Areas
There are no designated OSV trails in RNAs. Black Mountain RNA would be closed to OSV use. Indian
Creek RNA would also be closed to OSV use, in part due to it being in the area below 3,500 feet. Due to
spatial mapping disagreements along the edges of Cub Creek and Timbered Crater RNAs, 116 acres
would be open to OSV use; however, these areas are clearly intended to exclude OSV use. Graham
Pinery, Green Island Lake, Mayfield, and Soda Ridge RNAs would remain closed to OSV use. If these
116 acres of RNA would become open to OSV use, alternative 2 would not comply with the Lassen Land
and Resource Management Plan. However, it is not expected that the current OSV Designation proposal
and subsequent decision would overrule the current LRMP direction, and OSV use within RNAs would
be managed as closed areas, thus complying with the Lassen LRMP.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 Effects to Botanical Resources
Detailed indicators and measures for botanical resources are presented in appendix A of the botany
specialist’s report. The following table summarizes these same measures by the major analysis topics.
Table 113. Botanical resources indicators and measures for alternative 3
Analysis Topic
Threatened and Endangered plants
Threatened and Endangered plant
Critical Habitats
Sensitive plants
Survey and Manage Plants and Fungi
Total acres on Lassen
National Forest
Acres within 100
feet of OSV trails
Acres in areas
open to OSV use
74
0.4
61
23,809
13
21,016
2,347
24
1,328
0
8.4
8.4 (NWFP area only)
Special Interest plants
5,677
64
5,365
Invasive plants
7,858
76
4,647
544
0
544
13,634
0
116
Special Interest Areas
Research Natural Areas
There are no additional effects to botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All
Alternatives that are specific to alternative 3. This alternative would have the least potential for direct
effects to botanical resources due to larger areas of open OSV use. The area of potential indirect effects is
larger than alternatives 1 and 2 because additional miles of OSV trails would be designated.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenei, or their critical habitats.
Lassen National Forest
341
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Sensitive Plants
Sensitive plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as described
above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants) may be
directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also experience
indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species, annual species
and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they also may experience indirect effects if they
occur near designated OSV trails.
Sensitive Plant Determinations for Alternative 3:
For the five Sensitive woody plant species, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum spectabile, Frangula
purshiana ssp. ultramafica, Monardella follettii, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the potential for direct
damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV trails, alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but
is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For seven of the Sensitive perennial herbaceous plant species, Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii,
Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Meesia uliginosa, Penstemon
sudans, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, due to the potential for indirect effects to occurrences
within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect
individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the
planning area.
For all seven Sensitive annual plant species, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae, Cryptantha crinita, Eriastrum tracyi, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana, Mimulus
evanescens, and Phacelia inundata, because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use
and they do not occur within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV
Designation project will have no impact to these species.
For the Sensitive aquatic plant species, Peltigera gowardii, due to the potential for indirect effects from
pollutants in the snowpack to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the
Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward
Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For all other Sensitive plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within 100
feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 2 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no impact to
these species.
Survey and Manage Species
As described in Effects Common to All Alternatives, because no ground-disturbing actions are proposed,
there would be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their habitats within the project area.
Special Interest Plants
Special Interest plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as
described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants)
may be directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also
experience indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species,
annual species and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they also may experience indirect
effects if they occur near designated OSV trails.
Lassen National Forest
342
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Because there is potential for direct damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect
effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, four of the five Special Interest woody
plant species, Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var.
depressum, and Hesperocyparis bakeri, may be affected by alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV Designation
project, but the possible effects would not contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to
the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. Different from all other alternatives, Eriogonum pyrolifolium
var. pyrolifolium would not be affected in alternative 3 because it is not present in areas open to OSV use
or in areas within 100 feet of designated OSV trails.
Because there is potential for indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails,
eleven of the Special Interest perennial herbaceous plant species, Asplenium septentrionale, Astragalus
inversus, Carex davyi, Carex petasata, Claytonia palustris, Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris, Juncus
hemiendytus var. abjectus, Muhlenbergia jonesii, Penstemon cinicola, Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis, and Piperia colemanii, and one of the annual plant species, Mimulus pygmaeus, may be
affected by alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not
contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
For all other Special Interest plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within
100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 3 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will not affect
these species.
Invasive Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, the risk of weed introduction and/or spread
due to OSV use is very low.
Special Interest Areas
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, all Botanical Special Interest areas would
remain open to OSV use, but this use is not expected to alter any of the characteristics for which each
Special Interest Area was established.
Research Natural Areas
There are no designated OSV trails in RNAs. As with alternative 2, Black Mountain RNA would be
closed to OSV use and Indian Creek RNA would also be closed to OSV use, in part due to it being in the
area below 3,500 feet. Due to spatial mapping disagreements along the edges of Cub Creek and Timbered
Crater RNAs, 116 acres would be open to OSV use; however, these areas are clearly intended to exclude
OSV use. Graham Pinery, Green Island Lake, Mayfield, and Soda Ridge RNAs would remain closed to
OSV use. If these 116 acres of RNA would become open to OSV use, alternative 3 would not comply
with the Lassen Land and Resource Management Plan. However, it is not expected that the current OSV
Designation proposal and subsequent decision would overrule the current LRMP direction, and OSV use
within RNAs would be managed as closed areas, thus complying with the Lassen LRMP.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 Effects to Botanical Resources
Detailed indicators and measures for botanical resources are presented in appendix A in the botany
specialist’s report. The following table summarizes these same measures by the major analysis topics.
Lassen National Forest
343
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 114. Botanical resources indicators and measures for alternative 4
Analysis Topic
Total acres on Lassen
National Forest
Acres within 100 feet of
OSV trails
Acres in areas open
to OSV use
Threatened and Endangered
plants
74
0.4
68
Threatened and Endangered
plant Critical Habitats
23,809
13
22,001
2,347
25
1,505
0
8.4
Sensitive plants
Survey and Manage Plants and
Fungi
8.4 (NWFP area only)
Special Interest plants
5,677
64
5,521
Invasive plants
7,858
55
7,028
544
0
544
13,634
0
588
Special Interest Areas
Research Natural Areas
There are no additional effects to botanical resources beyond those described in Effect Common to All
Alternatives that are specific to alternative 4. With this alternative, the reduction of minimum snow depth
from 18 to 6 inches for grooming would result in no different effects to botanical resources. This
alternative would have a greater potential than alternative 2 for direct effects to botanical resources due to
areas below 3,500 feet being open OSV use. The area of potential indirect effects would be similar to
alternative 3.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenei, or their critical habitats.
Sensitive Plants
Sensitive plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as described
above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants) may be
directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also experience
indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species, annual species
and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they too may also experience indirect effects if
they occur near designated OSV trails.
Sensitive Plant Determinations for Alternative 4:
For the five Sensitive woody plant species, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum spectabile, Frangula
purshiana ssp. ultramafica, Monardella follettii, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the potential for direct
damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but
is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For seven of the Sensitive perennial herbaceous plant species, Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii,
Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Meesia uliginosa, Penstemon
sudans, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, due to the potential for indirect effects to occurrences
within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect
individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the
planning area.
Lassen National Forest
344
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
For all seven Sensitive annual plant species, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae, Cryptantha crinita, Eriastrum tracyi, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana, Mimulus
evanescens, and Phacelia inundata, because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use
and they do not occur within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV
Designation project will have no impact to these species.
For the Sensitive aquatic plant species, Peltigera gowardii, due to the potential for indirect effects from
pollutants in the snowpack to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the
Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward
Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For all other Sensitive plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within 100
feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no impact to
these species.
Survey and Manage Species
As described in Effects Common to All Alternatives, because no ground-disturbing actions are proposed,
there would be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their habitats within the project area.
Special Interest Plants
Special Interest plant species in the various plant life form categories would be affected differently, as
described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives. Trees, shrubs, and sub-shrubs (woody plants)
may be directly damaged by OSVs where they occur in areas open to OSV use, and they may also
experience indirect effects where they occur near designated OSV trails. Perennial herbaceous species,
annual species and aquatic species would not be directly affected, but they too may also experience
indirect effects if they occur near designated OSV trails.
Because there is potential for direct damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect
effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, the five Special Interest woody plant
species, Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. depressum,
Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium, and Hesperocyparis bakeri, may be affected by alternative 4
of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not contribute to a downward trend
or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
Because there is potential for indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails,
eleven of the Special Interest perennial herbaceous plant species, Asplenium septentrionale, Astragalus
inversus, Carex davyi, Carex petasata, Claytonia palustris, Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris, Juncus
hemiendytus var. abjectus, Muhlenbergia jonesii, Penstemon cinicola, Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis, and Piperia colemanii, and one of the annual plant species, Mimulus pygmaeus, may be
affected by alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not
contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
For all other Special Interest plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within
100 feet of designated OSV trails, alternative 4 of the Lassen OSV Designation project will not affect
these species.
Invasive Plants
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, the risk of weed introduction and/or spread
due to OSV use is very low.
Lassen National Forest
345
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Special Interest Areas
As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, all Botanical Special Interest areas would
remain open to OSV use, but this use is not expected to alter any of the characteristics for which each
Special Interest Area was established.
Research Natural Areas
There are no designated OSV trails in RNAs. Black Mountain RNA would be closed to OSV use. Because
the area below 3,500 feet would be open to OSV use, the portion of Indian Creek RNA outside the Ishi
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area (472 acres) would be open to OSV use. Graham Pinery, Green Island
Lake, Mayfield, and Soda Ridge RNAs would remain closed to OSV use. As with all other alternatives,
due to spatial mapping disagreements along the edges of Cub Creek and Timbered Crater RNAs,
116 acres would be open to OSV use; however, these areas are clearly intended to exclude OSV use. If
these 588 acres of RNA would become open to OSV use, alternative 3 would not comply with the Lassen
Land and Resource Management Plan. However, it is not expected that the current OSV Designation
proposal and subsequent decision would overrule the current LRMP direction, and OSV use within RNAs
would be managed as closed areas, thus complying with the Lassen LRMP.
Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues
Table 115. Relative comparison of alternatives by botanical resource issue topics
Analysis Topic
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Threatened and
Endangered plants
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed – no
effects)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Threatened and
Endangered plant
Critical Habitats
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed – no
effects)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Sensitive plants
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed –
minor potential effects)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Survey and Manage
species
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Alternatives 1 and 2 equal
(issue sufficiently
addressed – minor
potential effects)
Alternatives 1
and 2 equal
Alternatives 3 and 4
equal, with slightly
more potential for
effects (issue
sufficiently
addressed – minor
potential effects)
Alternatives 3 and
4 equal, with
slightly more
potential for effects
Invasive plants
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed –
very low risk)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Special Interest
Areas
All alternatives equal (issue
sufficiently addressed)
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
All alternatives
equal
Research Natural
Areas
Compliant with LRMP per
existing management
direction and expected
OSV use management
Compliant with
LRMP per
existing
management
direction and
expected OSV
use
management
Compliant with
LRMP per existing
management
direction and
expected OSV use
management
Compliant with
LRMP per existing
management
direction and
expected OSV use
management
Special Interest
plants
Lassen National Forest
346
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Botanical Resource Measures and Determinations
Table 116. Botanical resources summary of measures for all alternatives
Analysis Topic
Threatened and
Endangered plants
Threatened and
Endangered plant Critical
Habitats
Total acres on Lassen
National Forest
Acres within 100 feet of
OSV trails
Acres in areas open to
OSV use
0.4 all alternatives
68 Alt. 1
68 Alt. 2
61 Alt. 3
68 Alt. 4
13 all alternatives
22,001 Alt. 1
22,001 Alt. 2
21,016 Alt. 3
22,001 Alt. 4
2,347
24 all alternatives
1,540 Alt. 1
1,412 Alt. 2
1,328 Alt. 3
1,505 Alt. 4
8.4 (NWFP area only)
0 all alternatives
8.4 all alternatives
5,840
49 Alt. 1
49 Alt. 2
64 Alt. 3
64 Alt. 4
5,550 Alt. 1
5,453 Alt. 2
5,365 Alt. 3
5,521 Alt. 4
7,858
55 Alt. 1
55 Alt. 2
76 Alt. 3
55 Alt. 4
7,150 Alt. 1
5,904 Alt. 2
4,647 Alt. 3
7,028 Alt. 4
544
0 all alternatives
544 all alternatives
0 all alternatives
1,109 Alt. 1
116 Alt. 2
116 Alt. 3
588 Alt. 4
74
23,809
Sensitive plants
Survey and Manage
Plants and Fungi
Special Interest plants
Invasive plants
Special Interest Areas
Research Natural Areas
13,634
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Although occurrences and critical habitat for Orcuttia tenuis and critical habitat for Tuctoria greenei are
located within the Lassen National Forest OSV Designation project, proposed activities are not expected
to affect the critical habitats or occurrences of any proposed or listed species because authorized activities
would occur at a time of year when the plants are not growing, occurrences are located greater than 100
feet from OSV trails, and OSV use on the required minimum snow depths is not expected to result in any
changes to vegetation or hydrology of their vernal pool habitats. Therefore, it is determined that the
Lassen National Forest OSV Designation project will have no effect on Orcuttia tenuis or critical habitats
for Orcuttia tenuis and Tuctoria greenei on the Lassen National Forest.
Sensitive Plants
Sensitive woody plant species may be directly affected by crushing, breaking, or abrasion of stems and
evergreen foliage where they occur in any areas open to OSV use. Plants of other life form categories
would not be directly affected because their living tissues are not present above ground, and would not be
directly damaged by OSVs. Any of the Sensitive plants may be indirectly affected by snow compaction
and/or OSV emissions containing pollutants where they occur in close proximity to areas of concentrated
Lassen National Forest
347
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
use (within 100 feet of designated OSV trails). Thus, these plant species are reasonably at risk to some
level of effects, dependent on their life forms, timing of growth, and proximity to heavy OSV use.
Potential indirect effects are expected to be minor, and all effects would be minimized by the required
minimum snow depths proposed. Although some individuals may be severely damaged and may
eventually die from intensive OSV damage (Pinus albicaulis is the most likely species to be damaged to
this extent), OSV use is not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for any
Sensitive plants.
Sensitive Plant Determinations:
For the five Sensitive woody plant species, Eriogonum prociduum, Eriogonum spectabile, Frangula
purshiana ssp. ultramafica, Monardella follettii, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the potential for direct
damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of
designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals,
but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For seven of the Sensitive perennial herbaceous plant species, Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii,
Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Meesia uliginosa, Penstemon
sudans, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, due to the potential for indirect effects to occurrences
within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project may
affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in
the planning area.
For all seven Sensitive annual plant species, Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, Clarkia mildrediae ssp.
mildrediae, Cryptantha crinita, Eriastrum tracyi, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana, Mimulus
evanescens, and Phacelia inundata, because living plants are not present during the period of OSV use
and they do not occur within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the Lassen OSV
Designation project will have no impact to these species.
For the Sensitive aquatic plant species, Peltigera gowardii, due to the potential for indirect effects from
pollutants in the snowpack to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the
Lassen OSV Designation project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward
Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.
For all other Sensitive plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within 100
feet of designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project will have no impact
to these species.
Survey and Manage Species
For all alternatives, no OSV trails are proposed in the NWFP portion of the Lassen National Forest, so
none of the known Survey and Manage sites are within 100 feet of OSV trails. However, all of the Survey
and Manage sites are in areas open to cross-country OSV travel.
Because the proposed action and alternatives would not produce ground-disturbing impacts, there would
be no negative effects on Survey and Manage species or their persistence within the project area;
therefore, field surveys and site management for these species are not required. Without the loss of
overstory canopy cover, specific host trees, forest floor organic matter, or large woody debris, habitat
characteristics would be retained for conserving Survey and Manage fungi. Occurrences of Cypripedium
montanum would not be affected because the species is dormant and underground when OSV uses take
place. Occurrences of Ptilidium californicum would not be affected because the species grows on the
Lassen National Forest
348
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
bases of large trees and minimum snow depths would prevent impacts as well as the fact that OSV
operators avoid impacting large trees for safety reasons.
Special Interest Plants
Special Interest woody plant species may be directly affected by crushing, breaking, or abrasion of stems
and evergreen foliage where they occur in any areas open to OSV use. Plants of other life form categories
would not be directly affected because their living tissues are not present above ground, and would not be
directly damaged by OSVs. Any of the Special Interest plants may be indirectly affected by snow
compaction and/or OSV emissions containing pollutants where they occur in close proximity to areas of
concentrated use (within 100 feet of designated OSV trails). Thus, these plant species are reasonably at
risk to some level of effects, dependent on their life forms, timing of growth, and proximity to heavy OSV
use. Potential indirect effects are expected to be minor, and all effects would be minimized by the
required minimum snow depths proposed. Although some individuals may be severely damaged and may
eventually die from intensive OSV damage, OSV use is not expected to result in a trend toward Federal
listing or loss of viability for any Special Interest plants.
Special Interest Plant Determinations:
Because there is potential for direct damage where they occur in areas open to OSV use and indirect
effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, four of the five Special Interest woody
plant species, Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita, Betula glandulosa, Eriogonum ovalifolium var.
depressum, Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. pyrolifolium, and Hesperocyparis bakeri, may be affected by all
alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not contribute to a
downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
Because there is potential for indirect effects to occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails, 11
of the Special Interest perennial herbaceous plant species, Asplenium septentrionale, Astragalus inversus,
Carex davyi, Carex petasata, Claytonia palustris, Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris, Juncus
hemiendytus var. abjectus, Muhlenbergia jonesii, Penstemon cinicola, Penstemon heterodoxus var.
shastensis, and Piperia colemanii, and one of the annual plant species, Mimulus pygmaeus, may be
affected by all alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project, but the possible effects would not
contribute to a downward trend or the species being added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List.
For all other Special Interest plants not specifically mentioned above, because they are not present within
100 feet of designated OSV trails, all alternatives of the Lassen OSV Designation project will not affect
these species.
Invasive Plants
Thirty invasive plant species are documented in the project area, and most infestations along roadsides are
treated each year. There is some potential for weeds to be introduced to OSV trailheads and into areas
open to OSV use (possibly transported on trailers, towing vehicles, or OSVs), but the other typical factors
promoting the spread and establishment of weeds (soil disturbance and vegetation cover reductions) are
not expected to occur with the proposed OSV uses. There have been no observations or literature found
that point to OSV use causing introduction or spread of invasive plants, but it may be possible, especially
at trailheads, where vehicle use is concentrated. Given these uncertainties and the overall lack of evidence
of OSV use contributing to weed infestations, the risk of weed increases due to OSV use is expected to be
very low for all alternatives.
Lassen National Forest
349
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Special Interest Areas
For all alternatives, the vegetation and habitat characteristics for which each of the three Botanical Areas
(Montgomery Creek Grove, Murken, and Willow Lake Bog) were established would be maintained. The
required minimum snow depths for OSV use, and design features that prohibit OSV use from operating
over open water would protect these resources from damage.
Research Natural Areas
The purpose of the RNA analysis is to determine compliance with the Lassen LRMP direction. Because
off-road vehicle use is prohibited in RNAs, no OSV uses are allowed off designated roads or trails. No
OSV trails are currently existing or proposed in any of the RNAs. Graham Pinery, Green Island Lake,
Mayfield, and Soda Ridge RNAs are excluded from OSV uses in all alternatives.
However, some RNAs are at least partially open to OSV use in each alternative, as currently defined by
the project’s spatial data. Although the management of OSV uses on the ground excludes these uses
within RNAs per the LRMP, according to the current project’s spatial data, Black Mountain RNA (521
acres) is currently open to OSV use, but would be excluded in alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Due to spatial
mapping disagreements along the edges of Cub Creek and Timbered Crater RNAs, 116 additional acres
would be open to OSV use in all alternatives; however, these areas are clearly intended to exclude OSV
use. The portion (472 acres) of Indian Creek RNA outside the Ishi Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area is
also currently open to OSV use, and would be open to OSV use in alternative 4.
If any RNA areas would actually become open to OSV use, there would not be compliance with the
Lassen LRMP. However, it is not expected that the current OSV Designation proposal and subsequent
decision would overrule the current LRMP direction, and OSV use within RNAs are expected to be
managed as closed areas, thus complying with the Lassen LRMP.
Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies
and Plans
All alternatives would comply with the Endangered Species Act because no federally listed or proposed
species would be affected. With this Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment, the proposed project
effects on TEPS plants have been evaluated and measures taken to ensure that Sensitive plants do not
become Threatened or Endangered because of Forest Service actions. All alternatives would maintain
viable populations of all native and desired nonnative plants, and the proposed activities were reviewed
for potential effects on rare species, and thus would be compliant with Forest Service Manual direction.
All alternatives would also comply with the Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment because Sensitive plant populations would
remain viable and their habitats would be maintained.
Because the proposed action and alternatives do not involve ground disturbance, and would not affect
Survey and Manage plants or fungi, the actions are in compliance with the Northwest Forest Plan as
amended by the 2001 ROD.
All alternatives would maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative plants, and the
proposed activities were reviewed for potential effects on Special Interest species, and thus would be
compliant with Forest Service Manual direction. In addition, noxious/invasive weeds were evaluated for
effects from the proposed actions and suitable prevention measures taken, thus complying with the Lassen
LRMP and Forest Service Manual direction, as well as Executive Order 13112.
Special Interest Areas with a botanical focus would be managed to preserve the characteristics for which
the areas were established, and thus would comply with the Lassen LRMP.
Lassen National Forest
350
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
In the Lassen LRMP, Research Natural Areas are specifically excluded from off-road vehicles uses. This
management of RNAs is expected to continue, and it is not the intent of the Lassen OSV Designation
project to overrule the LRMP with respect to allowing off-route OSV uses in these areas. Thus, the
proposed action and alternatives are assumed to be in compliance with LRMP direction. Still, it must be
acknowledged that the project spatial data for this Draft EIS is not in agreement with the intended uses in
RNAs.
Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
As described in Effects Common to All Alternatives, Sensitive and Special Interest woody plants and
other Sensitive and Special Interest plants in close proximity to OSV trails may be affected by OSV use.
Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) may be particularly prone to damage because it occurs at high
elevations where OSV users often prefer to ride. Without placing restrictions in areas where these species
occur, there could be adverse effects to some individuals. Without placing restrictions in areas where
these species occur, there could be unavoidable adverse effects to some individuals.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Although some adverse effects to Sensitive and Special Interest plants may occur, these plants are a
renewable resource and thus there would be no irreversible commitments of the resource. To a small
extent, excessive damage to individuals could cause mortality and thus may constitute an irretrievable
commitment for Sensitive and Special Interest plant species.
Lassen National Forest
351
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Soils
The purpose of this section is to analyze the potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative effects) of
over-snow vehicles (OSVs) on the soil resource by alternative within the Lassen National Forest. This
report includes:
o
Analysis Methods and Scale;
o
Affected Environment; and
o
Environmental Consequences, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in light of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan
The Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides standards and
guidelines for activities on the Forest including OSV management.
♦
LRMP Standards and Guidelines pertinent to OSV management (USDA Forest Service 1993:
Chapter 4):
o
Prevent irreversible losses of soil productivity: Assess impacts of proposed projects on
the soil resource and take appropriate mitigative action.

The areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance will not exceed 15 percent of the
area dedicated to growing vegetation

Soil cover is sufficient to prevent the rate of accelerated soil erosion from
exceeding the rate of soil formation

Soil porosity and bulk density are at least 90 percent of the measurements found
under undisturbed or natural conditions

Organic matter is present in amounts sufficient to prevent significant short- or
long-term nutrient cycle deficits
o
Field verify existing reconnaissance soil resource inventory data for each grounddisturbing project
o
Conduct detailed soil surveys for all project areas that have an erosion hazard rating of
“high” or “very high, landslides or unstable areas, potential revegetation or regeneration
problems, active erosion or a significant potential to contribute to cumulative degradation
of water quality
o
Retain ground-covering litter, duff and vegetation on at least 90 percent of non-rocky
riparian areas, except when removal is needed to improve vegetative diversity or wildlife
habitat
o
Rehabilitate areas of significant soil degradation caused by off-highway vehicles. Close
trails and areas to motorized use if necessary to protect soils.
o
Map the occurrence of unstable Eocene non-marine deposits and granitic soils prior to
ground-disturbing activities.
Lassen National Forest
352
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
♦
Monitor and take necessary actions to prevent damage to meadows and soils in the high Lakes
area.
Desired Condition
The desired condition for soils is that soil productivity and water quality remain high on the Forest.
Regional Direction
Pacific Southwest Region Soil Management Handbook Supplement (Pacific Southwest Region
FSH Supplement No. 2509.18-95-1)
This supplement establishes regional soil quality analysis standards. The analysis standards address three
basic elements for the soil resource: (1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity and organic
matter), (2) soil hydrologic function, and (3) soil buffering capacity. The analysis standards are to be used
for areas growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed
campgrounds, administrative facilities, or in this case, the actual land surface of routes authorized for
travel by OSVs. This standard does apply to cross-country OSV travel.
Federal Law
National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 532-538)
Section 1 of the National Forest Roads and Trails Act states “Congress hereby finds and declares that the
construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the national
forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service is essential.” This system of roads is needed “to
provide for intensive use, protection, development, and management of these lands under principles of
multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.” (16 U.S.C. 532)
Section 2 of this act states, “The Secretary is authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe,
subject to provisions of this Act, to grant permanent or temporary easements for specified periods or
otherwise for road rights-of-way (1) over national forest lands administered by the Forest Service.” (16
U.S.C. 533)
Implicit in this legal direction is Forest Service authority to withdraw lands from vegetation production
and related soil productivity on the national forest for dedication to road and trail corridors for
transportation and access uses.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This report was developed using the principal elements from the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 and the regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA from the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and Regulation 36 CFR Part 220.
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1608)
Section 8(c) of this act states “Roads constructed on National Forest System lands shall be designed to
standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land
resources.”
Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis
Purpose and Need
The soil resource is not driving the purpose and need for this project.
Lassen National Forest
353
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Issues
Designating roads, trails, and areas for OSV use has the potential to result in ground disturbance and
snow compaction, and this can directly, indirectly, and/or cumulatively adversely impact soil and water
resources through soil compaction, erosion, and displacement.
OSVs, when operated cross-country instead of on designated trails, have the potential for more
widespread impacts from ground disturbance (similar in nature to summer motorized use if there is
inadequate snow cover). These potential effects are highly dependent on location, particularly areas of
thin snow cover, and the amount and timing of use.
OSVs, when operated on designated National Forest System roads and designated National Forest System
trails without adequate snow cover have the potential to also result in soil compaction, erosion, and
displacement and decreased water quality, as described above.
Resolution
This issue will be carried forward through effects analysis in this report. Measurement indicators will be
used to compare and contrast alternatives in the environmental impact statement (EIS).
We addressed this issue by developing an alternative to the proposed action that includes establishing a
uniform 12-inch minimum snow depth for all uses, with some exceptions and added clarification to all
alternatives (via project design criteria and monitoring measures) regarding how snow depths would be
measured, enforced, and used as guidelines to ensure resource impacts are minimized.
This minimum snow depth would minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to soil and water resources
from OSV use.
Other Resource Concerns
No other resource concerns were identified by the public.
Resource Indicators and Measures
Soil productivity and soil stability are the two soil resource indicators (table 117).
Table 117. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soil resources
Resource Element
Soil Productivity and
Soil Stability
Resource Indicator
OSV use on sensitive soils including wet
meadows, areas with potential low stability and
areas with potential erosion hazards.
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Acres of cross-country travel open to
OSV use on sensitive soils
Soil Stability
Minimum snow depths on trails
Inches of snow
Soil Productivity
Minimum snow depths for cross-country travel
Inches of snow
Soil Productivity
Total area open to OSV use
Acres open to cross-country OSV travel
Methodology and Information Sources
We analyzed soil resources within the project area using geographic information system (GIS) data, soils
survey data, corporate soils data layers including the geology and geomorphology layers for the Lassen
National Forest, a variety of reports and assessments of OSV impacts, and professional experience and
judgement using scientific literature on OSV impacts. We consulted the Lassen National Forest Soil
Scientist to help determine where the sensitive soils might be located on the Forest.
Lassen National Forest
354
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Incomplete and Unavailable Information
We performed no field observations and collected no site-specific soils information to support this
analysis. Very little monitoring information is available on OSV impacts to the soil resource. The Lassen
National Forest does monitor OSV use, but no specific soils monitoring has been conducted. Assessments
of soil resource impacts of OSV use were primarily based on the scientific literature.
To determine where potential sensitive soils might be located on the Forest, we used the soils survey data
and other corporate GIS layers to determine where wet meadow soils, soils with low stability, and soils
with erosion potential might be located. The Lassen National Forest does not have a specific meadows
layer or slope stability layer.
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the soil resource are the
area of land managed by the Lassen National Forest.
The short-term temporal boundary for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the soil
resource is 1 year; the long-term temporal boundary is 10 years because climate changes, unforeseeable
future projects, and other factors make assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
The majority of precipitation occurs on the Lassen National Forest from about late October to early May.
At elevations above 5,000 feet, the majority of precipitation occurs as snow, and very little rainfall occurs
during the summer months. The amount of annual precipitation ranges from about 16 inches along the
eastern boundary and the northern Little Valley area, to 80 or 90 inches in and around Lassen Volcanic
National Park, Philbrook Reservoir, and Snow Mountain. The median annual precipitation is
approximately 30 to 50 inches. East of the Lassen National Forest boundary is high desert country with
only 6 to 10 inches of annual precipitation.
The Lassen National Forest has diverse vegetation because of its wide ranges in precipitation and
elevation. In the upper elevations, white pine, red and white fir, and manzanita grow well. Lodgepole
pine, willow, alder, and ceanothus, snowbrush, and grasses can also be found at this elevation. The lower
elevations typically see various oaks (blue, live, and black), grasses, and ceanothus, along with ponderosa
pine and Jeffrey pine.
Soils and Geology
Soil resources on the Lassen National Forest are varied with a diversity of parent materials present. About
85 percent of the Forest is volcanic in origin including basalt, rhyolite, andesite, cinders, and ash parent
materials. These soils are generally coarser-textured soils, but with good water-holding capacity and
abundant nutrients. The southern 15 percent of the Forest is derived from non-volcanic parent materials
including granitics, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks of different ages. These soil types tend to be less
productive and are more prone to erosion, especially on steeper slopes. Tertiary age gravelly sediments
are also present on the southern portion of the Forest and these soil types are more prone to slope
instability and landslides. Lassen National Forest soils are included and described in the Tehama County
soil survey (USDA Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service 1967) and the Soil Survey of Lassen
National Forest Area, California (Kliewer 1994).
Lassen National Forest
355
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Elevations throughout the Forest range from 2,500 to 8,700 feet. The western and southern sections are
composed of gentle to steep slopes; the northern and eastern sections have larger swaths of gently sloping
and flatter stretches of land. The higher elevation portions of the Forest were glaciated in the last ice age.
The soils are grouped into 224 soil map units within 41 taxonomic groups (see appendix A of the soils
specialist’s report).
Soil Productivity
Soil productivity is important to maintain. Soil organic matter and soil porosity are two indicators of soil
productivity. The importance of soil organic matter cannot be overstated (Jurgensen et al. 1997). This
organic component contains a large reserve of nutrients and carbon, and it is dynamically alive with
microbial activity. The character of forest soil organic matter influences many critical ecosystem
processes, such as the formation of soil structure, which in turn influences soil gas exchange, soil water
infiltration rates, and soil water-holding capacity. Soil organic matter is also the primary location of
nutrient recycling and humus formation, which enhances soil cation exchange capacity and overall
fertility. Organic matter including the forest floor and large woody material are essential for maintaining
ecosystem function by supporting moderate soil temperatures, improved water availability and biodiversity (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010).
Soil porosity refers to the amount and character of void space within the soil. In a “typical” soil,
approximately 50 percent of the soil volume is void space. Pore space is lost primarily through
mechanical compaction. Three fundamental processes are negatively impacted by compromised soil pore
space:
•
Gas exchange;
•
Soil water infiltration rates; and
•
Water-holding capacity.
Gas Exchange
Soil oxygen is fundamental to all soil biologic activity. Roots, soil fauna, and fungi all respire, using
oxygen while releasing carbon dioxide. When gas exchange is compromised, biologic activity is also
compromised. Maintaining appropriate soil biologic activity is paramount when considering long-term
forest vitality.
Soil Water Infiltration Rates
Severely compacted soils do not allow appropriate water infiltration, leading to overland flow and
associated erosion, sediment delivery, spring flooding, and low summer flows. Some recent advances in
logging technology and mechanization have exacerbated the problem, as feller bunchers must travel to
each tree and slash is often piled with excavator type, tracked grapple equipment. Main skid trails and
landings are the longest-lasting detrimental disturbance, where many machines travel over the same route.
Activities on moist soils are especially damaging. Work on dry or frozen soils maintains much more of a
soil’s natural ability to quickly restore pore spaces.
Soil productivity within the Lassen National Forest could be most affected by OSV use within sensitive
soil types including wet meadow areas and soils that are prone to erosion. Wet meadows are located on
approximately 1 percent of the Lassen National Forest (approximately 13,759 acres). Maintaining a
minimum snow depth to not disturb the organic matter at the soil surface or compact the soil and reduce
soil porosity are essential to reducing the effects of OSV use on the soil resource in these sensitive areas.
Lassen National Forest
356
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Soil Stability
Non-marine sediments in the southern part of the Forest, as well as some granitic slopes, can be unstable
when slopes are steep (over 35 percent). Generally, the instability and slumping only occurs when soils
are excavated deeper than 2 feet. These soil types make up about 6 percent of the Forest. These areas
generally have a moderate stability hazard, with less than 2 percent of the soils having a high or very high
stability hazard. Most of the remaining portions of the Forest have low-relief volcanic topography where
the stability hazard is low. Old landslides are present within the project area on approximately 2 percent
of the Forest (28,818 acres). None of the actual proposed OSV trails (groomed or ungroomed) occur on
any mapped landslide deposits.
Some smaller portions of the granitic soils on steep slopes and some small areas of poorly consolidated
rhyolite are the areas on the Forest with potential erosion hazards when soils have no vegetation present.
These soil types are found on approximately 4 percent of the project area (64,101 acres).
Existing roads also have the potential for soil erosion (Cacek 1989). The dominant processes in roaded
areas are surface erosion from bare soil areas of roads, including the cutslope, fillslope, and travelway.
Snow cover on roads is an important component in reducing risks of erosion from roads due to OSV use.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Current OSV use would continue on 976,760 acres of the Lassen National Forest under the no-action
alternative. Minimum snow depth would be 12 inches of uncompacted snow to travel on trails or crosscountry. Minimum snow depth prior to grooming would be between 12 and 18 inches of unpacked snow.
Soil Productivity
Incidental direct effects of OSV use on and off trails could include compaction, rutting, and disturbance of
the forest floor and organic matter within the soil in low snow areas. Although snowmobiles generally
have low ground pressure, the tracks on snowmobiles could churn soil and cause compaction with
repeated travel over areas with low snow conditions (Baker and Buthmann 2005; Gage and Cooper 2009).
This type of incidental contact with the soil surface or low snow conditions would likely occur during the
fall or spring season, would more likely be found on ridges that are windy and exposed or on south-facing
slopes, and would be very limited. Repeated compaction of snow can also alter soil temperatures
potentially changing or reducing microbial activity, but some research has shown that with repeated
compaction, soil temperatures were not affected (Gage and Cooper 2009; Keller et al. 2004).
Currently, grooming generally occurs when there is 18 inches of snow on trails, meaning that there is little
to no chance that soil will be exposed on groomed OSV trails. The 12-inch snow depth off trails has been
observed to be adequate for cross-country travel and to mitigate and eliminate contact with soil surface,
compaction, or rutting or disturbance of organic matter on ungroomed trails (USDA FSH 2509.25 for
Region 2).
Soils within the Lassen National Forest that may be most prone to compaction and rutting include the
soils located within the wet meadows. These soils tend to have more soil moisture for longer periods
throughout the year with finer soil textures. Monitoring of wet meadow areas is recommended to ensure
that 12 inches of snow is adequate to protect these sensitive soil types that cover approximately 1 percent
of the Forest.
Lassen National Forest
357
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Moderate snowpack levels have been shown to minimize the potential compaction from OSV use (Gage
and Cooper 2009). With adequate snow depth, on trail and off-trail OSV use would have minimal to no
impact on the soil resource and would not likely lead to any loss of soil productivity.
Soil Stability
With adequate snow depths, cross-country OSV use is unlikely to affect soil stability. There are
approximately 28,818 acres with landslide potential. Landslides within the Lassen National Forest are
generally caused by excavating soil to a depth greater than 2 feet. OSV use on these soils would not lead
to excavated soils and would likely be widely spread out throughout the forest versus concentrated on
landslide prone areas. Even with concentrated use on sites where landslide potential is high, OSV use
would not likely cause landslides.
Cross-country use of OSVs could have a small effect on ground disturbance that could lead to erosion,
especially on soils derived from granitic or rhyolitic parent materials (approximately 64,101 acres).
Depending on site-specific factors including slope, aspect, elevation, level of use, and weather conditions,
trails and off-trail riding on steep slopes could contribute to erosion (Baker and Buthmann 2005; Olliff et
al. 1999). Adequate snowpack would likely mitigate the potential for erosion on these sites. Also, OSV
operators generally avoid traveling over bare soil because it can damage their machines.
Trail Grooming
Trail grooming occurs over a National Forest System road or trail. Adequate snowpack is present on the
trail prior to grooming and grooming is not likely to cause impacts to the soil resource on trails or roads.
Table 118. Soil resource indicators and measures for alternative 1
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative 1
87,292
Soil Productivity and
Soil Stability
OSV use on sensitive soils
(Meadow soils, erosive soils, low
stability soils)
Acres of cross-country travel
open to OSV use on sensitive
soils
Soil Stability
Minimum Snow Depths on trails
Inches of snow
12
Soil Productivity
Minimum snow depths for crosscountry travel
Inches of snow
12
Soil Productivity
Total area open to OSV use
Acres open to cross-country
OSV travel
Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action), 3, and 4
Table 119 provides a summary of the alternatives proposed.
Lassen National Forest
358
976,760
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 119. Alternative comparisons
OSV Management
National Forest System (NFS)
Lands within the Lassen National
Forest (acres)
Alternative 1
No Action:
Current OSV
Management
Alternative 2
Proposed
Action
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
1,150,020
1,150,020
1,150,020
1,150,020
OSV Use Allowed:
•
Designated OSV Areas
(acres)
976,760
947,120
878,690
879,690
•
Designated OSV Trails
(miles)
406
406
406
408
Minimum Snow Depth for OSV
Use on Designated Trails (inches)
12
6 on a limited
basis
6 on a limited
basis
Dependent on
snow conditions.
No restriction
with 6 or more
inches on trails
identified for
grooming.
Minimum Snow Depth for Crosscountry OSV Use (inches)
12
12
12
12
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Soil and Water Resources
• Spill containment equipment shall be available at the facilities where grooming equipment is refueled.
•
Designate specified equipment maintenance and refueling sites and ensure that they are located on
gentle slopes, on uplands, and outside of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and sensitive
terrestrial wildlife habitats.
•
Grooming shall not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could
occur. The operator shall consider recent, current, and forecasted weather and snow conditions to
ensure these conditions are met.
•
Design and maintain all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of
flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic
life.
•
Prohibit OSV use and grooming in wet meadows unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow
or 2 inches of frozen soil, unless there is no other practicable alternative route. If OSV trails must
enter wet meadows, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to sustain flow patterns. Set
crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow surfaces. Avoid actions that
may dewater or reduce water budgets in wet meadows.
•
Adhere to Best Management Practices related to Over Snow Vehicle Use from the 2012 USFS
National Core BMP Technical Guide and the 2011 Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation
Handbook Provide BMPs, project design features, and mitigation measures associated with
compliance. Discuss reliability, cost, and effectiveness of these measures. Use research or
monitoring to back up effectiveness and reliability.
Lassen National Forest
359
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Required Monitoring
The Forest Service has an obligation to monitor the effects of OSV use as required by Subpart C of the
Travel Management Regulations. Furthermore, as an ongoing component of the State-funded OSV
program, California State Parks requires and provides funds to the Forest Service to monitor OSV trail
systems for evidence of OSV trespass into closed areas, OSV use near or damage of sensitive plant and
wildlife sites, and low snow areas subject to erosion.
Monitoring that will occur during implementation of any alternative related to the soil resource includes
the following:
1. Monitor to ensure resource damage is not occurring when there is less than the prescribed minimum
snow depth (depending on alternative) with certain exceptions as described in the alternative
description (chapter 2 EIS). Snow depth measurement locations and techniques would be developed
using an interdisciplinary team approach and would consider terrain, season, proximity to sensitive
areas, and resource damage criteria.
2. Monitor and take necessary actions to prevent damage to meadows and soils in the High Lakes
area.
3. Monitor to ensure OSV use is not occurring in prohibited areas.
4. Monitor to ensure OSV use that is restricted to designated routes is not encroaching outside the
trail corridor.
5. Periodically monitor the effects of the 6-inch minimum snow depth allowed to ensure that there
are no impacts to the road or trail surface under alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The potential direct and indirect effects for these alternatives are similar to the no-action alternative
except that the no-action alternative has more acreage open to cross-country OSV use and has the
potential to have the most impacts to the soil resource. Project design features proposed here would not be
implemented under the no-action alternative either. Also, under alternatives 2, 3, and 4, OSV use can
occur on existing roads and trails with a minimum snow depth of 6 inches instead of 12 inches, which
could lead to localized soil disturbance where there is repeated use at lower snow depths. The effects of
snow plowing and trail grooming would be similar to those effects described under the no-action
alternative above.
Soil Productivity
Impacts of OSV use on soil productivity would be similar to the impacts described under the no-action
alternative. No new trail or road construction would occur under any of the alternatives. Because OSV use
would occur with sufficient amounts of snow to protect the soil resource, there would not likely be soil
disturbance including compaction or the disturbance of organic matter including forest floor litter and
large woody debris present on the soil surface. Existing regulations would allow the issuance of a closure
order if snow cover had the potential to become inadequate during the open season. During times of the
year when snowpacks are potentially more variable, there could be incidental indirect effects including
some minor ground disturbance in low-snow areas. Under alternative 2, the acres open to cross-country
OSV travel on sensitive soils would be the same as under the no-action alternative, but that acreage would
decrease under alternatives 3 and 4 (table 120). Alternative 3 would have the least impact on sensitive
soils and soil productivity overall because the least acreage would be open to potential cross-county OSV
travel within the Lassen National Forest.
Lassen National Forest
360
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Soil Stability
Impacts of OSV use on soil stability would be similar to the impacts described under the no-action
alternative. OSV use would not increase landslide potential on low stability sites across the Forest.
Erosion would likely not increase with adequate snow cover, although there is slightly more potential to
have exposed bare soil on trails and roads under alternatives 2, 3, and 4, because the minimum snow
depth for OSV travel on existing roads and trails is reduced to 6 inches of unpacked snow. Monitoring
under these alternatives is important to determine the site-specific effects of a reduced minimum snow
depth on the soil resource.
Table 120. Soil resource indicators and measures for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 direct and indirect effects
Resource
Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative
2
87,292 (6%)
Alternative
3
73,622 (5%)
Alternative
4
84,529 (6%)
Soil
Productivity
and Soil
Stability
OSV use on sensitive
soils (meadow soils,
erosive soils, low
stability soils)
Acres (%) of crosscountry open to OSV
use on sensitive soils
Soil Stability
Minimum Snow Depths
on trails
Inches of snow
6
6
6
Soil
Productivity
Minimum snow depths
for cross-country travel
Inches of snow
12
12
12
Soil
Productivity
Total area open to
OSV use
Acres open to crosscountry OSV travel
947,120
878,690
879,690
Cumulative Effects
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Cumulative effects include a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of human activities. For
activities to be considered cumulative, their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of
the proposed actions. For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the whole planning area.
Vegetation Management
Several past, current, and future vegetation management activities are occurring on the Lassen National
Forest over approximately 722,391 acres. These ground-disturbing activities could have cumulative
effects on the soil resource if the soil disturbance occurs in the same location as potential soil disturbance
from OSV use. This is very unlikely, as effects of OSV use will be minimal throughout the forest.
Potential road-building activities associated with vegetation management activities could increase soil
disturbance and decrease soil productivity and stability where the roads are located. These vegetation
management activities are regulated by Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Regional Standards and best
management practices to ensure soil productivity is maintained.
In general, snowmobiling is the primary winter recreational use in the action area. Snowmobiling
primarily occurs on existing roads and trails, naturally unforested areas, or in areas with limited forest
cover or associated structural complexity at the ground level. Because snowmobiles operate over snow
that protects the ground, it is unlikely that OSV use has a significant direct impact upon soils.
Grazing
Almost the entire Lassen National Forest is located within a grazing allotment. There are 46 grazing
allotments present. Impacts of grazing are generally limited to areas where the animals bed, lounge, trail
or access water. This generally only occurs during the spring, summer, and fall seasons when no snow
Lassen National Forest
361
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
covers the ground. Cumulative impacts from grazing are unlikely as OSV use will not likely occur at the
same time as grazing, and impacts from OSV use are minimal.
Other Recreation Activities
Disturbance from general motorized use and recreational access occurs and will continue to occur
throughout the Forest indefinitely. We anticipate no changes in the existing recreation profile. Other
recreational activities that take place off the developed roads, such as the gathering of miscellaneous
forest products and hunting, occur within the project area, but because OSV use would generally occur on
minimum snowpack, we anticipate no cumulative effects from other ongoing recreational activities.
Climate Change
Climate change affects and will continue to affect California and the Lassen National Forest in the future.
Precipitation events will likely become more unpredictable and warmer temperatures will decrease the
amount of precipitation that falls as snow, likely decreasing the total snowpack and the amount of time
that snow will be on the ground (State of California 2007). This could potentially increase the amount of
time the soil would be exposed to OSV impacts if seasons of OSV use are not shortened. Potentially, this
could increase the impacts on sensitive soil sites including wet meadows and erosive sites because of
increased soil exposure.
Lassen National Forest
362
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Environmental Effects
Table 121 summarizes the soil issue indicators and the potential effects to those indicators by alternative.
Table 121. Summary comparison of environmental effects to the soil resource
Indicator/ Measure
Alternative 1
(no-action alternative)
Alternative 2
(proposed action)
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Soil Productivity and
Soil Stability
OSV acres open to
cross-country travel on
sensitive soils (including
wet meadows, areas
with potential low
stability, and areas with
potential erosion
hazards).
There would be no
change in acreage of
area currently open to
cross-country OSV travel
on sensitive soils.
Approximately
87,292 acres with
mapped sensitive soil
types are open to crosscountry travel.
Approximately
87,292 acres of sensitive
soils would be open to
cross-country OSV travel
within the Forest. This is
no different from the noaction alternative, and
these two alternatives
have the greatest
acreage of sensitive
soils open to OSV crosscountry travel.
Approximately
73,622 acres of sensitive
soils will be open to
cross-country OSV
travel. Under this
alternative, the least
amount of sensitive soils
will be open to OSV
cross-country travel.
Approximately
84,529 acres of sensitive
soils will be open to
cross-country OSV
travel. Under this
alternative, there would
be less sensitive soils
open to cross-country
OSV travel than the
proposed action, but
slightly more than under
alternative 3.
Soil Stability
Minimum snow depths
on trails (inches)
Minimum snow depth is
12 inches of unpacked
snow prior to any OSV
travel over existing roads
and trails. This minimum
snow depth has been
observed to be sufficient
to prevent contact of
OSVs with the bare soil
surface.
Minimum snow depth is
6 inches of unpacked
snow prior to any OSV
travel over existing roads
and trails. This minimum
snow depth may
potentially create
conditions in which the
road surface is exposed
to OSVs and there is
potential for some soil
erosion or rutting of the
road surface. Monitoring
of this snow depth is
recommended to further
evaluate the potential
effects to soils.
Minimum snow depth is
6 inches of unpacked
snow prior to any OSV
travel over existing roads
and trails. This minimum
snow depth may
potentially create
conditions in which the
road surface is exposed
to OSVs and there is
potential for some soil
erosion or rutting of the
road surface. Monitoring
of this snow depth is
recommended to further
evaluate the potential
effects to soils.
Minimum snow depth is
6 inches of unpacked
snow prior to any OSV
travel over existing roads
and trails. This minimum
snow depth may
potentially create
conditions in which the
road surface is exposed
to OSVs and there is
potential for some soil
erosion or rutting of the
road surface. Monitoring
of this snow depth is
recommended to further
evaluate the potential
effects to soils.
Resource Element
Lassen National Forest
363
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Resource Element
Indicator/ Measure
Alternative 1
(no-action alternative)
Alternative 2
(proposed action)
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Soil Productivity
Minimum snow depths
for cross-country travel
(inches)
Minimum snow depth for
cross-country OSV travel
is currently 12 inches of
unpacked snow.
Potential effects to the
soil are unlikely to occur
with at least 12 inches of
snow covering the soil
surface.
Minimum snow depth of
12 inches of unpacked
snow for cross-country
OSV travel would not
change. Potential effects
to the soil are unlikely to
occur with at least 12
inches of snow covering
the soil surface.
Minimum snow depth of
12 inches of unpacked
snow for cross-country
OSV travel would not
change. Potential effects
to the soil are unlikely to
occur with at least 12
inches of snow covering
the soil surface.
Minimum snow depth of
12 inches of unpacked
snow for cross-country
OSV travel would not
change. Potential effects
to the soil are unlikely to
occur with at least 12
inches of snow covering
the soil surface.
Soil Productivity
Total acres open to
OSV use
Approximately
976,760 acres of the
Forest are open to OSV
use. Under the no-action
alternative, the most
acreage is open to OSV
use; therefore, the most
potential for soil damage
exists under this
alternative.
Approximately
947,120 acres of the
Forest would be open to
OSV use. This is less
area open to OSV use
compared to the noaction alternative, but it
is the greatest amount of
acres open to OSV use
when compared to the
other action alternatives.
The proposed action has
the potential for the most
impacts to the soil
resource when
compared with
alternatives 3 and 4.
Approximately
876,690 acres of the
Forest would be open to
OSV use, which is the
least amount of land
open to OSV use out of
all four alternatives.
Approximately
879,690 acres of the
Forest would be open to
OSV use, which is a
greater area than under
alternative 3, but less
area than the no-action
and proposed action
alternatives.
Lassen National Forest
364
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies
and Plans
This project complies with the Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which
provides standards and guidelines to protect the soil resource and the Southwest Regional Soils Quality
Standards by maintaining soil productivity.
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity
There would be no impacts from short-term uses and long-term productivity on the soil resource.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
There would be no unavoidable adverse effects of any of the alternatives to the soil resource.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
There would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources for any alternatives.
Lassen National Forest
365
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Socioeconomics
This section analyzes the social and economic consequences of management alternatives to allow oversnow vehicle (OSV) use on the Lassen National Forest. The Lassen National Forest is analyzing
management alternatives to designate OSV routes and areas on the forest. These designations will comply
with Subpart C - Use by Over-Snow Vehicles, of the Forest Service Travel Management Regulations. In
addition, the Lassen National Forest will combine the analysis needed for OSV use designations with
analysis to formalize the identification of National Forest System Snow Trails that will be groomed for
OSV use.
The human environment is central to the purpose and need for this project. OSV use designation on the
Lassen National Forest seeks to protect public values related to access, safety, recreational enjoyment, and
natural and cultural resources (ecosystem services). This specialist report analyzes the social and
economic dimensions of OSV use designation.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan
The 1992 Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) does not specify goals
and objectives for the social and economic environment. However, the LRMP’s goals and objectives for
cultural resources, facilities, and recreation are relevant to the social and economic analysis. In particular,
the following goals help to frame the social and economic analysis in this report:
•
Ensure that Forest actions are not detrimental to traditional Native American religious rights and
practices (pg. 4-3)
•
Provide stable and cost-efficient road and trail systems (pg. 4-3)
•
Provide a wide-range of outdoor recreation opportunities to meet public demand (pg. 4-4)
•
Provide diverse opportunities for off-highway vehicle recreation (pg. 4-4)
•
Provide diverse opportunities for winter sports (pg. 4-4)
•
Work in partnership with local communities to expand recreational facilities, programs, and trails
on both public and private land (pg. 4-5)
Travel Management Regulations Subpart C
The Forest Service’s 2005 Travel Management Regulations requires the designation of roads, trails, and
areas on national forests and grasslands that are open to motor vehicle use. Subpart C mandates the
designation of routes and areas for over-snow vehicle use.
Federal Law
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act
The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act requires that economic impacts are considered when
establishing management plans or decisions that may affect the management of renewable forest and
rangeland resources. This report meets the requirements of this law by addressing the economic impacts
of OSV use designation on the local economy.
Lassen National Forest
366
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that economic and social impacts of Federal
actions be considered as part of the environmental analysis. This specialist report includes analysis on
social and economic issues identified during the scoping process to meet the terms of NEPA and
regulations.
National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act and regulations require that the economic impacts of decisions or
plans affecting the management of renewable resources are analyzed and that the economic stability of
communities whose economies are dependent on national forest lands is considered. This analysis meets
the requirements of the NFMA by specifically considering the economic impacts of the implementation of
the OSV use designation project and its impacts on local communities and minority populations.
Executive Orders
Environmental Justice, EO 12898 of February 11, 1994
Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to identify and address any adverse human health and
environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low-income
populations. This specialist report identifies minority and low-income populations in the analysis area and
addresses the potential for disproportionate and adverse effects to these populations.
Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 122. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for assessing effects
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
Measure
(Quantify if
possible)
Source
(LRMP S/G; law or
policy, BMPs, etc.)?
Used to
address: P/N, or
key issue?
Economic activity
Employment
Number of jobs
and amount of
labor income
No
--
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of
recreation visits
No
--
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative
evaluation of
public values,
beliefs, and
attitudes
No
--
Environmental
justice
Effects to low-income
and minority
populations
Qualitative
evaluation of
disproportionate
effects to lowincome and
minority
populations
No
Executive Order 12898
Lassen National Forest
367
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Methodology
Economic Analysis
Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 with 2012 data. IMPLAN is an
input-output model, which estimates the economic impacts of projects, programs, policies, and economic
changes on a region. IMPLAN analyzes the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Direct
economic impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as visitor spending associated with OSV use
on the Lassen National Forest. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector
purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced
contributions are the employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new household
income generated by direct and indirect employment. The employment estimated is defined as any parttime, seasonal, or full-time job. In the economic impact tables, direct, indirect and induced contributions
are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database describes the economy in 440 sectors using
Federal data from 2012.
Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from Forest Service resource specialists. In most
instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are based on the professional expertise
of Forest Service resource specialists. Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption
of full implementation of each alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on
individuals taking advantage of the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each
alternative. If market conditions or trends in resource use were not conducive to developing some
opportunities, the economic impact would be different from what is estimated in this analysis.
Social Analysis
Social effects analysis uses the baseline social conditions presented in the Affected Environment section,
National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) profiles (USFS 2015b), and public comments to discern the
primary values that the Lassen National Forest provides to area residents and visitors. Social effects are
based on the interaction of the identified values with estimated changes to resource availability and uses.
Key determinants of quality of life that may be affected by OSV route and area designation were
identified through the scoping process.
Information Sources
Key data sources for the social and economic analysis include:
•
Economic Profile System (EPS), Headwaters Economics
•
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey
•
U.S. Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, National Forest Recreation Economic
Contributions website
•
National Visitor Use Monitoring program data for the Lassen National Forest, last collected in
FY2010
•
Public scoping comments
Incomplete and Unavailable Information
Due to incomplete and unavailable information, the socioeconomic analysis uses the following
assumptions:
Lassen National Forest
368
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
1. Local economic composition (e.g., sectoral specialization, size of labor market) is constant
throughout the analysis period.
2. OSV trail grooming increases OSV visitor use.
3. Forest visitors’ recreation preferences do not change during the analysis period.
4. OSV and non-motorized winter recreation visitors have similar characteristics to forest visitors
overall (e.g., place of residence).
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
The Lassen National Forest is located in northeastern California. Forest Service economists have defined
economic analysis areas for all national forests and grasslands using a protocol that identifies interactions
between Forest Service resource management and local economic activity. Based on this protocol, the
Lassen National Forest’s economic area of influence encompasses Butte, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta, and
Tehama counties. These five counties form the social and economic analysis area for this report.
The temporal boundaries for analyzing effects to the social and economic environment extend 10 years
into the future (2025). This is the period for which social and economic consequences are foreseeable.
Social and economic change, including changes in recreation preferences, cannot plausibly be predicted
outside this temporal frame.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Table 123. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Economic activity
Employment
Number of jobs and amount of labor income
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of public values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Environmental Justice
Low-income and minority
populations
Identification of low-income and minority populations
in the analysis area
Demographic and Economic Characteristics
The Lassen National Forest is located in northeastern California in Butte, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta, and
Tehama counties. The area around the Lassen National Forest is mostly non-metropolitan; the nearest
major population centers are Redding, California (in Shasta County) to the west and Chico, California (in
Butte County) to the south.
The analysis area counties have high shares of older residents than the state. Plumas County has nearly
double the share of residents over the age of 65 compared to California. Older populations may have
different recreational preferences. For instance, mobility limitations associated with age may increase the
importance of easy access to recreational sites.
Lassen National Forest
369
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 124. Demographic characteristics by county
Location
Population
(ACS 2013 5-year
Estimate)
Rural-Urban Continuum Code
(ERS 2013)
Share of Population Over 65
(ACS 2013 5-year Estimate)
220,542
3 (Metro, less than 250,000)
15.8%
Lassen County
34,018
7 (Nonmetro, not adjacent to
metro)
10.3%
Plumas County
19,586
7 (Nonmetro, not adjacent to
metro)
22.1%
Shasta County
177,966
3 (Metro, less than 250,000)
17.6%
Tehama County
63,241
4 (Nonmetro, adjacent to metro)
16.4%
--
11.8%
Butte County
California
37,659,181
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a and USDA ERS 2013
The five counties in the analysis area experience a greater degree of economic insecurity than the state
overall. Median household incomes are lower and unemployment rates are higher in every county
compared to the state. These economic characteristics suggest that changes in local employment and
income may be felt acutely. Lassen National Forest recreation visitors spend money on lodging, food,
fuel, and other goods and services in the economic analysis area. The designation of OSV routes and areas
may affect recreation visitation and spending. As a result, local employment and income may change.
Additionally, visitor spending contributes to county and municipal revenue from lodging and sales taxes.
Tax revenues are used to fund essential public services, such as emergency management. The
environmental consequences analysis addresses potential changes in employment, income, and public
finances in the context of local economic characteristics.
Table 125. Economic characteristics by county
Median Household
Income
(ACS 2013 5-year
Estimate)
Unemployment Rate
(ACS 2013 5-year Estimate)
Butte County
$43,752
14.1%
Share of Tourism-related
Employment
(County Business Patterns
2013, accessed via EPS)
18.6%
Lassen County
$53,107
13.6%
20.4%
Plumas County
$45,794
17.2%
15.4%
Shasta County
$44,651
13.4%
17.8%
Tehama County
$41,924
15.8%
19.2%
California
$61,094
11.5%
16.3%
Location
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a and U.S. Census Bureau 2015b
Much of the Lassen National Forest recreation visitor spending contributes to economic activity in travel
and tourism-related sectors. These sectors include retail trade, passenger transportation, accommodation
and food, and arts, entertainment, and recreation. Travel and tourism sectors account for a larger share of
employment in the analysis area counties than in California overall. This suggests that the analysis area
economy is reliant on tourism (including outdoor recreation).
Recreation Visitors
National Visitor Use Monitoring data was last collected on the Lassen National Forest in fiscal year 2010.
Approximately 300,000 visits to the Lassen National Forest occur each year (USFS 2015b). Nearly 10
Lassen National Forest
370
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
percent of survey respondents indicate that they participate in snowmobiling during their trip, with 8.4
percent reporting that snowmobiling is the primary purpose of their trip (USFS 2015b). That makes
snowmobile use the third most common recreation activity on the forest, behind only viewing natural
features and fishing, which account for 19.4 percent and 22.0 percent of main activities, respectively
(USFS 2015b). The majority of forest visitors (60.2 percent) traveled fewer than 100 miles to reach the
site. Nearly one-fifth of visits originated from a single zip code (96130), which covers the city of
Susanville, California (USFS 2015b). The NVUM data do not break out visitor origin by activity type.
Therefore, the analysis assumes that OSV and non-motorized winter recreation visitors reside in the same
areas as forest visitors overall.
Economic Contributions
Visitors to national forests spend money on lodging, restaurants, gasoline, entry fees, and souvenirs.
These purchases support employment and income in communities that surround NFS lands. Visitor
spending is influenced by both the type of trip (local or non-local; day or overnight) and the type of
recreation activities. Snowmobilers spend more than most other recreation visitors (White and Stynes
2010). The NVUM survey collects data on “previous and planned spending of the entire recreation party
within 50 miles of the interview site during the trip to the area” (White and Stynes 2010). These data
indicate that a snowmobiler spends an average of $642 ($2007) on a non-local overnight trip and $74
($2007) on a local day trip, compared to $366 ($2007) and $34 ($2007) for the same types of trips among
participants of all recreation activities (White and Stynes 2010). Therefore, snowmobilers spend nearly
twice what an average recreation user spends on their trip.
Recreation visitation (all activities and trip types) on the Lassen National Forest supports approximately
79 jobs 36 and $2.6 million in labor income on an average annual basis (USFS 2015a). The largest
contributions are to the retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors (USFS 2015a). Due to
the high spending of snowmobilers, changes to over-snow vehicle opportunities on the Lassen National
Forest have the potential to measurably affect economic contributions associated with national forest
recreation. The environmental consequences analysis addresses the economic impact of over-snow
vehicle route and area designations.
Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes
Values are “relatively general, yet enduring, conceptions of what is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable
or undesirable.”
Beliefs are “judgments about what is true or false – judgments about what attributes are linked to a given
object. Beliefs can also link actions to effects.”
Attitudes are “tendencies to react favorably or unfavorably to a situation, individual, object, or concept.
They arise in part from a person’s values and beliefs regarding the attitude object” (Allen et al. 2009).
OSV designation may affect nearby residents and visitors to the Lassen National Forest. Public comments
received during the scoping process provide insight into the values, beliefs, and attitudes of stakeholders
in the OSV designation process. These comments reflect diverse opinions on the costs and benefits of
various types of winter recreation on the Lassen National Forest.
36
The economic modeling software (IMPLAN) reports jobs as average annual full-time and part-time jobs. No distinction is
made between full-time and part-time employment, so the job calculations in this report are not full-time equivalents (FTEs).
However, the duration of employment is used to calculate the number of jobs. Therefore, 1 full-time or part-time job lasting 1
year is equivalent to 2 full-time or part-time jobs lasting 6 months each. Both of these examples will be reported as 1 job in this
analysis.
Lassen National Forest
371
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Snow depth restrictions were controversial among some commenters with one noting that “Snow depth
restrictions have always been difficult for the FS to enforce, and have often resulted in Law Enforcement
closing down an entire area based solely on snow depths at trailheads” (Sierra Access Coalition).
However, other snowmobile users found the snow depth restriction reasonable, stating their “support [for]
the implementation of the 6-inch minimum for OSV usage on roads and trails…parking or trailhead
facilities are located in areas where there may be minimal snowfall but exceptional recreational
opportunities remain for the snowmobile community in areas that are higher and colder and may have
numerous feet of snow” (ORBA).
Some commenters believe that elevation restrictions are at best, redundant and perhaps arbitrary given the
snowpack restriction (ORBA, George Van Eperen). Furthermore, another commenter noted that
“snowmobiling cross-country is self-limiting. A snowmobiler quickly pays the high price for riding his
snowmobile with inadequate snow” (Sierra Access Coalition). Beliefs that OSV users self-regulate may
contribute to negative attitudes about Forest Service restrictions on OSV access and use.
The contribution of OSV use to local economic activity, and the potential for restrictions to decrease these
economic contributions, was noted by a commenter: “It is critical that an economic analysis be completed
as part of the environmental analysis…If the restrictions that are currently proposed in the NOI were
implemented this year, there would be a great impact to local businesses and loss of jobs” (Sierra Access
Coalition).
Some commenters noted that motorized and non-motorized recreationists face asymmetrical user conflict:
“Quiet non-motorized recreationists can have the quality of their experience dramatically altered by
snowmobiles, while motorized users often don’t even notice skiers using the same landscape” (WWA
2014). In particular, some commenters identified the following effects that reduce the quality of the
recreation experience for non-motorized users: “OSV impacts on other recreational users include noise,
toxic exhaust, consumption of powder snow and rutting of trails and routes. Because non-motorized users
wish to avoid such impacts, non-motorized use becomes concentrated at the areas where motorized use is
prohibited. Where snowmobile use is heavy, non-motorized users are displaced to the extent that the area
becomes effectively motorized use-only” (Snowlands Network).
A number of non-motorized winter recreationists expressed concerns that shared motorized and nonmotorized spaces pose health (from snowmobile emissions) and safety (potential for collision or
triggering an avalanche) risks to non-motorized users (WWA 2014).
Additionally, some commenters believe that motorized and non-motorized winter recreation users have
inequitable opportunities on the Lassen National Forest. For example, one comment argued that “the
motorized community has more than enough open space to use compared to areas that are exclusive to
human powered backcountry use” (Snowlands Network). Additionally, other comments expressed
concern that the proposed action would leave over 82 percent of the forest open to cross-county OSV use
(Wild Earth Guardians, WWA). As a result of asymmetrical user conflict and few restrictions on OSV use,
these commenters argue that “with fewer or smaller areas available, there will be a concentration of use
which may lead to increased crowding, recreational conflict and resource damage. For example, it is
becoming more commonplace for snowmobilers to travel on dry roadbeds or snow-free trails to access
receding snowline” (WWA 2014).
These views led some commenters to suggest that the forest dedicate some terrain to non-motorized snow
sports only, to reduce conflict: “Motorists with OSVs now travel, per visit, faster, farther, higher and
longer than in the past. This turbocharged magnification of demand for terrain has increased impacts to
forest resources, to air and water quality, to modest (bipedal) forest visitors, and likely to resident
wildlife” (Jeff Erdoes). Snowlands Network identifies the following areas as particularly important for
Lassen National Forest
372
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
non-motorized recreational users: Eagle Lake, Butte Lake, McGowen, Colby Mountain, Lake Almanor,
and Fredonyer-Goumaz (Snowlands Network).
The relationship between OSV users and Pacific Crest Trail users was highlighted in several comments.
For some, “the prohibition of snowmobiles on the PCT trail tread only is inadequate in protecting the trail
and experience afforded PCT winter users” (PCTA). Other commenters, however, argued that OSVs
should be allowed to cross the PCT at any location (Recreation Outdoors Coalition).
Environmental Justice
As noted above, residents of the analysis area counties experience a higher degree of economic insecurity
than California residents overall. This is borne out in the poverty data, which reveals that four of the five
analysis area counties have a higher poverty rate than California. In particular, residents of Butte and
Tehama counties experience particularly high rates of poverty.
However, the analysis area counties have lower shares of minority residents than the state. In California,
60 percent of the population identifies other than non-Hispanic white. In the analysis area counties, the
shares of minority residents are much lower, accounting for between 15 percent and 34 percent of the
population.
Table 126. Environmental justice characteristics by county
37
Poverty Rate
(ACS 2013 5-year Estimate)
Share Other than White Alone, Non-Hispanic
(ACS 2013 5-year Estimate)
Butte County
20.4%
25%
Lassen County
16.9%
34%
Plumas County
15.2%
15%
Shasta County
17.5%
18%
Tehama County
19.7%
29%
California
15.9%
60%
Location
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a
Given high rates of poverty in the analysis area, the environmental consequences analysis will address the
potential for management actions to disproportionately and adversely affect low-income individuals.
Low-income individuals may be less able to adapt to changes in employment, income, and recreation
opportunities on the Lassen National Forest.
Alternative 1
The “no action” alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and serves as a baseline
to compare effects of action alternatives. This alternative would continue current management and would
not affect OSV use in the project area.
37
“Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of
money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is
less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty
thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official
poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public
housing, Medicaid, and food stamps)” (U.S. Census Bureau 2015a).
Lassen National Forest
373
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 127. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if
possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Economic activity
Employment, income,
tax revenue
Number of jobs, amount of
labor income, tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of
public values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and
minority populations
Change in cost of participating
in recreation activities
Resource Element
(Alternative 1)
No change due to
management; increased
visitor use over time would
increase number of jobs, labor
income, and tax revenue
No change due to
management; visitor use
expected to increase over
time
User conflict may increase
due to population growth and
increased visitor use
No change due to
management; climate change
may increase distances winter
recreation users must travel
for adequate snow depth
Economic Activity
The “no action” alternative would not affect forest recreation use or visitor spending. Therefore, this
alternative would not affect the number of jobs, amount of labor income, or tax revenue in the local
economy. Visitor use is expected to increase over time due to factors outside the control of the Forest
Service (e.g., population growth), which would increase employment, income, and tax revenue. However,
these increases in visitor use would not be affected by the selection of any of the alternatives.
Quality of Life
The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to OSV use on the
Lassen National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters
discussed recreation opportunities and user conflict. The “no action” alternative would not implement
management activities that affect recreation opportunities or user conflict. As noted in the recreation
report, conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences on the Lassen National Forest
are currently minor and infrequent. However, conflict may increase as population and visitor use increase.
As a number of commenters noted, user conflict is often asymmetrical (motorized use inhibit nonmotorized use, but not the reverse). Therefore, the potential for increased user conflict may particularly
affect quality of life for non-motorized winter recreation users.
Environmental Justice
The “no action” alternative would not affect the cost of participating in recreation activities on the forest.
Therefore, this alternative would not disproportionately and adversely affect the low-income individuals
and households in the analysis area. However, climate change may reduce the areas on the forest that are
suitable for winter recreation due to reduced precipitation and warmer winters. This could increase the
travel costs (e.g., in terms of time and fuel) for accessing winter recreation opportunities on the forest.
Low-income individuals and households have fewer financial resources and, thus, may be
disproportionately affected by increased recreational travel costs.
Lassen National Forest
374
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is the proposed action, with modifications based on public concerns expressed in the
scoping process. Alternative 2 would designate routes and areas for OSV use on the Lassen National
Forest.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2
Economic Activity
The proposed action would decrease the acres open to OSV use to 947,120 acres, a 3 percent reduction
from existing conditions. However, the proposed action would continue to designate 406 miles of
designated OSV trails and groom 324 miles of OSV trails, which is the same as current conditions. As
stated in the assumptions, based on observational evidence, OSV visitor use is driven by the miles of
groomed trails. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to change recreational visitor use compared
to the “no action” alternative. As a result, recreation-related employment, income, and tax revenue would
not change relative to the “no action” alternative.
Quality of Life
The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to OSV use on the
Lassen National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters
discussed recreation opportunities and user conflict. The proposed action would close 202,900 acres to
OSV use, which is a 15 percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed action would
improve quality of life for non-motorized winter recreation users on the Lassen National Forest who
prefer to have areas separated from OSV users. The increase in acres closed to OSV use may alleviate
some concerns expressed by non-motorized winter recreation users related to vehicle exhaust fumes,
disparities in speed, noise, and competition for fresh powder. Although the miles of designated and
groomed OSV trails would not change relative to current conditions, some OSV users may feel that the
reduction in open acres adversely affects their quality of life.
The proposed action would continue to groom OSV trails in close proximity to the Caribou Wilderness
boundary and to the boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park. Additionally, non-motorized and
motorized users would continue to share trailheads for access. Therefore, the potential for user conflict to
adversely affect quality of life would continue under the proposed action.
Environmental Justice
The proposed action would prohibit OSV use in areas below 3,500 feet in elevation. This may require
some OSV users to travel farther to recreate on the forest. However, snow depths are typically inadequate
at lower elevations, so the effect of the prohibition on travel costs is expected to be minor. Like the “no
action” alternative, climate change may affect travel costs due to reduced precipitation and warmer
winters. Low-income individuals would be disproportionately affected by changes in the cost of
participating in winter recreation on the forest. Overall, the proposed action is expected to have a minor
effect on recreation travel costs.
Lassen National Forest
375
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 128. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct/indirect effects
Resource
Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Economic
activity
Employment, income,
tax revenue
Number of jobs, amount of
labor income, tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of public
values, beliefs, and attitudes
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and minority
populations
Change in cost of participating
in recreation activities
Alternative 2
Direct/Indirect Effects
No change due to management;
increased visitor use over time
would increase number of jobs,
labor income, and tax revenue
No change due to management;
visitor use expected to increase
over time
15% increase in acres closed to
OSV use would benefit quality of
life of non-motorized winter
recreation users; potential for
continued user conflict due to trails
in proximity to wilderness, national
park, and shared trailheads
Minor change due to prohibition on
OSV use below 3,500 feet in
elevation; climate change may
increase distances winter
recreation users must travel for
adequate snow depth
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the planning area include vegetation management,
livestock grazing, and prescribed burns. These actions have the potential to temporarily restrict or
displace recreation use. However, none of the actions are expected to measurably affect annual recreation
use, visitor spending, and associated employment, income, and tax revenue. Therefore, no cumulative
effects related to economic activity are anticipated. The temporary displacement of recreation use may
affect quality of life if preferred sites are temporarily unavailable. However, such effects are expected to
be infrequent and minor. Temporary displacement is not expected to increase conflict between motorized
and non-motorized recreation users. Finally, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions may
affect travel costs if visitors must travel farther because preferred recreation sites are temporarily
unavailable. However, since displacement would be infrequent and minor, effects to travel costs are not
expected to meaningfully add to the potential environmental justice effects described in the direct and
indirect effects analysis.
Lassen National Forest
376
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 129. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 cumulative effects
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Economic activity
Employment, income,
tax revenue
Number of jobs, amount of
labor income, tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of public
values, beliefs, and attitudes
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and
minority populations
Change in cost of participating
in recreation activities
Alternative 2
Cumulative Effects
No effects to employment,
income, and tax revenue are
expected
Infrequent and minor
displacement not expected to
change number of recreation
visits
Infrequent and minor
displacement not expected to
change user conflict or quality
of life
No measurable change in
travel costs
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is described in detail in chapter 2 of the EIS. Alternative 3 was developed to address the
non-motorized recreational experience issue.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 3
Economic Activity
Alternative 3 would decrease the acres open to OSV use to 878,690 acres, a 10 percent reduction from
existing conditions. However, alternative 3would continue to designate 406 miles of designated OSV
trails and groom 324 miles of OSV trails, which is the same as current conditions. As stated in the
assumptions, based on observational evidence, OSV visitor use is driven by the miles of groomed trails.
Therefore, alternative 3 is not expected to change recreational visitor use compared to the “no action” and
proposed action alternatives. As a result, recreation-related employment, income, and tax revenue would
not change relative to the “no action” and proposed action alternatives.
Quality of Life
The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to OSV use on the
Lassen National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters
discussed recreation opportunities and user conflict. Alternative 3 would close 271,330 acres to OSV use,
which is a 36 percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, alternative 3 would improve quality of
life for non-motorized winter recreation users relative to both the “no action” alternative and the proposed
action. The increase in acres closed to OSV use may alleviate some concerns expressed by non-motorized
winter recreation users related to vehicle exhaust fumes, disparities in speed, noise, and competition for
fresh powder. Although the miles of designated and groomed OSV trails would not change relative to
current conditions, some OSV users may feel that the reduction in open acres adversely affects their
quality of life.
Alternative 3 would continue to groom OSV trails in close proximity to the Caribou Wilderness boundary
and to the boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park. Additionally, non-motorized and motorized users
would continue to share trailheads for access. Therefore, the potential for user conflict to adversely affect
quality of life would continue under alternative 3.
Lassen National Forest
377
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice consequences are expected to be consistent with those described under
alternative 2.
Table 130. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct/indirect effects
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative 3
Direct/Indirect Effects
Economic activity
Employment, income,
tax revenue
Number of jobs, amount of labor
income, tax revenue
No change due to management;
increased visitor use over time
would increase number of jobs,
labor income, and tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of public
values, beliefs, and attitudes
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and
minority populations
Change in cost of participating
in recreation activities
No change due to management;
visitor use expected to increase
over time
36% increase in acres closed to
OSV use would benefit quality
of life of non-motorized winter
recreation users; potential for
continued user conflict due to
trails in proximity to wilderness,
national park, and shared
trailheads
Minor change due to prohibition
on OSV use below 3,500 feet in
elevation; climate change may
increase distances winter
recreation users must travel for
adequate snow depth
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 3
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
The cumulative effects under alternative 3 would be similar to the cumulative effects described under
alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is described in detail in chapter 2. Alternative 4 was developed to address the motorized
recreational experience issue.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 4
Economic Activity
Alternative 4 would decrease the acres open to OSV use to 966,270 acres, a 1 percent reduction from
existing conditions. Alternative 4 would continue to designate 406 miles of designated OSV trails and
groom 324 miles of OSV trails, which is the same as current conditions. As stated in the assumptions,
based on observational evidence, OSV visitor use is driven by the miles of groomed trails. Therefore,
alternative 4 is not expected to change recreational visitor use compared to the other alternatives analyzed
in this report. As a result, recreation-related employment, income, and tax revenue would not change
relative to the “no action” alternative.
Lassen National Forest
378
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Quality of Life
The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to OSV use on the
Lassen National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters
discussed recreation opportunities and user conflict. Alternative 4 would close 183,750 acres to OSV use,
which is a 5 percent increase from existing conditions. Alternative 4 would close fewer acres to OSV use
than the other action alternatives (proposed action and alternative 3). In addition, alternative 4 would
allow OSV use below 3,500 feet in elevation where snow depths are adequate. The net effect on
motorized and non-motorized quality of life is expected to be consistent with current conditions and the
“no action” alternative.
Alternative 4 would continue to groom OSV trails in close proximity to the Caribou Wilderness boundary
and to the boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park. Additionally, non-motorized and motorized users
would continue to share trailheads for access. Therefore, the potential for user conflict to adversely affect
quality of life would continue under the proposed action.
Environmental Justice
Unlike the proposed action and alternative 3, alternative 4 would allow OSV use below 3,500 feet in
elevation where snow depths are adequate. Therefore, management actions are not expected to affect the
travel costs of motorized winter recreation users relative to current conditions. The environmental justice
consequences are the same as described under the “no action” alternative.
Table 131. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for alternative 4 direct/indirect effects
Resource Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Economic activity
Employment, income,
tax revenue
Number of jobs, amount of labor
income, tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation visitation
Number of recreation visits
Quality of life
Values, beliefs, and
attitudes
Qualitative evaluation of public
values, beliefs, and attitudes
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and
minority populations
Change in cost of participating
in recreation activities
Alternative 4
Direct/Indirect Effects
No change due to management;
increased visitor use over time
would increase number of jobs,
labor income, and tax revenue
No change due to management;
visitor use expected to increase
over time
No net change in quality of life
relative to current conditions;
user conflict may increase due
to population growth and
increased visitor use
No change due to management;
climate change may increase
distances winter recreation
users must travel for adequate
snow depth
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 4
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
The cumulative effects under alternative 4 would be similar to the cumulative effects described under
alternative 2.
Lassen National Forest
379
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Summary
Table 132 displays a comparison of each alternative’s socioeconomic consequences.
Table 132. Summary comparison of environmental effects to socioeconomic resources
Resource
Element
Indicator/Measure
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Economic
activity
Employment,
income, tax
revenue
No change due
to management;
increased visitor
use over time
would increase
number of jobs,
labor income,
and tax revenue
No change due
to management;
increased visitor
use over time
would increase
number of jobs,
labor income,
and tax revenue
No change due
to management;
increased visitor
use over time
would increase
number of jobs,
labor income,
and tax revenue
No change due
to management;
increased visitor
use over time
would increase
number of jobs,
labor income,
and tax revenue
Quality of life
Recreation
visitation
No change due
to management;
visitor use
expected to
increase over
time
No change due
to management;
visitor use
expected to
increase over
time
No change due
to management;
visitor use
expected to
increase over
time
No change due
to management;
visitor use
expected to
increase over
time
Quality of life
Values, beliefs,
and attitudes
No net change in
quality of life
relative to
current
conditions; user
conflict may
increase due to
population
growth and
increased visitor
use
15% increase in
acres closed to
OSV use would
benefit quality of
life of nonmotorized winter
recreation users;
potential for
continued user
conflict due to
trails in proximity
to wilderness,
national park,
and shared
trailheads
36% increase in
acres closed to
OSV use would
benefit quality of
life of nonmotorized winter
recreation users;
potential for
continued user
conflict due to
trails in proximity
to wilderness,
national park,
and shared
trailheads
No net change in
quality of life
relative to
current
conditions; user
conflict may
increase due to
population
growth and
increased visitor
use
Environmental
Justice
Low-income and
minority
populations
No change due
to management;
climate change
may increase
distances winter
recreation users
must travel for
adequate snow
depth
Minor change
due to
prohibition on
OSV use below
3,500 feet in
elevation;
climate change
may increase
distances winter
recreation users
must travel for
adequate snow
depth
Minor change
due to
prohibition on
OSV use below
3,500 feet in
elevation;
climate change
may increase
distances winter
recreation users
must travel for
adequate snow
depth
No change due
to management;
climate change
may increase
distances winter
recreation users
must travel for
adequate snow
depth
Lassen National Forest
380
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies
and Plans
The “no action” alternative would not be in compliance with Subpart C of the Travel Management
regulations, which requires designation of roads, trails, and areas on NFS lands to provide for OSV use.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would be in compliance with Subpart C of the Travel Management regulations.
These alternatives would also be in compliance with the Forest Plan direction to provide diverse offhighway and winter recreation opportunities.
This report satisfies requirements for socioeconomic analysis, as identified in the Relevant Laws,
Regulations, and Policy section.
Lassen National Forest
381
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Noise
This analysis considers and discloses the potential acoustic impacts of sound related to the following
proposed actions:
•
Designating roads, trails and areas for Over Snow Vehicle (OSV) use
•
Identification of snow trails for grooming for snowmobile use
This analysis compares alternatives that would result in varying levels of snowmobile use on the Lassen
National Forest.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
National Forest Management Act
Specifically for Off-Highway Vehicle management, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
requires that this use be planned and implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public
safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses of the National Forest System (NFS) lands. NFMA also
requires that a broad spectrum of forest and rangeland-related outdoor recreation opportunities be
provided that respond to current and anticipated user demands.
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment established standards and guidelines specific to wheeled
motor vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off-highway vehicle (OHV) use areas.
Unless otherwise restricted by current Forest Plans or other specific area standards and guidelines or
Forest Orders, cross-country travel by OSVs would continue, Forest-wide Standard and Guideline
number 69 (USDA Forest Service 2009b).
Land and Resource Management Plan
The Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) provides
standards and guidelines for areas that are relevant to this noise analysis as follows:
Forest Goals:
Wilderness and Further Planning Areas
a. Protect Wilderness character in designated and recommended Wilderness
Standards and Guidelines:
15. Recreation
(a)(3). Manage recreation according to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes described in
the ROS User’s Guide, as specified in Appendix J, and the Management Prescriptions. Refer to the
separate ROS Map for the distribution of ROS classes throughout the Forest.
(b)(6) Minimize user conflicts by specifying allowable winter use on certain roads and trails (for example
cross-country ski trails, snowmobile-only trails or winter 4-wheel drive only).
Lassen National Forest
382
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Desired Condition
The desired outcome of this OSV use designation process is a manageable, designated OSV system of
trails and areas within the Lassen National Forest, which is consistent with and achieves the purposes of
the Forest Service Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR part 212, Subpart C. The system of trails
and areas will provide access, ensure that OSV use occurs when there is adequate snow, promote the
safety of all users, enhance public enjoyment, minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, and
minimize conflicts among the various uses.
Management Area
The following management areas are relevant to providing both motorized recreation opportunities, and
quiet non-motorized recreation opportunities.
M – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation
This prescription is derived from the ROS class of semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) (see Appendix J of
the LRMP for the definition of this class). It is intended to facilitate dispersed, motorized recreation, such
as snowmobiling, four-wheel driving, and motorcycling, in areas essentially undisturbed except for the
presence of four-wheel drive roads and trails. Non-motorized activities such as hiking, fishing, hunting,
picnicking, and cross-country skiing are also possible. Motorized travel may be seasonally prohibited or
restricted to designated routes to protect other resources. (LRMP 4-60)
N – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation:
This prescription is derived from the R0S class of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) (See Appendix
J of the LRMP for the definition of this class). It is intended to facilitate dispersed recreation such as
hiking, mountain bicycling, horseback riding, hunting, and cross-country skiing in unroaded, essentially
undisturbed areas outside of existing and proposed wilderness areas. Motorized recreation is prohibited
(LRMP 4-63).
Prohibit motorized recreation, including four wheel driving, motorcycling, and snowmobiling (LRMP 464)
S – Special Areas
Recreation: 2. Prohibit motorized vehicles within Research Natural Areas (LRMP 4-68)
Wild and Scenic Rivers: 1. Allow public recreation and other resource use activity based on the
recommended category of each river segment. (LRMP 4-69)
W – Wilderness Prescription
The prescription specifies management direction in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964,
assuming no permanent or long-lasting evidence of human use. Motorized and mechanized equipment is
prohibited (LRMP 4-76).
Special Area Designations
Special Area Designations within the Lassen National Forest that are relevant to the noise analysis include
Wilderness, Proposed Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and National Trails.
Lassen National Forest
383
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Federal Law
The proposed OSV designations will be reviewed to determine their consistency with the following
applicable laws, regulations and policies:
•
Wilderness Act of 1964 and applicable Wilderness Implementation Plans
•
National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543) and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail
Comprehensive Plan
•
2001 Roadless Area Final Rule (36 CFR Part 294)
•
2005 Travel Management Regulations – Subpart C (36 CFR Parts 212 and 261) as amended in 2015
- Use by Over Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Regulations)
Executive Orders
Executive Order 11644 of February 8, 1972, as amended by Executive Order 11989 of May 24, 1977 and
by Executive Order 12608 of September 9, 1987, requires certain Federal agencies, including the Forest
Service, to “ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands [is] 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.”
State and Local Law
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 27200 – regulates noise emitted by vehicles.
CVC Section 27203 limits noise at 82 dBA for snowmobiles manufactured after 1972. Noise levels
generated by OSVs are further limited through manufacturer restrictions. Snowmobiles produced since
February 1, 1975 and certified by the Snowmobile Safety and Certification Committee’s independent
testing company emit no more than 78 dBA from a distance of 50 feet while traveling at full throttle when
tested under the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J192 procedures. Additionally, those produced
after June 30, 1976 and certified by the Snowmobile Safety and Certification Committee’s independent
testing company emit no more than 73 dBA at 50 feet while traveling at 15 mph when tested under SAE
J1161 procedures (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010).
OSV use on county roads and national forest lands are subject to the state standards described above. The
Lassen LRMP does not identify Standards and Guidelines regulating noise emissions of forest activities
(California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010).
Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis
Issues
Designating trails and areas for OSV use and grooming trails for OSV use leads to generation of
anthropogenic noise and the potential to increase noise levels in the short term above ambient levels. This
has the potential to adversely impact wildlife species that are sensitive to this sort of disturbance as well
as the experience of the recreational user who values solitude and quiet recreational opportunities.
Resource Indicators and Measures
The potential for increased noise will be measured by:
• Acres of designated OSV use areas and anticipated change (increase/decrease) in overall use
patterns; model outputs for noise generation;
Lassen National Forest
384
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
•
Miles of designated OSV trails (groomed and ungroomed) and anticipated change
(increase/decrease) in overall use patterns; model outputs for noise generation;
The GIS noise model will consider:
• Proximity of predicted noise increases above ambient levels in sensitive areas to include:
o Points along the Pacific Crest Trail
o OSV trails near Wilderness areas;
o OSV trails near communities;
o OSV trails brought forward by the public as concern areas during scoping (Butte Lake
area);
o Plowed OSV trailheads
Table 133. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects
Resource
Element
Noise
Resource
Indicator
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Used to
address: P/N,
or key issue?
Source
(LRMP S&G 38; law or policy,
BMPs 39, etc.)?
Minimization Criteria: 36 CFR
212.55(b)(3): Consider effects on the
following with the objective of
minimizing: Conflicts between motor
vehicle use and existing or proposed
recreational uses of National Forest
System lands or neighboring Federal
lands; and (4) Conflicts among different
classes of motor vehicle uses of National
Forest System lands or neighboring
Federal lands. In addition, the
responsible official shall consider: (5)
Compatibility of motor vehicle use with
existing conditions in populated areas,
taking into account sound, emissions,
and other factors.
Opportunities
for motorized
winter uses
Acres open to OSV
use, percent change
Yes
OSV
designations
Miles of designated
OSV trails/Miles of
groomed OSV trails
Yes
Environmental Consequences
Methodology
This analysis uses SPreAD-GIS: an ArcGIS toolbox for modeling the propagation of engine noise in a
wildland setting Version 2.0. SPreAD-GIS is based on the System for the Prediction of Acoustic
Detection, a model developed by the Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency to predict and
plan for recreation opportunities in National Forests. Input data includes commonly available datasets
including:
38
39
•
Digital elevation model (DEM)
•
Land cover
Standard and Guideline
Best Management Practices
Lassen National Forest
385
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
•
Local weather conditions (average air temp, relative humidity, wild speed & direction for given
season)
•
Sound source characteristics (from a table of built in source types)
•
Ambient sound conditions (a tool is available to estimate this based on land cover and a table of
background sound for various environmental conditions.)
Spatial Context:
•
Forest Boundary
Effects Timeframe:
•
Short-term effects occur within 1 year.
•
Long-term effects occur up to 20 years.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
The Lassen National Forest has a well-developed winter recreation program which emphasizes
snowmobile use and includes 406 miles of snowmobile trails that connect to six well-placed developed
staging areas.
For over 30 years, the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, in cooperation with the California
Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) Off-highway Motor Vehicle Division has
enhanced winter recreation, and more specifically, snowmobiling recreation by maintaining NFS trails
(snow trails) by grooming snow for OSV use. Plowing of local access roads and trailhead parking lots,
grooming trails for OSV use, and light maintenance of facilities (e.g., restroom cleaning, garbage
collection) are the essential elements of the OSV Program that keep the national forests open for winter
recreation use.
The groomed OSV trail systems on the Hat Creek, Eagle Lake, and Almanor Ranger Districts are
described in detail in the Recreation section of this analysis.
Noise
The sounds associated with OSV use and the ancillary activities of operating plowing and grooming
equipment associated with the winter OSV activities may be interpreted as noise with potential impacts to
other recreational uses, and wildlife resources. These effects are specifically addressed in the Recreation
and Wildlife sections of this analysis.
Sound is a physical phenomenon, a vibration in the air that can be measured. Noise is an interpretation of
sound, or a sound that has characteristics that may irritate or annoy a listener, interfere with a listener’s
activity, or in some other way be distinguished as unwanted (Harrison et al. 1980).
The acoustic impact of sound can be determined by measuring the inherent characteristics of the sound
and considering that in conjunction with the setting in which the sound is heard and the individual
attributes of the listener. Whether sounds are determined to be acceptable, or are interpreted as noise
depends on the values and desires of the person making the judgement (Harrison et al. 1980).
As noted in the Recreation section of this analysis, conflict between motorized and non-motorized winter
users arise due to differing desired recreation experiences, public safety concerns, noise, air quality, and
Lassen National Forest
386
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
access issues. Public comments received during the scoping period for this analysis describe conflicts
related to the creation of noise and air quality impacts that lead to the displacement of non-motorized
users.
Areas of specific concern to non-motorized users who are typically seeking a quiet recreation setting that
is not influenced by the sight, sound, or exhaust smell of motorized vehicles include cross-country ski
trails, the Pacific Crest Trail, the Butte Lake area, Wilderness, Proposed Wilderness and Semi-Primitive
non-motorized ROS classes.
Generally, human related sounds are more appropriate toward the rural and roaded end of the ROS
spectrum and less toward the Semi-Primitive Non-motorized and Primitive end of the spectrum (Harrison
et al. 2008). ROS classes are described in the Recreation section of this analysis.
Sound Propagation
Sound is measured by amplitude (decibels, dB) that determine loudness, frequency (Hertz, Hz) that
determine pitch, and duration of the sound.
As sound waves travel away from the source, they lose energy (amplitude decreases). Several factors
influence how far the sound will travel. Spherical spreading loss refers to the fact that a sounds loudness
decreases as the distance between the source and the listener increases. Atmospheric absorption loss
refers to sound waves being transferred to, or absorbed by the atmosphere. This varies with air
temperature, elevation, relative humidity, vegetation and ground cover. Long distance loss refers to
refraction of sound due to varying air temperatures or wind directions and diffraction or scattering of
sound waves around a barrier (Harrison et al. 1980).
Background or ambient sound levels influence how noticeable a given sound will be, and the setting in
which it is heard influences how appropriate that sound may be.
Table 134. Resource indicators and measures for the existing conditions and alternative 1
Resource
Element
Noise
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Existing Condition
Opportunities for motorized
winter uses
Acres open to OSV use
976,760 acres open to OSV use
OSV designations
Miles of designated OSV trails/Miles
of groomed OSV trails
406 miles of designated OSV
trails/324 of those miles are
groomed OSV trails
Alternative 1 – No Action
By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result
from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the no-action alternative.
Noise
Under the no-action alternative, 976,760 acres would remain open to OSV use and the associated
influence of OSV noise. Noise sources of multiple OSVs and vehicles would be concentrated at plowed
OSV trailheads, and more dispersed along groomed trails. Of the 976,760 acres open to OSV use, only
approximately 304,820 acres are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels (see maps in the
recreation section of this analysis) and the associated potential noise impacts.
Lassen National Forest
387
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences on the Lassen are currently minor
and infrequent, existing conflicts would continue and may increase as population and visitor use increase.
Occasional incursions into adjacent wilderness areas and non-motorized areas on other Federal lands
would continue to occur, and possibly increase as population and visitor use increase.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
1. Coordinate timing of trail grooming to minimize impact on recreation experiences.
2. Configure OSV system to minimize impact on other resource values.
3. As staffing and funding allows, consider areas where additional signage along the Pacific Crest
Trail may be needed to enhance wayfinding for winter users. Agency signage procedures would
be followed. As a guideline, ensure trail markers are at eye level (approximately 40” above
average maximum snow depth).
4. The Pacific Crest Trail would be identified on the Over Snow Vehicle Use Map.
5. Consider areas where antler shed gathering is popular and/or concentrated and if there is a need to
implement seasonal OSV use restrictions or changes in management to provide for this
recreational opportunity.
Required Monitoring
1. Monitor wilderness boundaries and other closed areas near groomed snow trails and areas open to
OSV use for OSV incursions, coordinate and implement increased education or enforcement
actions as needed.
2. Monitor trailheads and groomed trail areas for user conflicts and public safety concerns,
coordinate and implement site-specific controls as necessary (such as speed limits, segregated
access points for motorized and non-motorized use, increased visitor information or increased onsite management presence).
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2
Under alternative 2, 947,120 acres would remain open to OSV use and the associated influence of OSV
noise. Noise sources of multiple OSVs and vehicles would be concentrated at plowed OSV trailheads, and
more dispersed along groomed trails and in open Areas. Of the 947,120 acres open to OSV use, only
304,820 acres are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels (see maps in the recreation section
of this analysis) and the associated potential noise impacts.
Using average environmental factors for the winter season on the Lassen National Forest and the
SPreAD-GIS model, figure 11 shows the anticipated sound propagation away from point source sound
locations along OSV trails. The trail points represent a snapshot in time, and were selected based on
important non-motorized trails and areas. OSV sound source points shown on Map 1 include the plowed
OSV trailheads, points where OSV trails are near cross-country ski trails, designated wilderness areas,
and Lassen Volcanic National Park, and points where OSV trails cross the Pacific Crest Trail. The noise
propagation contour lines on the map show how the OSV sound is expected to spread out from the source
location given unique environmental, vegetation and terrain conditions. The map also shows excess noise
levels where the introduced OSV noise would be in excess of ambient sound conditions.
Lassen National Forest
388
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
As shown in figure 12, OSV noise along the groomed OSV trails near the wilderness boundary may be
heard from within the wilderness area. This represents a short-term disturbance to opportunities for
solitude. This impact would be temporary and short-term as the OSV passes by on the trail.
Figure 13 shows the extent of potential noise impacts from OSV trails crossing the PCT, and near several
non-motorized cross-country ski trails. The experience of non-motorized users along the PCT in the
vicinity of OSV crossings would be temporarily impacted by noise from OSVs. Since PCT crossings
would be designated in this alternative, the potential for noise impacts is confined to the area near the
designated crossings. This would reduce the influence of noise that may be experienced under existing
conditions, since there are currently no designated PCT crossings. Potential noise impacts to crosscountry ski trails are generally concentrated near the plowed trailheads and less as both motorized and
non-motorized users move away from the trailhead.
Figure 14 shows the extent of potential noise impacts at several points, near popular non-motorized
recreation areas.
Lassen National Forest
389
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Figure 11. Lassen National Forest OSV sound propagation
Lassen National Forest
390
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 12. Sound propagation near Caribou Wilderness Area
Lassen National Forest
391
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Figure 13. Sound propagation near the Pacific Crest Trail and cross-country ski trails
Lassen National Forest
392
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 14. Sound propagation near Lassen Volcanic National Park
Lassen National Forest
393
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Ongoing monitoring for user conflicts would consider the influence of noise on recreational experiences.
Site specific sound modeling with the SPreAD-GIS program may be useful to analyze individual areas if
future conflicts are identified through monitoring. The sound propagation model would help determine
appropriate actions to help mitigate the conflicts related to noise.
Table 135. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct/indirect effects
Resource
Element
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Noise
Opportunities for
motorized winter uses
Acres open to OSV use
OSV designations
Miles of designated OSV
trails/Miles of groomed OSV
trails
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative 2
Direct/Indirect Effects
947,120 acres open to OSV use, a
3 percent decrease from existing
conditions.
406 miles of designated OSV trails/
324 of those miles are groomed OSV
trails
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area include vegetation management,
livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and recreation. There are many on-going and scheduled projects
identified in the Lassen National forest which may increase the management presence across the forest.
Noise
The trailhead and parking lot plowing activities and OSV trail grooming activities would increase the
noise associated with motorized vehicles in the forest setting, however this is not a change from existing
conditions. Parking lot plowing occurs during the day when OSV use also typically occurs, so the sounds
generated by each activity could be cumulative. OSV trail grooming generally occurs at night when very
few or no OSVs are operating, therefore the noise impacts from trail grooming would be less likely to be
cumulative with other motor vehicle sounds, but may be more noticeable since the ambient sound
conditions are typically quieter during the night.
Non-motorized winter visitors to the Lassen National Forest could experience noise from OSVs, in
addition to other noise such as snow plows, vehicles on roads, and aircraft that may be in the same area at
the same time, cumulatively impacting the quiet recreation experience in the short term.
Alternative 3
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
The project design features and mitigation measures listed for alternative 2 would apply, in addition to the
following:
•
Education on responsible practices, trail restrictions, or separations to reduce conflicts.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 3
Noise impacts associated with the groomed and ungroomed OSV trail system in alternative 3 would be
the same as alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would prohibit OSV use on more acres than alternative 2, and would designate areas where
motorized OSVs are restricted to designated trails. With additional areas closed or restricted to OSVs, the
Lassen National Forest
394
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
opportunities for non-motorized use (in areas not influenced by the sights, sounds and exhaust smells of
OSV use) are enhanced.
The new OSV prohibitions in the McGowan, Colby Mountain, Lake Almanor, and Eagle Lake Addition
areas, and the OSV restrictions to designated trails within the Butte Lake Area and FredonyerGoumaz/Willard Hill Areas would reduce the impact of OSV noise in these areas.
Table 136. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct/indirect effects
Resource
Element
Noise
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Opportunities for motorized
winter uses
Acres open to OSV use
OSV designations
Miles of designated OSV
trails/Miles of groomed OSV
trails
Alternative 3
Direct/Indirect Effects
878,690 acres open to OSV use, a 10
percent reduction from existing
conditions.
406 miles of designated OSV trails/324
miles of groomed OSV trails, no
change from existing conditions.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would allow OSV use on more acres than alternative 3, and slightly fewer acres than
alternative 2. Allowing use of OSVs below 3,500 feet would enhance OSV opportunities when snow
depths are adequate for use in that area, and with this use, additional acres would be subject to potential
noise impacts from OSV use.
The McGowen area would be closed to OSV use, similar to alternative 3, with the exception of one
designated OSV trail, where OSVs are restricted to the trail only. This would minimize noise impacts and
associated conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use in this area, which is popular for nonmotorized recreation.
Otherwise, noise impacts associated with the groomed and ungroomed OSV trail system in alternative 4
would be the same as alternative 2.
Table 137. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 4 direct/indirect effects
Resource
Element
Noise
Resource Indicator
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Opportunities for motorized
winter uses
Acres open to OSV use
OSV designations
Miles of designated OSV
trails/Miles of groomed OSV
trails
Alternative 4
Direct/Indirect Effects
966,270 acres open to OSV use, a 1
percent reduction from existing
conditions.
406 miles of designated OSV trails/324
miles of groomed OSV trails, no change
from existing conditions.
Summary
Degree to Which the Purpose and Need for Action is Met
All of the action alternatives (alternative 2, 3, and 4) equally meet the purpose and need to effectively
manage OSV use by identifying a manageable system of OSV trails and areas per Subpart C of the Travel
Lassen National Forest
395
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Management Regulations and to identify OSV trails for grooming to provide a high quality OSV trail
system.
Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues
Table 138 provides a comparison of the alternatives and the degree to which the alternatives address the
noise related issues.
Table 138. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues
Issue
Noise
Indicator/Measure
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Opportunities for
motorized winter
uses/Acres
976,760 acres
open to OSV use
and potentially
affected by
noise/173,260
acres closed to
OSV use and
available for quiet
recreation
947,120 acres
open to OSV use
and potentially
affected by
noise/202,900
acres closed to
OSV use and
available for quiet
recreation
878,690 acres
open to OSV use
and potentially
affected by
noise/271,330
acres closed to
OSV use and
available for quiet
recreation
966,270 acres
open to OSV use
and potentially
affected by
noise/183,750
acres closed to
OSV use and
available for quiet
recreation
OSV designations /
Miles
406 miles
designated /324
miles groomed
406 miles
designated /324
miles groomed
406 miles
designated /324
miles groomed
406 miles
designated /324
miles groomed
No change from
existing
conditions.
No change from
existing
conditions.
No change from
existing
conditions.
Summary of Environmental Effects
All action alternatives provide the same level of groomed motorized OSV trail opportunities, and
therefore the same degree of potential noise impacts associated with trail use. Cross-country travel by
OSV is limited by minimum snow depth requirements for all action alternatives; however, alternative 4
provides the most flexibility in application of the minimum snow depth requirements on OSV trails with
underlying NFS system roads and trails to access higher elevations and adequate snow depths. Alternative
4 provides the most access for motorized OSV use, compared to alternatives 2 and 3, and therefore the
greatest potential for noise impacts across the Forest.
Alternative 3 enhances opportunities for quiet, non-motorized recreation with the designation of areas
where OSVs would be prohibited, or restricted to designated OSV trails, while maintaining the existing
level of groomed OSV trail opportunities. Alternative 3 minimizes the potential impacts from noise
associated with OSV use to a greater extent than alternatives 2 and 4.
Alternative 2 maintains OSV opportunities, and associated potential for impacts from noise, most similar
to the existing conditions on the Lassen National Forest.
Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
Alternative 1, No Action, would not comply with Subpart C of the Travel Management regulations that
requires designation of roads, trails, and areas on NFS lands to provide for over-snow vehicle use.
Alternative 1 would not implement the management area direction from the Lassen Forest Plan to prohibit
motorized use in the Blacks Mountain Research Natural Area.
Lassen National Forest
396
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would comply with Subpart C of the Travel Management regulations and the
Lassen Forest Plan.
Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity
Short-term uses will not affect the long-term productivity of recreation resources
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Allowing motorized OSV use, which is an acceptable use of NFS lands unavoidably, affects nonmotorized or quiet opportunities in some areas, as discussed in the analysis related to conflicts between
motorized and non-motorized winter experiences.
Lassen National Forest
397
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Air Quality
Air quality is a key resource and a valued element of the forest experience. Air quality is protected
under several provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Potential impacts to air quality from winter use on the
Lassen National Forest include issues related to OSV 40 emissions. This analysis describes the existing
condition of air quality on the Lassen National Forest and evaluates the potential changes and effects
of the alternatives on air quality.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan
The Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992) provides standards and
guidelines for Air Quality. The LRMP states Forest Standards and Guidelines call for compliance with
State and local air quality requirements, and minimizing of smoke encroachment from prescribed burning
(pg. 2-1).
The Forest Standards and Guidelines, with regard to OSV use, apply to the entire Forest.
a. Maintain air quality to meet or exceed legal requirements of appropriate levels of
Government.
(1) Comply with the Federal Clean Act, as amended, and State and local air quality
regulations.
Federal Clean Air Act
In 1963, Congress passed the Federal Clean Air Act and amended the act in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The
purpose of the act is to protect and enhance air quality while ensuring the protection of public health and
welfare. The 1970 amendments established National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which must be met
by most state and Federal agencies, including the Forest Service.
States are given the primary responsibility for air quality management. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
requires states to develop state implementation plans that identify how the State will attain and maintain
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act also allows states, and some
counties, to adopt unique permitting procedures and to apply more stringent standards. California has set
standards for certain pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, which are more protective of public
health than respective Federal standards. California has also set standards for some pollutants that are not
addressed by Federal standards including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing
particles.
The Clean Air Act requires that Forest Service actions have “no adverse effect” on air resources by
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and non-degradation standards for Class 1 areas.
Managers are further directed to improve existing substandard conditions and reverse negative trends
40
An OSV is defined in the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule as “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and
that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow” (36 CFR 212.1) (DEIS 2015).
Lassen National Forest
398
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
where practicable. The NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for particle
pollution as set by the Clean Air Act and California Air Resources Board can be viewed online at the
California Air Resources Board webpage. 41
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
NAAQS requirements were established to protect human health and the environment and acceptable
maximum air quality concentrations. The NAAQS consist of numerical standards for air pollution, which
are broken into “primary” and “secondary” standards for six major air pollutants described below. Primary
standards protect public health (including sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly) and represent levels at which there are no known major effects on human health. Secondary
standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water,
visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment (EPA 2010j). These standards are
detailed in Figure 15 along with footnote information located in the appendix found in the air quality
specialist report.
California Air Resources Board
California law authorizes the California Air Resources Board to set ambient (outdoor) air pollution
standards (California Health & Safety Code section 39606) in consideration of public health, safety, and
welfare. The Air Resources Board has established State Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) to
identify outdoor pollutant levels considered safe for the public. After State standards are established, State
law requires the Air Resources Board to designate each area as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified
for each State standard. The area designations, which are based on the most recent available data, indicate
the healthfulness of air quality throughout the State (ARB 2015). The State and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards are displayed in Figure 15. Footnote information can be found in the appendix in the
air quality specialist report. (Further information can be found at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/statedesig.htm).
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for meeting the Clean Air Act requirements.
The Air Resources Board has further delegated the authority to local Air Pollution Control Districts
(APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) for stationary sources, while retaining the
authority for mobile sources. Air quality rules and regulations for California can be found at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm. The APCD/AQMD has the primary responsibility for meeting the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. This responsibility is carried out through the development and
execution of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which must provide for the attainment and maintenance
of air quality standards.
State Implementation Plans are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act set deadlines
for attainment based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem.
State Implementation Plans are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, district
rules, state regulations and Federal controls. State law makes the Air Resources Board the lead agency for
all purposes related to the State Implementation Plan. Local air districts and other agencies prepare state
implementation plan elements and submit them to the Air Resources Board for review and approval. The
Air Resources Board forwards state implementation plan revisions to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations
41
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
Lassen National Forest
399
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of the items which are included in the
California SIP (http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/background.htm).
The Forest Service is required to comply with all requirements of the California State Implementation
Plan.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The Clean Air Act established the PSD program to protect air quality in relatively clean areas. One purpose
of the PSD program is to protect public health and welfare, including natural resources, from adverse
effects that might occur even though NAAQS are not violated. Another purpose is to preserve, protect, and
enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national
seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The PSD program applies to new major sources and major modifications to
existing sources. A key component of the PSD program is the PSD increment which is the amount of
pollution an area is allowed to increase. PSD increments prevent the air quality in clean areas from
deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS is a maximum allowable concentration
"ceiling." A PSD increment, on the other hand, is the maximum allowable increase in concentration that is
allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for a pollutant (EPA 2015c)
Regional Haze Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 40 CFR Part 5)
The Federal Clean Air Act of 1977 declared a national goal to remedy existing visibility impairment and
prevent future haze caused by man-made air pollution at selected national parks and wilderness areas of
the United States, known as Class 1 Areas. California has 29 mandatory Class 1 Areas managed by either
the National Parks Service or the U.S. Forest Service (more than any other state). In 1999, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated a regional haze regulation (40 CFR 51.308309) that calls for states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies to make initial improvements
in visibility at their respective Class 1 Areas. Visibility variation occurs as a result of the scattering and
absorption of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere. It also mandates each state to develop a
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan to incorporate measures necessary to make reasonable progress
towards national visibility goals. In 2009, the Air Resources Board (ARB) prepared a Regional Haze Plan
(RH Plan) for California demonstrating reasonable progress in reducing haze by 2018, the first
benchmark year on the path to improved visibility. U.S. EPA funded five Regional Planning
Organizations throughout the country to coordinate regional haze rule-related activities between states in
each region. California belongs to the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), the consensus
organization of western states, tribes, and Federal agencies, which oversee analyses of monitoring data
and preparation of technical reports regarding regional haze in the western United States (see Figure 18.
Class 1 Areas in California).
Lassen National Forest
400
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 15. State and national ambient air quality standards
Criteria Pollutants Regulated by EPA
Ozone (O3) is the most widespread air quality problem in the state. It is a colorless gas with a pungent,
irritating odor. Ozone, an important ingredient of smog, is a highly reactive and unstable gas capable of
damaging the linings of the respiratory tract. This pollutant forms in the atmosphere through complex
reactions between chemicals directly emitted from vehicles, industrial plants, and many other sources.
Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard can lead to human health
Lassen National Forest
401
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
effects such as lung inflammation and tissue damage and impaired lung functioning. The ozone that ARB
regulates as an air pollutant is produced close to the ground level, where people live, exercise, and
breathe. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is concerned about ozone pollution because of its
effects on the health of Californians and the environment (ARB 2015).
Review of Ozone Standard − In April 2005, the Air Resources Board approved a new 8-hour standard of
0.070 ppm and retained the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.09 after an extensive review of the scientific
literature (ARB 2015).
Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke
and liquid droplets. Many manmade and natural sources emit PM directly or emit other pollutants that
react in the atmosphere to form PM. Particles less than 10 micrometers pose a health concern because
they can be inhaled into and accumulate in the respiratory system. PM 2.5 are referred to as “fine” particles
and believed to pose the greatest health risks. Sources include motor vehicles, power plants, wood
burning. (source: EPA.gov)
Particulate Matter 10 (PM 10) are the larger particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers found in the air
including smoke and dust from factories, farming, roads, mold, spores and pollen. Major concerns for
human health from exposure to PM10 include: effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage to
lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. Acidic PM10 can also damage human-made materials and is a
major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S. (source: EPA.gov)
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major
sources of lead emissions have historically been from fuels in on-road motor vehicles (such as cars and
trucks) and industrial sources. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts to remove lead from on-road motor
vehicle gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent
between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999.
Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead
emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded
aviation gasoline (source: EPA.gov).
Nitrogen Dioxide (No2) is a reddish-brown gas with an irritating odor. It is emitted from motor vehicles,
industrial facilities, and power plants. Indoors, home heaters and gas stoves also produce substantial
amounts of NO2. Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide are products of all types of combustion. Nitric oxide
reacts with hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight to form nitrogen dioxide. In the summer months NO2
is a major component of photochemical smog and an essential ingredient in the formation of ground-level
ozone pollution. Exposure to NO2 along with other traffic-related pollutants, is associated with respiratory
symptoms, episodes of respiratory illness and impaired lung functioning. In February 2007, the Air
Resources Board established a new annual average NO2 standard of 0.030 ppm and lowered the one-hour
NO2 standard to 0.18 ppm, after an extensive review of the scientific literature (source: ARB 2015).
Carbon Monoxide (CO) A colorless, odorless gas, carbon monoxide is a byproduct of incomplete
combustion and is emitted directly into the atmosphere, primarily from motor vehicle exhaust. Carbon
monoxide concentrations typically peak nearest a source, such as roadways, and decrease rapidly as
distance from the source increases. Carbon monoxide is readily absorbed into the body from the lungs. It
decreases the capacity of the blood to transport oxygen, leading to health risks for unborn children and
people suffering from heart and lung disease. The symptoms of excessive exposure headaches, fatigue,
slow reflexes, and dizzinessalso occur in healthy people (source: ARB 2015).
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas with a strong, suffocating odor, sulfur dioxide is primarily a
combustion product of coal, fuel oil, and diesel fuel. Only small quantities of SO2 come from gasolineLassen National Forest
402
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
fueled motor vehicle exhaust. Sulfur Dioxide is emitted directly into the atmosphere and can remain
suspended for days allowing for wide distribution of the pollutant. Sulfur dioxide can trigger constriction
of the airways, causing particular difficulties for asthmatics. Children can experience increased
respiratory tract infections and healthy people may experience sore throats, coughing, and breathing
difficulties. Long-term exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or
cardiovascular disease (source: ARB 2015).
The California Air Resources Board has monitored the gaseous criteria pollutants carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide since its inception in 1968. Monitoring is performed to
demonstrate attainment or non-attainment of national and state ambient air quality standards.
Desired Condition
The Lassen LRMP states for the desired future condition that present air quality is maintained. Baseline
conditions for all air quality-related values are defined and limits of acceptable change are established for
Class 1 wilderness areas. (LRMP pg 4-2)
Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis
Issues
Designating roads, trails, and areas for OSV use and grooming trails for OSV use have the potential to
generate exhaust and emit pollutants into the air. This has the potential to degrade air quality, which can
impact recreational users and sensitive areas.
Resource Indicators and Measures
The air quality analysis is a qualitative discussion comparing miles of trails open to OSV use and acres
open to OSV use. The resource indicators are shown in Table 139 and will be used throughout the
analysis to compare the alternatives and their potential effects to air quality.
Lassen National Forest
403
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 139. Air quality resource indicators and measures for assessing effects
Resource
Element
Air
Quality
Resource
Indicator
Measure
Used to
address: P/N,
or key issue?
Source
(LRMP S/G; law or policy,
BMPs, etc.)?
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease)
in emissions and
the potential to
create adverse
impacts to air
quality.
Miles of trail open to
OSV visitor use.
No
Forest Standards and Guidelines
(pg. 4-15)
Air Quality
a. Maintain air quality to
meet or exceed legal
requirements of
appropriate levels of
government.
1. Comply with the Federal
Clean Air Act, as
amended, and state and
local air quality
regulations.
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease)
in emissions and
the potential to
create adverse
impacts to air
quality.
Acres open to OSV
visitor use.
No
Forest Standards and Guidelines
(pg. 4-15)
Air Quality
a. Maintain air quality to
meet or exceed legal
requirements of
appropriate levels of
government.
1.
Potential effects of
OSV emissions to
create adverse
impacts to air
quality.
Shifts in OSV use in
relation to sensitive
areas (Class 1 and II
areas).
No
Comply with the
Federal Clean Air Act,
as amended, and state
and local air quality
regulations.
Forest Standards and Guidelines
(pg. 4-15)
Air Quality
a. Maintain air quality to
meet or exceed legal
requirements of
appropriate levels of
government.
1. Comply with the Federal
Clean Air Act, as
amended, and state and
local air quality
regulations.
LRMP (pg. 3-3)
Caribou, Thousand Lakes, and
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
Areas are designated as Class I
areas, allowing no degradation in
air quality.
Lassen National Forest
404
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequences
Methodology
Information Sources
Information sources used for this analysis are listed below and represent some of best available
information that was available at the time of report writing.
•
ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers from the Lassen National
Forest, Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board were used.
Including county boundaries, air basin boundaries, air district boundaries and class 1 and 2 areas.
•
GIS layer of proposed OSV designations and groomed trails
•
Lassen National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1992).
•
Scientific literature cited in the “References” section.
•
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) information from the years 2001, 2006, and 2010
was reviewed.
•
OSV use was from the 2009 OSV Winter Trailhead Survey conducted in support of the 2010 State
OSV Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Program Years 2010-2020.
•
Information and correspondence obtained from the Air Resource Specialist at CARB.
Incomplete and Unavailable Information
No information was found on past monitoring of air quality or OSV emissions in the Lassen National
Forest.
Assumptions used in the Analysis
For analysis purposes, snowmobile emission data used was obtained from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 2010). Analysis was based on emission estimates for a 2-stroke snowmobile (worst-case
scenario). Snowmobile miles traveled per day was estimated at 50 miles/day and was averaged based on
the responses received through a survey forum (snowest.com).
Forest-wide, 10,020 OSV visitors were estimated for the winter season (Valentine 2015).
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
The spatial context for effects analysis will be the forest boundary. The temporal context for effects
analysis will be one year.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Air Quality Management
California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the
State on a regional basis. An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions
throughout. The State is currently divided into 15 air basins; the Lassen National Forest lies mostly within
the Sacramento Valley and Northwest Plateau with a small portion in the Mountain Counties Air Basin
(Figure 16. Designated air basins in California).
Lassen National Forest
405
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Figure 16. Designated air basins in California
Air Pollution Control District
Air Quality for the forest is managed and regulated by seven air management districts. Air management
districts typically follow county boundaries. Most of the forest lies within the Shasta and Lassen air
districts with the southern third of the forest in the Tehama, Northern Sierra (Nevada, Plumas and Sierra
counties) and Butte Districts and the northern portion within the Siskiyou and Modoc Air Districts. See
(Figure 17) for a map of air districts in relation to the Lassen National Forest. Air quality rules and
regulations for each air pollution control district can be found at their website.
Lassen National Forest
406
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 17. Air pollution control districts within the Lassen National Forest
Class 1 and II Areas
The Thousand Lakes and Caribou Wilderness are designated as Federal Class 1 Areas on the Lassen
National Forest (Figure 18. Class 1 Areas in California). The Lassen Volcanic National Park, managed by
the National Park Service, is also a designated Class 1 area that is surrounded by the Lassen National
Forest. The Caribou Wilderness lies along the eastern boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park and the
Thousand Lakes Wilderness is located northwest of Lassen National Park. The Ishi Wilderness lies in the
southwest portion of the forest and is classified as a Class II area by EPA, which allows some reduction in
air quality.
Visibility impairment is defined as any humanly perceptible change in visual air quality from that which
would have existed under natural conditions (in other words, absent anthropogenic influence). This
change is caused by air pollutants: particles and gases in the atmosphere which either scatter or absorb
light. The net effect is the creation of a hazy condition. Sources for visibility impairment in these Class 1
areas include, but are not limited to, industrial sources, on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, road dust,
windblown dust, and smoke. Sources can be local or very distant. Progress toward better visibility is
calculated from data collected at the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) network. The IMPROVE monitors measure the concentration of each haze-causing pollutant
every three days. There are 17 IMPROVE monitors representing one or more of the Class 1 Areas in
California. The LAV01 IMPROVE Monitoring site is located at Lassen Volcanic National Park. Smoke
directly impacted the Class 1 Areas and had an overwhelming impact on visibility progress at many
monitoring sites throughout California and the west (ARB 2014).
Lassen National Forest
407
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
However, the Air Resources Board also noted, as evidenced by reductions in anthropogenic source
emissions in California and the concurrent improvement in visibility at all of California’s Class 1 Area
IMPROVE monitors, California determines the current Regional Haze plan strategies are sufficient for
California and its neighboring states to meet their 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals (ARB 2014).
Figure 18. Class 1 Areas in California
Air Quality Standards
The Lassen National Forest must comply with federal and state ambient air quality standards as mandated
by the Clean Air Act of 1963. These standards have been established for seven criteria air pollutants:
carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, PM2.5, ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). California also has standards in place for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles,
and vinyl chloride (ARB 2015)
Lassen National Forest
408
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
These pollutants can affect human health, reduce visibility, and lead to acidic deposition in sensitive,
high-elevation lakes. Air quality within the Lassen National Forest is potentially affected by land
management and development activities both on and off the forest. Sources of air pollutants include forest
management activities such as wildland fires (both natural and management ignited), road dust, and
vehicle emissions. These sources, as well as industrial sources and emissions from urban developments
(gas stations, restaurants, railroads, and wood burning stoves) are also found outside Forest Service
administered lands.
Currently, the Lassen National Forest complies with Federal and State standards and there are no known
violations of the Clean Air Act. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Butte County is in
non-attainment for three criteria pollutants, 8-hour ozone, carbon monoxide and PM 2.5. The nonattainment boundary for 8-hour Ozone crosses the Lassen National Forest at the south central section on
the Almanor Ranger District. The concern for Ozone is in the summer only according to the Air
Pollution Specialist at the Air Resources Board (Lopina 2015). The city of Chico, California, within the
Butte Air Pollution Control District is in non-attainment for carbon monoxide and PM 2.5. A portion of
Tehama County is also in non-attainment for 8-hour ozone and Plumas County is classified as moderate
non-attainment for PM 2.5 (Table 140).
Lassen National Forest
409
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 140. Non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants
Particulate Matter
2.5
(PM 2.5)
Particulate Matter
10
(PM 10)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Unclassified
/Attainment
(Chico, CA)
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Plumas
(Within
Northern
Sierra Air
District)
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Moderate
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Nevada
(Within
Northern
Sierra Air
District)
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Sierra (Within
Northern
Sierra Air
District)
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Shasta
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Siskiyou
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Unclassified
/Attainment
Tehama
Tuscan Buttes.
Marginal nonattainment
(partial
County)
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
Unclassified
/Attainment N/A
8-hour Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Butte
Marginal
Moderate (Chico,
CA)
Lassen
Unclassified
/Attainment
Modoc
County/ Air
District
Lead (Pb)
Source: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/. Accessed: 10/01/2015:
Lassen National Forest
410
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The table below shows the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) state designations for all criteria pollutants in California. The Air
Resources Board makes State area designations for 10 criteria pollutants: ozone, suspended particulate matter (PM10), fine suspended particulate
matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles (ARB 2015).
The Air Resources Board lists eight counties in non-attainment for PM10, four in non-attainment for Ozone and Butte County also in nonattainment for PM2.5.
Table 141. State-designated non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants
County
and/ or Air
District
Ozone
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Lead (Pb)
Particulate
Matter 2.5
(PM 2.5)
Particulate
Matter 10
(PM 10)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Sulfates
Hydrogen
Sulfide
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Butte
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
NonAttainment
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Lassen
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Modoc
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Nevada
Non-attainment Unclassified
(within No
Sierra Air
Dist)
Attainment
Unclassified
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Plumas
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Non*(Portola
Attainment
Valley in nonattainment)
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Sierra
Unclassified
Unclassified
Attainment
Unclassified
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Shasta
NonAttainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Siskiyou
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Tehama
NonAttainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Unclassified
NonAttainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
Source: www.arb.ca.gov.desig/adm/adm.htm (ARB last review, August 22, 2014)
Lassen National Forest
411
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
For ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, the required minimum number of monitors is based on the population of the
Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) and the severity of the pollutant concentrations in each CBSA. The
table below includes the CBSAs, population of the CBSAs, the site in each CBSA that is currently
measuring the highest concentration, and monitor information used to evaluate whether the minimum
monitoring requirement is satisfied. In all cases, sufficient monitoring exists and no additional monitoring
is required (ARB 2015).
Table 142. Minimum monitoring requirements for ozone
CBSA
County/
Counties
Population
(2010
Census)
3-Year
Site with the
Average the Highest 3-Year
4th Highest
Average of the
4th Highest
Concentration
(ppm)
Concentration
Number Number
of
of Active
Monitors Monitors
Required
Number of
Additional
Monitors
Needed
Bakersfield*
Kern
839,361
0.091
BakersfieldMunicipal Airport
2
8
0
Chico
Butte
220,000
0.075
Paradise-Airport
Road
1
2
0
El Centro
Imperial
174,528
0.080
El Centro
1
3
0
Los AngelesLong BeachAnaheim*
Los Angeles 12,828,837
and Orange
0.098
Santa Clarita
4
16
0
OxnardThousand
Oaks-Ventura
Redding
Ventura
823,318
0.079
Simi Valley
2
5
0
Shasta
177,223
0.068
Anderson &
Lassen Volcanic
1
4
0
Riverside- San Riverside
Bernardinoand San
Ontario*
Bernardino
4,224,851
0.103
RedlandsDearborn
3
21
0
SacramentoArden ArcadeRoseville*
El Dorado,
Placer,
Sacramento,
Nevada and
Yolo
2,149,127
0.085
Folsom-Natoma
Street
2
17
0
Santa Rosa*^
Sonoma
483,878
0.057
Healdsburg
1
2
0
VallejoFairfield*
Solano
413,344
0.066
Vacaville-Ulatis
Drive
2
3
0
Yuba City
Sutter and
Yuba
166,892
0.074
Sutter Buttes^^
1
2
0
Source: ARB 2015
Table 145 displays the annual average emissions (tons per year) generated for the air districts within the
Lassen National Forest (EPA 2013).
Lassen National Forest
412
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 143. Annual average emissions (tons per year) by air district
Emissions Estimates (Tons/Year)
Air District
TOG
ROG
Sox
PM
9380.5
6212.3
30389.9
6643
109.5
10793.05
6270.7
2171.75
Lassen
6288.95
2197.3
12884.5
1766.6
94.9
5880.15
3777.75
1153.4
Modoc
5715.9
1135.15
3157.25
1003.75
14.6
6303.55
3606.2
543.85
10577.7
5131.9
33572.7
4796.1
270.1
12380.8
7577.4
1941.8
10829.55
5650.2
34525.35
8570.2
175.2
7548.2
4847.2
2014.8
Butte
Northern Sierra
Shasta
CO
Nox
PM10
PM2.5
Siskiyou
9084.85
3854.4
15173.05
3467.5
58.4
9698.05
6015.2
1573.15
Tehama
7971.6
2449.15
8913.3
4117.2
36.5
5208.55
3014.9
810.3
59849.05
26630.4
138616.1
30364.35
759.2
57812.35
35109.35
10209.05
TOTAL Emissions
for Air Districts
(tons/year)
Snowmobile Emission Standards
The effect of emissions from snowmobile activity on air quality and deposition in high- elevation
ecosystems has been studied primarily at Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in northwestern Wyoming.
Snowmobiles emit hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon
monoxide (CO), and non-combusted fuel vapors (USDI 2000). Combustion engine emissions contain
carcinogens including benzene, butadiene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (USDI 2000).
Combustion engines also emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.
In 2002, EPA issued a regulation that imposed stringent pollution regulations on snowmobiles, requiring
that they fall under regulations of the Clear Air Act (Jehl 2002). In 2012, snowmobile manufacturers were
required to meet one of two alternatives. One would require reductions in emissions of both hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide by 50 percent from current levels. The other is intended to encourage further
reductions in hydrocarbons and would require a 70 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, the source of the
more urgent health concerns, in return for a 30 percent reduction in carbon monoxide (Jehl 2002).
EPA also requires that manufacturers ensure each new engine, vehicle, or equipment meets the latest
emission standards. Once manufacturers sell a certified product, no further effort is required to complete
certification. If products were built before EPA emission standards started to apply, they are generally not
affected by the standards or other regulatory requirements (EPA 20153).
Table 144. Exhaust emission standards for snowmobiles
Phase
Model year
Phase-in
Emission standards
(percent)
HC
CO
1
2006
50
100
275
1
2007−2009
100
100
275
2
2010 and 2011
100
75
275
3
2012 and later
100
(1 )
(1 )
Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Accessed November 2015
Lassen National Forest
413
Maximum allowable family
emission limits
HC
CO
150
400
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Best Available Control Technology (BAT)
Snowmobiles must be certified by the National Park Service to enter some National Parks
(Yellowstone, Grand Teton). BAT certification is one of the most stringent standards for air and
noise emissions in the world, requiring hydrocarbon emissions of less than 15 g/kW­hr, carbon
monoxide emissions of less than 120 g/kW­hr, and sound level limited to 73 decibels (BRP 2011).
The use of BAT snowmobiles (which result in lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
emissions) (USDI 2013), is not currently required on the Lassen National Forest.
Motorized Winter Recreation
The Lassen National Forest has a well-developed winter recreation program which emphasizes
snowmobile use and includes 406 miles of snowmobile trails that connect to six well-placed developed
staging areas. Details on the groomed OSV trail system on the Hat Creek, Eagle Lake, and Almanor
Ranger Districts of the Lassen National Forest can be found in the R5 OSV Lassen Recreation Report
(Valentine 2015).
Table 145 is derived from the OSV trailhead survey conducted for the State EIR, and based on data
summarized in the State EIR (California Department of Park and Recreation 2010). The table shows the
average number of vehicles at trailheads, and the average number of OSVs that would be expected on
weekends and holidays versus weekdays. Based on this information, estimated use for the 2015/2016
winter season is 10,020 OSV users Forest-wide (Valentine 2015).
Table 145. Lassen National Forest OSV visitor use (based on 2009 Data from CA State DEIR)
Location
Day Description
Number of Vehicles*
Number of OSVs
Forest-wide
Weekend/Holiday
(approx. 33 per season)
106
212
Forest-wide
Weekday
(approx. 65 per season)
21
42
Individual Trailheads
Weekend/Holiday
15 (average)
30
Individual Trailheads
Weekday
3.5
7
*assumes an average of 2 OSVs per vehicle parked at a trailhead (Valentine 2015)
Grooming activities
Currently, there are 324 miles of National Forest System trails that are groomed for OSV use on the
Lassen National Forest. Snow trail grooming for OSV use typically occurs mid-December and continues
through March (12/26-3/31). Grooming historically occurred several times per week with a maximum of
12 hours per day and a total of 1,743 hours for the season (Lassen DEIS 2015).
The California OHMVR Division’s snowcat fleet is subject to emission regulation by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) as off-road equipment. The CARB sets an emission limit for the vehicle fleet as
a whole rather than for individual pieces of equipment. Based on the total horsepower of the vehicle fleet,
and the model and year of the individual equipment within the fleet, CARB determines how much
horsepower per year must be repowered, retrofitted, or retired. The California OHMVR Division then
determines what modifications to make to its fleet in order to satisfy CARB requirements (Lassen DEIS
2015).
Lassen National Forest
414
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 146. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition and alternative 1
Resource
Element
Air Quality
Resource Indicator
Measure
Existing Condition/Alt 1
Estimate of change (increase/decrease)
in emissions and the potential to create
adverse impacts to air quality.
Miles of trail open to OSV
visitor use
406 miles
Estimate of change (increase/decrease)
in emissions and the potential to create
adverse impacts to air quality.
Acres open to OSV visitor
use
976,760 acres
Potential effects of OSV emissions to
create adverse impacts to air quality.
Shifts in OSV use in
relation to sensitive areas
(Class 1 and II areas).
No known impacts to air
quality or NAAQS/CAAQS
violations exist.
Alternative 1 – No Action
By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result
from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the no-action alternative. With regard to air quality
on the forest, there are no known violations of the Clean Air Act under the existing condition.
Air quality on the Lassen National Forest is potentially affected by land management and development
activities on and off the forest. Air pollution sources include emissions from mobile and stationary
sources including industrial activity, highway vehicles, off-road vehicles (all- terrain vehicles, aircraft,
locomotives, construction machinery). Dust and burning can also have significant impacts to air quality as
they are occurring on and off the forest. These sources can emit a host of regulated pollutants in and
around the forest. Currently, good dispersion and topographic influences on the forest have resulted in no
violations of Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards and have not attained concentrations high
enough to warrant measurement or to result in degradation of air quality in the Class 1 areas.
There are three factors, largely beyond State control, that can interfere with air quality in Class 1 Areas:
wildfire smoke, offshore shipping emissions, and Asian dust. These factors are either from natural sources
(wildfire smoke), uncontrollable sources (shipping emissions beyond California’s jurisdiction), or both
(Asian dust, a combination of anthropogenic and natural sources beyond California’s control) (ARB
2014).
The table below displays the potential contribution of snowmobile emissions from the estimated
10,020 OSV visitors that recreate on the Lassen National Forest each year. All calculations were done
using emission estimates from a 2-stroke snowmobile (EPA 2010). As shown in Table 147, it is estimated
emissions from OSV use on the Lassen contributes approximately 0.12 percent of carbon dioxide (CO) to
the air districts under the no-action alternative and less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and
particulate matter (PM).
Table 147. Emission estimate (tons per year) for OSV use on the Lassen National Forest
Source
Snowmobile (2-stroke)
% Pollutant Contribution to Air Districts
Number of OSVs
Miles*
CO
NOx
PM
10,020
50
163.47
0.47
1.49
-------
----
0.12
Less than 0.01
Less than 0.01
*Assumes 10,020 OSVs recreate on the Lassen per year and travel an average of 50 miles.
Lassen National Forest
415
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
•
As funding allows, consider development of separate parking areas for motorized and nonmotorized users.
•
As funding allows, collect emissions data in at trailheads ensure impacts to air quality are
minimized.
•
Impose idling time limits for OSVs at trailheads and in parking lots to reduce emissions, potential
impacts to air quality and nuisance smell.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2
Under alternative 2 there would be a 3 percent reduction in acres open to OSV use. The proposed areas
where use would be prohibited would be located in the southwestern corner of the Lassen National Forest
(at elevations of 3,500 feet or less) and in the Black Mountain Research Natural Area. Proposed closures
would minimize impacts to air quality in these areas. The reduction of acres open to OSV use may cause a
shift in OSV use to other areas. However, it is not likely this shift will result in significant affects to air
quality in other areas of the Lassen National Forest. With a proposed 3 percent reduction in acres open to
OSV use, it is likely emissions generated as a result of OSVs would be similar or less than what is
currently estimated and displayed in Table 147. Current emissions are estimated to contribute less than
1 percent (0.12 percent of carbon dioxide (CO), less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and less
than 0.01 percent of particulate matter (PM)) of pollutants to the seven air districts within the Lassen
National Forest. These emissions are minor compared to other off-forest sources of air pollution that can
impact the forest.
Impacts to air quality include vehicle emissions such as nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide from all motorized vehicles including snowmobiles and Sno-Cats. Diesel engines also emit
sulfur oxides and particulates. Air quality impacts from vehicle emissions are influenced by the
effectiveness of the smog control devices on cars, amount of traffic, and the duration of engine idling. As
people recreate in the forest during the winter months, the effects of vehicle exhaust on air quality may
become a localized temporary issue where concentrated motorized use conflicts with non-motorized uses
and nuisance smell occurs.
Although there can be localized air quality impacts where there are a large number of snowmobiles
occupying a parking lot as studied at Yellowstone National Park, those conditions do not apply in this
case. The number of anticipated users for this assessment would be considered low as compared to
Yellowstone National Park, which records 75,000 snowmobile visitors each winter (Millner 2015). The
estimated 10,020 OSV visitors forest-wide for the winter season (96 days, based on 12/26-3/31 grooming
season) would equate to approximately 104 OSV visitors on the forest per day utilizing 406 miles of trail
and 947,120 acres open to OSV use. That is equivalent to approximately one OSV visitor per 9,106 acres.
It is expected OSV emissions would dissipate and the possibility of accumulation would be eliminated
based on topographic influences and wind dispersion. Non-motorized users’ air quality c oncerns in
parking lots, at trailheads and on trails would continue since non-motorized and motorized users would
still share the same parking areas, trailheads and many of the same trails. The odor generated by emissions
from combustion engines, particularly two-cycle engines, can diminish a non-motorized user’s
experience. However, this is likely a recreation (user satisfaction) issue rather than a general air
quality issue (see recreation specialist report for more discussion on the topic of visitor experience).
Bishop et al. (2006) found emissions were greatest during initial startup and idling, especially when the
engine is cold. They also observed reducing wait times at entrance stations would further lower emissions
Lassen National Forest
416
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
and exposure. Implementing similar measures or idling limits at parking lots and trailheads, may address
public concerns regarding nuisance smell and potential impacts to air quality in those areas. It is
anticipated any impacts to air quality from winter motorized recreation under alternative 2 will not result
in any violations to National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards, as current levels of use do not (see
Table 147).
A study by Musselman et al. (2007) was conducted in Wyoming to evaluate the effects of winter
recreation snowmobile activity on air quality at a high elevation site. They measured levels of nitrogen
oxides (NOx, NO), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 mass). They found
Nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide were significantly higher weekends than weekdays due to
higher snowmobile use on weekends. Ozone and particulate matter were not significantly different
during the weekend compared to weekdays. Air quality data during the summer was also compared to
the winter data and they found Carbon monoxide levels at the site were significantly higher during the
winter than during the summer. Nitrogen oxides and particulates were significantly higher during the
summer compared to winter. Nevertheless, air pollutants were well dispersed and diluted by strong winds
common at the site, and snowmobile emissions did not have a significant impact on air quality at the
site (Musselman 2007).
Class 1 Areas
In Yellowstone National Park, the implementation of best available technology (BAT) requirements and
the reduction in the number of OSVs entering the park during the managed use era dramatically reduced
CO, PM, and hydrocarbon emissions. The substantial CO and PM emissions reductions from
implementing BAT requirements have come with one important tradeoff—an increase in NOx emissions.
OSVs that meet BAT requirements have higher NOx emissions than those that do not meet BAT
requirements. They found overall, from 2003 to 2011, air quality stabilized at the monitoring stations in
the park, with the exception of 2010. These positive trends in air quality are primarily the result of BAT
requirements for OSVs, fewer OSVs entering the park in recent years, and carbureted snow coaches
being replaced with modern fuel-injected engines. Requiring the use of only BAT OSVs has improved
emissions despite the increasing number of snow coaches now entering the park. Although these
changes present an overall positive trend toward lower emissions by OSVs, other local sources, such as
uncontrolled wood stoves in warming huts and some facilities in the park, still contribute to winter CO
and PM2.5 concentrations (USDI 2013).
Implementation of alternative 2 is expected to maintain the same air quality conditions as compared to
the existing condition due to good dispersion characteristics across the forest, low inversion potential, low
emissions generated from OSVs as compared to other potential sources, and the equivalent number of
OSV route miles open. In addition, it is expected the proposed reduction in acres and areas open to OSV
use may reduce air quality impacts in those areas and nearby Class 1 areas. Compliance with State and
Federal air quality standards is expected to occur under alternative 2. Motorized recreation emission
sources on the forest are localized, transient and not expected to result in any significant air quality
impacts, and no violations of the Clean Air Act are expected to occur under alternative 2.
Lassen National Forest
417
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 148. Air quality resource indicators and measures for alternative 2
Resource
Element
Air Quality
Resource Indicator
Measure
Alternative 2
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the potential
to create adverse impacts to
air quality.
Miles of trail open
to OSV visitor use.
406 miles (no change from existing condition)
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the potential
to create adverse impacts to
air quality.
Acres open to
OSV visitor use.
947,120 acres (3% decrease from existing
condition)
Potential effects of OSV
emissions to create adverse
impacts to air quality.
Shifts in OSV use
in relation to
sensitive areas
(Class 1 and II
areas)
OSV trails within ¼ mile of sensitive areas
(Caribou Wilderness, Caribou extension
proposed Wilderness, Mill Creek Proposed
Wilderness and Thousand Lakes Wilderness
boundaries, and to the boundary of Lassen
Volcanic National Park). No known impacts to air
quality or NAAQS/CAAQS violations exist.
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have the potential to impact air quality and
are summarized below. Air quality on the forest is potentially affected by land management and
development activities on and off the forest. Air pollution sources include emissions from industrial
activity, highway vehicles, off-road vehicles (all- terrain vehicles, aircraft, locomotives, construction
machinery). Dust and burning can also have significant impacts to air quality as they are occurring on and
off the forest. None of the on forest sources discussed in the existing condition are expected to increase
or impact air quality when combined with alternative 2. In addition, emissions generated as a result of
Sno-cats utilized for plowing and grooming of parking lots and trailheads could also contribute to
localized air pollution on forest. However, it is estimated the contribution of administrative Sno-cats
use, to the overall cumulative impacts on air quality would be minimal.
Air quality impacts are expected to grow with continued growth of population around the Lassen
National Forest. Substantial impacts to air quality are not expected to occur during winter months on
the Lassen National Forest due to regulations already in place by the EPA and the Clean Air Act. The
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be the primary contributors to air
quality impacts on the forest. Due to the short-term and localized impact of OSV use, the action
alternative is not expected to result in a significant contribution to the cumulative impacts of other local
and regional air pollution sources. However, it is impossible to predict future pollutant discharge from
off-forest mobile and stationary sources and how those sources may contribute or impact air quality on
forest. There are no known unavoidable adverse, irreversible or irretrievable effects to air quality as a
result of implementing alternative 2.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 was developed to address the quality non-motorized recreational experience significant
issue and is discussed in detail in the EIS. It includes components of the modified proposed action with
several additions. OSV use would be prohibited in additional areas that are important for non-motorized
Lassen National Forest
418
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
recreation, including McGowen, Colby Mountain, Lake Almanor, and Eagle Lake Addition. OSV use
would be restricted to designated trails within two areas including Butte Lake Area and FredonyerGoumaz/Willard Hill Area.
This alternative also includes a 12-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use, an 18-inch
minimum snow depth for grooming and a 6-inch minimum snow depth for OSV use on underlying roads
or trails. OSV use on roads with at least 6 inches of snow would be allowed on a limited basis on specific,
identified routes in order for OSVs to access higher terrain and legal snow levels when snow depths are
less than 12 inches, as long as this use does not cause visible damage to the underlying surface and can be
readily enforced. This alternative would groom the same snow trails for OSV use as the modified
proposed action.
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would prohibit OSV use on more acres than alternative 2, and would designate areas where
motorized OSVs are restricted to designated trails. Designation of the Butte Lake Backcountry Solitude
Area minimizes motorized impact on the Caribou Wilderness and Caribou extension proposed wilderness
and Lassen Volcanic National Park thereby minimizing potential impacts to air quality in those areas.
With additional areas closed or restricted to OSVs, the potential effects to air quality in sensitive areas
would be less under alternative and with a proposed 10 percent reduction in acres open to OSV use forestwide, it is likely emissions generated as a result of OSVs would be similar or less than what is currently
estimated and displayed in Table 147. Current emissions generated as a result of OSV use on the Lassen
are estimated to contribute less than 1 percent (0.12 percent of carbon dioxide (CO), less than
0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and less than 0.01 percent of particulate matter (PM)) of pollutants
to the seven air districts within the Lassen National Forest. These emissions are minor compared to other
sources of air pollution impacting the forest and will be further reduced under this alternative.
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
The project design features and mitigation measures listed for alternative 2 would apply for alternative 3.
Cumulative Effects- Alternative 3
The cumulative effects listed for alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 3.
Lassen National Forest
419
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 149. Air quality resource indicators and measures for alternative 3
Resource
Element
Air Quality
Resource Indicator
Measure
Alternative 3
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the potential to
create adverse impacts to air
quality.
Miles of trail open
to OSV visitor use.
406 miles of designated OSV trails (no
change from existing conditions)
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the potential to
create adverse impacts to air
quality.
Acres open to
OSV visitor use.
878,690 acres open to OSV use (a 10
percent decrease from the existing
conditions)
Potential effects of OSV
emissions to create adverse
impacts to air quality.
Shifts in OSV use
in relation to
sensitive areas
(Class 1 and II
areas).
OSV trails in close proximity of sensitive
areas (Caribou Wilderness, Caribou
extension proposed Wilderness, Mill Creek
Proposed Wilderness and Thousand Lakes
Wilderness boundaries, and to the boundary
of Lassen Volcanic National Park.) No known
impacts to air quality or NAAQS/CAAQS
violations exist.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would allow OSV use on more acres than alternative 3, and slightly fewer acres than
alternative 2.
The McGowen area would be closed to OSV use like alternative 3. However, one designated OSV trail
would remain open and OSVs would be restricted to the trail only. This would potentially minimize
impacts from OSV encroachment into Lassen Volcanic National Park and subsequent effects to air
quality in the park. Otherwise, alternative 4 effects would be similar to those described for alternative
2, and with a proposed 1 percent reduction in acres open to OSV use forest-wide as compared to the
existing condition, it is likely emissions generated as a result of OSVs would be similar to or less than
what is currently estimated and displayed in Table 147. Current emissions generated as a result of OSV
use on the Lassen are estimated to contribute less than 1 percent (0.12 percent of carbon dioxide (CO),
less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and less than 0.01 percent of particulate matter (PM))
of pollutants to the seven air districts within the Lassen National Forest. These emissions are minor
compared to other sources of air pollution impacting the forest.
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
The project design features and mitigation measures listed for alternative 2 would apply for alternative 4.
Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4
The cumulative effects listed for alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 4.
Lassen National Forest
420
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 150. Air quality resource indicators and measures for alternative 4
Resource
Element
Air Quality
Resource Indicator
Measure
Alternative 4
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the
potential to create adverse
impacts to air quality.
Miles of trail open to
OSV visitor use.
406 miles of designated OSV trails (no change
from existing conditions)
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in
emissions and the
potential to create adverse
impacts to air quality.
Acres open to OSV
visitor use.
966,270 acres open to OSV use (a 1 percent
decrease from the existing conditions)
Potential effects of OSV
emissions to create
adverse impacts to air
quality.
Shifts in OSV use in
relation to sensitive
areas (Class 1 and II
areas).
OSV trails in close proximity (approx. ¼ mile) of
sensitive areas (Caribou Wilderness, Caribou
extension proposed Wilderness, Mill Creek
Proposed Wilderness and Thousand Lakes
Wilderness boundaries, and to the boundary of
Lassen Volcanic National Park.) No known
impacts to air quality or NAAQS/CAAQS
violations exist.
Summary
It is expected the levels of pollutants for the alternatives would fall within the ranges currently
experienced and no violation of state or Federal ambient air quality standards would occur on the Lassen
National Forest during the OSV season.
Degree to Which the Purpose and Need for Action is Met
Table 151 provides a comparison of the alternatives and the degree to which the alternatives address
potential air quality issues.
Lassen National Forest
421
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Table 151. Summary comparison of alternatives
Resource
Element
Air Quality
Resource Indicator/Measure
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in emissions
and the potential to create
adverse impacts to air quality/
Miles of trail open to OSV visitor
use
Estimate of change
(increase/decrease) in emissions
and the potential to create
adverse impacts to air quality.
Acres open to OSV visitor use
Potential effects of OSV
emissions to create adverse
impacts to air quality/ Shifts in
OSV use in relation to sensitive
areas (Class 1 and II areas).
Alternative 1 – No Action
976,760 acres open to
OSV use.
No known violations of the
CAA as a result of OSV
use under the existing
condition (see Table 147).
406 miles designated for
OSV use.
Alternative 2 – Modified
Proposed Action
Alternative 3
947,120 acres open to
OSV use, a 3 percent
reduction from existing
conditions. .
878,690 acres open to
OSV use, a 10 percent
reduction from existing
conditions.
No violations of the CAA
are anticipated.
No violations of the CAA
are anticipated.
406 miles designated for
OSV use. No change from
existing conditions.
406 miles designated for
OSV use.
No change from existing
conditions.
No known violations of the
CAA as a result of OSV
use under the existing
condition.
No violations of the CAA
are anticipated.
Groomed OSV trails are in
close proximity to the
Caribou Wilderness,
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness, and the
boundary of Lassen
Volcanic National Park.
Groomed OSV trails are in
close proximity to the
Caribou Wilderness,
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness, and the
boundary of Lassen
Volcanic National Park.
Groomed OSV trails are
in close proximity to the
Caribou Wilderness,
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness, and the
boundary of Lassen
Volcanic National Park.
No known violations of the
CAA or impact to Class 1
areas as a result of OSV
use under the existing
condition.
No violations of the CAA
or impact to Class 1 areas
are anticipated under this
alternative.
Designation of Butte Lake
Backcountry Solitude
area minimizes OSV
impacts and reduces
emissions near Caribou
wilderness and Lassen
Volcanic National Park.
No violations of the CAA
are anticipated.
No violations of the CAA
or impact to Class 1
areas are anticipated
under this alternative.
Lassen National Forest
422
Alternative 4
966,270 acres open
to OSV use, a 1
percent reduction
from existing
conditions.
No violations of the
CAA are anticipated.
406 miles
designated for OSV
use.
No change from
existing conditions.
No violations of the
CAA are anticipated.
Groomed OSV trails
are in close
proximity to the
Caribou Wilderness,
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness and the
boundary of Lassen
Volcanic National
Park.
No violations of the
CAA are anticipated
or impacts to Class
1 areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Environmental Effects
Potential impacts of OSV use on Class 1 and II areas would be fairly similar for all action
alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide slightly more protection due to additional OSV
restrictions and closures in the vicinity of sensitive areas. In all action alternatives, Class 1 and II
areas are closed to OSV use.
Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations,
Policies and Plans
No known violations of ambient air quality standards have occurred on the forest, nor have any
activities on the forest caused violations of these standards elsewhere. The alternatives comply with
the Clean Air Act, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality
Standards for criteria pollutants.
Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Authorized OSV use on NFS lands, may unavoidably affect the short-term air quality in some areas,
specifically at trailheads and parking lots. However, it is likely this is a nuisance smell issue rather
than an air quality issue.
Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted
Cassandra Lopina, Air Pollution Specialist, California Air Resources Board.
Jeremy Avise, Ph.D., Manager/Senior Air Quality Modeler, California Air Resources Board
Lassen National Forest
423
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors
Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Contributors
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and
other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement:
List of Preparers
Name
Title/Discipline
Relevant Experience
Education
Chris Bielecki
Logging Engineer,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
16 years in
transportation
engineering with the
U.S. Forest Service
BS, Forestry
MF, Forest Engineering
Ann Braun
Content Analyst,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
3 years content analysis
with TEAMS,12 years
information and data
analysis, and 10 years
Acquisition
Management with the
U.S. Forest Service
Undergraduate Education
in General Studies, and
Communication
Tracie Buhl
Fire Management
Specialist, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
17 years in Fire
Management/Natural
Resources with the U.S.
Forest Service. Seven
years conducting air
analyses.
Undergraduate education
in Natural Resources, Fire
Science.
Tricia Burgoyne
Soil Scientist, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
8 years’ experience
working as a soil
scientist for the U.S.
Forest Service
BS, Forest Ecology and
Management
Bruce Davidson
Botanist, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
24 years botany and
natural resource
management with the
U.S. Forest Service and
USDI-BLM
BS, Botany
Vickey Eubank
GIS Support Specialist
and Project Record,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
24 years in GIS
management with the
U.S. Forest Service.
Applied Associate Degree
in Science and Business
Pat Goude
Writer-Editor, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
5 years as a Writereditor with the U.S.
Forest Service
BA, Technical Journalism
Delilah Jaworski
Social Scientist, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
7 years conducting
social and economic
analyses for the U.S.
Forest Service and
other Federal land
management agencies
MSc, Environment and
Development
Steve Kozlowski
Wildlife Biologist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
18 Years as a Wildlife
Biologist with the U.S.
Forest Service.
BS, Wildlife Biology
Bart Lander
Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
14 years leading NEPA
interdisciplinary teams
with the U.S. Forest
Service
BS, Forestry
MS, Urban and Regional
Planning
PhD, Forest Policy and
Economics
Lassen National Forest
425
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Name
Title/Discipline
Relevant Experience
Education
Katherine Malengo
Wildlife Biologist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
5 years working on U.S.
Forest Service
interdisciplinary teams
as a journey-level
biologist
BS, Conservation Biology
Mike McNamara
Hydrologist, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
25 years’ experience as
a U.S. Forest Service
Hydrologist
BS, Geology
MS, Forest Hydrology
Doug Middlebrook
Wildlife Biologist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
19 years conducting
NEPA analysis with the
U.S. Forest Service
BS, Wildlife Biology
Anthony Olegario
Fisheries Biologist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
15 years as a U.S.
Forest Service Fisheries
Biologist
BS, Mechanical
Engineering
MS, Fisheries Science
Shannon Smith
Project Manager,
Project Liaison OfficerBiological Scientist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
16 years of U.S. Forest
Service experience:
Cultural ResourcesNEPA Project, and
Program Management
BA, Anthropology and
Geology,
MA,
Anthropology/Archaeology
Stephanie Valentine
Outdoor Recreation
Planner, TEAMS
Enterprise Unit
18 years serving as an
Outdoor Recreation
Planner for Federal
agencies, 6 years with
the U.S. Forest Service
BS, Outdoor Recreation
Management
Cindy White
Public Affairs Specialist,
TEAMS Enterprise Unit
27 years in public affairs
with the U.S. Forest
Service
Interdisciplinary Team Consultants
Name
Title
Affiliation
Kim Earll
Forest Environmental Coordinator
Lassen National Forest
Melanie McFarland
Fisheries Biologist
Lassen National Forest
Esther Miranda-Cole
Public Affairs Specialist
Lassen National Forest
Chris O’Brien
Ecosystems and Public Services Staff Officer
Lassen National Forest
Heidi Perry
Public Affairs Officer
Lassen National Forest
Doug Peters
Forest Soils Scientist
Lassen National Forest
Priscilla Peterson
Forest Resource Information (GIS) Specialist
Lassen National Forest
Allison Sanger
Forest Botanist
Lassen National Forest
Carol Thornton
Forest Hydrologist
Lassen National Forest
Suraj Ahuja
N. California Air Quality Specialist
NFS Region 5
Virginia Emly
Regional Geospatial Data Manager
NFS Region 5
Laura Hierholzer
Regional NEPA Coordinator
NFS Region 5
Kathleen E. Mick
Program Manager, Trails Motorized
Recreation Travel Management
NFS Region 5
Lassen National Forest
426
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors
Individuals, Groups and Agencies Consulted
The following individuals, groups, agencies, and email addresses were either contacted directly in
the scoping process, or made themselves known to the Forest Service by submitting comments
during scoping for the Lassen OSV Designation analysis.
Last Name or Organization
Amador
First Name
Don
Organization Representing
Blue Ribbon Coalition
American Council of
Snowmobile Associations
Andrews
Robert
Atterbury
Ken
Sierra Club--Yahi Group
Augustine
Justin
Center For Biological Diversity
Ayers
Guy
Bales
Stan
Brun
D.
Bungard
James
Butler
Kevin
Butler
Marla
Carrico
Galen
Casey
Jamie
Chandler
Scott
Chicoine
Joe
Condreva
Ken
Crump
Mike
Dawes
Kerry
Dawson
Mike
Domish
Dorothy
Dowdy
Judy
Dyson
Mike
Eisen
Hilary
Recreation Planner, BLM
Sno Riders, Inc.
Butte County
Director of Trail Operations, PCTA
Winter Wildlands Alliance
Erdoes
Jeff
Felker
Kyle
Sierra Access Coalition
Ferris
Charles
Snowlands Network
Flint
Alison
Wilderness Society
Ford
Arlene
Gaither
Tom
Lake Almanor Snowmobile Club
Gault
Michelle
Mayor Pro Tem, City of Portola
Giacomini
Pam
Shasta County Supervisor
Gibson
Jim
Gould
Carl
Hanson
Lorraine
Hennion
Andrew
Holabird
Tim
Hotz
Charlie
Snowmobile Club
Representing U.S. Congressman Doug LaMalfa
Lassen National Forest
427
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Last Name or Organization
First Name
Organization Representing
Intermountain News
International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association
Johnson
Glyne
California State Parks OHV
Jones
Scott
Off-Road Business Association, Inc.
Jury
Darrel
Environmental Studies Department, Feather River
College
Keown
Linda
Redding Snow Riders
Keown
Ron
Redding Snow Riders, Inc., Ashpan Snowcat
Knutsen
Dale
Kooyman
Justin
Pacific Crest Trail Association
Lazzarino
Corky
Sierra Access Coalition
Leflore
Rick
California State Parks, Sacramento, CA
Lister
James H., Esq.
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, P.C.
Long
Kelly
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
Martin
Jennifer
Mecham
Jeff
Milligan
Sylvia
Recreation Outdoor Coalition
Moore
Sean
Tehama County CC
Munson
James
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Norton
Elizabeth
Lassen County Times
Obrien-Feeney
Cailin
Winter Wildlands Alliance
Perreault
Bob
PCCC
Peters
Sarah
Wild Earth Guardians
Puterbaugh
Patricia
Lassen Forest Preservation Group, Sierra Forest
Legacy, Yahi Group Sierra Club
Quijada
David
California State Parks
Rathje
Joel
Trails Coordinator, Lassen County
Reed
R.
Repanich
Nick
Philbrook Community Association
Rowen
Bob
Snowlands Network/Winter Wildlands Alliance
Saxton
Trent, D.C.,M.E.
Stanley
Jeremiah
Stanton
Bob
Redding Sno-riders
Story
Frank
Bucks Lake Snowdrifters
Sutherland
Michael
Szumel
Leo
Teeter
Doug
Butte County Board Of Supervisors
Thrall
Sherrie
Plumas County Supervisor, PCCC
Trenda
Thomas
Turnquist
Catherine
Van Eperen
George
Lassen National Forest
428
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors
Last Name or Organization
First Name
Organization Representing
Vanni
Anna
Wagner
Bob
Wagner
M.
Wilson
Jeremy
Friends of the High Lakes
Wing
Ed
Lake Almanor Snowmobile Club
Wosick
Larry
Lassen County Supervisor
Email Addresses
The following email addresses may include email pseudonyms of individuals, groups, and agencies
on the previous list.
[email protected]
almanorlov [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lassen National Forest
429
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]hoo.com
Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement
This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a
copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally
recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of
views.
Lassen National Forest
430
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
References
Air Quality
Air Resources Board. 2015. Annual Monitoring Network Report for Twenty Five District in
California. June 2015, Volume 1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air
Resources Board.
Bishop, Gary A., Burgard, Daniel A., Dalton, Thomas R., Stedman, Donald H. 2006. In-use Emission
Measurements of Snowmobiles and Snowcoaches in Yellowstone National Park. University
of Denver, Department of Chemistry and BioChemistry. Denver, CO.
Bishop, G. A., Morris, J. A., and Stedman, D. H. 2001. Snowmobile contributions to mobile source
emissions in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 2874–
2881.
Bishop, G. A., Stedman, D. H., Hektner, M., and Ray, J. D. 1999. An in-use snowmobile emission
survey in Yellow- stone National Park. Environmental Science and Technology, 33, 3924–
3926.
BRP. 2011. BRP SKI-DOO Snowmobiles: 10 Models BAT Certified for Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks. Valcourt, Quebec. www.brp.com
California Air Resources Board. 2015. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Online at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
Lopina, Cassie, Air Pollution Specialist, California Air Resources Board. 2015. Personal and email
communications.
Millner, Jen 2015. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park: An American right, or wrong?
Geoscience Education Web Development Team, Montana State University.
Musselman, Robert C and Korfmacher, John L. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and
snow chemistry on and off trail in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range,
Wyoming.
National Park Service .1995. Ambient air quality study results – West Entrance Station, Yellowstone
National Park. Denver, CO: National Park Service.
Neumann, P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 86, 207–212.
Ray, J. D. (2005). Results from the Yellowstone National Park winter air quality study 2004–2005.
USDI, National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, CO. 64.241.
25.110/yell/pdfs/winteruse/winteraqstudy04–05.pdf.
USDI. 2000. Air quality concerns related to snowmobile usage in National Parks. USDI, National
Park Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, CO. http://www2.nature.
nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/yell/Snowmobile_Report.pdf).
Lassen National Forest
431
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
USDI. 2013. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Yellowstone National Park
Winter Use Plan. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine
modeling- Spark-Ignition NR-010f. Assessment of Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. US. EPA.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. AIR Data. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2015(3). Office of Transportation and Emission Standards for
nearly all types of non-road engines, vehicles and equipment. FAQs.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Lassen National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP). USDA-Forest Service, PSW Region, Lassen National Forest, California”
USDA Forest Service. 2005. South Fowl Lake Snowmobile Access Environmental Assessment.
Superior National Forest, Cook County, Minnesota.
USDA Forest Service. 2015. Over- Snow Vehicle Use Designation. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Lassen National Forest, Susanville, CA.
U.S Government Publishing Office. 2015. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed
November 2015 at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=debdc659dece22de01aab5b6a8745c76&mc=true&node=se40.33.1051_1103&rgn=
div8
Valentine, Stephanie. 2015. Five Forest Over-snow Vehicle Designation, Lassen National Forest
Recreation Report. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit.
Botany
Arnold, J. L., and Koel, T. M. 2007. Effects of Snowmobile Emission on the Chemistry of Snowmelt
Runoff in Yellowstone National Park. Final Report. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section,
Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. YCR-2006-1.
Bazzaz, F. A. and K. Garbutt. 1998. The Response of Annuals in Competitive Neighborhoods:
Effects of Elevated CO2. Ecology 69(4): 937-946.
Blanchard, C., H. Michaels, A. Bradman, and J. Harte. 1988. Episodic Acidification of a Lowalkalinity Pond in Colorado. Energy and Resources Group, Berkeley, California. ERG-88-1.
15 p.
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG CNDDB).
2015. GIS rare plant and animal occurrence data available by subscription. Sacramento,
California. (October 2015).
Castellano, M.A., J.E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cazares, and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1
Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR-476.
Lassen National Forest
432
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Castellano, M.A., E. Cazares, B. Fondrick, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. Handbook to Additional Fungal
Species of Special Concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNWGTR-572.
Davenport, J. and T.A. Switalski. 2006. Environmental impacts of transport related to tourism and
leisure activities. Chapter 14 in J. Davenport and J. A. Davenport (eds.) The ecology of
transportation: managing mobility for the environment. Springer, Dordrecht. Netherlands.
Eagleston, H. and C. Rubin. 2013. Non-motorized winter recreation impacts to snowmelt erosion,
Tronsen Basin, Eastern Cascades, Washington. Environmental Management 51: 167-181.
Fahey, B. and K. Wardle. 1998. Likely impacts of snow grooming and related activities in the West
Otago ski fields. Science for Conservation: 85. New Zealand Department of Conservation.
Falkengren-Grerup, U. 1986. Soil acidification and vegetation changes in deciduous forest in
southern Sweden. Oecologia 70:339-347.
Gage, E. and D. J. Cooper. 2013. Evaluating snow compaction effects to fen wetlands on Rabbit Ears
and Buffalo Pass of the Routt national Forest. Prepared for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National
Forests, the White River National Forest, and the Black Hills National Forest.
Greller, A. M., Goldstein, M., Marcus, L. 1974. Snowmobile impact on three alpine tundra plant
communities. Environmental Conservation 1(2): 101–110.
Ingersoll, G. 1998. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park,
USGS, Department of Interior, Water-Resources Investigation Report 99-4148.
Ingersoll, G., J. Turk, C. McClure, S. Lawlor, D. Clow, and A. Mast. 1997. Snowpack chemistry as
an indicator of pollutant emission levels from motorized winter vehicles in Yellowstone
National Park, Proceedings of 65th Annual Meeting of Western Snow Conference, May 4-8,
1997, Banff, Alberta.
Keddy, P. A., A. J. Spavold, and C. J. Keddy. 1979; Snowmobile Impact on Old Field and March
Vegetation in Nova Scotia Canada: An Experimental Study. Environmental Management
3(5): 409-415.
McNamara, M. 2015. Hydrology Report for Lassen National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use
Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest
Service, Lassen National Forest, Susanville, California.
Mooney, H.A., M. Kueppers, G. Koch, J. Gorham, C. Chu, and W.E. Winner. 1988. Compensating
effects to growth of carbon partitioning changes in response to SO2-induced photosynthetic
reduction in radish. Oecologia, Vol. 75, No. 4, p. 502–506.
Musselman, R.C., and J.L. Korfmacher. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow
chemistry on and off trail in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range, Wyoming.
Environmental monitoring and assessment 133(1-3), 321-334.
Neumann, P. W., and H. G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field
Naturalist 86:207-212.
Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher,
and Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land
Lassen National Forest
433
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive
bibliographies, and internet resources. Open-File Report 2007-1353. U.S. Geological Survey.
Reston, Virginia.
Sanger, Allison (Lassen National Forest Botanist). 2015. Personal communications with Bruce
Davidson, Botanist, US Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise Unit, between March and
October, 2015.
Stangl, J. T. 1999. Effects of Winter Recreation on Vegetation. Pages 119-121 in Effects of winter
recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment.
Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B.
Kaeding, editors. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 p.
Taylor, K., J. Mangold, and L.J. Rew. 2011. Weed Seed Dispersal by Vehicles. Montana State
University Extension. MT201105AG. June, 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Lassen
National Forest. Susanville, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Executive Order 13112. Presidential Documents, Invasive Species,
President William Clinton. Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 25, February 8, 1999.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670-2671. Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Plants and Animals. Chapter 2670. National Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Effective: September 23, 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900 – Invasive Species Management. Chapter –
Zero Code. National Headquarters, Washington DC. Effective: December 5, 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Use by Over-snow Vehicles (Travel Management Regulations). Federal
Register, June 18, 2014. 79(117): 34678-34681.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS); USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 1994. Record
of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines for
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species
Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon. April, 1994.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS); USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 2001. Record
of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage,
Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures, Standards and Guidelines. Portland,
Oregon. January, 2001.
Von der Lippe, M. and Kowarik, I. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of
plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 21(4): 986-996.
Wanek, W.J. 1971. Snowmobile impacts on vegetation, temperatures, and soil microbes. Pp. 116–129
in Chubb, M (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1971 snowmobile and off-road vehicle research
symposium, Michigan State University Department of Parks and Recreation Resources
Technical Report No.8, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Lassen National Forest
434
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Weixelman, D.A. and Cooper, D.J. 2009. Assessing proper functioning condition for fen areas in the
Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California, a user guide. Gen. Tech. Rep.
R5-TP-028. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Region. 52 p.
Winner, W.E., and C.J. Atkison. 1986. Absorption of Air Pollution by Plants, and Consequences for
Growth. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 1, p. 15–18.
Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA). 2009. Seeing the Forest and the Trees – Assessing Snowmobile
Damage in National Forests. A Report by Winter Wildlands Alliance. November, 2009. 3 pp.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Adams, E.S. 1975. Effects of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Trans Amer. Fisheries Soc. 104(2): 363-373.
Arnold, J. L., and Koel, T. M. 2007. Effects of Snowmobile Emission on the Chemistry of Snowmelt
Runoff in Yellowstone National Park. Final Report. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section,
Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. YCR-2006-1.
Barreca, A.B. 2010. Overwintering of Cascades Frog (Rana Cascadae) in Washington. A thesis
presented to the graduate faculty Central Washington University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Master of Science Biology.
Brim Box, J., S. Chappell, M. McFarland, and J. Furnish. 2005. The aquatic mollusk fauna of the
Lassen National Forest in northeastern California. USFS PSW Regional Office Report,
Vallejo, CA. 117 pp.
Brown, C. 1997. Personal Communications. Former graduate student at Oregon State University.
Currently Sierra Nevada Monitoring Strategy Amphibian Monitoring Team Leader with
USDA Forest Service, PSW Research Station, Berkeley, CA.
Brown, H. 2000. Personal communication. Fisheries Biologist (formerly), Lassen National Forest,
Almanor Ranger District, 900 E. Hwy 36, PO Box 767, Chester, CA 96020.
California Off-HighwayMotor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division. 2010. Over Snow Vehicle
Program Final Environmental Impact Report, Program Years 2010-2020. State of California,
Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, California. December, 2010.
Davenport, J. and T. A. Switalski. 2006. Environmental impacts of transport related to tourism and
leisure activities. Chapter 14 in J. Davenport and J. A. Davenport (eds.) The ecology of
transportation: managing mobility for the environment. Springer, Dordrecht. Netherlands.
Davidson, B. 2015. Botany Report for Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Lassen
National Forest, Susanville, California.
Eagleston, H. and C. Rubin. 2013. Non-motorized winter recreation impacts to snowmelt erosion,
Tronsen Basin, Eastern Cascades, Washington. Environmental Management 51: 167-181.
Fahey, B. and K. Wardle. 1998. Likely impacts of snow grooming and related activities in the West
Otago ski fields. Science for Conservation: 85. New Zealand Department of Conservation.
Lassen National Forest
435
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Gage, E. and D. J. Cooper. 2013. Evaluating snow compaction effects to fen wetlands on Rabbit Ears
and Buffalo Pass of the Routt national Forest. Prepared for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National
Forests, the White River National Forest, and the Black Hills National Forest.
Greller, A. M., Goldstein, M., Marcus, L. 1974. Snowmobile impact on three alpine tundra plant
communities. Environmental Conservation 1(2): 101–110.
Ingersoll, G. 1998. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park,
USGS, Department of Interior, Water-Resources Investigation Report 99-4148.
Ingersoll, G.P. 1999: Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National
Park, 1998. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Repot 99-4148. 24 pp.
Ingersoll, G., J. Turk, C. McClure, S. Lawlor, D. Clow, and A. Mast. 1997. Snowpack chemistry as
an indicator of pollutant emission levels from motorized winter vehicles in Yellowstone
National Park, Proceedings of 65th Annual Meeting of Western Snow Conference, May 4-8,
1997, Banff, Alberta.
Keddy, P. A., A. J. Spavold, and C. J. Keddy. 1979; Snowmobile Impact on Old Field and March
Vegetation in Nova Scotia Canada: An Experimental Study. Environmental Management
3(5): 409-415.
McNamara, M. 2015. Hydrology Report for Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest
Service, Lassen National Forest, Susanville, California.
Musselman, R. C., and Korfmacher, J. L. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow
chemistry on and off trail in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range, Wyoming.
Environmental monitoring and assessment 133(1-3), 321-334.
Neumann, P. W., and H. G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field
Naturalist 86:207-212.
Fellers, G.M. 1995. Aquatic amphibian surveys, Lassen National Forest. Point Reyes, CA: U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Point Reyes National Seashore.
Fellers, G.M. 1998. 1996-97 aquatic amphibian surveys, Lassen National Forest. Point Reyes, CA:
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Point Reyes National Seashore.
Fellers, G.M. and C.A. Drost. 1993. Disappearance of the Cascades frog Rana cascadae at the
southern end of its range, California, USA. Biological Conservation 65: 177-181.
Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M. Koo and H. Welsh, Jr. 2008. Turning population trend
monitoring into active conservation: can we save the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) in the
Lassen region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 3(1): 28-39.
Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2008).
Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species Act, Title 16 U.S. Code, Pts. 1536. 2004 ed.
Koo, M.S., J.V. Vindum, and M. McFarland. 2004. Results of 02-CS-11050650-029, the 2003
California Academy of Sciences survey: amphibians and reptiles of the Lassen National
Lassen National Forest
436
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Forest. San Francisco, CA: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Herpetology.
172 p.
Pope, K. 2008. Population monitoring of remnant populations of Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) in
the Lassen region of California. Final report to the Lassen National Forest. Unpublished
document. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood
Sciences Laboratory.
Pope, K and M. Larson. 2010. Second Year of Population Monitoring of Remnant Populations of
Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Area of California. Final report to the Lassen
National Forest. Unpublished document. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest
Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory.
Roby, K. 2002. Personal communication. Fisheries biologist (formerly). Lassen National Forest,
Almanor Ranger District, 900 E. Hwy 36, PO Box 767, Chester, CA 96020.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Lassen
National Forest. Susanville, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Executive Order 13112. Presidential Documents, Invasive Species,
President William Clinton. Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 25, February 8, 1999.
USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2001c. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Record of Decision, USFS (USDA Forest Service), Pacific Southwest
Region, Jan 2001
USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2003. Biological Assessment for SNFPA SEIS. Pacific Southwest
Region, Vallejo CA. 338pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670-2671. Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Plants and Animals. Chapter 2670. National Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Effective: September 23, 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Summary of the Decision for Motorized Travel Management –
Prohibition of Cross-country Travel and Route Designation. Lassen National Forest.
Susanville, California. June, 2010.
USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900 – Invasive Species Management. Chapter –
Zero Code. National Headquarters, Washington DC. Effective: December 5, 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Use by Over-snow Vehicles (Travel Management Regulations). Federal
Register, June 18, 2014. 79(117): 34678-34681.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS); USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 1989. Species
management guide for Orcuttia tenuis. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest
Service, Lassen National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA
96130.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS); USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 2012.
Conservation Strategy for Orcuttia tenuis on Federal Lands of the Southern Cascades and
Lassen National Forest
437
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Modoc Plateau. Lassen National Forest, Susanville, CA; Modoc National Forest, Alturas,
CA; and BLM Alturas Field Office, Alturas, CA.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for Three Plants and Threatened Status for Five Plants
From Vernal Pools in the Central Valley of California. Federal Register, March 26, 1997.
62(58): 14338-14352.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003a. Recovery Plan for Fritillaria gentneri (Gentner’s
fritillary). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, Oregon.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal
Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Final Rule. Federal Register, August 6, 2003.
68(151): 46683-46867.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of
California and Southern Oregon. Portland, OR. 606 p.
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Project Official Species List. Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office. Klamath
Falls, Oregon. September 29, 2015.
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b. Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Project Official Species List. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento,
California. September 29, 2015.
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015c. Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Project Official Species List. Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office. Yreka, California.
September 29, 2015.
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015d. Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Project Official Species List. Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Reno, Nevada.
September 29, 2015.
Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA). 2009. Seeing the Forest and the Trees – Assessing Snowmobile
Damage in National Forests. A Report by Winter Wildlands Alliance. November, 2009. 3p.
Heritage (Cultural Resources)
Castillo, E.D. 1978. The Impact of Euroamerican Exploration and Settlement. In California, edited
by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 6-15. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institute Washington, D.C.
Chatters, J. C, and J. E. Cleland. 1995 Chapter 27 - Conclusions: Environment, Population and
Human Adaptation on the Middle Pit River. In Prehistory of the Middle Pit River,
Northeastern California: Archaeological Investigations at Lake Britton, Pit 3, 4 & 5 Project,
Volume I, edited by J. H. Cleland. Report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
San Francisco.
Lassen National Forest
438
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Cook, S.F. 1978. Historical Demography. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 91-98.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institute Washington, D.C.
Dixon, R. B. and Alfred L. Kroeber 1919 Linguistic Families of California. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16(3):47-118 Berkeley.
Elston, R. G. 1971 A Contribution to Washo Archaeology. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research
Paper 2.
Garth, Thomas R. 1978 Atsugewi Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, pp.
236-243. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Hildebrandt, W. R., and P. J. Mikkelsen 1995 Projectile Point Typology. In Archaeological
Investigations PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion Project Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and
California, Vol. V, edited by R. U. Bryson, C. E. Skinner, and R. M. Pettigrew, pp. 1-1 to 140 . Report submitted to Pacific Gas Transmission Company, Portland.
Jacobsen, William H. 1966 Washo Linguistic Studies. In the Crrent Status of Anthropologicl
Research in the Great Basin: 1964. Social Sciences and Humanities Publication, No. 1, pp.
113-136. Desert Research Institute Reno Nevada.
King, T. 2003. Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resources
Management. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. 335p.
Kowta, M. 1988 The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An
Introduction and Interpretive Model. California Archaeological Site Inventory, Northeast
Information Center, CSU Chico.
Kroeber, A.J. 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprint originally published in 1925.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York.
995p.
Layton, T. N. 1970 High Rock Archaeology: An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Northwestern
Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
McAvoy, L.; McDonald, D.; Carlson, M. 2001. American Indians: Sense of place and contested
terrain. Final Report: PSW-98-0010CA. Riverside, CA: Wildland Recreation and Urban
Cultures, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; 59.
Miller, Wick R. 1966 Anthropological Linguistics in the Great Basin. In the Current Status of
Anthropological Research in the Great Basin: 1964. Social Science and Humanities
Publications No. 1, pp. 75-112. Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada.
Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 757p.
National Park Service. 1998. Director’s Order (DO) 28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines.
National Park Service. 1995. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National
Park Service Bulletin 15, Washington D.C. 54p.
Lassen National Forest
439
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Olmsted, David L. 1964. A History of Palaihnihan Phonology. University of California Publications
in Linguistics 35. Berkeley.
Parker, P.L.; King, T.F. 1992. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties. National Park Service Bulletin 38, Washington D.C. 22p.
Powers, S. 1976 [1877]. Tribes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
480p.
Riddell, Francis A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow. Handbook of California Indian Volume 8 California
pp. 370-386. Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institute.
Ritter 1970 Northern Sierra Foothill Archaeology: Culture History and Culture Process. Center for
Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 2: 171-184. Davis.
Sapir, Edward 1917 The Position of Yana in the Hokan Stock. University of California Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(1):1-34. Berkeley.
Shipley, William F. 1978 Native Languages of California. Handbook of California Indians, Volume 8
California pp 80-90. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.
Stewart, Omer C. 1966 Tribal Distributions and Boundaries in the Great Basin. In the Current Status
of Anthropological Research in the Great Basin: 1964. Social Sciences and Humanities
Publication No. 1, pp. 167-237, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada.
Van Ness, James. “Federal Land Management” in Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 2007. Hutt,
Sherry, editor. Left Coast Press, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA.
Hydrology
Aasheim, R. 1980. Snowmobile impacts on the natural environment. In R.N.L. Andrews and P.
Nowak, eds. Off-road vehicle use: a management challenge. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Office of Environmental Quality, Washington DC.
Adams, E.S. 1975. Effects of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Trans Amer. Fisheries Soc. 104(2): 363-373.
Caroll, J.N. and J.J. White. 1999. Characterization of snowmobile particulate emissions. Final Letter
Report prepared by Yellowstone Park Foundation, Inc. SwRI 08-2457, June 1999.
CDH. 2004. Status of water quality in Colorado—2004: the update to the 2002 305(b) report. Water
Quality Control Division, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment. April 2004.
Foresman, C.L., D.K. Ryerson, R.N. Walejko, W.H. Paulson, and J.W. Pendleton. 1976. Effect of
snowmobile traffic on bluegrass. Journal of Environmental Quality, 5(2): 129-130. Available
online: http://www.snowmobileforum.com/general-sled-chat/25036-whats-minimumamount-snow-you-should.html. 2008.
Ingersoll, G.P. 1999. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National
Park, 1998. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Repot 99-4148. 24 pp.
Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large
basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research. 32(4): 959-974.
Lassen National Forest
440
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Keddy, P.A., A.J. Spavold, and C.J. Keddy. 1979. Snowmobile impact on old field and marsh
vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental study. Environmental Management 3(5):
409-415.
McDaniel, M.R. 2002. Determination of SVOC in snowmobile exhaust and the driven snow to
estimate emission and degradation rates of snowmobile-derived contaminants in the winter
environment. Prepared for ATMS 792, DRI Storm Peak Laboratory, CO. January 2002.
Montana DEQ. The snowmobile dilemma. Written by Howard Haines, Montana DEQ,
www.deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/pulications/Reports/snowmobl.htm.
Mussleman, R.C and Korfmacher. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow
chemistry on and off trail in a RockyMountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range, Wyoming.
Environ Monitoring and Assessment (2007) 133:321–334.
Neumann P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field
Naturalist, volume 86: 207-212.
NPS. 2002. Environmental assessment for the management of snowmobiles in Rocky Mountain
National Park. Prepared by the Dept. of Interior National Park Service, Rocky Mountain
National Park, Colorado. June 2002.
Ryerson, D.K., D.A. Schlough, C.L. Foresman, G.H. Tenpas, and J.W. Pendleton. 1977. Effects of
snowmobile traffic on several forage species and winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, volume
69, Sept-Oct 1977: 769-772.
USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1997: Land and resource management plan 1997 revision, Routt
National Forest. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.
USFS, Pacific Southwest Region [USDA FS PSW Region]. 2000. Water quality management for
forest system lands in California: best management practices. Vallejo, CA. 138 p.
USFS, Pacific Southwest Region [USDA FS PSW Region]. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest plan
amendment: final environmental impact statement. Vallejo, CA.
ttp://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm. (14 May 2009)
USFS, Pacific Southwest Region [USDA FS PSW Region]. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest plan
amendment: final supplemental environmental impact statement; record of decision. Vallejo,
CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/index.html. (14 May 2009).
Wanek, Wallace J. 1971. Observations on snowmobile impacts. The Minnesota Volunteer, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, v.34, p. 1-9.
West, B. 2002. Water quality in the south. In: Wear, D.N., Greis, J.G., eds. Southern forest resource
assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p
Ziemer, R.R. 1981. Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting in small streams of
Northern California. Water Resources Research. 17(4): 907-917.
Lassen National Forest
441
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Noise
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.
Over Snow Vehicle Program. Draft Environmental Impact Report Program Years 2010 –
2020. State Clearinghouse # 2009042113. October 2010.
Harrison, R.T., R.N. Clark, and G.H. Stankey. 1980. Predicting impact of noise on recreationists.
ED&T Project No. 2688: Noise Pollution Prediction Method. USDA Forest Service,
Equipment Development Center, San Dimas, CA.
RAWS USA Climate Archive 2015. http://www.raws.dri.edu. Station maps data. California,
Northern. Chester and Blacks Mountain.
Reed, Sarah E., Ph.D., Jennifer L. Boggs, Jacob P. Mann. 2012. A GIS tool for modeling
anthropogenic noise propagation in natural ecosystems. Environmental Modelling &
Software 37 (2012). P. 1-5
Reed, Sarah E., Ph.D., Jennifer L. Boggs, Jacob P. Mann. 2010. SPreAD-GIS: an ArcGIS toolbox for
modeling the propagation of engine noise in a wildland setting. Version 2.0. The Wilderness
Society, San Francisco, CA. October 1, 2010
United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-207.
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Motorized Travel Management. Lassen National
Forest. Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Tehama and Siskiyou Counties, California.
December 2009a.
United States Department of Agriculture . Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 2001. Sierra
Nevada Forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. Vallejo, CA.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm. May 2009b.
Recreation
Adams, John C. and Stephen F. McCool. 2010. Finite Recreation Opportunities: The Forest Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, and Off-Road Vehicle Management. Natural Resources
Journal. Vol. 49.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.
2010. Over Snow Vehicle Program. Draft Environmental Impact Report Program Years 2010
– 2020. State Clearinghouse # 2009042113.
Code of Federal Regulations. 36 CFR 212. Travel Management Regulations
O’Brien, Chris. 2015. Personal communication.
Rolloff, David B, Elizabeth Erickson, And Becca Niles. 2009. California Department of Parks and
Recreation. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. 2009 Winter Trailhead Survey.
Dept. of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Administration. College of Health and Human
Services. California State University, Sacramento.
Snowlands Network.2014Analyzing Snowmobile Impacts to Other Winter Recreation Users in the
Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. December 2014.
Lassen National Forest
442
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Lassen National Forest. Region 5 Five-Forest Over Snow Vehicle
Program NEPA Project. Need for Change and Proposed Action Worksheet.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on
National Forest System Lands. FS-990a.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Natural Resource Manager. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.
Visitor Use Report. Lassen National Forest. Data Collected in 2010.
USDA Forest Service. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Motorized Travel Management.
Lassen National Forest. Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Tehama and Siskiyou
Counties, California. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-207.
USDA Forest Service. 2007. Recreation niche statement. On file at USDA Forest Service, Lassen
National Forest, Supervisor‘s Office, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130. USDA
Forest Service. 2006. Natural Resource Manager. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.
Visitor Use Report. Lassen National Forest. Data collected FY 2005. USDA Forest Service.
2001 Pacific Southwest Region. Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment: final environmental
impact statement. Vallejo, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Pacific Southwest Region Lassen National Forest. Land and Resource
Management Plan.
USDI National Park Service website. http://www.nps.gov/lavo/planyourvisit/winter_activities.htm.
Accessed November 4, 2015.
Socioeconomic
Allen, Stewart D., Denise A. Wickwar, Fred P. Clark, Robert R. Dow, Robert Potts, and Stephanie A.
Snyder. 2009. Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Technical Guide for Forest Service Land and
Resource Management, Planning, and Decisionmaking. General Technical Report PNWGTR-788. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR. 120 p.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015a. American Community Survey, 2009-2013 5-year Estimates. Accessed
July 23, 2015 <http://factfinder.census.gov>.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015b. County Business Patterns 2013. Accessed July 23, 2015 from EPS
<http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2013. Rural-Urban
Continuum Codes. Accessed July 23, 2015 < http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ruralurban-continuum-codes/.aspx>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2015a. Ecosystem Management
Coordination, National Forest Recreation Economic Contributions. Accessed July 23, 2015
<http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/recreation-contributions>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2015b. National Visitor Use Monitoring for
the Lassen NF, Data Collected FY 2010. Accessed July 20, 2015
<http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/>.
Lassen National Forest
443
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
White, Eric. M and Daniel J. Stynes. 2010. Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest
Recreation Visitors by Activity. Accessed July 23, 2015
<http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_files/White_Stynes_NVUM2010b.pdf>.
White, Eric M., Darren B. Gooding, and Daniel J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of National Forest
Visitor Spending Averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: Round 2. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-883. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:
Portland, OR. 71 p.
Soils
Baker, E. and E. Buthmann. 2005. Snowmobiling in the Adirondack Park: Environmental and Social
Impacts. St. Lawrence University, Department of Biology, Canton, New York.
Cacek, C.C. 1989. The relationship of mass wasting to timber harvest activities in the Lightning
Creek basin. Master Thesis, Eastern Washington University. pp. ii-iv.
Gage, E. and D.J. Cooper. 2009. Winter recreation impacts to wetlands: a technical review. Report
for Araphaho-Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest and Black Hills
National Forest. Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship. Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523.
Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, R.T. Graham, D.S. Page-Dumrose, J.R. Tonn, M.J. Larson, and T.B.
Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvests on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity and
health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234-251.
Keller, T., C. Pielmeier, C. Rixen, F. Gadient, D. Gustafsson, and M. Stahli. 2004. Impact of artificial
snow and ski-slope grooming on snowpack properties and soil thermal regime in a subalpine ski area. Annals of Glaciology 38: 314-318.
Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater
Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone
Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park.
Page-Dumroese, D.S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2010. Maintaining soil productivity during forest
or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the Western United States. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry 25 (1): 5-11.
State of California, Department of Water Resources. 2007. Climate change in California.
http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/062807factsheet.pdf.
USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service. 1967. Soil Survey: Tehama County California.
130 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Susanville, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Handbook, R-5 Supplement 2509.18-95-1. Soil
Management Handbook. San Francisco, California. 10 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Handbook, R-2 2509.25-10. Watershed Conservation
Practices Handbook; Management Measures and Design Criteria. Denver, Colorado. 29 pp.
Lassen National Forest
444
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on
National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a.
177 pp.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pgs 164-179, In: Novak, M., J.A.
Baker, and M.E. Obbard, eds. Wildland furbearer management and conservation in North
America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Altenbach, J.S., and E.D. Pierson. 1995. The importance of mines to bats: an overview. pp. 7-18, in
B.R. Riddle, ed. Inactive mines as bat habitat: guidelines for research, survey, monitoring
and mine management in Nevada, Biological Resources Research Center, University of
Nevada, Reno.
Anthony, R.G., Knight, R.L., Allen, G.T., McClelland, B.R. and Hodges, J.I., 1982. Habitat use by
nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. US Fish & Wildlife Publications,
p.34.
Arthur, S.M. and Krohn, W.B., 1991. Activity patterns, movements, and reproductive ecology of
fishers in southcentral Maine. Journal of Mammalogy 72(2), pp.379-385.
Aubry, K.B. 1997. The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). In: Harris, J. E.; Ogan, C. V.,
eds. Mesocarnivores of northern California: biology, management and survey techniques.
1997 August 12-17; Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society, California
North Coast Chapter; 47-53.
Aubry, K.B. and Houston, D.B., 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in
Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73:69-79.
Aubry K.B., Sacks B.N., Bridges P. 2015 March 23. Re: SNRF elevations on the west slope of the
Cascades. Email conversation. 3 pp.
Baker, J.K. 1962. The manner and efficiency of raptor depredations on bats. Condor 64(6):500-504.
Baker, M.D., M.J. Lacki, and G.A. Falxa. 2008. Habitat use of pallid bats in coniferous forests of
northern California. Northwest Science 82: 269-275.
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and C. L. Gardner. 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf population in
south-central Alaska. Wildl. Mono. 98. 54 pp.
Banci, V. 1994. Ecology and behavior of wolverine in Yukon. Burnaby, BC. In: Ruggiero, L.F.,
Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W. [et al.], tech. eds. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx and
wolverine in the western United States: the scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research Station. 184 p.
Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington,
KY. 286 pp.
Beck, A.J., and R.L. Rudd. 1960. Nursery colonies in the pallid bat. Journal of Mammalogy, 41:266267.
Lassen National Forest
445
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Beck, T.W. and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for the great gray owl in the Sierra Nevada of
California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 38 pp.
Bent, A. C. 1940. Life histories of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds and their
allies. U.S. Na. Mus. Bull. No. 176. Washington, D.C.
Bent, A. C. 1961. Life histories of North American birds of prey, Part 1. Dover Publications Inc.
New York, NY U.S.A.
Bias, M.A. and Gutierrez, R.J., 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central
Sierra Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 56(3):584-595.
Blakesley, J.A.; Seamans, M.E.; Conner, M.M.; Franklin, A.B.; White, G.C.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Hines,
J.E.; Nichols, J.D.; Munton, T.E.; Shaw, D.W.H.; Keane, J.J.; Steger, G.N.; McDonald, T.L.
2010. Population dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife
Monographs. 174: 1–36.
Blakesley, J.A. Shaw, D.W.H. and B.R. Noon. 2005b. Ecology of the California spotted owl on the
Lassen National Forest, 1990-2004; Final Report. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
30pp.
Bombay, H.L., 1999. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and reproductive success for Willow
Flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Master's thesis,
California State University, Sacramento.
Bond, M.L. Seamans, M.E. and R.J. Gutierrez. 2004. Modeling nesting habitat selection of
California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) in the central Sierra Nevada using
standard forest inventory metrics. Forest Science 50(6):773-780.
Brown, P.E., R. Berry, and C. Brown. 1994. Foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bats
(Plecotus townsendii) on Santa Cruz Island. Pp 367-369 in W.L. Halvorson and G.J.
Maender, editors. Forth California islands symposium: update on the status of resources.
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the birds of North America online (A.
Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from the birds of North America
online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/506
Buehler, D.A., Mersmann, T.J., Fraser, J.D. and Seegar, J.K., 1991. Effects of human activity on bald
eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management
55(2):282-290.
Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American marten in northeastern
Oregon. Northwest Science 74(3):179–185.
Bunnell, K.D., Flinders, J.T. and Wolfe, M.L., 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and snowmobiles
on lynx conservation in the intermountain west. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3), pp.828838.
Burt, W. H. 1934. The mammals of southern Nevada. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist.7:375-428.
Buskirk, J. 2002. The western pond turtle, Emys marmorata. Radiata 11(3): 3-30.
Lassen National Forest
446
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Buskirk, S.W. and Powell, R.A. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In:
Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W. [et al.], tech. eds. 1994. American marten, fisher,
lynx and wolverine in the western United States: the scientific basis for conserving forest
carnivores. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research Station. 184 p.
Buskirk, S.W. and Zielinski, W.J. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. In: Zabel, C.J. and Anthony,
R.G., eds. Mammal community dynamics: management and conservation in coniferous
forests of western North America. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 207-249.
Cahalane, V.H., 1939. Mammals of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Journal of
Mammalogy, 20(4):418-440.
Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California
Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version
8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. California’s Deer Population Estimates 1991-2014
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/population.html Accessed January, 2016.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Harvest of Small game, Upland Birds, and Other
Wildlife in California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/upland-game-birds#22503332harvest-data. Accessed January 2016.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California wildlife habitat relationships.
Accessed online at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015c. CDFW News, CDFW reminds hunters
of wolf pack in Siskiyou County. 2 pp.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015d. Species information report for mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Database
Version 9.0.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015e. Species information report for sandhill
crane (Grus canadensis). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Database
Version 9.0.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2010. Over snow vehicle program final
environmental impact report, program years 2010-2020. California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. 156 pp.
Call, D.R. Gutierrez, R.J. and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range characteristics of
California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94:880-888.
Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter and T.L. Griswold. 2011.
Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108:662-667.
Canfield, J.E., L.J. Lyon, J.M. Hillis, M.J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates – effects of recreation on
Rocky Mountain wildlife, a review for Montana (Chapter 6). Montana Chapter Wildlife
Society. 25 pp.
Lassen National Forest
447
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Carroll, C. 2005. A reanalysis of regional fisher suitability including survey data from commercial
forests in the redwood region. Arcata, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. 31 pp.
CDFG (Calif. Dept. Fish and Game). 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final Environmental
Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish
and Game. 182 pp + appendices.
CDFG (Calif. Dept. Fish and Game). 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey. State of
California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp.
CDFG. 1987. Sierra Nevada red fox: Five-year status report. Sacramento: California Department of
Fish and Game. 6 p.
CDFW. 2015e. Species information report for sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). California Wildlife
Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Database Version 9.0.
Chandler, S.K., Fraser, J.D., Buehler, D.A. and Seegar, J.K., 1995. Perch trees and shoreline
development as predictors of bald eagle distribution on Chesapeake Bay. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 59(2):325-332.
Chatfield, A.H. 2005. Habitat selection by a California spotted owl population: a landscape scale
analysis using resource selection functions. Dept. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation
Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. 59pp.
Chung-MacCoubrey A. L. 1996. Bat species composition and roost use in pinyon-juniper woodlands
of New Mexico. Pp. 118–123 in Bats and forests symposium (Barclay R. M. R., Brigham R.
M., eds.). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, Canada.
Cockrum, E.L. and Musgrove, B.F., 1964. Additional records of the Mexican big-eared bat, Plecotus
phyllotis (Allen), from Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 45(3):472-474.
Cockrum, E.L. and Ordway, E., 1959. Bats of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona.
American Museum novitates; no. 1938.
Commissaris, L.R. 1961. The Mexican big-eared bat in Arizona. J. Mammal. 42, 61–65.
Conner, M.M., Keane, J.J., Gallagher, C.V., Jehle, G., Munton, T.E., Shaklee, P.A. and Gerrard, R.A.,
2013. Realized population change for long-term monitoring: California spotted owl case
study. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7):1449-1458.
Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. Long,
C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of
Wildlife Management 71:2201-2212.
Copeland, J.P., McKelvey, K.S., Aubry, K.B., Landa, A., Persson, J., Inman, R.M., Krebs, J., Lofroth,
E., Golden, H., Squires, J.R. and Magoun, A., 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the
wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution?. Canadian
Journal of Zoology, 88(3):233-246.
Cordero, A.M. and W.B. Miller. 1995. Reproductive anatomy of Vespericola shasta (Berry, 1921)
(Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae), and descriptions of two new species of Vespericola
from northern California. Veliger 38(4):304-311.
Lassen National Forest
448
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Cross S. P. and D. Clayton. 1995. Roosting habits of bats in southern Oregon. Second Annual
Conference of the Wildlife Society, 12–17 September 1995, Portland, Oregon.
Crump, D.E. 2001. Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) nesting behavior and habitat
use. Master’s Theses. Paper 2210. http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_thesis/2210.
Cryan, P. 1997. Distribution and roosting habits of bats in the southern Black Hills, South Dakota.
Unpublished MS Thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 96 pp.
Dalquest, W.W. 1947. Notes on the natural history of the bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii in California.
Journal of Mammalogy 28(1):17-30.
Davis, C.J., 1998. Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) winter habitat use and
behavior. Unpubl. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.
Davis, R. 1966. Homing performance and homing ability in bats. Ecological Monographs 36:201237.
Dawson, N. and J.A. Cook. 2009. Phylogeography of two martens (Martes americana and Martes
caurina) in North America: tracking diversification in forest-associated mustelids. Abstract
in 5th International Martes Symposium Biology and conservation of Martens, Sables, and
Fishers: A new synthesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 8–12 September 2009.
Delaney, D. K., and T. G. Grubb. 2003. Effects of off-highway vehicles on northern spotted owls:
2002 results. Report to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation Division, Contract No. 4391Z9-0-0055. United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Center/Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise
on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60–76.
Detrich, P.J. and B. Woodbridge. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of colormarked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology
16:130-132.
Dorrance, M. J., P. J. Savage, and D. E. Huff. 1975. “Effects of Snowmobiles on White-Tailed Deer.”
Journal of Wildlife Management 39:563-569.
Dunk, J.R, J.J. Keane, A.E. Bowles, T. Narahashi, D.L. Hansen, S. Vigallon, and J.J.V.G Hawley.
2011. Experimental effects of recreation on northern goshawks – final report submitted to
the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Office. 71 pages.
Easterla, D.A., 1966. Yuma myotis and fringed myotis in southern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy,
47(2):350-351.
Easterla, D.A. and Baccus, J., 1973. A collection of bats from the Fronteriza Mountains, Coahuila,
Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 17:424-427.
Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen and S.H. Black. 2008. Status Review of Three Formerly Common
Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus: Bombus affinis (the rusty patched bumble
bee), B. terricola (the yellowbanded bumble bee), and B. occidentalis (the western bumble
bee). The Xerces society, Portland, OR.
Lassen National Forest
449
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Federal Register. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as Endangered or Threatened. USFWS. Federal
Register 77(1):45-52.
Fellers, G. M., and E. D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend's big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83:167-177.
Findley, J.S., and N.C. Negus. 1953. Notes on the mammals of the gothic region, Gunnison County,
Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy, 34(2):235-239.
Forsman, E.D. 1976. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon
State Univ. Corvallis. 127 pp.
Forsman, E. D.; Meslow, E.C.; Wight, H.M. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in
Oregon. Wildlife Monographs. 87:1–64.
Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Fraser, J.D., Frenzel, L.D. and Mathisen, J.E., 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald
eagles in north-central Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3):585-592.
Freddy, D.J., W.M. Bronaugh, and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by
persons on foot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.
Gaines, D. 1974a. Review of the status of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California: Sacramento Valley
populations. Condor 76:204-209.
Gaines, D. and S.A. Laymon. 1984. Decline, status and preservation of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in
California. Western Birds 15:49-80.
Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear
Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr586.pdf.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles
Audubon Society, Los Angeles, California.
Genter, D.L. 1986. Wintering bats of the Upper Snake River plain: occurrence in lava-tube caves.
Great Basin Naturalist 46(2):241-244.
Germano, D.J. 2010. Ecology of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) at sewage-treatment
facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The Southwestern Naturalist 55(1):89-97.
Germano, D.J. and Rathbun, G.B. 2008. Growth, population structure, and reproduction of western
pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) on the central coast of California. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 7(2):188-194.
Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern Martes in North America. Pages 59-71 in:
S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and
fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Lassen National Forest
450
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Gilbert, J.H., J.L. Wright, D.J. Lauten, and J.R. Probst. 1997. Den and rest-site characteristics of
American marten and fisher in northern Wisconsin. Pp. 135-145 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant,
and P.M. Woodard, eds. Martes: Taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management.
Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Graham, R.E., 1966. Observations on the roosting habits of the big-eared bat, Plecotus townsendii.
California limestone caves. Cave Notes, 8(3):17-22.
Green, G.A. Bombay, H.L. and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow
flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and the
University of California. 67 pp.
Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna.
27: 203-205.
Grubb, T.G. and King, R.M., 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with
classification tree models. The Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3):500-511.
Grubb, T.G., A.E. Gatto, L.L. Pater, and D.K. Delaney. 2012. Response of nesting northern goshawks
to logging truck noise, Kaibab National Forest, Final Report. USDA Forest Service,
Southwest Region. 31 pp.
Gutierrez R.J. and G.F. Barrowclough. 2005. Redefining the distributional boundaries of the northern
and California spotted owls: implications for conservation. Condor 107:182-187.
Gutierrez R.J. Franklin, A.B. and W.S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). The birds of
North America, number 179. The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. USA,
and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gutiérrez, R. J. and David J. Delehanty. 1999. Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the
Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/457 doi:bna.457
Gutiérrez, R.J., A.B. Franklin and P.C. Carlson. 1995. Population ecology of the northern spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis caurina) in northwestern California: annual results, 1994. Annual
Progress Report (Contract #53-91S8-4-FW20) to Region 5, USDA Forest Service.
Contractor: Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA.
Gutierrez, R.J., M.Z. Peery, D.J. Tempel, and W.J. Berigan. 2012. Population ecology of the
California spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada: annual results 2011. USDA Forest
Service, Region 5. 39 pp.
Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 710 pp.
Halofsky JE, Peterson DL, O’Halloran KA, Hoffman CH, eds. 2011. Adapting to climate change at
Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-844.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 130 p.
Hatfield, R. 2012. Records of western and Franklin’s bumble bees in the western United States.
Database records provided by the Xerces Society, Portland, OR on 2/29/12.
Lassen National Forest
451
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Hayward, L.S.; Bowles, A.E.; Ha, J.C.; Wasser, S.K. 2011. Impacts of acute and long-term vehicle
exposure on physiology and reproductive success of the northern spotted owl. Ecosphere.
2(6): article 65.
Hermanson, J.W., and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. American Society of Mammalogists,
Mammalian Species 213:1-8.
Hirshfeld, J.R. and O'Farrell, M.J., 1976. Comparisons of differential warming rates and tissue
temperatures in some species of desert bats. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part
A: Physiology, 55(1):83-87.
Hoffmeister, D.F. and W.W. Goodpaster. 1954. Mammals of the Huachuca Mountains, southeastern
Arizona. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 24:1-52.
Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D. Biddinger, E. Mader, S. Hoffman Black and C.
Mazzacano. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects
of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action. Xerces Society,
Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AreNeonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces-Society1.pdf
Hornocker, M.G. and Hash, H.S., 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59(7):1286-1301.
Howell, A.B. 1920. Some Californian experiences with bat roosts. Journal of Mammalogy 1(4):169177.
Humphrey, S.R., and T.H. Kunz. 1976. Ecology of a Pleistocene relict, the western big-eared bat
(Plecotus townsendii), in the southern great plains. Journal of Mammalogy 57(3):470-494.
Johnson, S. A. 1984. Home range, movements, and habitat use of fishers in Wisconsin. Thesis,
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, USA.
Johnston, D.J., G. Tatarian, and E.D. Pierson. 2004. California bat mitigation: techniques, solutions,
and effectiveness. Contract Report #2394-01 for California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, 125 pp.
Johnston, D.S. and J.R. Gworek. 2006. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) habitat use in a coniferous
forest in northeastern California. Bat Research News 47:114.
Johnston, D.S., B. Hepburn, J. Krauel, T. Stewart, and D. Rambaldini. 2006. Winter ecology of pallid
bats in central coastal California. Bat Research News 47:115.
Jones, C, and R.D. Suttkus. 1972. Notes on netting bats for eleven years in western New Mexico.
Southwestern Naturalist 16(3/4):261-266.
Jones, C. 1965. Ecological distribution and activity periods of bats of the Mogollon Mountains area
of New Mexico and adjacent Arizona. Tulane Studies in Zoology 12(4):93-100.
Kalinowski, R.S., M.D. Johnson, and A. Rich. 2014. Habitat relationships of great gray owl prey in
meadows of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(3):547-556.
Kapnick S, Hall A. 2010. Observed climate–snowpack relationships in California and their
implications for the future. J Climate 23:3446–3456.
Lassen National Forest
452
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Keane, J. January 2013. California spotted owl: Scientific consideration for forest planning. Chapter
7.2 in Science Synthesis to Support Land and Resource Management Plan Revision in the
Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Kelly, G. M. 1977. Fisher (Martes pennanti) biology in the White Mountain National Forest and
adjacent areas. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
Kirk, T.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 2009. Developing and testing a landscape habitat suitability model for
the American marten (Martes americana) in the Cascades mountains of California.
Landscape Ecology 24:759–773.
Knight, R. L., and S. K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal
of Wildlife Management 48:999-1004.
Knight, R.L. and Skagen, S.K., 1988. Agonistic Asymmetries and the Foraging Ecology of Bald
Eagles. Ecology 69(4):1188-1194.
Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U.S. Forest
Service and the Pollinator Partnership, Washington, D.C. 144 pp.
Kunz, T.H., and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. American Society of Mammalogists,
Mammalian Species 175:1-6.
Lassen National Forest. 2010. Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Wildlife Species, Motorized
Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Laves, K. S., and J. S. Romsos. 2000. Wintering bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and human
recreational use on the south shore of Lake Tahoe. South Lake Tahoe, CA, USDA Forest
Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 30 pp.
Lawler, J. J., H.D. Safford, and E. H. Girvetz. 2012. Martens and fishers in a changing climate in
K.B. Aubry (ed). Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New
Synthesis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Levi, T. and C.C. Wilmers. 2012. Wolves-coyotes-foxes: a cascade among carnivores. Ecology
93(4):921-929.
Lewis, S.E. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. American
Midland Naturalist 132(2):219-226.
Lewis, S.E. 1996. Low roost-site fidelity in pallid bats: associated factors and effect on group
stability. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39(5):335-344.
Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L.
Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N.
Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia,
Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volumes I-III.
Lovich, J. and Meyer, K. 2002. The western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in the Mojave River,
California, USA: highly adapted survivor or tenuous relict? Journal of Zoology London 256:
537-545.
Lassen National Forest
453
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Lowden J. 2015 Jan 22. Wildlife Biologist, USFS. Phone conversation with Glen Tarr, Biologist,
USFWS. 1 p.
Magoun, A.J. and Copeland, J.P., 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. The
Journal of wildlife management, pp.1313-1320.
Mathewson, H. A., H. L. Loffland, M. L. Morrison. 2011. Demographic Analysis for Willow
Flycatcher Monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada, 1997–2010: Final Report. Texas A & M
University.
Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to the Wildlife Habitats of California.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento. 166pp.
Mazurek, M. J. 2004. A maternity roost of Townsend's big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) in
coast redwood basal hollows in northwest California. Northwestern Naturalist 85: 60-62.
McNab, W. H., and P. E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section
descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
McNamara, M. 2015. Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation Environmental Impact Statement
Hydrology Report.
Meidinger, D., and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of
Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile northern spotted owls in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State Univ. Corvallis. 139pp.
Moriarty, K. 2014. Habitat use and movement behavior of Pacific marten (Martes caurina) in
response to forest management practices in Lassen National Forest, California. Doctoral
dissertation. Oregon State University. 144 pages.
Moriarty, Katie, M. 2014. Habitat Use and Movement Behavior of Pacific Marten (Martes caurina)
in Response to Forest Management Practices in Lassen National Forest, California.
Dissertation. Oregon State University. Available online at
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/54574/141203_Moriarty_OSU
_Dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1 Accessed January, 2016.
Morrison, M. L., R. J. Young, J. S. Rosmos, R. Golightly. 2011. Restoring forest raptors: Influence of
human disturbance and forest condition on northern goshawks. Restoration Ecology
19(2):273-279.
Murphy, D. D., and C. M. Knopp. 2000. Lake Tahoe watershed assessment. General Technical
Report-Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Musser, G.G. and Durrani, S.D., 1960. Notes on Myotis thysanodes in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy
41(3):393-394.
O’Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species 137:1-5.
O’Farrell, M.J., W.G. Bradley, and G.W. Jones. 1967. Fall and winter bat activity at a desert spring in
southern Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 12:163-171.
Lassen National Forest
454
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
O’Farrell. M.J., and W.G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring. Journal of
Mammalogy 51(1):18-26.
ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015 March 31. Biological status review for the
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in Oregon and evaluation of criteria to remove the Gray Wolf from
the List of Endangered Species under the Oregon Endangered Species Act. Retrieved from
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/minutes/15/04_April/Exhibit%20F_Attachm
e nt%202_%20Wolf%20Status%20Review.pdf. 76 pp.
Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, editors. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the
Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater
Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 pages.
Orr, R.T., 1958. Keeping bats in captivity. Journal of Mammalogy 39(3):339-344.
Paquet, P.C. and L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray wolf. Pgs. 482-510 In G.A. Feldhamer Orr, R.T. 1954.
Natural history of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus (LeConte). Proceedings of the California
Academy of Sciences 28:165-246.
Pearson, O. P., M. R. Koford, and A.K. Pearson. 1952. Reproduction of the lump-nosed bat
(Corynorhinus rafinesquei) in California. Journal of Mammalogy 33(3):273-320.
Perkins, J. M., and C. Levesque. 1987. Distribution, status, and habitat affinities of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Plecotus townsendii) in Oregon. Unpublished report 86-5-01. Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Perkins, J.M., J. R. Peterson, and A. J. Perkins. 1994. Roost selection in hibernating Plecotus
townsendii. Bat Research News 35:110.
Perrine, J. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, USA.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Perrine, J., L. Campbell, and G. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A
conservation assessment. US Forest Service, Region 5. Vallejo, CA. Report R5-FR-010.
Perrine, J.D., L.A. Campbell, and G.A. Green. 2008. Conservation assessment for the Sierra Nevada
red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). Draft copy. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA
Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.
Peterson, A., 1986. Habitat suitability index models: bald eagle (breeding season) (No. 82/10.126).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Pierson, E.D., and A. Chung-MacCoubrey. 2009. A natural resource condition assessment for
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Appendix 16 – bats. Natural Resource Report
NPS/SEKI/NRR – 2013/665.16.
Pierson, E. D., P. W. Collins, W.E. Rainey, P.A. Heady, and C.J. Corben. 2002. Distribution, status
and habitat associations of bat species on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County,
California, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara CA. Technical Report
No. 1:1-135.
Lassen National Forest
455
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Pierson, E.D. and G.M. Fellers. 1998. Distribution and ecology of the big-eared bat, Corynorhinus
townsendii in California. Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Species at
Risk Report, 92 pp.
Pierson, E.D., and P.A. Heady. 1996. Bat surveys of Giant Forest Village and vicinity, Sequoia
National Park. Report for National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 27 pp.
Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1994. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend’s big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. BMCP Technical Report Number 96-7.
California Department of Fish and Game. 36 pp.
Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1996. The distribution, status and management of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Bird and
Mammal Conservation Program Rep. 96-7. 49 pp.
Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and C. Corben. 2001. Seasonal patterns of bat distribution along an
altitudinal gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Report to California State University at Sacramento
Foundation, Yosemite Association, and Yosemite Fund, 70 pp.
Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, P.A. Heady and W.F. Frick. 2004. Bat surveys for State Route 104
Bridge over Dry Creek, Amador County: replacement project. Contract Report for California
Department of Transportation, Stockton, CA. 53 pp.
Postovit, H. R., AND B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-208 in
Natl. Wildl. Fed. Raptor Manage. Tech. Manual, Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 10 Potvin, F., L.
Belanger, and K. Lowell. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clearcut boreal landscape.
Conservation Biology 14:844–857.
Powell, R. A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. Second edition. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Powell, R.A., R.C. Swiers, A.N. Facka, S. Matthews, and D. Clifford. 2014. Understanding a fisher
reintroduction in northern California from 2 perspectives. Annual Report for 2013. USFWS,
Yreka; CDFW, Redding; Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, California. 35 pp.
Powell, R. A., and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. The fisher. Pages 38-73 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S.
W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest
carnivores: American marten, fisher. lynx, and wolverine in the western United States
(General Technical Report RM-254). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Preble, N.A. 1957. Nesting habits of the yellow-billed cuckoo. American Midland Naturalist
57(2):474-482.
Purcell, K.L., C.M. Thompson, and W.J. Zielinski. 2012. Fishers and American martens. Pp. 47-60 In
Managing Sierra Nevada forests (M. North, editor). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station Albany, CA. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-237.
Rabe, M.J., T.E. Morrell, H. Green, J.C. deVos, Jr., and C.R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of
ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of
Wildlife Management 62(2):612-621.
Lassen National Forest
456
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Rainey, W.E. and E.D. Pierson. 1996. Cantara spill effects on bat populations of the upper
Sacramento River, 1991-1995. Report to California Department of Fish and Game, Redding,
CA, (Contract # FG2099R1). 98 pp.
Rainey, W.E., E.D. Pierson, M. Colberg, and J.H. Barclay. 1992. Bats in hollow redwoods: seasonal
use and role in nutrient transfer into old growth communities. Bat Research News 33(4):71.
Raphael, M. G., and L. L. J. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American
martens in central Oregon and western Washington. Pages 146-165 In G. Proulx, H. N.
Bryant, and P M. Woodard (editors) Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and
Management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Roberts, L.J., A.M. Fogg, and R.D. Burnett. 2015. Sierra Nevada National Forests Avian
Management Indicator Species Project: 2014 Annual Report. Point Blue Conservation
Science, Petaluma, CA. www.pointblue.org
Roberts, S. and M. North. 2012. California Spotted Owls. Chapter 5 in PSW-GTR-237 Managing
Sierra Nevada Forests, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Roest, A.I. 1951. Mammals of the Oregon Caves area, Josephine County. Journal of Mammalogy
32:345-351.
Ruggiero, L.F., D.E. Pearson, S.E. Henry. 1998. Characteristics of American marten den sites in
Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2):663–673.
Sacks B., H. Wittmer, and M. Statham. 2010. The Native Sacramento Valley red fox. Report to the
California Department of Fish and Game, May 30, 2010, 49pp.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The
North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2013. Version
01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
Schempf, P.F. and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern
California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. California Region. December.
Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly,
P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy,
J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sagegrouse in North America. The Condor 106:363-376.
Scott, N.J., Rathbun, G.B., Murphy, T.G., and Harker, M.B. 2008. Reproduction of pacific pond
turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in coastal streams of central California. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 3(2):143-148.
Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked
assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate
conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists,
Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Siegel, R.B. Wilkerson, R.L. and D. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the willow flycatcher from
Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39:8-21.
Lassen National Forest
457
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2010. Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis,
California. 184 pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2009.pdf
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Chiroptera. Pp. 312-529, in Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and
geographic reference. D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder, Editors. Volume I. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 743 pp.
Slauson, K.M. 2011. Personal communication.
Small, A. 1994. California birds: their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Co.
Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern
Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4):1181-1186.
Squires, John R. and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), The Birds
of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved
from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298.
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles.
Wildlife Monographs 137:1-46.
Stalmaster, M. V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human
activity. f. Wildl. Mgmt. 42:506-13.
Statham MJ, Rich AC, Lisius SK, Sacks BN. 2012. Discovery of a remnant population of Sierra
Nevada red fox (Vulpes Vulpes necator). Northwest Science 86(2):122–132.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.086.0204
Stefani, R. A., H. L. Bombay, and T. M. Benson. 2001. Willow Flycatcher. Pp. 143- 195 in USDA
Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Statement, vol. 3, Ch. 3, Part 4.4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest and
Intermountain Regions, Sacramento, CA.
Studier, E.H., 1970. Evaporative water loss in bats. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology,
35(4):935-943.
Szewczak, J.M., S.M. Szewczak, M.L. Morrison, and L.S. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo
mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 58(1):66-75.
Tatarian, G. 2001a. Successful pallid bat house design in California. Bat House Researcher 9(2):2-4.
Tempel, D.J. and Gutierrez, R.J., 2003. Fecal corticosterone levels in California spotted owls
exposed to low-intensity chainsaw sound. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3):698-702.
Tempel, D.J. and Gutiérrez, R.J., 2004. Factors related to fecal corticosterone levels in California
spotted owls: implications for assessing chronic stress. Conservation Biology 18(2):538-547.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin.
American Midland Naturalist 113(2): 404-407.
Lassen National Forest
458
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M.
Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. The Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
Thorp, Robbin, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Entomology and Nematology,
University of California Davis. Personal communication with Katherine Malengo regarding
hibernation habitat for western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). October 19, 2015.
Timossi, I. 1990. California's statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. Calif. Dept. Fish and
Game. Sacramento, Ca. Computerized database.
Tommasi, D., A. Miro, H. A. Higo and M. L. Winston. 2004. Bee diversity and abundance in an
urban setting. The Canadian Entomologist 136:851–869.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory
Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl (Stirx
occidentalis occidentalis) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register. Vol 71, No 100,
May 24, 2006.
USDA Forest Service, 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment: final environmental impact
statement. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region [USDA FS
PSW Region]. 2001. Vallejo, CA.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5415847 .
USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding
between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400264. Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Land and Resource Management Plan Lassen National Forest. Pacific
Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm
USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision for Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator
Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Multi Species Inventory and
Monitoring: A Foundation for Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the
Lake Tahoe Basin. Draft Report.
Lassen National Forest
459
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species
(MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra
Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra,
Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific
Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2
008.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species
(MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra
Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra,
Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific
Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010. 132pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2008.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/
USDA Forest Service. 2011. Motor vehicle use map, Lassen National Forest. 1 p.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Lassen National Forest personal fuelwood and Christmas tree cutting
map. November 14, 2014-December 31, 2015. 1 p.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle recovery plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 70 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 119 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for
Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Bald eagle management guidelines and conservation
measures.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation
of revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Federal Register
77(233):71876-72068.
USDI and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened
Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in
the Contiguous United States. Federal Register 78(23):7864-7890.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal
of the Proposed Rule To Remove the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle From the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule. Federal Register
79(180):55874-55917.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015e. Greater sandhill crane – Ruby Lake. 2 pp.
Lassen National Forest
460
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015h. Species report: Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes
necator). Species report upon which the 12-month finding on the petition to list the Sierra
Nevada red fox as an endangered or threatened species was based. 78 pages
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015i. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month
Finding on a petition to list Sierra Nevada red fox as an endangered or threatened species.
163 pp.
USDI National Park Service. 2007. Winter Use Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway.
Volumes 1 and 2.
USDI National Park Service. 2013. Yellowstone National Park Winter Use Plan /Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement Wyoming, Montana, Idaho. Chapter 3, Pages 90-91.
Van Riper III, C., J.J. Fontaine, and J.W. van Wagtendonk. 2013. Great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) in
Yosemite National Park: on the importance of food, forest structure, and human disturbance.
Natural Areas Journal 33(3):286-295.
van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian mammals, volume 2: bats. National Museum
of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Vaughan, T.A., and T.J. O’Shea. 1976. Roosting ecology of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus.
Journal of Mammalogy 57(1):19-42.
Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I.; Beck, T.W. 1992. The
California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station. 285 pp.
Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Pgs. 360363.
Wasser, S.K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of
disturbance in the Northern Spotted Owl. Conservation Biology 11(4):1019-1022.
Weir, R. D., I. T. Adams, G. Mowat, and A. J. Fontana. 2003. East Kootenay fisher assessment.
Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Cranbrook,
British Columbia, Canada.
Weir, R.D. and F.B. Corbould. 2007. Factors affecting diurnal activity of fishers in north-central
British Columbia. Journal of Mammalogy 88(6):1508-1514.
Weller, T.J. and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed myotis day roosts in northern California.
Journal of Wildlife Management 66(3):489-497.
White, P.J., J.J. Borkowski, T. Davis, R.A. Garrott, D.P. Reinhart, and D.C. McClure 2009 “Chapter
26: Wildlife Responses to Park Visitors in Winter.” In Terrestrial Ecology: The Ecology of
Large Mammals in Central Yellowstone—Sixteen Years of Integrated Field Studies, vol. 3,
edited by R.A. Garrott, P.J. White, and F.G.R. Watson, 581–601. Elsevier. San Diego,
California.
Lassen National Forest
461
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Whittington, J., C.C. St. Clair, and G. Mercer. 2005. Spatial responses of wolves to roads and trails
in mountain valleys. Ecological Applications 15(2):543-553.
Wildlife Online. 2015 April 6. Red fox Vulpes vulpes. Retrieved from
http://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/red_fox.html April 20, 2015. 82 pp.
Wildlife Resource Consultants. 2004. Winter recreation effects on the subnivean environment of five
Sierra Nevada meadows. Funded by a Grant to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit by
the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Green Sticker Program Project # OR-2LT B-49. 19 pages + Appendices.
Williams, P. J., R. J. Gutierrez, S. A. Whitmore. 2011. Home range and habitat selection of spotted
owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2):333-343.
Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild
mammals of North America. Biology, management and economics. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Witmer, G.W.; Martin, S.K. and Sayler, R.D. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management
in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-420. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 51 pp.
Woodbridge, B., and C. D. Hargis. 2006. Northern Goshawk inventory and monitoring technical
guide. USDA Forest Service, WO GTR-71. 63 pp.
Woodbridge, B., and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of Northern
Goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:83–87.
Wu, J. X., R. B. Siegel, H. L. Loffland, M. W. Tingley, S. L. Stock, K. N. Roberts, J. J. Keane, J. R.
Medley, R. Bridgman, C. Stermer. 2015. Diversity of Great Gray Owl Nest Sites and Nesting
Habitats in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(6):937-947.
Younk, J. V. and M. J. Bechard. 1994. Breeding ecology of the northern goshawk in high-elevation
aspen forests of northern Nevada. pp. 119-121 In W.M. Block, M.L. Morrison, and M.H.
Reiser [eds.]. The Northern Goshawk: ecology and management: proceedings of a
symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society, Sacramento, California, 14-15 April 1993.
Studies in Avian Biology No.16. Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA.
Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White, eds. 1990.
California's Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat
Relationship System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento,
California. 407 pages.
Zielinksi, W. J. January 2013. The Forest Carnivores: Fisher and Marten. Chapter 7.1 in Science
Synthesis to Support Land and Resource Management Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada
and Southern Cascades. Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, and A.E. Bowles, 2008. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the
American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1558-1571.
Lassen National Forest
462
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References
Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and
contemporary distribution of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA.
Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407.
Zielinski, William (Bill), Research Ecologist, PSW Redwood Sciences Lab. Personal communication
with Katherine Malengo regarding potential impacts of OSV use on martens and marten den
sites in the Sierra Nevada of California. March 26, 2015.
Zielinski, William J., Keith M. Slauson and Ann E. Bowles. 2007. The Effect of Off-Highway
Vehicle Use on the American Marten in California, USA. Final Report to the USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Sacramento.
Transportation/Engineering
CA. 2010. Over Snow Vehicle Program Final Environmental Impact Report, Program Years 2010 –
2020. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA.
CA. 2012. Off-Highway Vehicle Law Enforcement Information (Quickbook). California Department
of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA.
USDA. 1992. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service,
Lassen National Forest, Susanville, CA.
USDA. 2015. Forest Service Directive System, Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks, 7700 Series:
Travel Management. USDA Forest Service. Available @ http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/,
accessed October 31, 2015.
USDA. 2015. Forest transportation atlas – GIS Spatial and INFRA Tabular Data, Lassen National
Forest. USDA Forest Service, Lassen NF, Susanville, CA.
U.S. Government. 2015. Code of Federal Regulations. Government Printing Office. Available @
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR, accessed
October 31, 2015.
Lassen National Forest
463
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Glossary
Acronyms
CVC
California Vehicle Code
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
GIS
Geographic Information System
LRMP
Land and Resource Management Plan
MVUM
Motor vehicle use map
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA
National Forest Management Act
NFS
National Forest System
NVUM
National Visitor Use Monitoring
OHV
Off-highway vehicle
OSV
Over-snow vehicle
PCT
Pacific Crest Trail
RFA
Recreation Facility Analysis
ROS
Recreation opportunity spectrum
Lassen National Forest
465
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Glossary
Glossary
Administrative Use
Motorized vehicle use vehicle use associated with
management activities or projects on National Forest
land administered by the Forest Service or under
authorization of the Forest Service. Management
activities include but are not limited to: law
enforcement, timber harvest, reforestation, cultural
treatments, prescribed fire, watershed restoration,
wildlife and fish habitat improvement, private land
access, allotment management activities, and mineral
exploration and development that occur on National
Forest land administered by the Forest Service or under
authorization of the Forest Service.
Area
A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller,
and, except for over-snow vehicle use, in most cases
much smaller, than a Ranger District.
Designated Road or Trail or Area
A National Forest System road, National Forest system
trail, or an area on National Forest System lands that is
designated for over-snow vehicle use pursuant to 36
CFR §212.51 on an over-snow vehicle use map (36
CFR §212.1).
Designation of over-snow vehicle use Designation of a National Forest System road, a
National Forest System trail, or an area on National
Forest System lands where over-snow vehicle use is
allowed pursuant to §212.81.
Forest road or trail
A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to
and serving the [National Forest System (NFS)] that is
determined to be necessary for the protection,
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use
and development of its resources (36 CFR §212.1)
Non-motorized use
A term used in this document to refer to travel other
than that defined as motorized. For example, hiking,
riding horses, or mountain biking.
Over-snow vehicle (OSV)
A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and
that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while
in use over snow (36 CFR §212.1)
Over-snow vehicle use map
A map reflecting roads, trails, and areas designated for
over-snow vehicle use on an administrative unit or a
Ranger District of the National Forest System.
Trail
A route 50 inches wide or less or a route over 50 inches
wide that is identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR
§212.1).
Lassen National Forest
467
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Index
Index
Lassen National Forest
469
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendices
Appendices
The following appendices support the information documented in this DEIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Comment Categories and Classification Code Definitions.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Direction and 36 CFR §212.55.
Appendix C – Actions Considered in Cumulative Impacts Analysis and How Cumulative
Impacts were Considered.
Appendix D – Water Quality Best Management Practices.
Lassen National Forest
471
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Appendix A. Scoping Comment Categories
Subject
Approximate Percentage of Comments
Wildlife
20%
Watersheds (soil and water)
8%
Transportation
1%
Socioeconomics
6%
Recreation
36%
Noise
7%
National Forest Management Act
<1%
National Environmental Policy Act
4%
Fisheries
1%
Climate Change
<1%
Botany
7%
Air Quality
8%
Total
100%
Lassen National Forest
473
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Appendix B. Forest Plan Direction and 36 CFR §212.55
OHV Management Practices Emphasized and Permitted in each
Forest Plan Management Prescription (1992 Forest Plan)
Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines
Recreation
Provide diverse opportunities of winter sports.
1. Continue to implement the preferred alternative of the 1989 Winter OHV Management Plan,
for the construction of trailheads and trail networks for winter recreation.
2. Cooperate with the State of California to identify locations where snow removal is needed to
accommodate safe, off-highway parking for dispersed winter use.
3. Designate and mark trails needed for additional dispersed winter recreation.
5. Accommodate snowmobile use over most of the Forest where not in conflict with other uses
or resources. Due to the dispersed nature of the activities, do not provide regular patrols.
Provide first aid services only as Forest personnel happen to be available.
6. Minimize user conflicts by specifying allowable winter use on certain roads and trails (for
example cross-country ski trails, snowmobile-only trails or winter 4-wheel drive only.
7. Prohibit snow removal on designated snowmobile and cross-country ski trails between
specified dates (Forest Plan, pages 4-25-26).
Restricted Off-Highway Vehicle Use: This practice involves control of off-highway vehicle use. Use
can be seasonally prohibited or restricted to designated routes (Forest Plan, Appendix E, page E-4).
OHV Management Practices
Management
Prescription
Description
Emphasized
Permitted
Other Relevant Direction
A
(page 4-40)
Non-Timber
Wildlife
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Seasonally close roads where necessary to
protect wildlife during critical periods
Manage recreation according to the
specified Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
classes (See Forest Standards and
Guidelines)
B
(page 4-42)
Range/
Wildlife
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to the
specified Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
class, which is primarily Roaded Natural
C
(page 4-44)
Firewood
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum class of Roaded
Natural (see Forest Standards and
Guidelines)
D
(page 4-45)
Developed
Recreation
Restricted
Off-Highway
Vehicle Use
Lassen National Forest
475
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
OHV Management Practices
Management
Prescription
Description
Emphasized
E
(page 4-48)
Early Successional
Restricted
Off-Highway
Vehicle Use
F
(page 4-50)
Riparian/
Fish
None
G
(page 4-54)
Old Growth/
Goshawk
Restricted
Off-Highway
Vehicle Use
K
(page 4-56)
Rocky/
Sparse
Timber
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes of
Semi-Primitive Nan-Motorized and Roaded
Natural (see Forest Standards and
Guidelines)
L
(page 4-58)
Late Successional
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes of
semi- Primitive Non-Motorized, SemiPrimitive Motorized, or Roaded Natural (see
Forest Standards and Guidelines)
M
(page 4-60)
SemiPrimitive
Motorized
Restricted
Off-Highway
Vehicle Use
Design motorized routes to take advantage
of recreation and scenic opportunities,
insure successful rehabilitation of soil and
vegetation, and provide motorized recreation
challenges.
Close specific areas or travel routes
seasonally or year-round as needed to
facilitate management of adjacent areas,
prevent damage to other resources, prevent
use conflicts, and avoid unnecessary costs
Monitor and limit visitor use through a quota
permit system when other resources are
damaged or recreation experiences are
reduced
N
(page 4-63)
SemiPrimitive
NonMotorized
Restricted
Off-Highway
Vehicle Use
Design trails to take advantage of recreation
attributes such as vistas, streams, lakes,
and areas of geologic interest
Monitor and limit visitor use when other
resources are damaged or recreation
experiences are reduced
Prohibit motorized recreation, including fourwheel driving, motorcycling, and
snowmobiling.
R
(page 4-66)
Range
None
Other Relevant Direction
Permitted
Close roads to motorized vehicles as
appropriate to meet the needs of deer, black
bear, and other emphasized species listed in
the Management Area direction.
Manage recreation according to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class of
Roaded Natural (see Forest Standards and
Guidelines)
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Confine off-highway vehicles, except
oversnow vehicles, to designated roads,
trails, and stream crossings in riparian
areas.
Manage recreation according to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes of
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, SemiPrimitive Motorized, or Roaded Natural (see
Forest Standards and Guidelines).
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to the
specified Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
class which is primarily Roaded Natural (see
Forest Standards and Guidelines)
Lassen National Forest
476
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Management
Prescription
OHV Management Practices
Description
Emphasized
Special
AreasResearch
Natural
Areas
None
Special
Areas Other
Special
Areas
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
T
(page 4-71)
Timber
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
None
V
(page 4-73)
View/
Timber
None
Restricted OffHighway
Vehicle Use
Manage recreation according to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
class of Roaded Natural or Rural (see
Forest Standards and Guidelines).
W
(page 4-76)
Wilderness
None
Prohibit motorized vehicles except where
authorized for emergencies or for other
purposes, based on environmental analysis.
Z
(page 4-79)
Minimal
Management
None
None
S
(page 4-68)
Other Relevant Direction
Permitted
Prohibit motorized vehicles within Research
Natural Areas
Manage recreation according to the
designated Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum classes (see Forest Standards
and Guidelines)
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines
Standards and guidelines described in this section apply to all land allocations (other than wilderness
areas and wild and scenic river areas) unless stated otherwise (2004 Record of Decision, page 49).
Wheeled Vehicles
Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off highway vehicle
(OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current forest plans or other specific area standards
and guidelines, cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles would continue (2004 Record of Decision,
page 59).
36 CFR §212.55: Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas.
(a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails,
and areas on National Forest System lands. In designating National Forest System roads, National
Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible
official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety,
provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System
lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the
uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and
administration.
(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of
this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands,
the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: (1)
Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and
significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or
Lassen National Forest
477
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4)
Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or
neighboring Federal lands.
In addition, the responsible official shall consider: (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with
existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
(c) Specific criteria for designation of roads. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section,
in designating National Forest System roads, the responsible official shall consider: (1) Speed,
volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads; and (2) Compatibility of vehicle class with
road geometry and road surfacing.
(d) Rights of access. In making designations pursuant to this subpart, the responsible official shall
recognize: (1) Valid existing rights; and (2) The rights of use of National Forest System roads and
National Forest System trails under § 212.6(b). (e) Wilderness areas and primitive areas. National
Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in
wilderness areas or primitive areas shall not be designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to this
section, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable
enabling legislation for those areas.
Lassen National Forest
478
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Appendix C: How Cumulative Impacts were Considered
We considered whether the potential impacts of the alternatives would accumulate with the impacts of
past, other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in both time and geographic space (FSH
1909.15, Sec. 15.2). If the proposed action or alternatives being analyzed in this DEIS would result in
no direct or indirect impacts, there could be no cumulative impacts. It logically follows that if the
direct and indirect impacts of the action would occur within a different context than the impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would also be no potential for impacts
to accumulate in time and geographic space.
Consideration of Past Actions
The analysis of cumulative impacts begins with consideration of the direct and indirect impacts on the
environment that are expected or likely to result from the proposed action and alternatives. Once the
direct and indirect impacts are determined, we then look for existing (residual indirect) impacts of
past actions.
Only those residual impacts from past actions that are of the same type, occur within the same
geographic area, and have a cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect impacts of the
proposed action and the alternatives are considered relevant and useful for the cumulative impacts
analysis.
To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative impacts of the alternatives, this
analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is
because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events
that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative impacts.
The cumulative impacts analysis does not attempt to quantify the impacts of past human actions by
adding up all individual residual impacts of prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are
practical reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be
impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by
innumerable actions in the past, and isolating the impacts of each individual past action that might
continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible.
Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the
cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual impacts of
past actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions. This is because there is limited
information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions and one cannot reasonably
identify each and every past action that has incrementally contributed to current conditions. By
looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual impacts of past human actions,
regardless of which particular action or event contributed those impacts.
This practice adheres to direction in the Council on Environmental Quality’s interpretive
memorandum of June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can
conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past
actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, our
analysis of past actions is based on current environmental conditions.
Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Cumulative impacts can only occur when the likely impacts resulting from the proposed action or
alternatives overlap spatially and temporally with the likely impacts of reasonably foreseeable future
actions (FSH 1909.15, Sec. 15.2).
Lassen National Forest
479
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
The Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 220 provides direction for identifying reasonably
foreseeable future actions that should be considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those federal or non-federal activities not yet undertaken,
for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals” (36 CFR §220.3).
“Identified proposals for Forest Service actions are those for which the Forest Service has a goal and
is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal
and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR §1508.23)” (36 CFR §220.4(a)(1)).
The relevance and usefulness of other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future activities or events
that might result in impacts that would accumulate with the specific direct and indirect impacts to
specific resources depends on the context in which those direct and indirect impacts are considered.
Those actions and events are discussed in the relevant resource sections.
Therefore, the other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered in two phases.
The first phase determined whether another present or reasonably foreseeable action was relevant and
useful to the analysis. The other present or reasonably foreseeable future action would only be
relevant and useful if its impacts would accumulate with the impacts of the alternative being
analyzed. The second phase determined the cumulative impacts of those actions determined to be
relevant and useful.
Other Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Considered in Cumulative Impacts Analyses
Routine maintenance occurs throughout the project area on roads and in campgrounds. Routine Forest
Service use of mineral material sources occurs in these designated areas throughout the project area.
Routine noxious weed management (hand pulling/digging) occurs along forest roads throughout the
project area. A wide range of recreational use occurs in all seasons across the forest, and forest-wide
campgrounds and roads receive routine use during the months that climate conditions allow. Ongoing
maintenance and use of communication sites and personal use woodcutting occur throughout the
project area. Ongoing actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions included include
snowplowing of winter recreation parking areas.
Grazing on range allotments is also ongoing. These allotments are shown in the following table.
Table 152. Lassen National Forest active range allotments and grazing permits
Allotment
Livestock
Season of Use
AUMs
Antelope
Cattle
3/1 – 5/31
799
Benner Creek (one day crossing)
Cattle
6/1 – 6/1
5
Campbell Mountain
Cattle
7/1 – 8/15
44
Almanor Ranger District @ 3,483 AUMs
Collins
Cattle
6/15 – 10/31
162
Cone & Ward South
Cattle
11/15 – 4/15
693
Deer Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
297
Feather River
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
416
Lyonsville
Cattle
5/15 – 9/15
189
Martin
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
137
Morgan Springs
Cattle
6/15 – 10/31
434
Murphy Hill
Cattle
7/1 – 9/30
199
Soda Creek – North Butte
Cattle
6/16 – 9/15
108
Lassen National Forest
480
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Allotment
Livestock
Season of Use
AUMs
Bridge Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
1,931
Champs Flat
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
2,515
Clover Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 8/31
399
Eagle Lake Ranger District @ 21,751 AUMs
Coyote
Cattle
6/1 -9/30
424
Diamond Mountain
Cattle
7/1 – 8/31
135
Duck Lake
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
260
Grays Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
1,189
Gooch Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
1,191
Harvey Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 10/31
3,320
Homer Lake
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
190
Lower Pine Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 9/9
1,995
Mountain Meadows
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
162
North Eagle Lake
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
1,059
Poison Lake
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
3,555
Robbers Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
380
Silver Lake (one day crossing)
Cattle
6/1 – 6/1
9
South Eagle Lake
Cattle
5/16 – 9/30
599
Susan River
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
785
Upper Pine Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
1,653
Bainbridge
Cattle
6/1 – 7/31
742
Bald Mountain
Cattle
4/16 – 5/31
269
Bear Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
1,271
Butte Creek
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
858
Coyote Springs
Cattle
6/1 – 9/30
826
Dixie Valley
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
1,261
Horse Valley
Cattle
4/16 – 5/31
338
Murken Lake
Cattle
4/16 – 5/31
409
North Battle Creek
Cattle
7/1 – 9/30
319
North Hot Springs
Cattle
4/16 – 5/31
266
North Hot Springs
Cattle
6/1 – 9/15
232
Procter Creek
Cattle
8/1 – 9/30
724
Six Mile Hill
Cattle
4/16 – 5/31
149
Soldier Mountain
Cattle
4/16 – 6/15
424
Willow Springs
Cattle
6/1 – 10/15
Hat Creek Ranger [email protected] 10,764 AUMs
Total Permitted AUMs
2,676
35,998
Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Motorized Travel Management, Lassen National Forest, Appendix C.
The list of future foreseeable actions includes those projects on the Lassen National Forest Schedule
of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The SOPA is updated quarterly and posted on the Lassen National
Forest website. Land disturbing projects listed on the SOPA as “developing proposal” or “in progress”
are included here as potentially contributing to cumulative effects.
Lassen National Forest
481
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
1. Lassen NF ML3 Roads Evaluation
Status : Developing Proposal
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Lassen NF ML3 Roads Evaluation
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Lassen National Forest All Units (11050600)
Analysis Type : EA
Purpose : Recreation management
Activities : Travel management
Description: Forest-wide evaluation of maintance level changes and mixed use on ML3 roads.
Location: UNIT - Lassen National Forest All Units. STATE - California. COUNTY - Butte,
Lassen, Plumas, Shasta, Tehama. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Various ML3 roads throughout
Lassen NF.
2. Upland Windthrow Salvage
Status : Developing Proposal
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Upland Windthrow Salvage
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Eagle Lake Ranger District (11050658)
Analysis Type : EA
Purpose : Forest products
Activities : Road improvements/construction
Description: Salvage of wind thrown timber across the northern portions of the Eagle Lake and
Hat Creek Ranger District.
Location: UNIT - Eagle Lake Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Lassen, Shasta.
LEGAL - Not Applicable. Northern portion of the Eagle Lake and Hat Creek Ranger Districts.
3. Mudstove Project
Status : Developing Proposal
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Mudstove Project
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Almanor Ranger District (11050651)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Forest products, Fuels management
Activities : Timber sales (salvage), Fuel treatments (non-activity fuels)
Description: The Mudstove project proposes to salvage harvest windthrown trees and trees
structurally damaged by the 2/6/2015 extreme wind event. Proposed project is approximately 250
acres.
Location: UNIT - Almanor Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Plumas. LEGAL sec 8, 9, 15, 16, 22 T28N, R6E; sec 29, 31, 32 T30N, R7E; sec 5, 6, 8, 9 T29N, R7E, MDM.
pockets of windthrow in portions of Stover Mountain and Mud Creek Rim.
Lassen National Forest
482
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
4. Storrie Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Project
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Storrie Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Project
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Almanor Ranger District (11050651)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants
Activities : Species habitat improvements, Watershed improvements
Description: Remove three road-stream crossing structures that are barriers to aquatic organism
passage. Replace with new structures that allow aquatic organisms to pass above and below the
road crossings and that are capable of passing a 100-year storm flow.
Location: UNIT - Almanor Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Plumas. LEGAL Not Applicable. 3 separate project sites: NFS road 26N08 crossing Water Creek, NFS road
26N08 crossing Miller Ravine, and NFS road 26N08 crossing Rock Creek. All sites are within
the Yellow Creek 5th field watershed.
5. Blacks Windthrow Salvage Project
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Blacks Windthrow Salvage Project
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Eagle Lake Ranger District (11050658)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Forest products, Fuels management
Activities : Timber sales (salvage)
Description: Mechanically salvage the windthrown trees within the Blacks Experimental Forest
for the purpose of capturing economic value, restoring access, and improving safety.
Location: UNIT - Eagle Lake Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Lassen. LEGAL
- The project is located in all or portions of: Sections 14 and 15, T33N, R7E, MDM. Blacks
Experimental Forest.
6. Dry Loch Windthrow Salvage
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Dry Loch Windthrow Salvage
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Eagle Lake Ranger District (11050658)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Forest products, Fuels management
Activities : Timber sales (salvage)
Description: Mechanically salvage windthrown trees within the project area that are in excess of
what is needed to meet standards and guidelines for wildlife and soils.
Location: UNIT - Eagle Lake Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Lassen. LEGAL
- The project is located in all or portions of: T33N, R7E, Sections 28-29 and 31-33; T32N, R7E,
Section 6; and T33N, R6E, Section 36, MDM. Swains/Poison Area.
Lassen National Forest
483
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
7. Grizzly Restoration Project
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Grizzly Restoration Project
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Almanor Ranger District (11050651)
Analysis Type : EA
Purpose : Recreation management, Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants, Forest products, Fuels
management, Watershed management, Road management, Research and Development
Activities : Dispersed recreation mgmt., Travel management, Species habitat improvements,
Timber sales (green), Fuel treatments (non-activity fuels), Watershed improvements, Road
improvements/construction, Road maintenance, Road decommissioning, Research and
Development.
Description: Grizzly proposes to move Forest road 26N11 away from Scotts John Crk; increase
forest resilience, decrease fuels, maintain/improve wildlife habitat through thinning and
prescribed fire; and implement actions to support three research proposals.
Location: UNIT - Almanor Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Butte, Plumas.
LEGAL - Not Applicable. The project area consists of four separate areas near Scotts John Creek,
Grizzly Creek, Water Creek, and Yellow Creek, and ranges in elevation from 4,150 feet to 7,200
feet.
8. Rust Resistant Sugar Pine Mainenance
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Rust Resistant Sugar Pine Mainenance
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Eagle Lake Ranger District (11050658)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Vegetation management (other than forest products)
Activities : Forest vegetation improvements
Description: Thin areas around proven rust resistant sugar pine (RRSP) trees to increase
sustainability by reducing direct vegetative competition, wildfire risk, over-wintering habitat for
cone boring insects, and squirrel access to crowns.
Location: UNIT - Eagle Lake Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Lassen. LEGAL
- T29N, R10E, sections 4, 27, 33, and 34; T30N, R9E, sections 24, 33, and 34; T31N, R9E,
sections 8, 10, 16, and 17; T32N, R9E, section 2; T32N, R10E, sections 9, 10, 15, 21, 28, 32, and
33, MDB&M. Areas of treatment proposed with the Rust Resistant Sugar Pine Project are located
throughout the Eagle Lake Ranger District.
9. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Utility Pole Replacement Project - Shasta County, CA
Status : In Progress
Appeal Outcome : N/A
Decision : N/A
Imp. Constraints : N/A
Name : Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Utility Pole Replacement Project - Shasta County, CA
Forest : Lassen National Forest (110506)
Mgt. Unit : Lassen National Forest All Units (11050600)
Analysis Type : DM
Purpose : Special use management
Lassen National Forest
484
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
Activities : Special use authorizations
Description: The proposed action is authorization for PG&E to replace one deteriorated electric
distribution pole lying within the Pit 3-2101 Circuit utility corridor easement on National Forest
System Lands.
Location: UNIT - Hat Creek Ranger District. STATE - California. COUNTY - Shasta. LEGAL T36N, R2E, Section2, NE1/4 SW1/4. The existing utility pole is located in the Pit River Canyon
~10 miles E of Big Bend, CA & north of the Pit River. It lies N of FS Rd 37N60Y near Camp
Nine Flat on the Shasta NF (administered by LNF).
10. Bald Fire Salvage and Restoration
Description: Proposed activities include: salvage, treatment of non-merchantable trees, removing
hazard trees along roads and trails, treatment of activity slash, site preparation, and planting,.
Treatments (salvage logging, roadside hazard, fuels treatment) on approximately 14,000 acres;
reforestation on approximately 12,000 acres.
Dates: sold; work to begin within 2016.
Additional information, including maps:
Web Link: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45965
11. Lassen Day Fire Salvage
Description: Salvage of dead and/or dying trees within approximately 200 acres of the Day Fire
area on the Lassen National Forest.
Dates: Unknown
Additional information, including maps:
Web Link: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=46000
12. Eiler Fire Salvage
Description: Treat approximately 3,048 acres of area salvage (20% of NFS lands), 1,174 acres of
roadside hazard trees (8% of NFS lands), 4,480 acres of fuels treatments (30% of NFS lands), and
reforest 5,645 acres (38% of NFS lands) within the fire perimeter. Bring 2.4 miles of existing
non-system roads (needed to implement the project for multiple entries) into the Forest road
system as Maintenance Level (ML) 2 roads. These roads currently meet Forest transportation
standards. Construct one-half mile of new construction that will be needed for access during
project implementation and for long-term management. This road will be classified as a ML 1 and
thus closed to wheeled motor vehicle traffic once all project activities are complete. Bring one
water source proposed for use in implementing the project up to best management.
Dates: sold; work to begin within 2016
Additional information, including maps:
Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45962
13. Creeks Timber Sales
Description: Four timber sales currently sold within the Creeks analysis area. Sales will include
sawtimber and biomass reduction. Total acres treated will be approximately 2400.
Dates: sold; work has already begun on one and may start by 2016 on the other three
Additional information, including maps:
Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=4943
14. Upland Windthrow Salvage Project
Description: Salvage of wind thrown timber across the northern portions of the Eagle Lake and
Hat Creek Ranger District.
Dates: planning stages; projected implementation: 8/2016
Maps not yet available
Lassen National Forest
485
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
Appendix D: Water Quality Best Management Practices
BMP 2-25 (USFS R5 FSH 2509.22 - soil and water conservation handbook, 2011): Snow Removal
Controls to Avoid Resource Damage
a. Objective: To minimize the impact of snowmelt runoff on road surfaces and
embankments and to consequently reduce the probability of sediment production
resulting from snow removal operations.
b. Explanation: This is a preventative measure used to protect resources and indirectly to
protect water quality. Forest roads are sometimes used throughout winter for a variety of
reasons. For such roads the following measures are employed to meet the objectives of
this practice.
1. The contractor will be responsible for snow removal in a manner which will protect
roads and adjacent resources.
2. Rocking or other special surfacing and drainage measures will be necessary before
the operator is allowed to use the roads.
3. Snow berms will be removed where they result in an accumulation or concentration
of snowmelt runoff on the road and erosive fill slopes.
4. Snow berms will be installed where such placement will preclude concentration of
snowmelt runoff and serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. If the road surface is
damaged during snow removal, the purchaser or contractor will be required to replace
lost surface material with similar quality of material and repair structures damaged in
snow removal operations as soon as practical unless otherwise agreed to in writing.
c. Implementation: Project location and detailed mitigation will be developed by the IDT
[interdisciplinary team] during environmental analysis and incorporated into the project
plan and/or contracts. Project crew leaders and supervisors will be responsible for
implementing force account projects to construction specifications and project criteria.
BMP 4-7 (USFS 2000): Water Quality Monitoring of off-highway vehicle (and OSV) Use According
to a Developed Plan
a. Objective: To provide a systematic process to determine when and to what extent offhighway vehicle use will cause or is causing adverse effects on water quality.
b. Explanation: Each Forest’s off-highway vehicle plan [Travel Management Plan and LRMP]
will:
1. Identify areas or routes where off-highway vehicle use could cause degradation of
water quality
1. Establish baseline water quality data for normal conditions as a basis from which to
measure change.
2. Identify water quality standards and the amount of change acceptable.
3. Establish monitoring measures and frequency.
4. Identify controls and mitigation appropriate in management of off-highway vehicles.
5. Restrict off-highway vehicles to designated routes.
c. Implementation: Monitoring results are evaluated against the off-highway vehicle plan
objectives for water quality and the LRMP objectives for the area. These results are
documented along with actions necessary to correct identified problems. If considerable
adverse effects are occurring, or are likely to occur, immediate corrective action will be
Lassen National Forest
486
Draft Environment Impact Statement
Appendices
taken. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in the amount of
off-highway vehicle use, signing, or barriers to redistribute use, partial closure of areas,
rotation of use on areas, closure to causative vehicle type(s), total closure, and structural
solutions such as culverts and bridges.
National Core BMP Rec-7. Over-snow Vehicle Use
Reference: FSM 7718
Objective: Avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources
from over-snow vehicle use.
Explanation: An over-snow vehicle is a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs
on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. Over-snow vehicles include
snowmobiles, snowcats, and snow grooming machines. Snowmobiles and snowcats are used for
access and for recreational activities. Snow grooming machines are used to prepare snow on trails for
downhill or cross-country skiing or snowmobile use.
An over-snow vehicle traveling over snow results in different impacts to soil and water resources than
motor vehicles traveling over the ground. Unlike other motor vehicles traveling cross-country, oversnow vehicles generally do not create a permanent trail or have direct impact on soil and ground
vegetation when snow depths are sufficient to protect the ground surface. Emissions from over-snow
vehicles, particularly two-stroke engines on snowmobiles, release pollutants like ammonium, sulfate,
benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic compounds that are stored in the
snowpack. During spring snowmelt runoff, these accumulated pollutants are released and may be
delivered to surrounding waterbodies. In addition, over-snow vehicles that fall through thin ice can
pollute waterbodies.
Use of National Forest System lands and/or trails by over-snow vehicles may be allowed, restricted or
prohibited at the discretion of the local line officer.
Practices:
Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required,
using state BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, Forest or Grassland Plan direction, BMP
monitoring information and professional judgment:
•
Use suitable public relations and information tools, and enforcement measures to encourage the
public to conduct cross-country over-snow vehicle use and on trails in a manner that will avoid,
minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources.
♦
Provide information on the hazards of running over-snow vehicles on thin ice.
♦
Provide information on effects of over-snow vehicle emissions on air quality and water
quality.
•
Use applicable practices of BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails) when locating,
designing, constructing and maintaining trails for over-snow vehicle use.
•
Allow over-snow vehicle use cross-country or on trails when snow depths are sufficient to
protect the underlying vegetative cover and soil or trail surface.
•
Specify the minimum snow depth for each type or class of over-snow vehicle to protect
underlying resources as part of any restrictions or prohibitions on over-snow use.
•
Specify season-of-use to be at times when the snowpack is expected to be of suitable depth.
Lassen National Forest
487
Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation
•
Specify over-snow vehicle class suitable for the expected snowpack and terrain or trail
conditions.
•
Use closure orders to mitigate effects when adverse effects to soil, water quality or riparian
resources are occurring.
•
Use applicable practices of BMP Rec-2 (Developed Recreation Sites) when constructing and
operating over-snow vehicle trailheads, parking and staging areas.
•
Use suitable measures to trap and treat pollutants from over-snow vehicle emissions in
snowmelt runoff or locate the staging area at a sufficient distance from nearby waterbodies to
provide adequate pollutant filtering.
Lassen National Forest
488
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement