west carson river route adjustment projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

1

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

September 2013

Environmental Assessment

West Carson River Route Adjustment Project Carson Ranger District, Humboldt - Toiyabe National Forest Alpine County, CA

For More Information Contact:

Mike Rowan, Acting District Ranger Carson Ranger District 1536 S. Carson Street

Carson City, NV. 89701 Phone: 775-882-2766

Fax: 775-884-8199

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

West Carson River Route Adjustment Project

2

Introduction The Carson Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is proposing to adjust the transportation system in the West Carson River watershed area of the Carson Ranger District (Map 1).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to determine whether effects of designating existing routes and adding them to the Forest Transportation System (FTS), as well as decommissioning routes that are no longer necessary or are resulting in resource damage to the unique meadow and forest environment in this area, may be significant, and thus, require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. If there are no significant effects determined through this analysis, we will summarize our results in a Finding of No Significant Impact, review public comments, and release a signed Decision Notice authorizing the Ranger District to implement the activities on the Forest. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations.

Project Area The project area is located in the West Carson River Watershed of Alpine County, CA and includes management of routes open to motorized vehicles in the area of the West Carson River Watershed, located in Alpine County, managed by the Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest (see map).

Need for the Proposal In 1992 The Carson Ranger District completed a district wide Travel Management Environmental Assessment and Decision and published a District travel map in 1994. As a result of that decision all motorized travel was restricted to designated routes shown on the map. Four area specific travel management plans have been published since then to address travel issues on the district.

These include:

• Clear Creek / Kings Canyon Travel Management Plan (2005) • Peavine Mountain Travel Management Plan (2006) • Martis Area Travel Management Plan (2007) • Dog Valley Route Adjustment Project (2012)

In 2008 the district published its motor vehicle use map (MVUM) in accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and based on the previous decisions. The district completed a detailed travel Analysis Process in 2010 to determine the minimum road system to meet recreation and transportation needs and protect natural resources. This project is needed to implement recommendation from the TAP in the West Carson River watershed. There are many spurs and areas on the district where dispersed camping occurs that are not designated for motor vehicle use. There are also pre-existing routes that are designated for motor vehicle use but because of their location are continuing to result in impacts to the natural resources of the area. This project will focus on the West Carson River watershed area in Alpine County and will identify spurs, or areas, where motor vehicle use for the purpose of dispersed recreation would be allowed. It will also change the designation on some NFS roads to address resource impacts. This project is

3

needed to provide adequate recreation opportunity in the project area and reduce road or trail impacts to other resources.

The purpose of the proposed action is to designate roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use to meet recreation, access, and management objectives while limiting environmental impacts and moving toward a more sustainable transportation system across the District (36CFR 212.51). The 2005 rule also provides that the management of motor vehicle use is to be an ongoing process, with continuing evaluation of the designations and revision as needed (36 CFR 212.54). It is expected that many changes to the designated system will be made over time in order to meet recreation and transportation needs and protect national forest resources.

This proposal implements the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR part 212, subpart B) as published on November 9, 2005, in the Federal Register (Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use). This rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use, and once designation is completed, prohibit motor vehicle use off of designated routes. The 2005 Travel Management Rule can be viewed at www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/.

The 1986 Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (As Amended) (Forest Plan) states that off-road vehicle use will be allowed where such use is compatible with other resource programs and that generally, the Forest will be open to OHVs. The Forest Plan states that closures or restrictions will occur where there is obvious conflict with other uses, where natural resource damage results, and that Forest resources will not be degraded from indiscriminate off-road use. The plan also states that “An annual travel plan will be developed for each district.” Further, the plan directs that motorized off-road use is managed to minimize use on resources such as deer winter range, fawning, and lambing areas, and these areas should be closed either through the year or seasonally to off-road use (USDA FS 1986, page IV-2).

The Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986, pages IV-49 to IV-50) requires the following:

• Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. • Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks. • Maintain desirable sagebrush habitats on known sage grouse wintering areas. • Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing. • Manage ecosystems containing sensitive, threatened, and endangered animal populations

to maintain or increase these populations to recovery. • Minimize disturbing activities on key mule deer habitat (fawning areas, winter range,

riparian areas, holding areas, migration corridors, etc.). • Manage aspen stands at a mid-succession or higher ecological status with emphasis on

improving age-class structure.

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Toiyabe Forest Plan (as amended), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan (USFS 1986).

Proposed Action and Alternatives The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need identifies the routes that would be added to the current system of forest roads and motorized trails. These roads or motorized trails would be authorized for motor vehicle use by the type of vehicle permitted and, in some cases, by the time of year (36 CFR 212.50). After these roads and trails are authorized a


4

new MVUM will be published to show their location and, if required, season of use. Areas off designated roads and trails would continue to be closed to motor vehicle use and open to other forms of cross-country travel, such as by horseback, hiking, mountain biking, over snow machines and cross-country skiing.

The Proposed Action will designate up to 64 pre-existing routes (Table 1) ranging in length between 0.04 miles to 1.8 miles to provide access for dispersed recreation in the West Carson River project area. Eleven of these are proposed to be designated as motorized trails open to all vehicles. These routes primarily provide access to dispersed campsites that were not included on the 2008 issue of the Carson Ranger District motor vehicle use map (MVUM).

Along with these additions, the District would reclassify 26 NFS roads to reflect current conditions, and uses. Three NFS roads, 31064, 31065 and 31151, would be reclassified as motorized trails open to all vehicles, and 21 roads (Table 2), would be removed from the MVUM because they are overgrown, impassable, or are already closed because of other ownership. One road (31151A) would be closed because it is leading to resource damage and does not provide any recreation opportunity. One NFS road, 31051A, is erroneously shown as a road when it is actually a non-motorized trail. The MVUM will be changed to reflect it as a non-motorized trail. Based on this environmental analysis, the Carson District Ranger will decide which unauthorized routes in the West Carson River project area will be added to the FTS and which NFS roads currently on the FTS will be closed. The District Ranger may choose to select the proposed action or a subset of the proposed action based on the site specific analysis of the individual roads and trails.

The project map shows the current forest system roads open for use by both highway legal and unlicensed vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and other types of motor vehicles. Current system roads are shared by highway-legal vehicles and unlicensed vehicles. These mixed-use routes currently include both roads maintained to accommodate standard passenger automobiles (maintenance level III-V) as well as more primitive roads (maintenance level II) suitable for high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles.

The District determined that in addition to the current system, there was a need to authorize 64 pre-existing routes listed in the following table and shown on the map. The District believes that the following routes are needed to provide public and management access to forest resources and recreation opportunities:

• 53 routes (6.07 miles) designated and managed as high-clearance four wheel drive roads, where use of a standard high-clearance vehicle is recommended. (Table 1)

• 11 routes (5.75 miles) designated as motorized trails open to all vehicles. (Table 1) • The proposed mixed use roads and motorized trails would all be open to both high

clearance, highway- legal, and unlicensed vehicles (i.e., ATVs).

Table1: Pre-existing Spur Roads on the Carson Ranger District to be Designated as Either Roads or Motorized Trails Road Number

Mileage Reason for Road Designation

EP013 0.04 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP015 0.08 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP020 0.29 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP023 0.24 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP030A 0.30 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail

5



opportunity and access to dispersed recreation

EP030B 0.32 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and access to dispersed recreation

EP032B 0.39 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP033 0.91 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP035A 0.08 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP035B 0.39 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP035C 0.06 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP036 0.24 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP039A 0.01 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP039B 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP039C 0.01 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP072 0.65 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP123 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP124 0.12 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP125 0.06 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP129 0.08 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP132 0.09 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP133 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP134 0.06 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP139 0.12 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP139B 0.06 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP142 0.16 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP501 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP502 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP503 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP504 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP505 0.01 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP506 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP507 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP508 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP509 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP510 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP511 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP512 0.07 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP513 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP514 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP515 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation U31079EA 0.17 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation U31079EB 0.03 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W18A 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W18B 0.09 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation

W28 0.33 Existing route utilized for dispersed recreation, provides connector and loop opportunity

W36A 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W36B 0.12 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W36C 0.08 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W36D 0.11 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W36E 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W36F 0.02 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation


6



W37 0.05 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W87 0.12 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W96 0.07 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation EP003C 0.30 Connector trail, provides loop

EP071B 1.12 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity

EP094 0.42 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and access to dispersed recreation

EP095 0.38 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and access to dispersed recreation

EP101 1.16 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and loop opportunity

EP102B 0.64 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and loop opportunity

EP104 0.61 Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and loop opportunity

W24 0.04 Existing spur road utilized for dispersed recreation W50 0.47

Existing high clearance route, provides motorized trail opportunity and access to dispersed recreation

After these roads are designated and added to the forest transportation system they will be depicted on the Districts MVUM.

The District is also proposing to close 22 NFS roads (17.32 miles) that are contributing to degraded environmental conditions, are not accessible, do not exist or are not accessible because of private land. Also the District proposes designating 3 NFS roads (6.22 miles) as motorized trails open to all vehicles (Table 2). Additionally One NFS road, 31051A, is erroneously shown as a road when it is actually a non-motorized trail. These roads are listed on the table below and depicted on the map. Closure may include gates, barriers, or full reclamation. These efforts will be carried out over the next several years as funding becomes available. These roads are currently depicted on the MVUM. Reclamation of the routes can include full re-contour of the travel way, ripping and seeding of the road bed, or other methods suitable for the site specific locations. Roads identified for reclamation will be barricaded to prevent inadvertent use both before and after the reclamation activity.

Table 2: NFS roads that will be closed, decommissioned, changed to motorized trails or reclaimed as part of this Proposed action.

Road Number

Mileage Reason for Road Closure

31053A 0.6 Close, does not connect, unused route that is redundant to 31053

31053 1.9 Close north portion, not accessible through private, some segments do not exist or not passable.

31064 2.2 Change to motorized trail (open to all vehicles), route is narrow and rough, providing a trail like experience.

31065 1.76 Change to motorized trail (open to all vehicles), route is narrow and rough, providing a trail like experience.

31081 1.4 Approximately 1.4 miles of this road will be removed from the system because the map does not reflect ground conditions. This route does not go through the Hope Valley Campground and does not cross the West

7

Table 2: NFS roads that will be closed, decommissioned, changed to motorized trails or reclaimed as part of this Proposed action.

Road Number

Mileage Reason for Road Closure

Carson River.

31072 1.7 Road system not passable, crosses wet meadow and not existing in many segments. This route has been physically barricaded with boulders for many years.

31091 0.1 Close very end, not existing.

31097 2.6 Pending right of way issues and coordination with Eldorado NF* and Alpine County

31172 0.8 Access to Helispot, not a public road 31204 0.4 Close pending decision on 31097* 31051A 1.2 MVUM Error this is Armstrong pass non-motorized trail, connects to TRT 31068B 0.7 Not passable, creek damage

31072A 0.4 Road system not passable, crosses wet meadow and not existing in many segments. This route has been physically barricaded with boulders for many years.

31072B 0.2 Road system not passable, crosses wet meadow and not existing in many segments. This route has been physically barricaded with boulders for many years.

31072C 0.2 Road system not passable, crosses wet meadow and not existing in many segments. This route has been physically barricaded with boulders for many years.

31072D 0.7 Road system not passable, crosses wet meadow and not existing in many segments. This route has been physically barricaded with boulders for many years.

31079A 0.2 Road is not passable 31081B 1.3 gated, not passable, 31079D 1.1 Close, route does not exist, old skid road that is grown in.

31151A 1.85 Close, route provides no recreation; Route is erosive with water and springs, dead ends in meadow leading to resource damage.

31156 1.25 Close, this route is mostly on State land and has been permanently closed and decommissioned. OLD Luther Pass road.

31156A 0.27 Close, this route is mostly on State land and has been permanently closed and decommissioned. Old Luther Pass Road

31051C 0.73 Close, No rec opportunity, was previously decommissioned 31013A 0.77 Close north end of loop, does not exist, does not connect

31091A 0.95 Close where the route turns south. Does not go all the way through, no access through private.

31151 2.28 Change to trail open to all vehicles, high clearance needed.

Alternative 2 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current travel management direction continues. The No Action Alternative would not designate spur roads to dispersed recreation sites nor would it close or decommission NFS roads and trails currently depicted on the Carson Ranger District motor vehicle use map. In total approximately 94 miles of NFS road would be open for motor vehicle use within the project area boundaries. Areas off designated roads and trails would continue to be closed to motor vehicle use.

This alternative serves as the baseline for the analysis. Under this alternative motor vehicle use would only be permitted on the roads and trails designated for that use and depicted on the MVUM.


8

Comparison of Alternatives This section summarizes the effects of implementing each alternative. The effects or outputs of each alternative are distinguished either quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives (Table 3).

Table 3, Comparison of Alternaitves

Resource No Action Proposed Action

Open NFS Roads/Trails 94.3 miles 88.8 Miles

New routes Designated 0 11.8 miles

NFS roads Closed 0 17.3 miles

Routes within 300 perennial stream buffer

20.1 miles 19.3 miles Closes 2 miles, adds 1.16

Perennial stream crossing 41 36

Closes 5 crossings, adds 1 Routes within 150 feet of intermittent stream buffer

2.8 miles 2.6 miles Closes 0.6 miles adds 0.4

Intermittent Stream crossings 22 23

Closes 4 crossings, adds 5 Routes on slopes greater than 30 percent

8.2 miles 7.4 miles Closes 1.2 miles, adds 0

Noxious Weeds No Change, 7 miles closed through moderate risk areas.

Wildlife No Impacts

No impacts to federally listed threatened speceis, FS sensitive species, Management Indicator Speceis or other speceis considered.

Sensitive Plants No Impact No Impact

Cultural Resources No Change No increased or decreased effect on cultural resoruces

Native American Religious Concerns There are not any known religious sites within the project area.

Recreation

No Change in current condition, less disperesd camping opportuinities than the Proposed Action.

Increased disperesed camping opportunity, No other effects.

9

Table 3, Comparison of Alternaitves

Resource No Action Proposed Action

Public Health/Safety No Change No Change

Roadless No Change 3.4 miles motorized trails designated in IRA, no effects to roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes.

Design Elements Common to Alternatives

Changing Road Conditions The Forest Service must continue to respond to public safety concerns and close roads quickly when they become dangerous because of floods or other natural events. The Carson Ranger District would continue to implement emergency closures depending on situations. As conditions change, the District would repair roads to standards, change the vehicle class, or decide to close routes based on location, use, condition, and economic considerations. Updates to the MVUM would reflect these changes.

Permitted Uses The exemptions to the proposed prohibitions allow motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under federal law or regulation (e.g., woodcutting permits, term grazing permits, approved plans of operations) (36 CFR 212.51a). Mine operators, livestock grazing permittees, private landowners, and others can acquire permits for these activities by following the appropriate processes outlined in Forest Service manuals and handbooks. These uses would require additional site-specific NEPA analysis. Other exemptions include the use of aircraft, watercraft; over-snow vehicles; administrative use; and fire, military, or law enforcement uses.

Physically Defining Parking Areas To prevent damage to streams and meadows, barriers such as fences, boulders and signs may be used to physically define routes and other areas where motorized vehicles are allowed. Specifically, these methods would be used along designated spurs along the Carson River, Charity Valley and other areas near streams or meadows to physically define parking areas associated with dispersed camping.

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for each resource. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives (see Table 3).

Most of the data used in the following analysis are from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest corporate geographic information system (GIS) layers. There is a certain amount of error in the


10

location and alignments included in this GIS data. For example, the road layer overlying the stream layer may show more stream crossings than actually exist on the ground because of the various sources from which the different layers were obtained. Some perennial streams may show up as being intermittent. This may also create some inaccuracies as to the exact location and extent of riparian zones. The Forest is constantly working to improve map accuracies and the corporate GIS layers. The system of roads and trails used to determine road and trail miles is based on field review and geographic information system (GIS) data. To provide a realistic expression of the transportation system, without overstating its precision, acreages and miles have been rounded to the nearest whole tenth.

The best data available were used in this analysis. The data in the following tables and in the project record depicts with a reasonable amount of accuracy what would be occurring on the ground for each alternative, within the limitations described above. The changes between alternatives remain relative to each other.

Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes the entire area of the Carson Ranger District including private and other public lands that lie within the district boundaries. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the Affected Environment (existing condition) and Environmental Consequences section under each resource.

The CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” In order to understand the contribution of past actions, including past development of unauthorized routes, to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Recent, Current, and Planned Activities To avoid repetition in individual resource discussions, potential projects or activities considered for the cumulative effects analysis are detailed here and referenced, as appropriate, in the individual resource effects analysis. Cumulative impacts include those impacts resulting from activities occurring in the project area in the past 20 years, are occurring presently, and/or that are currently planned for implementation or in the planning process.

Road Maintenance: Every year roads on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are selected and maintained based on concern for public safety, environmental impacts, and volume of use. Forest-wide, about 75 percent of current National Forest System (NFS) roads are level 2 roads, suitable for high-clearance vehicles. While road maintenance budgets vary yearly, the 2009

11

targets for the Forest are illustrative. In 2009, the Forest planned for 10 miles of road decommissioning; 4 miles of improvements and 83 miles of maintenance for maintenance level 2 roads; and 4 miles of improvement and 496 miles of maintenance for higher maintenance level roads (Maintenance level 3-5).

The Forest has substantially more high-clearance vehicle roads than roads designed for passenger vehicles. The Forest has no plans at this time to change the overall character of the existing road system, which is a low-density system of mostly more primitive, lower maintenance level roads. The Forest concentrates both maintenance and improvements on the small majority of higher maintenance level, passenger vehicle roads. All roads are evaluated to ensure they are not causing unacceptable environmental effects. Problem areas are prioritized and best management practices are implemented to prevent or minimize adverse road-related resource impacts.

Overall Approach to Effects Analysis The following analysis framework is established for this project. While roads do cause effects to the environment, this travel management project does not propose any new road construction, but rather analyzes alternatives to adding existing unauthorized roads and trails to the current forest transportation system (FTS).

This analysis will not compare the action alternatives to a pristine, untouched environment but rather to Alternative 1 (No Action), which includes the existing NFS roads and unauthorized roads and trails in the project area.

The effects of the proposed action and alternatives presented in this chapter will include discussion of the overall effects related to the designation of 11.8 miles of unauthorized roads and trails proposed for addition to the FTS. These roads and motorized trails already exist on the ground, but are not currently part of the FTS; no previous environmental analysis has been completed on these routes. The effects analysis also considered the potential effects of closing approximately 17.3 miles of existing NFS road. Closing includes signing, blocking, ripping the road bed, seeding, and potentially full recontouring of the road prism.

Specific roads and motorized trails that may cause effects are discussed individually so the public and the Forest Service can consider any trade-offs associated with the addition of these routes.

General Assumptions for Resource Effects Analyses

Parking and Dispersed Recreation Sites The use of dispersed recreation sites located along designated roads or motorized trails or at the termination of a designated road or motorized trail is considered to be part of the reasonable use of that route. Analysis of the effects of the alternative includes the continued use of the roads and motorized trails and the associated uses of parking areas and dispersed sites associated with the route.

Resource Analysis Each resource specialist assessed every unauthorized route proposed for addition to the FTS in the proposed action at a level sufficient to support their effects analysis and identify any necessary site-specific mitigation. Most resource sections in this chapter provide a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, and other documents prepared by Forest Service resource specialists. These reports are part of the project record on file at the Carson Ranger


12

District Office in Carson City, Nevada, and are available on request. The following reports, assessments, and other documents are incorporated by reference:

• Recreation and Roadless Area Specialist Report • Water and Soil: Water and Soil Resources Specialist Report • Wildlife Specialist Report and BE • Cultural: Cultural Resource Management Report • Botany Specialist Report and BE, • Weeds Specialist Report

Information on Other Resource Issues The alternatives considered in detail do not affect the following resources. A brief summary on why they are not discussed further in chapter 3 is provided based on input received during scoping.

Air Quality: Changes to the air quality with in the project area are unlikely given the net decrease to the open FTS of 5.5 miles, the scattered distribution of proposed roads and trails for designation, the short length of those roads and trails, and relatively low speeds that the roads and trails can be traveled on safely.

Cultural Resources: A cultural resource survey was conducted along each of the proposed routes and each of the system roads to be closed. There will be no adverse effects to historic properties from the designation of the unauthorized roads or the closure of the NFS roads in the proposed action.

Environmental Justice: The effects of all alternatives would not disproportionately affect minority or low income populations. There are no cumulative effects associated with other past present or reasonably foreseeable projects that would incrementally contribute to a disproportionately high and adverse effect on human health of either a minority or low-income population.

Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: The alternatives considered in detail do not affect mineral exploration, mining, and reclamation since reasonable access is a right under the mining laws. The prohibitions in 36 CFR 261.13 and the designations for motor vehicle use shown on the motor vehicle use map do not preclude use of motorized vehicles where reasonable and necessary to conduct mineral exploration or operations pursuant to regulations at (36 CFR 228). If the proposed motorized use is likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the operator would be required to file a locatable mineral plan of operations with the district ranger pursuant to 36 CFR 228.4.

Native American Religious Concerns: Consultation with the Reno Sparks Indian Colony and Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California has been ongoing since 2008. The District consulted with the tribes in face to face meetings on several occasions with the tribe having no issues or concerns with the proposed projects. The district last discussed this project with the Washoe Tribe on February 22, 2011. The district archaeologist met members of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony on August 8, 2011 to discuss the project findings. The tribe’s only concern was to have tribal monitors work with the district on large scale projects. There are no known environmental consequences to Native American religious concerns related to the West Carson route Adjustment Project. No known religious sites are known within the project area.

13

Predator and Pest Control: The alternatives considered in detail do not affect the ability of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, CDFG, the Forest Service, or others to carry out inspection and control of predators or pests on NFS lands. These activities are generally conducted in coordination with federal or state agencies, and travel on NFS roads or trails or cross-country could be authorized following the exemptions found at 36 CFR 212.51. The decision resulting from this analysis would not affect the ability of responsible agencies to control predators or treat pests.

Private Property: For the purpose of estimating environmental effects, this analysis assumes that private roads would not be available for public motorized use. The alternatives considered in detail do not affect private roads or use on private property. Private property owners will continue to have access to their private land.

Research Natural Areas: There is no Research Natural Areas (RNA) located within the project area boundary. There will be no effect to RNAs.

Socioeconomic: The Proposed Action would have little positive or negative effect on the local economies because it would not result in increases or decreases in population, wages, or employment. Use of the road system would not increase or decrease significantly because of these alternatives. To the extent that they receive maintenance at all, the Forest Service, not the counties, would maintain the routes identified for designation. As the proposed additions to the forest transportation system already exist and are in use, the proposal would not affect the demand for public services.

Wilderness: There are no designated Wilderness Areas within the project area. The proposed action will have no effect on wilderness attributes.

Watersheds

Affected Environment

Water: The West Carson River travel management area lies mostly within the Upper West Fork and Middle West Fork Carson River watersheds. The hydrologic unit code (HUC) for these watersheds are 160502010301 and 160502010302. The primary tributaries to the West Carson River within the project area are Forestdale Creek, Red Lake Creek, Hawkins Creek and Willow Creek. Part of the project area is within the East Carson River watershed, HUC 160502010107. The main tributaries to the East Carson River in the project area are the upper reaches of Charity Valley Creek and a reach of Hot Springs Creek both above and below Burnside Lake.

The West Fork of the Carson River is gaged by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) downstream of the project area in Woodfords (site number 10310000). Mean monthly flows range from approximately 27 cubic feet per second (cfs) in October to 376 cfs in May. Peak flows are generally less than 2,000 cfs, although a flow of over 8,000 cfs was recorded in response to the rain on snow event of 1997. There are no gaging stations on the East Carson River near the project area, the closest being below the confluence with Markleeville Creek.

The West Fork of the Carson River from the headwaters downstream to Woodfords is listed as impaired under California’s 2010 Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act for nitrates,


14

nitrogen and phosphorus (LWRCB 2010). This listing may be addressed through revision of the water quality objective rather than through a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

Over 80 percent of the total annual precipitation with the Upper Carson River watershed falls between November and April, primarily as snowfall. During summer months localized heavy rainfall from thunderstorms can occur. During most years, however, summer months usually have little or no rainfall. The average annual precipitation at Woodfords, located downstream of the project area is approximately 21 inches. The average annual precipitation at the Twin Lake gage, located just over the Sierra Crest is approximately 50 inches.

Soils: Soils in the area are derived from both volcanic and granitic parent material. Granitic rock is found predominantly in the West Fork watershed while volcanic rock is more common in the East Carson River watershed. Soils derived from volcanic andesites are moderately coarse to moderately fine textured and range from sandy loams to clay loams. Soils derived from granite tend to be coarse grained and sandy textured. The amount of erosion associated with a road depends on a number of factors, including slope, the erodability of the soils that make up the road surface, and the precipitation regime. Reports generated from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey webpage (USDA 2008) indicate the hazard of erosion on roads and trails for the National Forest in the West Carson River project area ranges from moderate to severe.

Environmental Consequences Roads are considered one of the principal causes of accelerated erosion in forests throughout the western United States (Reid and Dunne 1984). Soil loss occurs both from the mechanical action of the vehicle on the road or trail, and from concentrated runoff across the soil surface. Sediment runoff rates from watersheds with roads and other soil disturbances tend to be significantly higher than watershed with their natural cover of vegetation intact (Elliot and Hall 1997).

The effect of road surface erosion on water quality depends greatly on the location of the route within the watershed. Routes near stream channels and on steep slopes are more likely to contribute to increased stream sedimentation. The greatest risk of sediment moving into streams occurs where routes cross streams. Unrestricted cross-country travel can result in loss of soil vegetative cover, soil erosion, and stream sedimentation. As the number of user-created roads increases the risk of soil loss and impacts to water quality also increases.

No Action Under the no action alternative there would be no change to the watersheds, stream courses or introduction of sediment to streams within the project area. None of the roads proposed to be closed are being closed because of their direct impact on streams or the watershed in general. These roads and trails may contribute some sediment to streams or water course. The roads and trails proposed for designation would not be designated and available for motor vehicle use. Currently these routes may be contributing sediment to streams or watercourses. As long as they are not open for motor vehicle use vegetation could expand across the road surface and serve as a filter that can slow the flow of water and reduce the amount of sediment delivered to streams. This may require a number of years to have a noticeable impact.

Proposed Action There are approximately 94 miles of designated roads and motorized trails in the project area. In addition there are miles of undesignated routes that are closed to travel. The proposed action

15

would close approximately 17 miles of existing NFS roads and motorized trails. These road closures consist of 22 separate roads or spurs. In the short term, these closed routes would continue to be susceptible to erosion and contribute to stream sedimentation. As these closed roads and trails naturally re-vegetate, and the streambanks impacted from road crossings heal, the amount of erosion and stream sedimentation would decrease. Some of the more severely compacted closed routes and disturbed sites may not recover without restoration measures. The remaining FTS in the project area would also continue to impact water quality at road/stream crossings.

In addition, approximately 12 miles of existing roads or trails would be added to the transportation system. These routes already exist on the ground. The proposed action does not include new road construction or soil disturbance.

The following table displays the existing road system and routes proposed for closing and adding for several indicators of effects to water and soils. All mileage is approximate.

Table 4: Comparison Water and Soil Indicators

Existing Road System

Routes Closed

Routes Added

Miles road & motorized use trails 94 17 12 Miles within 300 feet of perennial streams 22 2 2 Miles within 150 feet of intermittent streams 3 .6 0.5 Perennial stream crossings 44 4 2 Intermittent stream crossings 28 4 5 Miles routes on slopes >30 percent 10 1.3 0.4

In the short term, as the roads that are closed continue to be susceptible to erosion, there would likely be little overall effect of the proposed action to soil and water quality. There may be some benefit to soil and water quality in the long term as the 17 miles of closed roads re-vegetate or are reclaimed.

Cumulative Effects There are no on going or planned actions in this project area that would incrementally cause either positive or negative impacts to water quality or soils. Effects can be either beneficial or adverse and result from the synergistic or additive effects of multiple management activities within a watershed (USDA Forest Service 1988, MacDonald 2000). On going disturbance related to roads, and other activities will continue to impact watershed condition. As described in the existing description these are minimal.

The proposed action would result in an overall decrease of 5 miles of roads and motorized trails. As these roads re-vegetate any cumulative effect, along with the direct effect, to water quality and soils would be beneficial.

Noxious and Invasive Weeds Noxious weed surveys have been conducted within the Hope Valley/West Carson River watershed since 2005 and include both roaded and unroaded areas. To date, only four infested sites have been located and all included less than 10 plants at each site. All of the noxious weeds were found in unroaded areas with the exception of five bull thistle plants found near system road #31019B in the Blue Lakes area. These plants were pulled in 2009 and were not present the


16

following year. Noxious weed infestations occur in very small, isolated occurrences within the West Carson River watershed. Under the proposed action, no new routes are proposed within existing areas where infestations occur and no ground disturbing activities are proposed. Annual weed monitoring and treatments will be conducted throughout the project area as part of the Carson Ranger District weed program. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to increase the spread or establishment of noxious weeds within the project area.

Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Species Based on the analysis contained in the specialist report as well as the Biological Evaluation in the Project Record, there will be no effects to any Forest Sensitive, Management Indicator, or other wildlife species within the project area. See Table 5 below and the following for summary of the effects determinations. This project complies with all applicable Forest Plan direction and applicable laws with regard to wildlife and rare plants.

Table 5: Summary of effects determinations

Species No Action Proposed Action

Sensitive Species

Pygmy Rabbit No impact No impact

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat No impact No impact

Spotted Bat No impact No impact

North American Wolverine No impact No impact

Bighorn Sheep No impact No impact Sierra Nevada Red Fox No impact No impact Northern Goshawk No impact No impact Sage Grouse No impact No impact

Peregrine Falcon No impact No impact Bald Eagle No impact No impact Mountain Quail No impact No impact Flammulated Owl

No impact No impact White-Headed Woodpecker

No impact

No impact

Great Gray Owl No impact

No impact

California Spotted Owl No impact No impact


Yosemite Toad No impact

No impact

17


Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog May impact individuals May impact individuals

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk No Effect No Effect

Sage Grouse No Effect No Effect Hairy Woodpecker No Effect No Effect Williamson’s Sapsucker No Effect No Effect

Yellow-Warbler No Effect

Beneficial effects to habitat quality by reducing motorized use in riparian habitats

Yellow-Rumped Warbler No Effect No Effect

American Marten No Effect No Effect Mule Deer No Effect No Effect

Macroinvertebrates Potential reduction in habitat quality although would not likely decrease population trend


Other Species of Special Interest

Sierra Nevada Willow Flycatcher

Potential reduction in habitat quality possibly resulting in contribution to local decrease in population trend


Migratory Birds Potential reduction in habitat quality although would not likely decrease population trend


For the West Carson route adjustment analysis, riparian vegetation is used as the model for potential habitat for all riparian associated rare plants and peat-land plant communities. However, not all riparian acres within the West Carson analysis area would be capable of supporting these specific plants or peat-land vegetation.

The seventeen miles of existing routes that will be closed to travel with the implementation of the West Carson proposal include route 31081F which is immediately adjacent to peat land riparian vegetation. Also included are Routes 31072 A-D and 31151A which all cross wet meadow and spring habitats. The proposed route adjustment decision includes design features such as barriers, fences and signs to define routes where motorized vehicles are allowed and to prevent damage to riparian vegetation adjacent to streams and meadows. This includes designated spurs along the Carson River, Charity Valley and other areas near streams and meadows. Throughout this assessment, given the lack of more specific focused survey effort, riparian vegetation serves as a proxy for potential Botrychium fern, subalpine fireweed, three-ranked humpmoss and peatland associated plant communities.


18

Upswept, Dainty and Slender Moonwort Ferns, and Moosewort Fern

Proposed Action Potential habitat for upswept, dainty, and slender moonworts, and moosewort fern occurs throughout the project within riparian vegetation near perennial and seasonal streams, and within the extensive spring and meadow systems that are present in the project area. Proposed route additions are not closely adjacent to riparian vegetation although the route may occur within a 300 ft. buffer. In addition, spur routes which are located adjacent to riparian habitats will be barricaded and signed to protect riparian vegetation and soils. Therefore direct effects of vehicle crushing of sensitive ferns and indirect effects like soil compaction are not anticipated from the inclusion of the roads and spurs into the Forest Road System. As described, the West Carson River route Adjustment project will also close routes which currently impact riparian habitats, including routes 31081F, 31072 A-D, and 31151A.

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to slender, dainty, or upswept moonworts or moosewort fern from project activities and no further analysis for these species will be conducted.

No Action Modifications such as barricading the boundaries of dispersed camping spurs, or providing signs to deter vehicle incursions in less resilient riparian habitats would not be completed. This would allow these areas including potential habitats for Botrychium ferns to be vulnerable to soil compaction resulting from vehicle traffic and parking. Roads located within or on the edge of riparian vegetation would not be closed. Hydrologic impacts to the water table and meadow conditions would continue over time, degrading potential habitat for Botrychium ferns.

Subalpine Fireweed

Proposed Action Potential habitat for subalpine fireweed occurs throughout the project within riparian vegetation near perennial and seasonal streams, and within the extensive spring and meadow systems that are present in the project area. Proposed route additions are not closely adjacent to riparian vegetation although the route may occur within a 300 ft. buffer. These routes do not appear to be contributing to sedimentation impacts or erosion within adjacent riparian vegetation. In addition, other spur routes which are located adjacent to riparian habitats will be barricaded and signed to protect riparian vegetation and soils. This has been identified for spurs providing dispersed camping in Upper Hope Valley, Charity Valley, Burnside Lake and other locations along the West Carson River. Therefore direct effects of vehicle crushing of the subalpine fireweed and indirect effects like soil compaction are not anticipated from the inclusion of the roads and spurs into the Forest Road System. As described, the West Carson River route adjustment project will also close routes which currently impact riparian habitats, including routes 31081F, 31072 A-D, and 31151A. This will provide additional protection to associated riparian habitats and allow for recovery of the hydrologic alterations to wet meadow habitats that have occurred.

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Subalpine Fireweed from the proposed route adjustment project and no further analysis will be conducted for this species.

19

No Action Spur routes providing access for dispersed camping opportunities would not be defined by barricades and signs to provide for the protection of riparian habitats. While these undesignated routes would not be added to the Forest Service system roads, the area would likely receive consistent use as a traditional camping area. This would allow for continued impacts such as compaction promoting sediment deposition, accelerated off-site erosion, and alteration of hydrologic functioning within adjacent riparian habitats including potential habitat for subalpine fireweed. Routes which currently impact riparian habitats would not be closed and alteration of potential habitat for the rare plant would continue.

Three-ranked Hump-moss

Proposed Action During the 2012 field season peat-land habitat was identified adjacent to Route 31081F. The latter route would be closed under the proposed action. In addition, springs intercepted by route 31151A, may, to an undetermined extent, provide potential habitat for three-ranked hump-moss. As per, Weixelman and Cooper (2009), all wetland areas connected to a main peat body should be considered part of the fen complex, including the edges of adjacent springs. This perspective would also be applicable to the portions of meadow intercepted by routes 31072 A-D; interruptions to the hydrologic structure of the meadow, soil erosion and sedimentation, as well as a change to soil temperatures resulting from meadow damage would also alter the functioning of adjacent peat-lands and potential fens. All of the above routes will be closed with selection of the proposed action.

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to three-ranked hump-moss from the proposed route adjustment project and no further analysis will be conducted for this species.

No Action Roads located within or on the edge of riparian vegetation which support potential fen habitats would not be closed. Hydrologic impacts to the water table and meadow conditions would continue over time, degrading potential habitat for three-ranked humpmoss. Effects on the soil resource, and hence, rare plant habitat, may include erosion and sedimentation (movement of the soil off-site), increased surface strength, increased bulk density (a measure of soil compaction), slower water infiltration rates, decreased soil moisture, changes in runoff patterns, extension of diurnal temperature range (which can effect growth of plants and seed germination), reduced litter for incorporation into soil processes, and reduced content of organic carbon of the exposed soil (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). All of these factors would impact adjacent fens or peat-lands which provide potential habitat for three-ranked hump-moss.

Shevock’s bristle-moss (Orthotrichum shevockii)

Proposed Action Based on field observations, granitic rocks or outcrops which provide potential habitat for Shevock’s bristle-moss are present within the project area. However, the West Carson River Route Delineation project would not include actions which would alter potential or occupied habitat for the moss. The proposed project would include signing and closure of specific road spurs or routes. Rock used for barriers would not include the large boulders which are reported as


20

providing habitat for the rare moss (USDA FS 2009). In addition, alterations to the physical setting of rock and boulder habitats, is not proposed during project implementation.

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Shevock’s bristle-moss from the proposed route adjustment project and no further analysis will be conducted for this species.

No Action The known threats to Shevock’s bristle moss are activities which impact the rock habitat the moss is associated with such as, rock climbing, rock alteration or collection for construction or decorative purposes, or fires placed adjacent to the rock which would directly impact moss plants and alter the rock habitat. The No Action alternative would not provide for the designation of additional routes or close specific segments of road. The types of threats which affect Shevock’s bristle-moss are not directly correlated with travel management activities. Continuing the current situation likely has a negligible effect on Shevock’s bristle-moss potential or occupied habitat.

Focus Plant Communities:

Peatland Habitats, Bogs and Fens

Proposed Action The proposed action would include closure of route 31081F which is adjacent to peat accumulating wetlands. In addition routes 31151A AND 31072 A-D would be closed, all of which intercept springs or meadow habitats. Over time hydrologic impacts of these routes on the surrounding meadows, springs and potential peatland features would be ameliorated. In some cases, roads will be obliterated and returned to the original contour which would shorten the restoration process. While the routes are not located immediately within a peatland habitat, the road corridor interrupts a riparian community which functions and supports a diversity of wetland types including potential peatlands.

No Action Without closure of roads with documented impacts to riparian features, the immediate site would become increasingly susceptible to road entrenchment and compaction, resulting in the alteration of water flow within the associated meadows or wetlands. Impacts from roads adjacent to fen or peatland habitats have been documented as compromising the integrity and persistence of these unique wetland features. In addition, the risk of non-native or invasive plant introduction to the site increases as a plant community transitions towards drier site conditions and with, the potential transport of undesirable plant seed to the area by vehicles. The No Action alternative leaves the riparian sites and, any potential associated peatland features in the immediate vicinity of routes 31081F, 31151A and 31072 A-D at risk to habitat degradation.

Recreation

Affected Environment: The West Carson River area provides a variety of recreation opportunities. The area is within a short drive of large urban centers in California and is heavily visited year round. Driving for pleasure, Four Wheel Driving, Off- Highway Vehicle recreation, hiking, biking, horse-back riding and camping are the primary forms of summer recreation. There are a few designated non-

21

motorized trails in the project area, though most of the non-motorized trails nearby are in Wilderness. The Pacific crest trail does bisect the project area. There are 3 developed FS campground in the area and one very large privately run campground at Blue lakes. Additionally dispersed camping is popular in the area. There are a number of heavily visited dispersed camping areas, particularly Faith Valley, near and around Scotts lake, along the West Carson River, and Burnside Lake. There are a number of high clearance roads that access these and other recreation opportunities.

Environmental Consequences: The quality of the non-motorized recreation experience is diminished with the increase of motorized off-road travel and higher road densities.

Gucinski and others (2001) observed that the presence of roads can have conflicting effects on recreation. While roads can provide staging access to remote areas and wilderness, they can also diminish opportunities for solitude and perceptions of wilderness. At the same time, roads can provide their own recreation opportunity. There is truth in the old saying that says, “getting there is half the fun.” Many visitors to the national forest enjoy the remote and scenic qualities of the national forest from inside their vehicle and from the delineated tracks of a road or trail.

For this analysis, the key issue is change in miles of motorized route and how this could affect motorized and non-motorized recreation. Will the proposed action result in a change in recreation opportunity that favors motorized or non-motorized recreation groups more than the other? The environmental effects to both motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences are measured by:

• Motorized Recreation – change in number and miles of routes open to motorized travel. • Non-Motorized Recreation – change and number of motorized routes in semi primitive

areas.

The Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1986) directs managers to provide for a wide variety of opportunities within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (IV-13)

Semi-primitive non-motorized ROS corresponds to areas where there are few existing and designated motorized routes and non-motorized recreation is predominant. These areas provide visitors with a high probability of getting away from the sights and sounds of other people; to be independent, to enjoy nature, and to practice outdoor skills; and are typically one half to three miles away from motorized routes. The miles of motorized route in SPNM ROS is used to measure effects to non–motorized recreation rather than primitive ROS because by definition primitive is an area with very little recreation and visitor use. In addition, primitive ROS on the districts is almost completely within wilderness or inventoried roadless areas.

The environmental effects to motorized recreation are measured by change in number and miles of motorized route available. There are also qualitative factors such as quality loop opportunities and variety of motorized opportunity that are important to motorized recreation. Gucinski and others (2001) noted that almost all recreation use in national forests depends to some degree on motorized access. Sightseeing, driving outdoors for pleasure, as well as developed and dispersed camping are examples of activities that directly use roads as a part of the recreation experience. The main concern to motorized recreationists is sustainable routes, with diversity in trail difficulty, and loop opportunities.


22

Non-motorized and motorized recreationists both participate in dispersed camping. Non-motorized visitors often camp to enjoy peace and quiet or as a staging point for activities such as hiking or horseback riding. Motorized visitors camp in dispersed areas for the same reasons, but also use these areas as a staging point for OHV riding or driving for pleasure. There can be conflict between forest visitors if the sights and sounds of motorized recreation affect visitors that are enjoying quiet recreation opportunities.

No Action This alternative retains the current system of roads and trails with motorized travel off of these system routes prohibited. There are 94 miles of NFS road open to motor vehicles in the area.

Motorized The No Action Alternative provides for a similar motorized recreation opportunity to the proposed action based on miles of open route. The net difference is about 6 miles, however many of the routes “open” under this alternative are not accessible due to land being under other ownership or they are not passable or grown over due to not being used. Under this alternative, the changes in tables 1 and 2 would not be made.

This alternative retains many loop opportunities on NFS roads but provides only minimal opportunity for dispersed camping or parking off of designated routes as many spurs will remain closed. This will continue to limit dispersed camping and parking for other forms of recreation in the area.

Non-motorized The No Action Alternative retains the current system of roads and trails and the area remains closed to cross country travel. There would be no effects to non-motorized recreation.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action will designate 64 pre-existing routes ranging in length between 0.01 miles to 1. 2 miles to provide access for dispersed recreation in the project area (Table 1). A total of 11.8 miles is added as open to motor vehicles. These routes primarily provide access to dispersed recreation areas used for camping that were not included on the Carson Ranger District motor vehicle use map (MVUM).

The District is also proposing to close 22 NFS roads (17.3 miles) that are contributing to degraded environmental conditions, are not accessible, do not exist or are not accessible because of private land, and designate 3 NFS roads (6.2 miles) as motorized trails open to all vehicles. (Table 2). Additionally, one NFS road, 31051A, is erroneously shown as a road when it is actually a non-motorized trail. These roads are listed on the table below and depicted on the map on the attached CD. Closure may include gates, barriers, or full reclamation. These efforts will be carried out over the next several years as funding becomes available. These roads are currently depicted on the MVUM. Reclamation of the routes can include full re-contour of the travel way, ripping and seeding of the road bed, or other methods suitable for the site specific locations. Roads identified for reclamation will be barricaded to prevent inadvertent use both before and after the reclamation activity.

Motorized This Alternative closes 17.3 miles of current system roads and opens 64 motorized routes totaling 11.8 miles. Most of these routes to be opened are short spurs that will provide parking for various

23

recreation opportunities including camping, picnicking, staging for motorized recreation and non-motorized recreation. Opening these routes will have only beneficial effects to motorized recreation, mostly by providing more opportunity to park for camping and other recreation.

The 17.3 Miles of closed routes will have some effect to motorized recreation.

Designation of 53 unauthorized roads totaling 6.1 miles will provide additional recreation opportunities primarily for parking associated with dispersed camping, fishing, picnicking and other recreation opportunities. Eleven motorized trails totaling 5.8 miles are proposed to be designated open to all vehicles. These are primarily connector routes that provide loop opportunities with open roads and motorized trails. Some of these are short spurs that provide staging areas for various recreation opportunities. Additionally 3 open roads are proposed to be changed to a motorized trails open to all vehicles. These proposals reflect actual conditions. These additions and changes to the existing system will have beneficial effects to motorized recreation by providing increased opportunity for recreation associated with parking in these dispersed areas including camping, picnicking, fishing, and staging for other types of recreation,

There are 22 system roads totaling 17.3 miles that are proposed to be closed. These routes are closed for a number of reasons. Either they do not actually exist on the ground, are causing damage to resources that cannot be mitigated, are non-motorized routes that are shown erroneously on the MVUM as roads, or are not accessible because of private land. Expected effects to motorized recreation are minimal due to these changes. There is a negligible change in miles of motorized routes with approximately 11.9 miles designated, and 17.3 miles closed leaving 88 miles of roads and trails open to motorized vehicles in the project area. All of the proposed closures except 31151A (1.85 miles) are not used by motorized vehicles because of the reasons previously mentioned. 31151A does receive some motorized use but is leading to resource damage as the road dead ends in a wet meadow and does not lead to any destination or loop. The road also goes through many seeps and springs. Closing this route may have some minimal effects to motorized recreation, but there are numerous other opportunities in the immediate area.

Non-motorized There are minimal if any effects to non-motorized recreation from this project because those routes being added to the system are not typically used for non-motorized recreation and designating short spurs for parking, camping etc. also befits non-motorized recreation by providing staging areas for hiking, horseback riding, biking and quiet recreation opportunities.. There is a net reduction of about 6 miles of motorized routes. These closures may provide improved opportunity for non-motorized recreation. The designation of 64 routes totaling 11.8 miles does not have any negative effects to non-motorized recreation. Mostly these provide areas for parking, camping and staging and are not in areas utilized for non-motorized recreation. There are a number of designated non-motorized trails in the area including the Pacific Crest Trail and visitors do hike, horseback and bike on closed roads and trails in the area. There are minimal if any conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation in the area, and because the scope of this project is minimal this is not expected to change. There are no quantitative effects to non-motorized recreation because none of the proposed spurs to be opened are located in or near semi – primitive non-motorized areas.

The Armstrong pass trail has been erroneously shown as a motorized trail on the MVUM. This correction is proposed to reflect this route as a non-motorized trail. This trail provides an important access point to the Tahoe Rim Trail.


24

Roadless Effects to roadless characteristic and wilderness attributes of roadless areas are summarized in the following table. More detailed analysis is included in the project record Recreation and Roadless specialist report.

Table 6:Motorized trails proposed to be designated in Roadless areas Route Number

Miles of route Miles in Roadless Area

Roadless Area Name Potential Effect to Roadless Area

EP071B 1.11557965 1.082708209 Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak

No Effect

EP094 0.415287152 0.415287152 Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak

No Effect


No Effect

EP102B 0.641871978 0.597501213 Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak

Minimal localized effect to undeveloped quality. The route already exists and is being utilized as a motorized trail The action of designating it open is not exected to change patterns of use.


Minimal localized effect to undeveloped quality. The route already exists and is being utilized as a motorized trail The action of designating it open is not exected to change patterns of use.

W24 0.044524165 0.011530164 Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak

No Effect

W50 0.467978034 0.418280031 Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak

No Effect

The proposed action will designate seven motorized trails which enter into the Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The individual lengths of the trails range from 0.002 miles to 1.11 miles. The total mileage of these trails is 3.40 miles in May, 2006 the Forest published An Assessment of Lands on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest That Have Potential for Consideration by Congress for Wilderness Designation. This document looked at the IRAs described in the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule across the Forest and made recommendations regarding wilderness potential based on the presence of roads and eight wilderness characteristics. The Mokelumne – Hawkins Peak IRA is 16,547 acres and was rated medium overall for capability as a Wilderness area. It was found to have high values for natural appearance and special features, but low values for manageability and medium values for primitive recreation. The IRA is contiguous with the Mokelumne Wilderness area but the assessment determined that it would not appreciably augment the Wilderness area. None of the proposed trails are near the Wilderness boundary. Four of these trails are very short spurs that provide recreational access in the area near Burnside Lake and Burnside road (NFS road 31019) and do not have any effect to wilderness attributes or roadless characteristics. EP071B is 1.11 miles in length and is an existing trail that continues south and west of Burnside Lake. EP102 and EP104 provide a connection to NFS road 31053. The designation of these routes as motorized trails will have a minimal localized effect to roadless characteristics and wilderness

25

attributes. Since the IRA is large and contiguous with the Mokelumne Wilderness, these motorized trails are not expected to have an effect to the IRA as a whole.

Public Health and Safety

Affected Environment Safe travel for all users on routes that cross the District is a concern that was identified when developing the Proposed Action. The District considered the types of proposed routes, the types of vehicles traveling on the routes, the speeds at which vehicles can safely travel and the times of year the routes are open. At present, all routes on the Carson Ranger District are open to both highway-legal and non-highway legal vehicles. Route conditions off the main routes are generally rough and require slow speeds (<10 mph) in high-clearance vehicles. Main routes generally receive only light use through most of the year with the highest use period being during the hunting season in September and October. The District is not aware of any multi vehicle accidents occurring on current NFS roads. This project area is located some distance from populated areas and does not result in noise or emission impacts. Low volume and slow speeds also contribute to the reduction of noise and emissions.

Environmental Consequences The environmental effects on public safety are addressed by a qualitative discussion on the potential effects of the proposed action.

Effects Common to All Alternatives Because of the low speeds, low traffic volumes, and current open nature of all roads to all vehicles type the District was not required to complete an engineering analysis for the approval of mixed use. The inherent risk of traveling on forest transportation system routes is not increased under either of the Action Alternatives and may decrease under the No Action Alternative. The District does not anticipate that use of the routes in either of the Alternatives would increase the risk of multiple vehicle accidents. All of the routes analyzed under the Proposed Action Alternative are very low volume roads and travel speeds are kept low because of short length and rough conditions. There is no increased risk of accident under the proposed action because the use of these routes is not expected to change with designation.

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this Environmental Assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Dan Morris Recreation, Roadless

Sally Champion Hydrologist

Sally Champion Soils/Hydrology

Maureen Easton Wildlife Biologist

Cheryl Johnson GIS Analyst


26

Terri Sonner Engineering Technician

Joe Garrotto Archeologist

Elizabeth Bergstrom Botanist

Federal, State, and Local Agencies US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Alpine, County, CA. (Alpine County, CA is a cooperating agency on this project and passed a resolution fully supporting the process and the proposed action on June 4th, 2013.)

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

Consultation with the Reno Sparks Indian Colony and Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California has been ongoing since 2008. The District consulted with the tribes in face to face meetings on several occasions with the tribe having no issues or concerns with the proposed projects. The district last met the Washoe Tribe on February 22, 2011. The district archaeologist met members of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony on August 8, 2011 to discuss the project findings and the proposed fuels reduction treatment plan. The tribe’s only concern was to have tribal monitors work with the district on large scale projects.

27

References Elliot, J.W. and Hall, D.E. August 1997. Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Forest Applications. General Technical Report INT-365, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Gucinski, Hermann, Furniss, Michael J., Zeimer, Robert R., and Brookes, Martha H. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509, May 2001.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan (LRWQCB). 2010. CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. California. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml

MacDonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and constraints. Environmental Management 26: 299-315.

Trombulak, S.C. and C. A. Frissell. 200. Review of the ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Data Mart. Website: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

USFS 1988. Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis. In: USFS Region 5, Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. FSH 2509.22. San Francisco: US Forest Service.

USDA, Forest Service. 1986. Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. Travel Analysis Process for the Carson Ranger District. (2010)

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi for the Spooner Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project, Douglas, Washoe, and Carson City Counties of Nevada. Prepared by Wendy Boes, Botanist for the Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, on file at the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 35pgs.

Weixelman, D., and D. Cooper. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges of California, A User Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. R5-TP-028. Vallejo, CA. U,S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 42p.

USFS 1988. Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis. In: USFS Region 5, Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. FSH 2509.22. San Francisco: US Forest Service.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

west carson river route adjustment projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents