United States Department of Agriculture
Eldorado National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Eldorado June 2018 Service National Forest R5-MB-311 Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environment Impact Statement
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.
ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Eldorado National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eldorado National Forest Alpine, Amador, El Dorado and Placer Counties, California
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Laure nce Crabtre e, Forest Supervisor Eldorado National Forest 100 Forni Road Placerville, CA 95667 For Information Contact: Jennifer Marsolais Forest Environmental Coordinator 100 Forni Road Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 642-5187
Abstract: The Forest Service proposes to designate over-snow vehicle (OSV) trails and areas for public OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. These designations would occur on National Forest System (NFS) OSV trails and areas on NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest. The Forest Service would also identify OSV trails where grooming for public OSV use would occur within the Eldorado National Forest.
Consistent with the Forest Service’s Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR Part 212 Subpart C, trails and areas designated for public over-snow vehicle use would be displayed on a publicly available over-snow vehicle use map (OSVUM). Public OSV use that is inconsistent with the OSVUM would be prohibited under Federal regulations at 36 CFR §261.14.
This Environmental Impact Statement describes the proposed action, a no-action alternative, and two additional action alternatives developed in response to issues, and discloses their environmental impacts. Specific components of alternatives 3 and 4 would require an amendment to the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1989) to ensure consistency with the LRMP (36 CFR 219.15).
Eldorado National Forest iii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Summary The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposal to designate over-snow vehicle (OSV) use on National Forest System (NFS) OSV trails and areas on NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest; and to identify OSV trails for grooming within the Eldorado National Forest. This proposal would be implemented entirely within the Eldorado National Forest. Purpose and Need One purpose of this project is to establish designated areas and trails for OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest to: provide access, ensure that OSV use occurs when and where 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 of National Forest System lands.
There is a need to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with, and achieves the purposes of, the Forest Service Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR part 212 and Subpart C.
A second purpose of this project is to comply with the Settlement Agreement between the Forest Service and Snowlands Network et al., by identifying those designated National Forest System OSV trails where grooming for public OSV use would occur and analyzing the effects of the grooming program. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Forest Service is required to complete the appropriate NEPA analysis to identify OSV trails available for grooming on the Eldorado National Forest. Proposed Action Designate OSV trails and areas on NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest for OSV use when there is adequate snow depth to avoid damage to resources. One groomed OSV trail (existing Silver Bear Trail System) and four areas (Amador, Georgetown, Pacific, and Placerville) are proposed to be designated for OSV use. OSV use of the groomed Silver Bear Trail System would be allowed when there is at least 6 inches of snow to avoid damage to resources. OSV trail grooming would occur when there are at least 12 inches of snow, consistent with California State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division snow depth standards for grooming to occur. Cross-country OSV use would be allowed within areas designated as open when there are at least 12 inches of snow, regardless of the underlying surface, to avoid damage to resources. Approximately 435,600 acres of NFS lands within the the Eldorado National Forest would be designated for public cross-country OSV use. • Amador OSV Area – Approximately 98,700 acres. • Georgetown OSV Area - Aproximately 84,600 acres. • Pacific OSV Area - Approximately 91,800 acres. • Placerville OSV Area - Approximately 160,500 acres. Approximately 58 miles of OSV trail (existing Silver Bear Trail System) would be designated and groomed for OSV use. Pacific Crest National ScenicTrail (PCT) – Areas designated for OSV use would be at least 500 feet from the PCT. Two designated OSV trails (0.5 miles non-groomed trails) would cross the PCT to provide connectivity between designated areas for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest iv Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
A more detailed description of the proposed action are found in Chapter 2 of this DEIS. A map of the proposed action can be found in Appendix A. Significant Issues Two significant issues that were identified as a result of scoping were used to develop the action alternatives. The significant issues are: Motorized Recreation Opportunities The decision has the potential to impact the amount of available opportunities for access and use of NFS lands by OSV-equipped winter recreation enthusiasts seeking enjoyable and challenging motorized experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas for OSV use has the potential to impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by: a. Changing the location of and/or reducing the amount of high quality and desirable areas designated for cross-country OSV use on the forest; b. Designating an insufficient number of opportunities for OSV use of snow trails on the forest; c. Providing an insufficient number of opportunities for OSV use of groomed snow trails on the forest. These opportunities are subject to an external constraint due to limits on the amount of funding from the State of California for grooming snow trails for OSV use. Snow trail grooming for OSV use on NFS land is 100 percent State-funded. The State’s financial support of snow trail grooming for OSV use is not expected to increase. Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities The decision has the potential to impact the amount of available opportunities for access and use of NFS lands by non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts seeking solitude and challenging physical experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas for OSV use and grooming of snow trails for OSV use has the potential to impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by: a. Displacing non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts, or requiring them to travel longer distances through motorized trails and areas than they are physically able to traverse to access their desired quiet, non-motorized experiences; b. Creating concerns for their safety when non-motorized winter recreationists share winter recreation routes and areas with OSVs; c. Creating noise impacts that intrude on the solitude these enthusiasts seek; d. Creating air quality impacts that intrude on the fresh air and solitude these enthusiasts seek; e. Consuming untracked powder desired by backcountry skiers; f. Making the snow surface difficult to ski on; Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed four alternatives: No Action, Proposed Action, and two additional action alternatives generated in response to the significant issues listed above. The four alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed in table S-1. Complete details of the alternatives are found in chapter 2 of this document.
Eldorado National Forest v Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Table S-1. Alternatives considered in detail Alternative Description of Alternative 1 No Action Alternative – There would be no change to the way the Forest Service currently manages public OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. • 458,600 acres are open to public OSV use, which is approximately 75 percent of the NFS land within the Eldorado National Forest. • 58 miles of OSV trails are open and groomed for OSV use. • 12 inches is the minimum snow depth for OSV use cross-country and on OSV trails. • 18 inches is the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming. • OSV us e is prohibited along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). 2 Proposed Action • 435,600 acres of would be designated for OSV us e, which is approximately 71 percent of the NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest. o Amador OSV Area – 98,700 acres o Georgtown OSV Area – 84,600 acres o Pacific OSV Area – 91,800 acres o Placerville OSV Area – 160,500 acres • 58 miles of OSV trails (existing Silver Bear Trail System) would be designated and groomed for OSV use. • 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use to occur in areas designated as open, regardless of underlying surface, to avoid damage to resources. • 6 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System. • 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System. • Areas designated for OSV would be at least 500 feet from the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). • 2 designated OSV trails (0.5 miles) would cross the PCT to provide connectivity between areas designated for OSV use. 3 Addresses Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities Issue • 125,200 of NFS land would be designated for OSV use, which is approximately 20 percent of the NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest. o Amador OSV Area – 29,800 acres o Georgtown OSV Area – 0 acres o Pacific Open ASV – 38,700 acres o Placerville OSV Area – 56,700 acres • 58 miles of NFS OSV trails (existing Silver Bear Trail System) would be designated and groomed for OSV use. Same as Proposed Action. • 5.4 miles of non-groomed OSV trail, on the access road to the Van Vleck Bunkhouse, would be designated as open for OSV use. • 18 inches would be the minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use to occur in areas designated as open, regardless of underlying surface. This minimum snow depth requirement would require a Forest Plan amendment. • 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on designated OSV trails (non-groomed access road to Van Vleck Bunkhouse) and groomed Silver Bear Trail System. • 18 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System.
Eldorado National Forest vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Alternative Description of Alternative 4 Addresses Motorized Opportunities Issue • 463,800 acres NFS land would be designated for OSV use, which is approximately 76 percent of the NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest. o Amador OSV Area – 114,800 acres o Georgtown OSV Area – 84,600 acres o Pacific OSV Area – 99,100 acres o Placerville OSV Area – 165,700 acres • 58 miles of NFS snow trails (existing Silver Bear Trail System) would be designated and groomed for OSV use. Same as Proposed Action. • 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use to occur in areas designated as open, regardless of underlying surface. Same as Proposed Action. • 6 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System. Same as Proposed Action. • 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System. Same as Proposed Action. • A Forest Plan Amendment would be needed to allow OSV use in Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness (Management Area 1), Round Top Botanical/Geological Special Interest Area (Management Area 4), and certain Semi-Primitive Non- motorized High Country areas (Management Area 6).
Summary of Environmental Impacts Chapter 3 of the EIS discloses the effects of the alternatives to Recreation, Noise, Soil Resources, Water Resources, Terrestrial Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Botany, Air Quality, Heritage, Transportation and Engineering, and Socioeconomics. There may be effects that vary by alternative to some forest resources, including motorized or non-motorized recreation opportunities. However, most of the effects are similar amongst alternatives for most of the resources, with the primary difference being the number of acres designated for OSV use. Because the minimum snow depth requirement under each alternative is anticipated to be sufficient to avoid ground disturbance, the effects to soil resources, water resources, wildlife, botany, and cultural resources are anticipated to be no effect to minimal under each alternative. Table S-2 provides a summary of environmental impacts relative to motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities issues. A more comprehensive summary of environmental effects can be found in Chapter 2 of the EIS, Table 21.
Eldorado National Forest vii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Table S-2 Summary of environmental impacts related to Motorized Recreation Opportunities and Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities Resource Impa cts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Considered/Indicators No Action Proposed Action Motorized Recreation Opportunities Opportunities for 458,600 acres open to 435,600 acres open to 125,200 acres open to 463,800 acres open to motorized winter uses, OSV us e OSV use, a 5 percent OSV use, a 73 percent OSV use, a 1 percent acreage of designated decrease from current decrease from current increase from current public cross-country OSV management1 management management Cross-Country OSV use use; percent change as compared to current management Snow Depth 12-inch snow depth 12-inch snow depth, no 18-inch snow depth, an Same as Alternative 2 change from current increase from current management management OSV trail designations, 58 miles designated 58.5 miles of 63.4 miles of Same as Alternative 1 length of trails (miles) and OSV trail (Silver Bear designated OSV trails designated OSV trails change from current Trail System) (Silver Bear Trail (Silver Bear Trail management System and PCT Sys tem and Van crossings), negligable Vleck), slight increase Designated OSV Trails increase from current from current management management Snow Depth 12-inch snow depth for 6-inch snow depth on 12-inch snow depth on 6-inch snow depth on trail use groomed trails; 12-inch all OSV trails groomed trails snow depth on non- groomed trails OSV trail grooming, length 58 miles groomed OSV Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 of groomed trails (miles) trail (Silver Bear Trail Groomed OSV Trails and change from current system) management Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities Size of area (acres) 43,500 acres available 45,900 acres available 73,300 acres available 28,100 acres available Cross-Country available within 5 miles of non-motorized for non-motorized for non-motorized for non-motorized plowed trailheads recreation within 5 recreation within 5 recreation within 5 recreation within 5 miles of plowed miles of plowed miles of plowed
1 The area around the Rock Creek OHV Trail System was not designated for OSV use under the Proposed Action, and accounts for most of the 5 percent decrease from current management.
Eldorado National Forest viii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Resource Impa cts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Considered/Indicators No Action Proposed Action trailheads trailheads trailheads miles of plowed trailheads Size of areas (acres) 154,200 acres 177,200 acres 487,600 acres 149,000 acres available overall Desginated Ski Trails Length of designated 60 miles of designated Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 cross country ski trails cross-country ski trails (miles) available Noise Noise Impacts Acres anticipated to have 44,900 acres Same as Alternative 1 33,300 acres 49,000 acres high to moderate use levels, and the associated potential noise impacts Designated Areas Proximity of OSV trails in Approximately 2 miles Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative relation to designated of groomed OSV trails wilderness are within ½ mile of Mokelumne Designated Wilderness Wilderness
Size of area (acres) 15,200 acres 14,100 acres 6,700 acres 15,300 acres designated for OSV use and within ½ mile of wilderness Proximity of OSV trails in Approximately 2 miles Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 relation to recommended of groomed OSV trails Caples Creek wilderness within ½ mile Recommended Wilderness Size of area (acres) 7,900 acres Same as Alternative 1 5,200 acres 21,000 acres designated for OSV and
within ½ mile of recommended wilderness Pacific Crest National Length (miles) of PCT 11 miles None 0.6 miles Same as Alternative 1 Scenic Trail within 500 feet of areas designated for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest ix Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary
This page intentionally left blank
Eldorado National Forest x Draft Environmental Impact Statement Contents
Table of Contents
Summary ...... iv Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background...... 2 Purpose and Need ...... 11 Proposed Action ...... 11 Decision Framework ...... 12 Public Involvement ...... 12 Issues...... 13 Chapter 2. Alternatives ...... 15 Introduction ...... 15 How Alternatives were Developed ...... 15 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 15 Alternatives or Alternative Components Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 22 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 27 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 40 Recreation...... 43 Noise ...... 67 Soil Resources...... 79 Water Resources...... 88 Terrestrial W ildlife ...... 110 Aquatic Resources ...... 170 Botany ...... 195 Air Quality ...... 221 Cultural Resources...... 236 Transportation and Engineering Resources ...... 239 Socioeconomics...... 244 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ...... 257 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 257 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 257 Other Required Disclosures ...... 257 Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors ...... 260 List of Preparers ...... 260 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement to Federal agencies, Tribes, elected officials and State and local governments pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.19 ...... 262 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement to Individuals and Organizations ...... 263 Index ...... 264 References ...... 265 Appendix A – Maps ...... 296 Appendix B – Minimization Criter ia ...... 302 Appendix C – OSV Use Assumption Maps ...... 359
Eldorado National Forest xi Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters:
• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded. • Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative actions that were developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect to their environmental impacts. • Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. • Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Eldorado National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Placerville, California in the electronic files.
This document incorporates by reference the 2010 Over Snow Vehicle Program Final Environmental Impact Report, Program Years 2010 – 2020, by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division (California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division 2010) (California OSV Program Final EIR (2010)).
Glossary Route categories and travel planning definitions applicable to this project (table 1) are based on the definitions in 36 CFR 212 – Travel Management.
Eldorado National Forest 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Table 1. Road and trail terminology – definitions Term Definition Administrative Use Motorized vehicle use associated with management activities or projects on National Forest Sys tem lands 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. 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 (36 CRF §212.1). Cross-country over-snow vehicle Public OSV use that occurs off of snow trails, but within areas designated (OSV) use as open for public OSV use. Designated over-snow vehicle A National Forest System road, National Forest System trail, or an area (OSV) trail or area on National Forest System lands that is designated for public over-snow vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR §212.51 on an over-snow vehicle use map.* Designation for over-snow Designation of a National Forest System road, a National Forest System vehicle (OSV) use trail, or an area on National Forest System lands where public over-snow vehicle use is allowed pursuant to §212.81.* Forest road or trail (or National A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to and serving the Forest System (NFS) road or [National Forest System (NFS)] that is determined to be necessary for the trail) 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, skiing, riding horses, or mountain biking. Not all of these examples are allowed in all non-motorized areas or trails. 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 public over-snow (OSVUM) vehicle use on the Eldorado National Forest (36 CFR §212.1).* 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). *The decision resulting from this analysis would not designate National Forest System roads for public OSV use. Public OSV routes that would overlie existing National Forest System roads would be designated as National Forest System trails where public OSV use is allowed and are referred to as OSV trails in this project.
Background This analysis responds to requirements in the Federal regulations for the management of OSV use on national forests (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C), as well as a settlement agreement in the case of Snowlands Network et al. v. U.S. Forest Service (Case No. 2:11-cv-02921-MCE-DAD, E.D. Cal.) regarding the environmental impacts of the grooming of snow trails for OSV use on five national forests, including the Eldorado National Forest. The following summarizes how the Forest Service currently manages public OSV use on the approximately 612,777-acre Eldorado National Forest:
• Approximately 458,600 acres of NFS lands are open to cross-country OSV use;
Eldorado National Forest 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
• Approximately 154,200 acres of NFS lands are closed to OSV use; • OSV use along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is prohibited; • Approximately 58 miles of National Forest System (NFS) OSV trails exist on the Eldorado National Forest, all of which are groomed for OSV use (Silver Bear Trail System); • Public OSV use is allowed when there are 12 or more inches of snow; and • Snow trail grooming is allowed when there are 18 or more inches of snow.
Travel Management Regulations – Subpart C “Use by Over-snow Vehicles” Subpart C of the Forest Service’s Travel Management Regulations became effective on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 4500, Jan. 28, 2015). The regulations state, in part: “Over-snow vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands shall be designated by the Responsible Official on administrative units or Ranger Districts, or parts of administrative units or Ranger Districts, of the NFS where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur, and, if appropriate, shall be designated by class of vehicle and time of year…” (36 CFR 212.81 (a)].
Over-snow vehicle designations made as a result of the analysis in this EIS would conform to Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR part 212, Subpart C).
Consistent with travel planning regulations at 36 CFR part 212 Subpart C, designated public over- snow vehicle areas and trails would be displayed on a publicly available over-snow vehicle use map (OSVUM). Once issued, these designations would be made enforceable with the provisions of 36 CFR §261.14, which prohibits the possession or operation of an OSV on National Forest System lands other than in accordance with the Subpart C designations.
Designation Criteria The Travel Management Regulations set forth designation criteria that are to guide the responsible official’s designation of trails and areas for OSV use (see 36 CFR §212.55(a)-(e)]. These criteria delineate certain elements and resources, the effects on which the responsible official must consider. The Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR §212.55(a) and (b) require consideration of enumerated “general” and “specific” designation criteria, whereas 36 CFR §212.55(d) and (e) require the responsible official to consider rights of access and wilderness areas and primitive areas in designating trails and areas for OSV use. The Travel Management Regulations describe the general designation criteria (36 CFR §212.55(a)] as follows: 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. The Travel Management Regulations describe the specific designation criteria (36 CFR §212.55(b)] as follows:
Eldorado National Forest 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
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 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.
Additionally, 36 CFR §212.55(d) requires the responsible official to recognize valid existing rights of access in designating trails and areas for OSV use and 36 CFR §212.55(e) provides that OSV trails and areas shall not be designated in wilderness areas or primitive areas, “unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for those areas.”
Minimization Criteria The term “minimizat ion criteria,” as used in this analysis, refers to the subset of the specific criteria which the responsible official is to consider “with the objective of minimizing” the four categories of impacts set forth in 36 CFR §212.55(b)(1)-(4) when designating trails and areas for motorized use.
The term “granular”2refers to the degree of specificity with which the minimization criteria are applied. The Travel Management Regulations implement Executive Order (E.O.) 11644, as amended by E.O. 11989, from which the minimization criteria originate. E.O. 11644 states that “each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions… to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted….” (emphasis added). This supports the application of the minimization criteria to each specific area and trail. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has further clarified this point:
[T]he TMR requires the Forest Service to apply the minimization criteria to each area it designated for snowmobile use…. The TMR is concerned with the effects of each particularized area and trail designation. The minimization criteria must be applied accordingly.” WildEarth Guardians v. USFS, No. 12-35434, D.C. No. 9:10-cv-00104-DWM, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 6/22/15, pp. 23 and 27 (emphasis in original).
However, it is important to note that applying the minimization criteria should not be interpreted as strictly requiring the prevention of all impacts. Instead, in applying the minimization criteria, the Forest Service maintains the flexibility to manage for a reasonable reduction of impacts while still addressing the need to provide trails and areas for public OSV experiences. This point is clarified in the preamble to the Travel Management Regulations Final Rule published on November 9, 2005:
2 Granular is used by plaintiffs to define use of minimization criteria. See United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court, Wild Earth Guardians v. US Forest Service, 2015, page 3 of 30.
Eldorado National Forest 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
An extreme interpretation of “minimize” would preclude any use at all, since impacts always can be reduced further by preventing them altogether. Such an interpretation would not reflect the full context of E.O. 11644 or other laws and policies related to multiple use of NFS lands. Neither E.O. 11644, nor these other laws and policies, establish the primacy of any particular use of trails and areas over any other. The Department believes ‘‘shall consider * * * with the objective of minimizing * * *’’ will assure that environmental impacts are properly taken into account, without categorically precluding motor vehicle use” (70 FR 68281).
Applying the General Designation Criteria [36 CFR §212.55(a)] The general designation criteria were applied in the development of the proposed action and discussed within the effects analysis. The analysis contained in chapter 3 analyzes the effects on natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreation opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of trails and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated, and the availability of resources for maintenance and administration of OSV designations.
Applying the Minimization and Other Specific Designation Criteria [36 CFR §212.55(b)] Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred only to the minimization criteria when specifying the granular application requirement, the Travel Management Regulations introduce the four minimization criteria together with the fifth specific criteria, which requires the responsible official to consider the “[c]ompatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound emissions, and other factors” 36 CFR §212.55(b)(5). Accordingly, this analysis treats all criteria the same, considering each specific area and trail proposed for designation against each of the five specific criteria.
For all specific criteria, the interdisciplinary team developed potential effect indicators, which are triggers for determining when effects to the given resources and uses set forth in 36 CFR §212.55(b)(1)-(5) may warrant mitigation.
In developing the proposed action, the Forest Service applied the minimization criteria (all the specific criteria) with full granularity. The Forest Service developed four discrete, specifically delineated areas for which the minimization criteria were applied by screening the areas against the specific criteria (Table 2) developed with the objective of minimizing the impacts to resources. That is, each specific area and trail proposed for designation was considered in light of each specific criteria. If the interdisciplinary team found that effects to the potential effect indicators were not present for a particular area or trail designation, then the designation could proceed without additional mitigation. However, if the interdisciplinary team found that a designation would trigger one or more potential effect indicators, then the interdisciplinary team considered specific measures that would address the concern, and designation of these areas and trails could be carried forward into the proposed action. Some areas were removed from further consideration based on application of the minimizat ion criteria.
Table 2 displays the potential effects indicators developed to assess the areas and trails relative to minimizat ion criteria. Appendix B documents how the minimization criteria were applied on the Eldorado National Forest.
Eldorado National Forest 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Table 2. Minimization and other specific criteria applied to areas and trails proposed for designation as open for OSV use 1 2 3 4 5 Minimize Damage to Soil, Minimize Harassment of Minimize conflicts between Minimize conflicts among Consider Watershed, Vegetation and Wildlife and Significant motor vehicle use and different classes of motor compatibility of Other Forest Resources Disruption of Wildlife existing or proposed vehicle uses on NFS lands motor vehicle use Habitats recreational uses of NFS or neighboring Federal with lands or neighboring lands existing conditions in Federal lands populated areas*
• Would the trail or area be • Is the trail or area located • Would OSV use of this trail • Would this trail or area • Would the trail or area located in a watershed that is within or adjacent to or area cause conflicts with allow wheeled motor be adjacent to year of concern? Threatened, Endangered, or non-motorized visitors’ vehicle use over snow? If around • Would the trail or area contain Forest Service sensitive desire for solitude and quiet so, does this affect safety neighborhoods and sensitive riparian areas, for species (TES) breeding bird recreation (for example, and winter management of communities? example wet meadows, bogs, sites AND also used during near popular quiet areas or this area? • fens, etc.? the breeding period of the high value areas for Would the trail or area • Would this trail or area be located adjacent to • speces? backcountry skiing)? Would the trail or area drain allow tracked motor private land? into a 303(d)-listed • Would the trail or area be vehicle use over snow? If • waterbody? Is the trail or area located within or adjacent to a so, does this affect safety within or adjacent to TES • Would the trail or area contain location valued for non- and winter management of forest carnivore (i.e. fisher, * Column 5 is not a sensitive soils (including wet motorized use, such as this area? marten, or wolverine) den minimization criteria but meadows, areas with potential wilderness PCT, is required to low stability, and areas with sites AND used during the recommended wilderness, • Would this trail or area denning period for these specifically be potential erosion hazards)? and ski areas. conflict with plowed roads species? allowing vehicle use? Are considered per Travel • Are TES plants known to • Would the trail or area abut road crossings allowed by Management occur in or around the trail or • a wilderness area or OSVs ? Regulations. area? Is the trail or area located within or adjance to National Park managed by • Would the trail or area include occupied habitat for TES other agencies? Special Interest Areas (SIA) aquatic species? or Research Natural Area • Would the trail or area abut (RNA)? a developed recreation • Would the trail or area • site? Is the trail or area located contain TES aquatic habitat within a NAAQS Class I area and/or designated critical (air quality)? habitat? • Are cultural resource sites known to be located in or • Would the trail or area around the trail or area? contain habitat for TES terrestrial wildlife species?
Eldorado National Forest 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Applying the Rights of Access Designation Criteria [36 CFR §212.55(d)] Policy provides direction to provide reasonable access to private property and other rights of access are authorized through special uses. The decision to designate areas and trails for OSV use and to identify snow trails for grooming would have no effect on existing rights of access that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations such as for managing permitted livestock or for access under a special use permit [36 CFR §212.81(a)].
Applying the Wilderness Areas and Primitive Areas Designation Criteria [36 CFR §212.55(e)] No trails or areas would be designated for OSV use in Wilderness and Primitive Areas. Motorized use is prohibited in Wilderness Areas by the Wilderness Act, and thus, they are not designated for OSV use.
Applying the Area Size Criteria This analysis identifies four areas on the Eldorado National Forest that are smaller than a ranger district. Not all of these four areas would be designated in all action alternatives.
Amador OSV Are a – The size of this area ranges from a minimum of 29,800 acres to a maximum of 114,400 acres, depending on the alternative. It consists of the southern portion of the Eldorado National Forest along the Highway 88 corridor within the vicinity of Bear River Reservoir, Silver Lake, Carson Pass, and Forestdale/Blue Lakes. With the 58-mile groomed Silver Bear Trail System located within this area, this area is where most of the OSV use occurs on the forest.
Ge orge town OSV Are a – The size of this area ranges from undesignated (0 acres) to a maximum of 104,600 acres, depending on the alternative. It consists of the northwestern portion of the Eldorado National Forest in the vicinity of Stumpy Meadows Reservoir and Hell Hole Reservoir. This area is within a zone of historically minimal snowfall and low to no OSV use. Although designated for OSV use, OSV opportunities are irregular throughout this area as there may not be sufficient snow in most of this area for much of the year. In addition, the checkerboard ownership pattern limits the amount of OSV opportunities within this area and likely contributes to the low to no OSV use.
Pacific OSV Area – The size of this area ranges from a minimum of 38,700 acres to a maximum of 99,100 acres, depending on the alternative. It consists of the Crystal Basin Recreation Area in the vicinity of Ice House Road, Union Valley Reservoir, Ice House Reservoir, Gerle Creek Reservoir, Loon Lake, Wrights Lake Tie Road, and Wrights Lake. OSV opportunities within the lower elevation portions of this OSV Area are irregular as there may not be sufficient snow for much of the year. Although there is sufficient snow in the upper elevations of this OSV Area, this area currently receives low OSV use.
Placerville OSV Area – The size of this area ranges from a minimum of 56,700 acres to a maximum of 165,700 acres, depending on the alternative. It consists of the Highway 50 corridor to Echo Summit on the north, along Mormon Emigrant Trail, and down to near the Highway 88 corridor to the south. The OSV Area is located east of the communities of Pollock Pines and Grizzly Flats. Similar to the Pacific OSV Area, opportunities within the lower elevation portions of this area are irregular as there may not be sufficient snow for much of the year. Most of the OSV use in this area occurs in the vicinity of Mormon Emigrant Trail and the Silver Bear Trail System, with some use in the upper elevations along the Highway 50 corridor east of Wrights Lake Road to Echo Summit.
Eldorado National Forest 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Snow Trail Grooming Program For more than 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 snowmobile use. Most groomed snow trails on the national forests in California are co-located on underlying NFS roads. Some grooming occurs on county roads and closed snow-covered highways. Grooming activities are funded by the State off-highway vehicle trust fund.
Snowlands Network et al. vs. USDA Forest Service In 2013, the Forest Service entered into a Settlement Agreement with Snowlands Network et al., to “complete appropriate NEPA analysis (es) to identify snow trails for grooming” on the Eldorado National Forest and four other national forests in California. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement for the Eldorado National Forest by completing this analysis.
Furthermore, additional terms of the Settlement Agreement require the Forest Service to:
1. Analyze ancillary activities such as the plowing of related parking lots and trailheads as part of the effects analysis; 2. Consider a range of alternative actions that would result in varying levels of snowmobile use; and 3. Consider an alternative submitted by Plaintiffs and/or Intervenors in the NEPA analysis so long as the alternative meets the purpose and need, is feasible and within the scope of the NEPA analysis, and Plaintiffs and/or Intervenors provide the Forest Service with a detailed description of that alternative during the scoping period for the NEPA analysis.
Scope of this Action The Eldorado National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation is not intended to be a comprehensive, holistic winter recreation planning effort. The designations resulting from this analysis would only apply to the public use of OSVs on NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest. An OSV is defined in the Forest Service’s Travel Management Regulations 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).
Other types of motor vehicles that may operate over snow, but do not meet the definition of an OSV, are regulated under Subpart B of the Travel Management Regulations. Routes and areas for these types of vehicles were previously designated and published on a motor vehicle use map as the result of a separate environmental analysis and decision. These designations would only apply to public OSV use. Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and OSV use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations, such as for managing permitted livestock or for access under a special use permit, would be exempt from these designations (36 CFR 212.81(a)).
No new designation of non-motorized trails or areas would result from this analysis. Some non- motorized trails and areas will be identified in this analysis to provide context. Non-motorized winter recreational opportunities and uses will be considered in the analysis in terms of the effects that
Eldorado National Forest 8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need designating snow trails and areas as open for OSV use may have on non-motorized recreational opportunities.
Further, with respect to the grooming action, there are financial limitations on the miles and frequency of snow trail grooming within the forest’s snow trail grooming program. This is because the forest’s current snow trail grooming program is funded by California State Parks. These funds are not likely to substantially increase in future years.
Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulations also specifies that certain requirements of Subpart B of the Travel Management Regulations will continue to apply to the decision designating NFS snow trails and areas for OSV use (36 CFR 212.81(d)), including:
1. Public involvement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (36 CFR 212.52); 2. Coordination with Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments (36 CFR 212.53); 3. Consideration of the criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas (36 CFR 212.55); 4. Identification of designated uses on a publicly available use map of roads, trails, and areas (36 CFR 212.56); and 5. Monitoring of effects (36 CFR 212.57). To enforce these designations, the Forest Service would produce an OSV use map (OSVUM) that would look similar to the existing motor vehicle use map (MVUM) for the Eldorado National Forest. Such a map would allow OSV enthusiasts to identify the areas and trails where OSV use would be allowed on the Eldorado National Forest. The OSVUM would be produced after the issuance of the record of decision, which is expected in the winter 2019. The OSVUM is anticipated to be produced in time for the 2019-2020 winter season upon which these designatations would become effective.
Eldorado National Forest 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Project Location This proposal would be implemented on NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest in north- central California in the counties of Placer, El Dorado, Amador, and Alpine (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Vicinity map (Data Source: USFS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, USGS, EPA, NPS, NOAA)
Eldorado National Forest 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Purpose and Need One purpose of this project is to effectively manage OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest to provide access, ensure that OSV use occurs when there is adequate snow, promote the safety of all uses, enhance public enjoyment, minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, and minimize conflicts among the various uses. There is a need to provide a manageable, designated system of OSV trails and areas within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212. This action responds to that direction.
The existing system of available OSV trails and areas on the Eldorado National Forest is the culmination of multiple agency decisions over recent decades. Public OSV use of the majority of this available system continues to be manageable and consistent with current travel management regulations. Exceptions have been identified, based on internal and public input and the criteria for designating roads, trails, and areas listed at 36 CFR §212.55. These include needs to provide improved access for OSV uses and enact prohibitions required by the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and other management direction. These exceptions represent additional needs for change, and in these cases, changes are proposed to meet the overall objectives.
The Forest Service has identified trails and areas in which OSV use should be prohibited based on management direction in the Forest Plan. These trails and areas are currently managed as closed to OSV use through temporary closure orders to comply with Forest Plan direction. However, those closure orders will eventually expire. Therefore, the proposed action would not designate OSV use on these trails and in these areas to be consistent with the Forest Plan and Travel Management Rule.
A second purpose of this project is to identify snow trails where the Forest Service or its contractors would conduct grooming for OSV use. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Forest Service and Snowlands Network et al., the Forest Service is required to complete the appropriate NEPA analysis to identify snow trails for grooming on the Eldorado National Forest.
The snow trail grooming analysis would also address the need to provide a safe, high-quality snowmobile trail system on the Eldorado National Forest that is smooth and stable for the rider. Groomed trails are designed so that the novice rider can use them safely and without difficulty. Proposed Action The proposed action being analyzed in detail is as described in the February 2015 proposed action description and notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, with a few minor modifications and clarifications, which are described in detail in Chapter 2. A summary of the actions proposed are as follows:
1. To designate 4 discrete, specifically delineated areas for cross-country OSV use. There would be approximately 437,000 acres of NFS lands within the Eldorado National Forest as areas where public, cross-country OSV use would be allowed when snowfall depth is adequate to avoid damage to resources. To avoid damaging resources, 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur, regardless of underlying surface. OSV use would not be designated as open in the areas that are currently under a temporary closure order as described in the No Action alternative. In addition, the area around the Rock Creek Trails and Rock Creek Critical Deer Winter Range was expanded for manageability and now includes
Eldorado National Forest 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
the Traverse Creek Botanical SIA and Rock Creek Botanical SIA (i.e. Rock Creek Zone) and would not be designated as open to OSV use. 2. To designate approximately 58 miles of OSV trails (existing Silver Bear Trail System) on the Eldorado National Forest where OSV use would be allowed and groomed for OSV use. The Silver Bear Trail System would be groomed when there are 12 or more inches of snow and formally adopt California State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division snow depth standards for grooming to occur. A minimum of 6 inches of snow would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System. 3. To designate 2 OSV trails which cross the PCT. Areas designated for OSV use would be at least 500 feet from the PCT. Designated OSV trails would cross the PCT to provide connectivity between designated areas. A more detailed description of the proposed action is found in Chapter 2 of this DEIS. A map of the proposed action can be found in Appendix A. Decision Framework The decision would designate NFS OSV trails and areas on NFS lands for public OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. It would also identify the NFS OSV trails where grooming for OSV use would occur.
Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest is the responsible official who will issue the decision. The Forest Supervisor will consider all reasonable alternatives and decide whether to continue current management of public OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest, implement the proposed action, or select an alternative for the management of public OSV use. Public Involvement The Eldorado National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation is an activity implementing a land management plan. It is not an activity authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148). Therefore, this activity is subject to pre-decisional administrative review consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74) as implemented by Subparts A and B of 36 CFR Part 218.
The interdisciplinary team relied on public involvement to ensure that a reasonable range of alternatives, representing a broad array of perspectives, would be analyzed in this draft environmental impact statement.
A News Release informing the public of the upcoming OSV analysis was shared with the media on October 1, 2014. Save-the-date flyers with information regarding the “Five-Forest Over-snow Vehicle (OSV) Open Houses” were also distributed at that time. The Eldorado National Forest open house took place on November 4, 2014, in Placerville, California. Twenty-three interested and affected stakeholders attended the open house. The meeting’s objectives were to share information about the project and the NEPA process, gather input on public engagement, and collect public input on a preliminary purpose and need for action. The project first appeared on the Eldorado National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in January 2015.
A scoping letter describing the proposed action and seeking public comments was sent via email to approximately 127 interested groups, individuals, and agencies on February 26, 2015, with comments
Eldorado National Forest 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
requested to be returned by April 6, 2015. A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2015, with a request that comments be submitted by April 3, 2015. All notices included a web address for the project’s website where comments could also be submitted. The project’s website could also be accessed from the home page of the Eldorado National Forest’s public website.
The Forest Service contacted Native American tribes, but no responses have been received to date. The Forest Service sent letters informing the tribes of the Forest’s intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for designating OSV use on June 1, 2015. The Forest Service invited the public to comment on the proposed action and provide any relevant information that would be useful in the subsequent environmental analysis. The Forest Service received and considered responses from 103 interested groups, individuals, and agencies in the form of letters, emails, and website submissions. Comments received expressed support, opposition, or concerns with the proposed action, or requests for revision and new alternatives. Letters dated April 20, 2015, were received from the Plaintiffs describing their preferred alternatives. The Intervenors sent a letter describing their alternative on April 16, 2015. Follow-up letters were sent to both the Plaintiff and Intervenor groups on October 22, 2015, requesting clarification of the alternative components that had been submitted and informing them of the components of their requests that were believed to be outside of the scope of this project. The Forest Service received clarifying letters of response from the Plaintiffs and Intervenors dated November 5 and 16, 2015, respectively. Issues Comments that express concerns about cause-effect relationships between the proposed action and its effects are called “issues.” Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may result from the proposed action, giving opportunities to reduce adverse effects through design features, mitigations, or alternatives. Not all comments are issues.
Significant issues generally concern resources that may be significantly impacted by implementation of the proposed action and cannot be resolved through routine or standard project design features or mitigation measures. A significant issue is most often addressed by development and analysis of an alternative to the proposed action.
An issue may be deemed a non-significant issue for any of the following reasons: (1) the issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (2) the issue is outside the scope of the proposed action (the issue is not part of the proposal or is not affected by it); (3) the issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made; and (4) the issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)….” Members of the interdisciplinary team and the responsible official reviewed the comments to determine which of the concerns expressed by the public would be significant issues to be considered in the analysis.
Significant Issues Based on the content analysis process described above, two significant issues were identified, including motorized recreation opportunities and non-motorized recreation opportunities.
Eldorado National Forest 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1.Purpose and Need
Motorized Recreation Opportunities The decision has the potential to impact the amount of available opportunities for access and use of NFS lands by OSV-equipped winter recreation enthusiasts seeking enjoyable and challenging motorized experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas as open for OSV use has the potential to impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by: a. Changing the location of and/or reducing the amount of high quality and desirable areas designated as open for cross-country OSV use on the forest; b. Designating an insufficient number of opportunities for OSV use of snow trails on the forest; c. Providing an insufficient number of opportunities for OSV use of groomed snow trails on the forest.
Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities The decision has the potential to impact the amount of available opportunities for access and use of NFS lands by non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts seeking solitude and challenging physical experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas as open for OSV use and grooming of snow trails has the potential to impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by: a. Displacing non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts, or requiring them to travel longer distances through motorized trails and areas than they are physically able to traverse to access their desired quiet, non-motorized experiences; b. Creating concerns for their safety when non-motorized winter recreationists share winter recreation routes and areas with OSVs; c. Creating noise impacts that intrude on the solitude these enthusiasts seek; d. Creating air quality impacts that intrude on the fresh air and solitude these enthusiasts seek; e. Consuming untracked powder desired by backcountry skiers; and f. Making the snow surface difficult to ski on. These issues are addressed through minor modification of the proposed action and development of alternatives 3 and 4; through development of alternative 3 to reduce the extent of OSV opportunities; and through development of alternative 4 to expand the extent of OSV opportunities.
Eldorado National Forest 14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Chapter 2. Alternatives Introduction This chapter describes and compares the no-action alternative and three action alternatives for the Eldorado National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation. It includes a detailed description of each alternative, how they were developed, and alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The comparison of alternatives section at the end of this chapter presents the alternatives in comparative form summarizing the differences between alternatives. Maps of each of the alternatives can be found in Appendix A. Numbers such as acres and miles are approximate due to the use of GIS data and rounding. How Alternatives were Developed Information gathered by the Forest Service in their consultation and discussions with other agencies, organizations, individuals, government entities and Forest Service employees contributed to the development of alternatives. After the scoping period concluded, the Forest Service reviewed and considered all public comments. Once issues were identified, the Forest Service carefully considered alternatives to the proposed action or possible changes that may be necessary to the proposed action. There were multiple comments regarding the proposed action. There were also many comments that suggested new alternatives or new alternative components to consider. The interdisciplinary team reviewed these proposed alternatives to determine whether any modifications should be made to the proposed action and to make a recommendation to the responsible official about which alternatives should be analyzed in detail in the EIS and which ones should be dismissed from further detailed consideration. Alternatives Considered in Detail The Eldorado National Forest explored and evaluated four alternatives in detail (summarized in Table 9 and Table 10 at the end of this chapter). The no action, proposed action, and two alternatives to the proposed action are described in detail below. Maps depicting each alternative are found in Appendix A.
Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management) The no-action alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act [40 CFR §1502.14(d)] and represents the existing, baseline condition or trends by which the action alternatives are compared. Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to the existing system of OSV trails and areas within the Eldorado National Forest except as prohibited by Forest Order. The 2005 Travel Management Regulations, Subpart C, would not be implemented, and no OSV use map would be produced.
The following summarizes how the Forest Service currently manages public OSV use on the approximately 612,777-acre Eldorado National Forest. 1. Approximately 458,600 acres of NFS lands are open to public, cross-country OSV use. There are no designated OSV areas and the forest is open to OSV use unless closed by forest order. 2. Approximately 154,200 acres of NFS lands are closed to OSV use, through a temporary forest closure order. Temporary closures currently exist in the following areas and trails:
Eldorado National Forest 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
o Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness (Forest Plan Management Area 1); o Primitive High Country (Forest Plan Management Area 5); o Areas within Semi-primitive Non-motorized High Country (Forest Plan Management Area 6): Little McKinstry, Shadow Lake, Rockbound, July Flat, Bryan Meadow, Devils Lake, Hidden Lake, and Little Indian Valley;
o Research Natural Areas (RNAs) (Forest Plan Management Area 3): Peavine RNA and Station Creek RNA;
3 o Round Top Botanical/Geological Area (Forest Plan Management Area 4) ; o Special Use permitted areas: Kirkwood Resort and Kirkwood Nordic Ski Area, Sierra-at-Tahoe Resort, and Adventure Mountain Resort (Forest Plan Management Area 11 and 12);
o Echo Summit Nordic area (Forest Order 03-81-10); o Rock Creek Critical Deer Winter Range (Forest Order 03-13-06); o Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area (Forest Order 03-89-04); o Emigrant Lake Trail (Forest Plan Management Area 4, Forest Order 03-88-03); o Carson-Emigrant National Recreation Trail from Horse Canyon Saddle to Caples Lake Trailhead (Forest Plan Management Area 4 Forest Order 03-88-03); and
o Rock Creek Trails (including Mar Det) (new Forest Order issued each year based on conditions). 3. Pacific Crest Trail (PCT): OSV use along the PCT is prohibited. 4. There are approximately 58 miles of designated OSV trail, groomed for OSV use (Silver Bear Trail System). 5. Snow Depth Requirements:
o A minimum snow depth of 12 inches is required for OSV cross-country and trail use. o A minimum snow depth of 18 inches is required for OSV trail grooming to occur.
OSV Trail Grooming Applicable to All Alternatives The grooming season generally begins in mid-December and continues through March. Start and stop times are dependent upon the presence and depth of snow. Grooming historically has occurred several times per week. As part of this proposal, the grooming frequency would occur several times per week and after major storms, typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The total hours of trail grooming that would occur for an average season are shown in table 3.
3 The Round Top Botanical/Geological SIA was inadvertently left out of the Current Management description in the public scoping notice.
Eldorado National Forest 16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Table 3. Summary of grooming operations on the Eldorado National Forest Grooming Location Annual Groomed Miles Annual Snowcat Hours Max Day Hours Silver Bear Trail System 58 120 Hours 12 Hours
Consistent with Forest Service Handbook 2309.18, the Forest Service would continue to manage groomed snow trails at trail class 4 standards on the Eldorado National Forest. Trails would be groomed to a minimum width of 10 feet and typically up to 14 feet wide. Trails would be groomed up to 30 feet wide in the more heavily used areas such as near trailheads. Groomed snow trail width is determined by a variety of factors such as width of the underlying road bed, width of the grooming tractor, heavy two-way traffic on the trail, and trail corners. Where the terrain allows, main ingress and egress trails that connect to the trailhead would be groomed to 18 feet wide or greater to facilitate the added traffic.
Snowcats (groomers) would continue to be operated at speeds in the range of 3 to 7 miles per hour. The vehicle would be operated with warning lights on at all times. The maximum hours of equipment operation would generally be a 12-hour day during peak season.
Snow trail grooming would be conducted in accordance with the 1997 Snowmobile Trail Grooming Standards set by the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division, as follows: Operators are trained and directed by a grooming coordinator. Hazards are identified in advance of grooming, preferably in autumn before snow falls. The typical grooming season is from December to March. The snow tractor will be operated on approved designated trails and designated cross-country routes only. Maintain a 10-foot vertical clearance from potential obstructions. Grooming speeds are limited to between 3 to 7 miles per hour. Trails are groomed to a minimum of 10 feet wide with a typical width of 10 to 14 feet and managed for class 4 trails.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action was designed to provide OSV riding opportunities while minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources and minimizing use conflicts by identifying a minimum snow depth to avoid ground disturbance and damage to resources; designating groomed trails where historically located in areas known to have caused no to minimal impacts or use conflicts (i.e. Silver Bear Trail System); designating areas as open to cross-country OSV use outside of areas historically provided for non-motorized winter recreation (i.e. Loon Lake Recreation Area) and consistent with the forest plan (i.e. outside of certain management areas, such as Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness); and designating specific trails to cross the Pacific Crest Trail while not designating areas for OSV use at least 500 feet from the PCT to minimize use conflicts. The proposed action was developed in consideration of the minimization criteria set forth in 36 CFR 212.55(b) (1)-(5) for OSV designated trails and areas (Appendix B) as described in Chapter 1.
A few changes have been made to the Proposed Action since public scoping. For clarification, OSV use would be allowed on the existing trail that runs along Highway 88 from Iron Mountain to Kay’s Resort, also known as the “Old Kay’s Resort Trail”. This trail runs along an existing easement, so is within an area designated for OSV use and should have been included in the original proposed action.
Eldorado National Forest 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
In addition, the area around the Rock Creek Trails was expanded as an area not designated for OSV use for manageability. The Round Top Botanical/Geological Special Interest Area (SIA) would not be designated for OSV use to be consistent with the Forest Plan, which was inadvertently not noted in the original Proposed Action. Finally, clarification about the location of areas designated for OSV use and OSV trails that cross the PCT are specifically addressed in the proposed action. Areas designated for OSV use would be at least 500 feet from the PCT, and this alternative designates 2 non-groomed OSV trails that cross the PCT to provide connectivity to areas designated for OSV use.
Under this alternative, the following is proposed: 1. Approximately 435,600 acres of National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest would be designated for public cross-country OSV use in four areas (approximately 71 percent of NFS lands within the ENF), including Amador, Georgetown, Pacific, and Placerville OSV Areas.
o Amador OSV Area – 98,700 acres o Georgetown OSV Area – 84,600 acres o Pacific OSV Area – 91,800 acres o Placerville OSV Area – 160,500 acres 2. Pacific Crest Trail (PCT): Areas designated for OSV use would be at least 500 feet from the PCT. Two OSV trails (0.5 miles) would be designated that cross the PCT to provide connectivity between areas designated for OSV use. o The designated OSV trails that cross the PCT coincide with TMR Subpart B routes identified on the Eldorado National Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map. The designated trails would be approximately 24 feet wide and would extend between the areas designated for OSV use. . 14N39 Richardson Lake 4WD (in Sourdough segment) – 0.3 miles . 31070 Lost Lakes Road (in Forestdale/Blue Lakes segment) – 0.2 miles 3. Approximately 58 miles of OSV trail would be designated and groomed for OSV use (existing Silver Bear Trail System). 4. Snow Depth Requirements:
o 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur in areas and non- groomed OSV trails designated for OSV use, regardless of underlying surface (including roads), to avoid damage to resources.
o 6 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System.
o 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur.
Eldorado National Forest 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Table 4. Summary of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) OSV Area Name Areas Designated for Groomed OSV Trails Non-Groomed OSV OSV Use (Miles) Trails (Acres) (Miles) Amador 98,700 50 0.2 Georgetown 84,600 0 0 Pacific 91,800 0 0 Placerville 160,500 8 0.3 Total 435,600 58 0.5
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was submitted by Snowlands Network, et al. during scoping and addresses the non- motorized quality recreational experience issue. Under this alternative, the following is proposed: 1. Approximately 125,200 acres of National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest would be designated for public cross-country OSV use in three areas (approximately 20 percent of NFS lands within the ENF), including Amador, Pacific, and Placerville OSV Areas (see map in Appendix A). As compared to the proposed action, approximately 310,400 fewer acres would be designated for cross-country OSV use.
o Amador OSV Area – 29,800 acres (68,900 fewer acres than proposed action) o Georgetown OSV Area – 0 acres (84,600 fewer acres than proposed action) o Pacific OSV Area – 38,700 acres (53,100 fewer acres than proposed action) o Placerville OSV Area – 56,700 acres (103,800 fewer acres than proposed action) 2. A portion of one of the four areas designated for OSV use would be located within 500 feet of the PCT. Approximately 0.5 miles of the PCT (Sourdough segment) would be located within 500 feet of an area designated for OSV use. The PCT would be identified on the OSVUM. 3. Approximately 5.4 miles of non-groomed OSV trail, on the access road to the Van Vleck Bunkhouse, would be designated for OSV use. 4. Approximately 58 miles of OSV trail would be designated and groomed for OSV use (existing Silver Bear Trail System). Same as proposed action. 5. Snow Depth Requirements:
o 18 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur in areas designated for OSV use, regardless of underlying surface (including roads), to avoid damage to resources. This would require a Forest Plan Amendment (see Table 5). This plan amendment is directly related to 36 CFR 219.10 Multiple Use, (a)(1) recreation settings and opportunities.
Eldorado National Forest 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
o 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on designated OSV trails (non-groomed access road to Van Vleck Bunkhouse) and groomed Silver Bear Trail System.
o 18 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur. Same as no action alternative.
Table 5. Alternative 3 Snow Depths that would require a Forest Plan Amendment Management Existing Direction Amendment Practice 26 - Open Off- Over snow travel will be Over snow travel will be permitted in areas designated Road Vehicle permitted in designated for OSV use when there are 18 inches of snow or more Management open areas when there are and no ground contact is made (USDA 1988, p. 4- 12 inches of snow or more 82-83) and no ground contact is made.
Table 6. Summary of Alternative 3 OSV Area Name Areas Designated for Groomed OSV Trails Non-Groomed OSV OSV Use (Miles) Trails (Acres) (Miles) Amador 29,800 50 0 Georgetown 0 0 0 Pacific 38,700 0 5.4 Placerville 56,700 8 0 Total 125,200 58 5.4
Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was submitted by OSV groups, principally Recreation Outdoor Coalition, to address the motorized quality recreational experience.
Under this alternative, the following is proposed: 1. Approximately 463,800 acres of National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest would be designated for public cross-country OSV use in four areas (approximately 76 percent of NFS lands within the ENF), including Amador, Georgetown, Pacific, and Placerville OSV Areas (see map in Appendix A). As compared to the proposed action, approximately 28,200 more acres would be designated as open for OSV use.
o Amador OSV Area – 114,400 acres (15,700 more acres than proposed action) o Georgetown OSV Area – 84,600 acres (same as proposed action) o Pacific OSV Area – 99,100 acres (7,300 more acres than proposed action) o Placerville OSV Area – 165,700 acres (5,200 more acres than proposed action)
Eldorado National Forest 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
2. A portion of three of the four areas designated for OSV use would be located within 500 feet of the PCT. Approximately 11 miles of the PCT would be located within 500 feet of an area designated for OSV use. The PCT would be identified on the OSVUM.
o Sourdough segment – Approximately 3 miles o Echo Summit/Echo Lakes segment – Approximately 1.25 miles o Meiss segment – Approximately 2 miles o Forestdale/Blue Lakes segment – Approximately 4.5 miles 3. Approximately 58 miles of OSV trail (Silver Bear Trail System) would be designated as open and groomed for OSV use. Same as Proposed Action. 4. Snow Depth Requirements are the same as the Proposed Action:
o 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur in areas designated as open, regardless of underlying surface (including roads), to avoid damage to resources.
o 6 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the Silver Bear Trail System.
o 12 inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV trail grooming to occur. A Forest Plan amendment would be needed to designate public OSV use in Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness (Management Area 1), Round Top Botanical/Geological Special Interest Area (Management Area 4) and certain Semi-Primitive Non-motorized High Country areas (Management Area 6). This plan amendment is directly related to 36 CFR 219.10 Multiple Use, (a)(1) recreation settings and opportunities. The elements of the Forest Plan that are proposed for amendment under this alternative are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7. Alternative 4 OSV areas that would require a Forest Plan Amendment Management Practice Existing Direction Amendment
Management Area 1 (Wilderness) 28 - Closed Off Road No motor vehicle use or No motor vehicle use or mountain bicycles allowed, Vehicle Management mountain bicycles allowed. except OSV use within Caples Creek (LRMP, p. 4-123) Recommended Wilderness.
Management Area 4 (Special Areas) 28 - Closed Off Road Close the following Special Close the following Special Areas: Pacific Crest Vehicle Management Areas: Round Top Trail, Pony Express Trail, Emigrant Summit Trail (LRMP, p. 4-145) Botanical/Geological, (northeast of Horse Creek Saddle) Pacific Crest Trail, Pony Express Trail, Emigrant Summit Trail (northeast of Horse Creek Saddle)
Eldorado National Forest 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Management Area 6 (Semi-primitive Non-Motorized High Country) 28 – Closed Off Road Close the area to all Close the area to all vehicle use during the Vehicle Management vehicle use during the summer season. Allow use by OSV during the (LRMP, p. 4-156) summer season. Allow use winter season. by OSV during the winter season by permit only.
Table 8. Summary of Alternative 4 OSV Area Name Areas Designated As Groomed OSV Trails Non-Groomed OSV Open to OSV Use (Miles) Trails (Acres) (Miles) Amador 114,400 50 0 Georgetown 84,600 0 0 Pacific 99,100 0 0 Placerville 165,700 8 0 Total 463,800 58 0
Monitoring Recreation staff and law enforcement regularly monitor winter trailheads, trails and other areas during the OSV season. Recreation staff and law enforcement officers use trail patrols (via snowmobiles, skis or snowshoes) and communication with visitors and other staff (such as the groomers) to gain an understanding of the changing conditions on the Forest throughout the winter.
Wilderness boundaries and other areas not designated for OSV use near designated OSV trails and areas would continue to be visited by Forest Service staff throughout the OSV season to determine if OSV incursions have occurred. Trailheads and groomed trail areas would continue to be visited and assessed for user conflicts and public safety concerns. If concerns related to these issues arise, site- specific controls (such as speed limits, seperate access points for motorized and non-motorized use, increased visitor information, or increased on-site management presence) would be implemented as necessary. Monitoring of wet meadow areas, trail stream crossings, hill climb areas and other areas with sensitive resources and/or concentrated use would occur when snow depth is less than 24 inches periodically to determine if resource damage was occurring, which could prompt corrective actions. Alternatives or Alternative Components Considered but not Analyzed in Detail The Forest Service carefully considered each of the public suggestions below to determine whether the suggestion should be carried forward into detailed analysis in the EIS or dismissed from further consideration. Suggestions carried forward into detailed analysis could become a new alternative or part of a revision to the proposed action.
For an alternative to be analyzed in detail in the EIS, it must meet the purpose and need for action, must address one or more significant issues, and address unresolved conflicts related to the proposed action. Alternatives should be considered, even if outside the jurisdiction of the Agency (40 CFR 1502.14(c)). Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint. Alternatives not considered in detail in the EIS may include, but are not limited
Eldorado National Forest 22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
to, those that fail to meet the purpose and need, are technologically infeasible or illegal, or would result in unreasonable environmental harm.
1. Ensure OSV use designations avoid municipal watersheds There are no Forest Service municipal watersheds in the project area; however, the majority of water that flows off of NFS lands contributes to hydropower and drinking water supplies for the surrounding counties. Effects of OSV use on water quality are briefly considered in Chapter 3.
2. Set no minimum snow depth for OSV use. Allow OSV use as long as the use does not cause damage to the underlying resource
Based on input from the resource specialists on the interdisciplinary team, their review of available literature, professional judgment and consultation with other agency professionals, 12 inches of snow was deemed to be the minimum depth of snow necessary to ensure adverse resource impacts from cross-country OSV use do not occur. We consider 12 inches of snow to be the minimum necessary and the level that is adequate for OSV use to occur, per Subpart C of the travel management rule. For this reason, a snow depth less than 12 inches for cross-country OSV use and less than 6 inches for OSV use on groomed trails was not considered further. However, OSV use will only be allowed as long as resource damage does not occur.
3. Create winter conservation plans for sensitive species as part of OSV management planning The creation of winter conservation plans for sensitive species is beyond the scope of this analysis. Sensitive species were evaluated as part of the wildlife, aquatic, and botany analyses in Chapter 3.
4. Ensure monitoring and enforcement are part of the proposal The Forest Service agrees that monitoring and enforcement are critical to the success of implementation. A monitoring discussion can be found on page 22 of the EIS.
5. Consider a suggestion for an alternative to the proposed action with an emphasis on providing additional opportunities for non-motorize d uses. Alternative 3 has been developed to address this suggestion and is included for detailed analysis in the EIS. However, not all aspects of the suggested alternative 3 are within the scope of the analysis, as described below, and these specific components have been dismissed from further detailed analysis:
• Designation and establishment of non-motorized trailheads to access non-motorized areas.
o The designation of non-motorized trailheads would not address the purpose and need for action which is to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas for public use within the Eldorado National Forest, that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. Therefore, this feature was not included in alternative 3 to be analyzed in detail.
• Monitoring of ambient air quality and noise near trails, in trailheads, and in OSV areas with heavy over-snow vehicle traffic.
o The monitoring of ambient air quality and noise is outside the scope of the purpose and need for action, which is to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas for public use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent
Eldorado National Forest 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. The Forest Service has no regulatory jurisdiction over air quality or noise. There are no standards that would allow the Forest Service to identify or enforce prohibitions against unacceptable noise or air quality levels. These levels are set by state law. The OSV Program Monitoring Checklist for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, OHMVR Division, and U.S. Forest Service does not include ambient air quality or noise monitoring (California OSV Program EIR, Program Years 2010-2020, appendix C). Therefore, these features were not included in an alternative to be analyzed in detail. The EIS, however, discloses effects on air quality and noise from the proposed action and alternatives in Chapter 3.
• Transition to cleaner and quieter OSVs through encouragement of best available technology (BAT) forest wide to reduce air and noise pollution. Exception is in the “Managed Shared Use” area where air quality and noise monitoring every five years will determine whether mandatory BAT would be needed.
o BAT requirements are outside the scope of the purpose and need for action, which is to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of areas and trails for public use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. The Forest Service has no regulatory jurisdiction over air quality or noise, and there are no Forest Service directives requiring the establishment of standards. Therefore, this feature was not included in an alternative to be analyzed in detail.
• Nordic trail grooming.
o Grooming of trails for non-motorized use is outside the scope of this action and would not address the purpose and need, which is to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas for public use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. Therefore, this feature was not included in an alternative to be analyzed in detail.
• Granting of access rights to private lands.
o OSV use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations is exempt from subpart C designations (36 CFR Part 261.14(e)). The granting or maintenance of such access is outside the scope of the purpose and need for action, which is to provide a designated system of trails and areas for motorized OSV use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. Therefore, this feature was not included in alternative 3 to be analyzed in detail. Under the scope of this project, the Forest Service would only designate routes under subpart C of the Travel Management Rule that are available for public use. Therefore, designating routes specifically for access to private lands, and not for public use, would not fall within the scope of this analysis or subpart C of the Travel Management Rule.
• Eldorado National Forest should designate appropriate areas for snow play. Designation of snow play areas allows for concentration of use in areas that are appropriate for snow play
Eldorado National Forest 24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
and that have adequate parking. Such areas and their primary access routes should be closed to OSV traffic for safety and other reasons.
o The designation of snow play areas is outside the scope of the purpose and need for action, which is to provide a designated system of trails and areas for motorized over- snow vehicle use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212, subpart C. Therefore, this feature was not included in alternative 3 to be analyzed in detail.
• Highlight responsible non-motorized use conflict minimizat ion practices in the Eldorado National Forest’s winter recreation guide (e.g., shared use of trails by skiers, snowshoers, dogs, and fat bikes). Trail restrictions or separations may be warranted in certain areas and should be addressed through further collaborative efforts involving community groups.
o The regulation of non-motorized uses is outside the scope of this analysis, and therefore was not included in any alternatives. The purpose and need for action is to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas for public use within the Eldorado National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212, subpart C.
6. Water bodies, wetlands, riparian areas, meadows, and alpine habitat should be protected with buffers of at least 150 feet or of sufficient size to minimize impacts to water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. Minimum snow depth would prevent OSV impacts in riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, streams, and alpine habitat. It is not reasonable or feasible to designate buffers around every one of the individual features across the landscape.
7. Consider a suggestion for an alternative to the proposed action with an emphasis on providing additional opportunities for motorized uses.
Alternative 4, which emphasizes providing additional opportunities for winter motorized recreational use is including for detailed analysis in the EIS. However, not all aspects of this suggested alternative are within the scope of the analysis, and these elements have been dismissed from further detailed analysis, as described below:
• This suggested alternative recommends designating several OSV trails that are ungroomed but located within areas where cross-country OSV use would be allowed by the proposed action. Since these trails would be unmarked, ungroomed, and located in areas where cross- country OSV use would be allowed, the agency sees no need to designate them in the proposed action or alternatives.
o Many of these ungroomed trails pass through lands not under Forest Service jurisdiction or where Forest Service jurisdiction is uncertain (unknown if the Forest Service has easements to allow public access on non-NFS land). Establishment of Forest Service jurisdiction would be required for these trails to be designated for OSV use under subpart C.
• The use of a minimum snow depth less than 12 inches for cross-country use and snow trail grooming.
Eldorado National Forest 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
o This was considered and the rationale for dismissal from analysis is explained in more detail in other suggested alternatives listed above.
• Consider strategies to publicize and manage situations where conflicts between user groups occur. One option might be to designate non-motorized companion trails along motorized routes or designate/groom non-motorized only trails to Wilderness or non-motorized land classification to reduce conflict of uses.
o The purpose and need for action is to effectively manage OSV use by providing a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212. These suggestions would not achieve the purpose and need. Alternatives have been developed and evaluated to respond to the issue of conflicting recreational uses.
Eldorado National Forest 26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Comparison of Alternatives
Table 9. Comparison of areas and OSV trails to be designated for OSV use, by alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Open to OSV Use Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Areas Designated for OSV Use Proposed Action Under Current
Management1 National Forest System Land within Administrative Boundary of Eldorado 612,777 612,777 612,777 612,777 National Forest (acres)
Total acres proposed to be designated 458,600 435,600 125,200 463,800 for OSV use
• Amador OSV Area 100,600 98,700 29,800 114,400
• Georgetown OSV Area 104,600 84,600 0 84,600
• Pacific OSV Area 92,200 91,800 38,700 99,100
• Placerville OSV Area 161,200 160,500 56,700 165,700
Percentage of Eldorado National 75% 71% 20% 76% Forest designated for OSV use
Total miles of designated OSV trails 58 58 58 58 that are groomed
Total miles of designated OSV trails 0 0.5 5.4 0 that are not groomed
1 Because no Subpart C designations of areas for OSV use have been made, areas are not “designated”, but are either “open” or “closed” to OSV use under current management. All area size estimates are approximate and are rounded to the nearest 100 acres.
Eldorado National Forest 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Table 10. Comparison of snow depth requirements, by alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Snow Depth Requirements Current
Management Minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use, regardless of underlying 12 12 18 12 surface (inches)
Minimum snow depth for OSV use on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System 12 6 12 6 (inches)
Minimum snow depth for OSV trail 18 12 18 12 grooming to occur
Table 11. Summary of environmental effects by alternative Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Motorized Recreation Opportunities Cross-Country OSV use Opportunities for 458,600 acres open to 435,600 acres open to 125,200 acres open to 463,800 acres open to motorized winter uses, OSV us e OSV use, a 5 percent OSV use, a 73 percent OSV use, a 1 percent acreage of designated decrease from current decrease from current increase from current public cross-country management management management OSV use; percent change as compared to current management Snow Depth 12-inch minimum snow 12-inch snow depth, no 18-inch snow depth, an Same as Alternative 2 depth change from current increase from current management management
Eldorado National Forest 28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action OSV trail designations, 58 miles designated 58.5 miles of 63.4 miles of Same as Alternative 1 length of trails (miles) OSV trail (Silver Bear designated OSV trails designated OSV trails and change from Trail Sys tem ) (Silver Bear Trail (Silver Bear Trail current management System and PCT System and Van crossings), negligable Vleck), slight increase Designated OSV Trails increase from current from current management management Snow Depth 12-inch minimum snow 6-inch snow depth on 12-inch snow depth on 6-inch snow depth on depth for trail use groomed trails; 12-inch all OSV trails groomed trails snow depth on non- groomed trails Groomed OSV Trails OSV trail grooming, 58 miles groomed OSV Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 length of groomed trails trail (Silver Bear Trail (miles) and change system) from current management Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities Size of area (acres) 43,500 acres available 45,900 acres available 73,300 acres available 28,100 acres available available within 5 miles for non-motorized for non-motorized for non-motorized for non-motorized of plowed trailheads recreation within 5 recreation within 5 recreation within 5 recreation within 5 Open-Cross-Country miles of plowed miles of plowed miles of plowed miles of plowed trailheads trailheads trailheads trailheads Size of areas (acres) 154,200 acres 177,200 acres 487,600 acres 149,000 acres available overall Desginated Ski Trails Length of designated 60 miles of designated Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 cross country ski trails cross-country ski trails (miles) available Designated Areas Proximity of OSV trails Approximately 2 miles Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative in relation to of groomed OSV trails Designated Wilderness designated wilderness are within ½ mile of Mokelumne Wilderness Size of area (acres) 15,200 acres 14,100 acres 6,700 acres 15,300 acres designated for OSV
Eldorado National Forest 29 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action use and within ½ mile of wilderness Proximity of OSV trails Approximately 2 miles Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 in relation to of groomed OSV trails recommended within ½ mile Caples Creek wilderness Recommended Size of area (acres) 7,900 acres Same as Alternative 1 5,200 acres 21,000 acres Wilderness designated for OSV and within ½ mile of recommended wilderness Pacific Crest National Length (miles) of PCT 11 miles None 0.6 miles Same as Alternative 1 Scenic Trail within 500 feet of areas designated for OSV use. Noise Noise – Motorized Uses Size of areas (acres 458,600 acres 435,600 acres 125,200 acres 463,800 acres designated for OSV designated for OSV designated for OSV designated for OSV designated for OSV use that could be use use, a 5 percent use, a 73 percent use, a 1 percent affected by noise; 44,900 acres, 10 decrease from existing decrease from existing increase from existing percentage compared percent of the conditions. conditions. conditions. to current designated acres are 44,900 acres, 10 33,300 acres, 27 49,000 acres, 11 management. anticipated to have high percent of the percent of the percent of the Acres and percent of to moderate OSV use. designated acres are designated acres are designated acres are designated acres that 154,200 acres not anticipated to have high anticipated to have high anticipated to have high are anticipated to have designated for OSV to moderate OSV use. to moderate OSV use. to moderate OSV use. high to moderate OSV use and available for 177,200 acres not 487,600 acres not 149,000 acres not use levels and quiet recreation. designated for OSV designated for OSV designated for OSV associated noise use and available for use and available for use and available for impacts. quiet recreation. quiet recreation. quiet recreation. Noise – Motorized Uses OSV designations 58 miles groomed OSV 58 miles groomed OSV 58 miles groomed OSV Same as Alternative 1 Length of groomed and trail trail; 0.5 miles trail; 5.4 miles ungroomed OSV trails ungroomed OSV trail ungroomed OSV trail (miles), designated and that cross the PCT in (access to Van Vleck identified for public two locations Bunkhouse) OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Soil Resources Soil Productivity and Impacts from OSV use OSV use would occur Same as Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, Same as Alternative 1. Stability on sensitive soils, with sufficient amounts however Alternative 3 areas with potential low of snow to protect the would have the least stability, and areas with soil resource. There risk of impact on potential erosion could be some sensitive soils and on hazards. incidental disturbance soil productivity overall to soils, but potential for because of the greater effects is minimal minimum snow depth overall. OSV use would and least amount of not increase landslide acres designated for potential on low stability OSV use. sites and erosion is unlikely to increase with adequate snow cover. Water Resources Water Quality Ground disturbance Although there could be Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 2. and potential for soil some incidental ground In addition, the 6-inch erosion. disturbance from OSV snow depth standard use due to variability in for OSV use on the snow pack, groomed trails should alternative 1 would be adequate to protect result in no more than trails from damage incidental surface because the snow disturbance and soil would be compacted. erosion, and would therefore not create water quality impacts to streams or other waterbodies. The minimum snow depth requirements would be adequate to mitigate or eliminate substantial water quality impacts.
Eldorado National Forest 31 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Water Quality OSV emissions Negligable impact on Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. water quality as a result of hydrocarbon emissions from OSVs due to relatively low OSV use.
Terrestrial Wildlife Federally listed and Potential for habitat No Effect; Vegetative Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Forest Service sensitive modification or composition or species fragmentation structure of suitable habitat would not be physically modified by OSV us e Potential for disturbance to breeding sites from noise associated with OSV use 11 12 10 12 Number of CSO activity centers within ¼ mile of moderate and high use California spotted owl areas
Determination May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to trend toward federal listing; OSV use may Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 overlap with early part of spotted owl breeding season; no affect to habitat
Eldorado National Forest 32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Potential for disturbance to breeding sites from noise associated with OSV use 10 10 7 10 Number of northern goshawk activity centers within ¼ mile of Northern goshawk moderate and high use areas Determination May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to trend toward federal listing; OSV use may overlap with early part Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 of goshawk breeding season; no affect to habitat Potential for disturbance to nest sites from noise associated with OSV use. 0 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Number of bald eagle nest sites within 660 feet of moderate and high areas Bald Eagle Determination May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to trend toward federal listing; No bald eagle nest sites within 660 feet of high to moderate Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 OSV use areas, so disturbance to nesting bald eagles is unlikely; no affect to habitat
Eldorado National Forest 33 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Acres of marten habitat 57,400 acres 56,900 acres 37,400 acres 62,000 acres that overlaps moderate and high use areas Determination May affect individuals, Marten but not likely to lead to trend toward federal listing; marten are Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 known to occur in the project area, but no known den sites; no affect to habitat Aquatic Resources Acres of Suitable 35,250 acres 15,250 acres 120 acres Same as Alternative 2 Habitat that overlaps areas designated for OSV us e Determination for May affect, not likely to Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1, Same as Alternative 1 Suitable Habitat adversely affect. except substantially California red-legged Effects to habitat or fewer acres frog (Federally listed individuals unlikely. Threatened) Probability of injury or mortality from OSV collisions is low. Acres of Critical Habitat 720 acres Same as Alternative 1 0 Same as Alternative 1 Determination for May affect, not likely to Same as Alternative 1 No Effect Same as Alternative 1 Critical Habitat adversely affect. Acres of Suitable Sierra Nevada yellow- Habitat that overlaps legged frog (Federally 26,350 acres 26,050 acres 12,050 acres 29,400 acres areas designated for listed Endangered) OSV us e
Eldorado National Forest 34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Determination for May affect, not likely to Suitable Habitat adversely affect. Effects to habitat is unlikely. Probability of injury or mortality from Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 OSV collisions is low. Most of the project activities occur at a time of year when SNYLF are hibernating. Acres of Critical Habitat 56,150 acres 53,950 acres 35,400 acres 66,700 acres Determination for May affect, not likely to Critical Habitat adversely affect. Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Acres of Suitable Habitat that overlaps 27,050 acres 24,550 acres 7,800 acres 30,000 acres areas designated for OSV us e May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Probability of injury or Yosemite Toad mortality from collisions Determination for (Federally listed with OSVs is low. Most Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Suitable Habitat Threatened) of the project activities occur at a time of year when YOTO are hibernating. Acres of Critical Habitat 4,550 acres 4,300 acres 0 Same as Alternative 1 Determination for May affect, not likely to Critical Habitat adversely affect Same as Alternative 1 No Effect Same as Alternative 1 Botany Federally listed and Effects to plant life Minimum snow depths Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Forest Service sensitive forms – the greatest are expected to prevent species potential impacts are or minimize damage to dependent upon the soil and plants’ presence within vegetation.Outside of or above the snow designated OSV trails,
Eldorado National Forest 35 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action surface and whether dispersed OSV travel the species is active or would not compact the dormant during the snow with enough winter. intensity and repetition to predictably affect ground vegetation. Evergreen trees and shrubs are most likely to be directly affected due to mechanical damage, while deciduous trees are less likely affected due to winter dormancy. Perennial herbaceous species, annual species, and aquatic botanical species are unlikely to be affected. Federally Listed Species Laynes Butterweed No Effect Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1 (Packera layneae) In addition, the areas and trails proposed to be designated for OSV use do not occur within the range of Laynes Butterweed. Forest Service Sensitive Determinations No Effect = 15 species Same as Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1, Same as Alternative 1 Species May affect individuals, however alternative 3 but not likely to lead to would have the least a trend toward federal potential for effects to listing or result in loss Forest Service of viability = 17 species sensitive plants because considerably fewer acres would be designated for OSV use, and thus fewer plant occurrences would be present in the areas.
Eldorado National Forest 36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action No Effect = 25 species May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing or result in loss of viability = 7 species Invasive Plants Risk of project Low Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 introducing or spreading invasive weeds Botanical Special Acres designatd for 450 acres 280 acres 65 acres 1,095 acres Interest Areas OSV use within SIAs No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Impacts to vegetation and characteristics for which the SIAs were established Air Quality Air Quality Potential effect of OSV No known impacts to Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1 emissions to create air quality or Although there is a adverse impacts to air NAAQS/CAAQS substantial reduction in quality and violations of violations exist. areas designated for federal and state air NAAQS = National OSV use, it is likely quality standards. Ambient Air Quality emissions generated as Standards a result of OSVs would CAAQS = California be similar to the other Ambient Air Quality alternatives. The Standards emissions from OSVs are minor compared to other sources of air pollution that can impact the forest. Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Potential to physically No Effect Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 alter, damage, or destroy all or part of a cultural resource.
Eldorado National Forest 37 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Transportation or Engineering Resources Safety Public Safety and The current Eldorado The over-snow vehicle Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Traffic National Forest Winter use map (OSVUM) Recreation Opportunity would provide Guide map provides adequate information to adequate information to maintain a reasonable maintain a reasonable level of public safety level of public safety and avoid traffic and avoid traffic conflicts; the map and conflicts. information would also improve understanding of areas and trails designated for OSV use, and prohibitions. Cost Affordability Minor effects (minor Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 costs) due to over- snow vehicle use for access roads to popular parking and staging areas. Transportation Property Effects to underlying Snow depth Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 NFS roads and trails requirements provides more than adequate protection of underlying roads and trails. Socioeconomics Economic Activity Employment, income, No effect to forest Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 tax revenue recreation use or visitor spending.
Eldorado National Forest 38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2. Alternatives
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Resource or Issue Considered/Indicator No Action Proposed Action Quality of Life Values, beliefs, and No net change in 5% increase in acres 73% increase in acres Minimal net change in attitudes quality of life relative to not designated for OSV not designated for OSV quality of life relative to current conditions; user use compared to use compared to current conditions. conflict may increase current management current management due to population would benefit quality of would benefit quality of growth and increased life of non-motorized life of non-motorized visitor use. winter recreation users winter recreation users. and may affect quality of life for OSV enthusiasts. Environmental Justice Low-income and No change due to Minor change due to a Minor change due to an Same as Alternative 2 minority populations management; climate reduction in snow depth increase in snow depth change may increase requirements for trail requirements; may distances winter grooming and OSV use increase distances recreation users must on groomed trail winter recreation users travel for adequate system; may reduce must travel for snow depth distances winter adequate snow depth; recreation users must climate change may travel for adequate still increase distances snow depth; climate winter recreation users change may still must travel for increase distances adequate snow depth users must travel for adequate snow depth
Eldorado National Forest 39 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Introduction This chapter presents the relevant resource components of the existing environment; the baseline environment. It describes the resources of the area that could be affected by the proposed action and alternatives and discloses the environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzes effects within the Eldorado National Forest. The effects of the alternatives in the Eldorado National Forest were aggregated rather than describing the site-specific effect at each area or trail, unless necessary for a particular sensitive resource or concern area. For instance, the analysis describes the overall effects of designating areas and trails where people could ride OSVs instead of listing every route and predicting the effects at a particular site.
OSV Use Assumptions Assumptions regarding areas of high, moderate, and low to no OSV use were identified on an assumptions map. These assumptions were utilized by all resource specialists when conducting their analyses. Refer to the Assumptions Map, in Appendix C of this DEIS, for a visual depiction of where these areas are located.
High use: • Areas within 0.5 mile of staging areas and of groomed trails.
• Meadows within 0.5 mile of a groomed trail.
Moderate use: • Areas between 0.5 mile and 1.5 miles of groomed trails. • Meadows 10 acres or greater in size, or 0.5 to 1.5 miles from groomed OSV trails.
Areas of Low-to-No use: • Areas below 5,000 feet elevation.
• Canopy cover greater than 70 percent: CWHR Vegetation 2D, 3D, 4D, 4M; CWHR vegetation types 5 and 6.
• Slope greater than 20 percent. • Meadows 30 acres or greater, 1.5 miles or greater from OSV trail.
• Areas more than 1.5 miles from groomed OSV trail.
General characteristics of existing OSV use on the forest are as follows: 1. Overall use of OSVs on the Eldorado is limited relative to other forests in the Sierra Nevada and across the nation. Visitor use, based on 2007 and 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys as well as the State OHV Program EIR (2009) is characterized as follows:
Eldorado National Forest 40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
a. Total annual visits to the forest by OSV uses varies from 3,600 to 6,800; average annual use over the last 10 years is estimated at approximately 5,200 OSV visits per winter season. b. Weekend and holiday use of the forest by OSV uses is highest with an estimated average of approximately 8 OSVs on the forest per weekend/holiday day; during the week, forest-wide use is estimated at approximately 3 OSVs per day (CA State EIR (2009) data).
c. OSV use is primarily day use (generally 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.); OSV trail grooming occurs at night.
2. The majority of OSV use occurs on the groomed trail system. This information is derived from field observations conducted by recreation and patrol staff over the years and accounts of OSV users, themselves. For analysis purposes, high OSV use is considered to occur within 0.5 mile of groomed trails and staging areas; moderate use is considered to occur within 0.5 mile of marked (not groomed) trails and areas between 0.5 and 1.5 miles of any groomed trail; the remaining area of the forest receives little or no OSV use. 3. There is limited OSV use on steep slopes with heavy forest cover/high tree density. For analysis purposes, we assume no use on slopes 35 percent or greater. 4. The months with the highest OSV use are January and February.
5. State OHV standards for grooming identify 12 inches to 18 inches as minimum for all grooming activities. Our interpretation of this guideline implies a minimum 12 inches of snow for grooming in alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. 6. OSV parking areas are primary staging areas for OSV use; once snow on the groomed system melts at trailheads and along the immediate trail system leading from trailheads, OSV access to the larger cross-country open areas is no longer available. Similarly, OSV trailheads are generally located at lower elevations along main roadways, and as such, tend to melt prior to cross-country areas. 7. Groomed trails and designated but ungroomed trails almost entirely overlie NFS roads. The use of OSVs on groomed trails has equal or less effect than wheeled OHVs on the same routes. 8. Ungroomed trails receive 50 percent less use than groomed trails.
9. Groomed trails and trailheads provide a higher degree of educational messages including those regarding awareness of wildlife, encouraging trail sharing to avoid use conflicts, etc.
10. No OSV use is allowed along the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.
11. There are no identified crossings for OSVs to cross the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Additional resource specific assumptions utilized during effects analysis are disclosed in the applicable sections of this chapter.
Adequate Snow Depth for OSV Use In multiple reviews of best available scientific data, there is little or no science to support a universal snow depth for protection of multiple resources due to differences in the snow depth to protect different
Eldorado National Forest 41 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
resources, the variable nature of snowpack, and differences that occur regionally and nationally. For example, maritime snowpack (Sierra Nevada and Cascades) exhibits a greater accumulation than continental snowpack (Rockies and Wasatch), but a shorter duration than continental snowpack and intermountain snowpack (Canadian Rockies and Bitterroots). Additionally, maritime snowpack exhibits the greatest ablation or snowmelt rates and the earliest onset of snowmelt. The snow level of maritime snowpack tends to occur at higher elevation than in other regions as well (Trujillo and Molotch 2014). These factors also create unique challenges for establishment of open seasonal dates. The few empirical studies available do not provide a consistent conclusion regarding a snow depth at which multiple resources may be considered protected from OSV activities. In a report on the effects of winter recreation activities on subnivean species, Wildlife Resource Consultants (2004) reported that recreation probably plays a role, but the large number of variables present on the landscape prevent a confident conclusion. In this study, snowpack itself influenced the presence of these species, with larger snowpack having a greater negative effect. Other papers on subnivean fauna report that skiers actually may have a greater effect than snowmobilers because skis have a greater footload (weight per surface area) in comparison to a snowmobile track (Effects of Winter Recreation on Subnivean Fauna; In Olliff, et.al. 1999). In numerous additional studies, while there is a correlation between increasing compaction of snow and effects on small mammals, the results are not clear and most conclude that additional research is needed.
Studies on the effects of snow depth or snow compaction on vegetation are equally inconclusive. Again, there is a recognition that increasing snow depth provides some measure of protection, but no empirical studies exist that identify a specific cut-off depth. Vegetation studies in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Effects of Winter Recreation on Vegetation; In Olliff et al. 1999) indicate that there is little information available describing the ecological effects of snowmobiling and other winter recreational activities. They further show that the impact of snowmobile activities on the physical environment varies considerably with winter severity, the depth of snow accumulation, the intensity of snowmobile traffic, and the susceptibility of the organism to injury. Interestingly, one of the few empirical studies identifying a critical snow depth indicates that where snow cover exceeded 3 inches in depth there were no detrimental effects on grass or vegetation stands, although these were largely non-forest species (Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile and Off the Road Vehicle Symposium; 1974).
In arriving at a relatively consistent determination regarding the best estimate of a minimal depth necessary to protect resources, monitoring the conditions on the ground provide most reliable current estimates of protective snow depth. The California State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), in their programmatic agreement with Region 5 forests on the protection of cultural resources has stipulated that 12 inches of snow or ice is considered sufficient for resource protection. Similarly, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Winter Recreation Division, has identified 12 inches of snow as the minimum needed for grooming operations in order to protect their machines and the underlying natural surface. Finally, U.S. Forest Service staff at the forest and district level have decades of experience managing for OSV use and monitoring its effects. OSV managers, groomers, and other specialists with field knowledge of OSV use have observed timing of OSV use, weather and snowpack patterns, and resource conditions throughout the winter season and during the summer season to develop their empirical understanding of appropriate measures needed for OSV management and for resource protection. Generally, staff agree in the Sierra Nevada range, that 12 inches of snow provides adequate protection for resources in areas open to OSV use.
How Cumulative Impacts were Considered According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-
Eldorado National Forest 42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The interdisciplinary team 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. In addition, 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.
Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. By looking at current conditions, the effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which event contributed to those effects are captured.
Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Courts have interpreted a “reasonably foreseeable future action” as one that has been proposed and is in the planning stages. To analyze the cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, each resource specialist reviewed the list of projects in the Eldorado National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and identified projects or activities expected to cause effects to their resource, at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action or alternatives.
Few projects or activities overlap in time and geographic space with winter OSV use (typically December to end of March). Dirt roads and trails on the forest close to public wheeled motor vehicles during the winter months. Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may overlap with winter OSV recreation include other winter recreation activities, such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, downhill skiing, and snowplay. The Eldorado National Forest has several permitted operations including downhill ski areas (Sierra-at-Tahoe and Kirkwood Mountain Resort), cross-country skiing (Kirkwood Cross Country), and snowplay (Adventure Mountain). There are four Sno-Parks which are operated and maintained through the California State Parks OHMVRD program that provide access for winter recreation, including Echo Lake, Iron Mountain, Meiss Meadow, and Carson Pass Sno-Parks. In addition to winter recreation, vegetation management activities may occur during the winter months, but on a very limited basis. Most vegetation management activities, such as forest thinning occur during the spring through fall months. Recreation
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.
Eldorado National Forest 43 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
Goals
Recreation Provide a wide range of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities that meet project demand at the end of the planning period. Public uses take priority over uses of a semipublic natur, and these in turn take priority over private uses. Stress simpler, more natural recreation experiences over dense, sophisticated developments.
Wilderness Maintain a lasting system of quality wilderness for public use and appreciation of the unique characteristics of wilderness, consistent with preserving its values.
Forestwide Standards and Guidelines
Open Off-Road Vehicle Management (Management Practice 26, pp. 4-82-4-83) Open areas for over snow travel may be designated in roaded natural and/or semi-primitive motorized areas. Over snow travel will be permitted in designated open areas when there is 12 inches of snow and no ground contact is made.
Clos ed Off-Road Vehicle Management (Management Practice 28, pp. 4-84-4-85) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized areas, the Pacific Crest Trail, wilderness will be closed to motorized vehicles.
Management Area Standards and Guidelines
Management Area 3 – Research Natural Areas Management Emphasis: Maintain and natural condition. Limit uses to research study, observation monitoring, and educational activities that are nondestructive and non-manipulative. (LRMP pp. 4-137)
Management Practice 25-Dispersed Recreation Management (LRMP pp. 4-138): Discourage recreation uses such as picknicking, camping, hunting, and fishing, which contribute to modification of the RNA. Expressly prohibit such uses if they threaten serious impairment of research or education values.
Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp. 4-138): Close Research Natural Areas yearlong to off-road vehicles.
Management Area 4 – Special Areas (Geological, Botanical, Archeological and National Trails) Management Emphasis: Manage the areas principally for their recreation use substantially in their natural condition. Preserve the integrity of the special interest features for which the areas were established. (LRMP pp. 4-142)
Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp. 4-145): Close the following Special Areas: Round Top Botanical/Geological, Pacific Crest Trail, Pony Express Trail, and Emigrant Summit Trail (northeast of Horse Creek Saddle).
Eldorado National Forest 44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Management Area 5 - Primitive High Country Management Emphasis: Maintain a primitive forest setting that combines livestock grazing, minerals exploration and development, wildlife habitat management, watershed protection and dispersed recreation into an unaltered landscape. Motorized use is not allowed. (LRMP 4-151) Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp. 4-155): Close the area to all vehicle use.
Management Area 6 - Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized High Country Management Emphasis: Maintain a primitive forest setting that combines livestock grazing, minerals exploration and development, wildlife habitat management, watershed protection and dispersed recreation into natural appearing landscape. Motorized use is not normally allowed. (LRMP pp. 4-155)
Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp.4-156): Close the area to all vehicle use during the summer season. Allow use by over-snow vehicles during the winter season by permit only.
Management Are a 7 – Semi-Primitive Motorized High Country Management Emphasis: Maintain a semi-primitive motorized setting that combines livestock grazing, minerals exploration and development, wildlife habitat management, watershed protection and dispersed recreation into natural appearing landscape. Motorized use is allowed. (LRMP pp. 4-160)
Management Area 8 – Roaded Natural High Country Management Emphasis: Maintain a roaded natural type forest setting that provides a range of recreation opportunities and experiences. Accommodate both motorized and non-motorized vehicle travel and make it compatible with grazing, minerals exploration and development, wildlife, water and soil resources.
Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp. 4-167): Prevent conflicts with cross-country skiers and hikers. Close those areas near the Sierra Crest where conflicts occur.
Federal Law, Regulations, and Policies • Wilderness Act of 1964 and California Wilderness Act of 1984:
o Desolation Wilderness and Mokelumne Wilderness • National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543) and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan:
o The 1982 Comprehensive Plan provides the following direction for winter use along the PCT: . Winter use (cross-country skiing and snowshoeing) should be accommodated where practical and feasible. Each agency should follow its own procedures for marking and signing the trail for winter use purposes. As a guideline, all trail markers should be at eye level (approximately 40” above average maximum snow depth). Sanitation facilities and snow removal for parking may be necessary. Any improvements, or alterations of the vegetation, should not detract from the quality of the recreation opportunities for other trail activities such as hiking and horseback riding. . Snowmobiling along the Trail is prohibited by the National Trails System Act, P.L. 90-543, Section 7(c). Winter sports plans for areas through which the trail
Eldorado National Forest 45 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
passes should consider this prohibition in determining areas appropriate for snowmobile use. Winter sports brochures should indicate designated snowmobile crossings on the Pacific Crest Trail where it is signed and marked for winter use. If cross-country skiing and/or snowshoeing is planned for the trail, any motorized use of adjacent land should be zoned to mitigate the noise of conflict. • 2005 Travel Management Rule – Subpart C (36 CFR Parts 212 and 261) as amended in 2015 - Use by Over-snow Vehicles (Travel Management Rule)
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.”
Other Guidance and Recommendations This decision will include implementation of National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands – Rec – 7 Over-Snow Vehicle Use (USDA Forest Service 2012).
The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation provides funding for operating, maintaining, and grooming of winter recreation trails and trailheads in mountainous regions throughout California. OSV trail grooming and ancillary activities, such as trailhead plowing and maintenance are described in detail in the California OSV Program Final EIR. The EIR includes annual monitoring and reporting requirements for Forest Service participation in the grooming program (California OSV Program Final EIR 2010).
Methodology The recreation analysis used ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers covering the Eldorado National Forest. The GIS layer of proposed OSV designations and groomed trails was used as an overlay with the recreation settings and opportunities, and designated area layers to determine any potential conflicts. Forest Plan direction was considered to ensure compliance with management direction. A review of existing law, regulation and policy relevant to recreation settings and opportunities, and designated area resources within the project area was completed and referenced where appropriate.
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) results, California State Parks, California Outdoor Recreation Plan, National Recreation Survey and the Environment information and online visitor information sources provided by the Forest Service and other local organizations and industry were used as an overview of the recreation opportunities, visitor use, and trends within the analysis area. The Recreation Facility Analysis niche statement was used to depict the importance of winter use (motorized or non-motorized) on the national forest; and secondly, consideration was given to how important the National Forest System lands are for this use (motorized or non-motorized) compared to lands of other non-NFS lands.
The NVUM visitor use information from 2007 and 2012 was considered. The best available site-specific visitor use information for Eldorado National Forest OSV use was from the 2009 OSV Winter Trailhead Survey conducted in support of the 2010 California OSV Program Final EIR. OSV registration
Eldorado National Forest 46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
information for the State of California and for counties within the Eldorado National Forest was also used to depict OSV use trends.
A case study and literature review of current information regarding motorized and non-motorized winter recreation trends and preferences; and coordination with local Forest Service Specialists regarding on-the- ground conditions and use patterns were used to summarize existing conditions and potential impacts. To evaluate potential impacts to recreation settings and opportunities, and designated area resources, each alternative will be compared using issues, indicators and measures defined in Table 12 below.
Analysis Assumptions The following OSV use assumptions were developed based on information in the California OSV Program Final EIR and 2009 Trailhead Survey, and based on local knowledge and observations from the Eldorado National Forest. The assumptions were mapped and used in this analysis to consider potential impacts from OSV designations and OSV trail grooming activities on recreation and non-motorized areas under existing law or policy. These assumptions are based on topography, vegetation characteristics, and groomed OSV trail locations, which would remain the same in all alternatives. The maps of high to moderate OSV use assumptions are included in Appendix C. Additional OSV use assumptions include:
• Limited OSV use on steep slopes with heavy forest cover/high tree density (assume no use on slopes 35 percent or greater). In open terrain, with no trees, there is no slope-limit ing factor for high-marking. • Open areas with many shrubs, OSVs won’t use without adequate snow depth. • OSV use patterns: o Primarily day use (generally 10:00 am to 3:00 pm; grooming occurs at night). o OSV use is at the highest on weekends and holidays. o Highest concentrations of OSV use occur along groomed trails (this is supported by research documented in 2010 California OSV Program Final EIR). o Concentrated use at trailheads. o Higher use in open meadows (concentrated on meadows with groomed trail access) and flatter areas. o OSV “high marking” occurs primarily on slopes with open vegetation coverage, near groomed trails. o Lower elevations generally have less OSV use – snow occurs at lower elevations less frequently and does not persist for long periods of time (2 to 5 days). On the Eldorado National Forest, this would include areas at or below 5,000 feet in elevation. o The proposed OSV area and trail designations would apply to public use of all OSVs that meet the definition of an OSV, whether on a single ski, double ski, or track • Non-groomed routes receive 50 percent less use than groomed routes (only 25,000 registered OSVs in California per the California OSV Program Final EIR, most use on groomed trails; if OSV trail grooming were discontinued, assume that use would decline by 50 percent). • Groomed trails are suitable for OSVs other than snowmobiles (side-by-sides and quads on tracks, snowcats, etc.)
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation are within the Eldorado National Forest boundary. Short-term temporal boundary for analyzing effects to recreation is 1 year; long-term effects is up to 20 years.
Eldorado National Forest 47 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Indicators and Measures
Significant Issues
Availability of Motorized Over-snow Recreation Opportunities The decision could impact the opportunities for public access and use of NFS lands by OSV-equipped winter recreation enthusiasts seeking enjoyable and challenging motorized experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas for public OSV use could impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by:
a. Changing the location of and/or reducing the amount of high-quality and desirable areas designated for public, cross-country OSV use on the forest;
b. Designating an insufficient number of opportunities for public OSV use of snow trails on the forest; and
c. Providing an insufficient number of opportunities for public OSV use of groomed snow trails on the forest. These opportunities are subject to an external constraint due to limits on the amount of funding from the State for grooming snow trails for OSV use. Snow trail grooming for OSV use on NFS land is 100 percent State-funded. The State’s financial support of snow trail grooming for OSV use is not expected to increase.
Availability of Non-motorize d Over-snow Recreation Opportunities The decision has the potential to impact the amount of available opportunities for public access and use of National Forest System lands by non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts seeking solitude and challenging physical experiences. The designation of snow trails and areas for public OSV use and grooming of snow trails has the potential to impact the opportunities these enthusiasts seek by: a. Displacing non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts, or requiring them to travel longer distances through motorized routes and areas than they are physically able to traverse to access their desired quiet, non-motorized experiences; b. Creating concerns for their safety when non-motorized winter recreationists share winter recreation routes and areas with OSVs; c. Creating noise impacts that intrude on the solitude these enthusiasts seek; d. Creating air quality impacts that intrude on the fresh air these enthusiasts seek; e. Consuming untracked powder desired by backcountry skiers; and f. Making the snow surface difficult to ski on.
Eldorado National Forest 48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 12. Resource indicators and measures for recreation Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure (Quantify if possible) Motorized Recreation Opportunities Open Cross-country Opportunities for motorized Acreage of designated public OSV cross- winter uses country use; percent change as compared to current management
Snow Depth Inches of snow Designated OSV Trails OSV trail designations Length of designated OSV trails (miles); percent change from current management
Snow Depth Inches of snow Groomed OSV Trails OSV trail grooming Length of groomed OSV trails (miles); percent change from current management Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities Open Cross-country Size of open areas Acreage available to non-motorized recreation enthusiasts within 5 miles of plowed trailheads.
Size of areas overall Acreage not designated for OSV use Designated Ski Trails Length of designated cross- Miles of trail country ski trails
Noise Noise Impacts Areas anticipated to have Acreage high to moderate use levels Designated Areas Designated Wilderness Length of OSV trails in Miles of trail within ½ mile of designated relation to designated wilderness wilderness
Size of areas designated for Acres within ½ mile of designated wilderness OSV use and within ½ mile of designated wilderness Caples Creek Length of OSV trails in Miles of trail within ½ mile of recommended Recommended relation to recommended wilderness Wilderness wilderness
Size of areas designated for Acres within ½ mile of recommended wilderness OSV use and within ½ mile of recommended wilderness
Pacfic Crest National Length of trail within 500 feet Miles of trail within 500 of the trail Scenic Trail of areas designated for OSV use
Eldorado National Forest 49 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Recreation Settings and Opportunities The Eldorado National Forest is located in the central Sierra Nevada. Portions of Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and Placer counties lie within the Forest Boundary. The forest is bordered on the north by the Tahoe National Forest, on the east by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, on the southeast by the Humboldt-Toiyabe, and to the south by the Stanislaus National Forest.
The Eldorado National Forest is an ideal place for people seeking to escape from busy urban lifestyles. Its climate and topography offer a wide range of recreational opportunities, including hiking, fishing, camping and cross-country and downhill skiing.
The forest is located an hour from the metropolitan area of Sacramento, which has a population of over 1 million people, and 2 to 3 hours from the San Francisco Bay area, with a population of over 6 million people.
Recreation Niche The recreation niche is a characterization of the distinct role the national forest has in providing outdoor recreation opportunities to the public. The niche allows the Forest Service to focus management efforts on providing recreation opportunities related to what is unique and valuable about the Eldorado. The recreation niche statement of Eldorado National Forest is: Golden Nugget of the Sierra – Discover and Enjoy:
Emphasis: The Eldorado National Forest offers a wide range of landscapes on a compact footprint of land foothills with flowing streams, rugged river canyons, reservoirs, high mountain peaks & alpine lakes. 4000 years of human use has defined and enriched the forest. Its place in the Sierra makes it integral to community viability, health and well-being. Today, this gateway forest, pressed by rapidly growing communities, has a continued responsibility to model sustainability, share conservation education and inspire future land stewards. The spectacular scenery viewed from historic travelways that have crossed the forest for generations, continues to welcome and invite new and longtime visitors to turn off the highway into the forest and experience this amazing, resilient place in a safe and well managed way (USDA Forest Service 2008).
Motorize d Winter Recreation 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 National Forest System trails (snow trails) by grooming snow for snowmobile use. Plowing of local access roads and trailhead parking lots, grooming trails for snowmobile 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 system on the Eldorado National Forest is described below.
Eldorado National Forest 50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Silver Bear Trail System The Silver Bear Trail System, located 18 miles east of Jackson on State Route 88 between Silver Lake and Bear River Reservoir, has 58 miles of groomed snowmobile trails. This trail system, in operation since 1987, is the only groomed snowmobile trail system on the Eldorado National Forest. Trail elevations range from 5,700 feet to 8,000 feet. It can be accessed by the Iron Mountain Sno-Park, which has a restroom and parking area adjacent to Mormon Emigrant Trail near the junction with Highway 88. Some OSV users also stage out of a small parking area located near the Bear River Resort which is not maintained by OSV Program funds. Restroom service and refuse collection is maintained by the Amador Ranger District through the OSV Program. Snow removal (plowing) in the trailhead parking area is provided through state funding of sno-parks separate from the Project (2010 California OSV Program EIR).
Table 13. Overview of State of California OSV grooming program activity on the Eldorado National Forest Project Location Recreation Facility4 State of California OSV Program Nationa l Forest (NF) and County Funded Activity Eldorado NF, Amador Ranger District, El Silver Bear Trail System Groom 58 miles of trail and service Dorado County near Jackson 1 restroom
Non-Motorize d Winte r Recreation The Eldorado National Forest contains portions of two designated wildernesses (103,380 acres) and one recommended wilderness area. Most of the managed non-motorized lands lie within the primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized management areas, which are free of conflicts with motorized activities. Areas on the Eldorado National Forest for non-motorized winter activities such as sledding or tubing and downhill, cross-country and backcountry skiing include Kirkwood Resort and Kirkwood Nordic Ski Area, Sierra-at-Tahoe Resort, Adventure Mountain Resort, Echo Summit Nordic Area, and Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area. These areas are closed to motorized use under a temporary forest order that allows for solitude and quiet recreation opportunities. The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) runs along the eastern boundary of the Forest. The PCT is closed to motorized OSV use and provides non-motorized winter trail opportunities.
Winte r Visitor Use To determine the potential effects of management alternatives, it is important to understand the characteristics of people who visit and recreate on Eldorado National Forest. Responding to the need for improved information about visitors to National Forest System lands, the Forest Service developed a nationwide, systematic monitoring process for estimating annual recreation use: the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program.
The NVUM program was designed to provide statistically reliable estimations of recreation visitation to national forests and grasslands. Through collection and dissemination of information about recreational enthusiasts and their preferred activities, resource managers can make informed, strategic decisions about the types and amount of recreation opportunities provided on the national forest. NVUM surveys were conducted on Eldorado National Forest during fiscal years 2007 and 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2007, 2012). Surveys collected information about participation in recreation activities, visitor demographics, and spending patterns. Summaries from these surveys are useful to describe
4 The only seasonal restrictions occur with regard to wheeled motorized and grooming – wheeled vehicle use on groomed trails is prohibited from December 26 until March 31.
Eldorado National Forest 51 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences recreation use patterns on the national forest. These data are only valid at the forest level and cannot be disaggregated to specific sites or locations. About one-third of visitors self report that they traveled less than 50 miles to visit the Forest, and about 15 percent report traveling more than 200 miles. The average duration for a visit to the Eldorado is 18 hours, although half of the visits last less than 7 hours. Frequent visitors are uncommon, only about 6 percent visit more than 50 times per year. Infrequent visitors who visit at most 5 times per year make up 60 percent of the visitation. In 2012, the three most reported main activities were downhill skiing (41.5 percent), hiking or walking (16.6 percent), and relaxing (9.9 percent). In 2007, the three most reported main activities were the same with downhill skiing (59 percent), hiking or walking (8.8 percent), and relaxing (5.8 percent).
Table 14 shows the estimated visitor use based on the percentage of visitors reporting snowmobiling and cross-country skiing as their main activity.
Table 14. National visitor use management winter activities Total Annual Estimated Annual National Average hours % Year Activity National Participation Forests Visits based on participating in Forest Visits the % main activity main activity 2012 Snowmobiling 899,000 0.4% 3,596 8 2012 Cross-Country Skiing 899,000 2.1% 18,879 7 2007 Snowmobiling 1,357,000 0.5% 6,785 8 2007 Cross-Country Skiing 1,357,000 3.8% 51,566 3 *A national forest visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits. The visit ends w hen the person leaves the national forest to spend the night elsew here.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles records OSV registration by county each year. The Eldorado National Forest falls within the four counties shown in table 15.
Table 15. California OSV registration for counties in Eldorado National Forest, 2009 through 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Alpine 182 173 179 152 138 132 Amador 212 211 186 191 179 167 El Dorado 1,279 1,178 1,224 1,120 1,125 1,062 Placer 1,407 1,291 1,252 1,199 1,165 1,127 TOTAL 3,080 2,853 2,841 2,662 2,607 2,488 *Data from CA State Parks, not official DMV records
Table 16 shows total statewide OSV registrations and out-of-state registrations.
Table 16. California statewide OSV registration, 2009 through 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Subtotal 18,542 17,982 17,776 16,956 16,929 16,189 Out of State 260 242 235 244 215 197 Total 18,802 18,224 18,011 17,200 17,144 16,386 *Data from CA State Parks, not official DMV records
Eldorado National Forest 52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Snowmobile registrations within the Eldorado National Forest counties and statewide have remained nearly stable, or declined slightly over the past six years. The State EIR estimated that OSV use would continue to increase at a rate of approximately 4 percent per year, as it had between 1997 and 2009 (California Department of Park and Recreation 2010); however, that has not been the case in recent years.
OSV visitor use varies based on the amount of snowfall and the length of the season. All districts on the Eldorado National Forest receive some snow; however, higher elevations receive more snow than the rest of the Forest.
Table 17 is derived from the OSV trailhead survey conducted for the California OSV Program Final EIR, and based on data summarized in the 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 2016/2017 winter season is 2,329 OSV users for the Iron Mountain trailhead.
Table 17. Eldorado National Forest OSV visitor use Location Day description Number of vehicles Number of OSVs* Iron Mountain Trailhead Weekend or holiday 15 30 (approx. 33 per season) Iron Mountain Trailhead Weekday 3.5 7 (approx. 65 per season) Based on 2009 data from California OSV Program EIR *assumes an average of 2 OSVs per vehicle parked at a trailhead
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-motorized Winter Experiences Opportunities for quality recreation experiences depend on a both the settings (physical, social, and managerial aspects), and on the desired experience of the user. Conflicts occur when one recreationist effects or degrades the experience of another. Conflict can result in displacement or the abandonment of the use of a particular trail or area, or a change in time of use (Adams and McCool 2010).
Public comments received during the scoping period for this project describe conflicts related to (1) displacing visitors who prefer non-motorized recreation opportunities; (2) posing safety concerns for non- motorized users due to the high speed of vehicles on shared trails; (3) creating noise and air quality impacts that lead to the displacement of non-motorized users; (4) quickly consuming untracked powder snow, which reduces a desired backcountry skiing experience; (5) disrupting ski tracks, making the snow surface unsuitable for cross-country skiing; and (6) grooming trails which the 2010 California OSV Program EIR estimates triples the OSV use on trails to the detriment of non-motorized enthusiasts. Additionally, in the public comments received, motorized winter enthusiasts expressed concerns regarding additional limitations on use; however, they generally did not describe conflicts with non- motorized users. Snowmobile trails are typically available for multiple uses, and in some areas provide opportunities for non-motorized uses such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. There are also those who use snowmobiles as a means to access backcountry areas to participate in non-motorized activities (American Council of Snowmobile Associations 2014).
Both motorized and non-motorized winter recreation activities can be described in three general categories including trail touring, backcountry exploring, and alpine adventure (Snowlands 2014). Trail touring is typically focused on the use of groomed trail systems, where the quality of the groomed trail with moderate climbs and descents is often the most important factor for the recreation experience. Backcountry exploring is focused on cross-country travel away from the groomed trail system with emphasis on travelling and exploring. Alpine adventure is characterized by the challenge of riding
Eldorado National Forest 53 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
through powder snow on steeper slopes. In alpine adventure, backcountry skiers seek the downhill experience, while snowmobilers enjoy the challenge of climbing up (Snowlands 2014).
Quality non-motorized winter recreation experiences are typically characterized by quiet activities such as cross-country skiing or snow-shoeing in a natural environment that is not influenced by the sound, smell of exhaust, or sight of snowmobiles. Areas must be accessible from plowed trailheads, as non-motorized users typically do not travel long distances. Non-motorized visitors spend an average of 2.3 hours on the snow per visit (Rolloff et al. 2009).
Quality motorized winter recreation experiences are typically characterized by groomed trail systems and open hills for high marking. Snowmobilers typically have a maximum 80-mile round-trip travel range (California OSV Program EIR 2010). Approximately half of motorized visitors indicated that they would not snowmobile or would snowmobile less if the trails were not groomed (Rolloff et al. 2009). OSV visitors spend an average of 6 hours on the snow per visit and are interested in travelling through and experiencing a natural environment. According to the Eldorado National Forest staff, a majority of OSV use on the national forest would fall into the “trail touring” category described above (USDA Forest Service 2014).
Two classes of OSV have been identified, including Class 1: over-snow vehicles 50 inches or less in width at the widest point on the vehicle, and Class 2: over-snow vehicles more than 50 inches in width at the widest point on the vehicle. There are currently no known conflicts occurring between different classes of OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. Snowcats are used for grooming OSV trails. The grooming operations are conducted during the night or during low-use timeframes if possible, to avoid conflicts with day use. Since snowcats groom the OSV trails, the trails would be wide enough to accommodate larger tracked OSVs in addition to snowmobiles; however, there is currently very little use by larger tracked OSVs on the Eldorado National Forest. Public comments indicated concern with emerging trends in OSVs such as snow bikes (motorcycles that are converted to OSVs by installing a single ski/track conversion kit) and other changing technology that allow OSVs to travel faster, farther, and in more confined spaces.
Motorized use has inherent conflicts with 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. OSV use may impact the setting for non-motorized users by making tracks through the snow that often crisscross the landscape, leaving visual evidence of motorized use. That evidence remains until covered by snowfall or the snow melts. OSV tracks can interfere with cross-country skiing by causing ruts in the trails, and since OSVs travel faster and further than non-motorized users, they often “consume” the fresh powder slopes, limiting opportunities for backcountry skiers who are seeking similar opportunities on snow covered slopes (Snowlands 2014).
There are known conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users near Iron Mountain Sno-Park and around Anderson Ridge, Caples Lake, Loon Lake (near the beginning of the Rubicon Jeep trail) and Blue Lakes. There are potential conflicts between wheeled over snow vehicles and non-motorized use at Loon Lake and the western end of the Mormon Emigrant Trail. There are no other known conflicts between OSV use and other uses on National Forest System land or neighboring Federal lands.
Designated Areas
Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness Two designated wilderness areas on the Eldorado National Forest cover approximately 103,380 acres (Desolation 42,060 and Mokelumne 61,320) on the Forest. The 64,051-acre Desolation Wilderness is
Eldorado National Forest 54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
managed jointly by the Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The 103,628 acre Mokelumne Wilderness is located on the Stanislaus, Eldorado, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. Designated wilderness areas are closed to motorized use by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Caples Creek is a Recommended Wilderness area on the Eldorado National Forest and is adjacent to the Silver Bear Trail System. Caples Creek is also closed to OSV use, per forest plan direction (LRMP 4- 123).
Within the Silver Bear Trail System, the Canyon Crossing Trail runs along the southern boundary of the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness, within one-half mile of the boundary (for approximately 2 miles). The Canyon Crossing and Bear River Reservoir Trails are within one-half mile of the western boundary of the Mokelumne Wilderness area (for approximately 2 miles). (Figure 2)
Eldorado National Forest 55
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Figure 2. Silver Bear Trail System near Caples Creek Proposed Wilderness and Mokelumne Wilderness Areas
Originating from the Eldorado National Forest, trespass into the Mokelumne Wilderness area occurs in the area of Hungalelti Ridge. Trespassers must leave the groomed trail system and then travel 0.25 miles to enter the wilderness area. Users trespassing into this area are likely entering the trail system at the Iron Mountain trailhead. Trespass in this area is not considered chronic (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010). Users also enter the Mokelumne Wilderness from the Hope Valley and Blue Lakes area.
Eldorado National Forest 56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Inventoried Roadless Areas There are 82,481 acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the Eldorado National Forest and outside designated existing Wilderness (Desolation and Mokelumne). OSV use within certain IRA’s would be allowed under one or more alternatives. The intent of the 2001 Roadless Rule is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management (36 CFR 294). The IRAs include Pyramid (24,347 acres), Tragedy-Elephants Back (20,866 acres), Caples Creek (17,854 acres), Dardanelles (8,110 acres), Rubicon (4,872 acres), Poison Hole (2,627 acres), Raymond Peak (2,518 acres), Fawn Lake (1,153 acres), and Salt Springs (133 acres).
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail The Eldorado National Forest contains 26 miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) that is managed for non-motorized trail uses. The PCT runs along the eastern boundary of the Forest. The PCT was designated in 1968 as one of the first national scenic trails. The PCT (extending from Mexico to Canada) was established to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass. Along with the Appalachian Trail, the PCT is acknowledged as one of the premier non-motorized trails in the nation (USDA Forest Service 2009). Most of the PCT on the Eldorado National Forest is within designated wilderness which is closed to OSV use. The additional sections of trail are located near Blue Lakes, Meiss, Echo Summit and Sourdough and are currently open to OSV use.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Recreation Settings and Opportunities In the no-action alternative, opportunities for winter motorized recreation both cross-country and on groomed trails would remain the same as described in the existing conditions. A majority of OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest is expected to continue to be along the Silver Bear groomed trail system. There would be no reduction of opportunities or change in location for winter motorized OSV use. Current management requires a minimum snow depth of 12 inches for OSV use. This requirement would continue to limit access to deeper snow at higher elevations when snow depths at trailheads are below 12 inches.
Opportunities for winter non-motorized recreation would also remain the same as described in the existing conditions. The areas closed to OSV use would remain closed under existing temporary forest orders.
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-motorized Winte r Expe riences Conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences on the Eldorado are currently minor and infrequent, as described in the existing conditions section above. Current conflicts are concentrated around the Silver Bear Trail System, where a majority of the OSV use occurs.
There are approximately 43,500 acres available for quiet, non-motorized winter activities within 5 miles of plowed trailheads and approximately 60 miles of designated cross-country ski trails. These areas are
Eldorado National Forest 57 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
easily accessible by non-motorized visitors in a typical day trip. Overall, there are appproximately 154,200 acres across the Eldorado National Forest available for quiet, non-motorized experiences, where OSV use is not designated. Other potential conflicts would continue to occur in some areas, as motorized OSVs consume untracked powder snow that is desired by backcountry skiers, create tracks across the snow surface making skiing difficult, and creating safety concerns in areas where motorized and non-motorized use is occurring at shared trailheads and on shared trails.
Designated Areas Approximately 4 miles of groomed OSV trails are within one-half mile of the Mokelumne Wilderness and the Caples Creek Recommnded Wilderness boundaries. Portions of the Salt Springs and Tragedy- Elephants Back Inventoried Roadless Areas are open to OSV use, and are in areas where moderate to high OSV use occurs near the groomed trail system. Portions of seven other inventoried roadless areas also fall in areas open to OSV use; however, low to no use is expected in these areas.
Motorized use in close proximity to the designated non-motorized areas temporarily degrades opportunities for solitude near these non-motorized area boundaries. There may be temporary impacts to air quality in the vicinity of OSVs, and short-term impacts to scenery when OSV tracks are visible in the snow. The tracks only remain on the landscape until they are covered by additional snowfall or until the snow melts, and do not cause long-term impacts to scenery or the underlying soils and vegetation.
The PCT would remain non-motorized, as it is currently managed. No OSV trails across the PCT would be designated; OSVs could cross the PCT in any of the areas open to OSV use, potentially impacting the quiet, non-motorized trail experience of snowshoers and cross-country skiers along the PCT. Of the 26 miles of the PCT on the Eldorado National Forest, approximately 11 miles are within areas currently open to OSV use within 500 feet of the trail, potentially impacting the non-motorized trail experience. The portions of the PCT that passes through Desolation Wilderness and Mokelumne Wilderness and other areas where OSV use is currently prohibited (15 miles) would continue to provide opportunities for quiet non-motorized trail experiences.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts to the recreation experience are unlikely, since no changes would be made to the allowed uses or areas, and other ongoing or reasonably foresseable projects are not expected to impact winter recreation uses or create additional conflict between these uses. Short-term and temporary impacts to air quality (from OSV exhaust) and opportunities for solitude (due to OSV noise, and the presence of people) may occur when OSVs are present adjacent to designated or recommended wilderness areas, or adjacent to the PCT. Noise from OSVs in areas and on trails across the forest would add to other sound sources, such as OSV grooming equipment, vehicles on highways, vehicles on Forest roads, and equipment being used for forest management projects.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Recreation Settings and Opportunities Alternative 2 would provide a range of winter motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities similar to that currently found on the Eldorado National Forest. Having a clearly designated system of trails and areas designated for OSV use and production of the OSV use map (OSVUM) would improve information available to the public about opportunities for OSV use. This would assist both motorized and
Eldorado National Forest 58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
non-motorized recreationists in selecting areas that meet their setting and experience preferences, and therefore, would minimize the potential for conflict.
The proposed OSV designations would be in compliance with the forest plan, maintaining a variety of both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities available across the forest.
There are approximately 23,000 acres currently open to OSV use that would not be designated for OSV use in alternative 2. OSV use would not be designated in the areas that are currently under a temporary closure order as described in the no-action alternative, making these closures permanent. This alternative also includes a few additional areas where OSV use would not be designated, including the area around the Rock Creek Trails (i.e. Rock Creek Zone), which includes the Traverse Creek Botanical Special Interest Area (SIA) and Rock Creek Botanical SIA. This is a low to no potential OSV use area, and designating this area for OSV use in the vicinity of this 125-mile network of trails would not be feasible for OSVs to access without crossing the existing Rock Creek Trail System. This is a slight reduction in potential opportunities for cross-country OSV use that would have minor impacts to motorized OSV use opportunities.
Alternative 2 includes 58 miles of OSV trails for grooming, which maintains the existing level of groomed trail riding opportunities. The groomed trails are adequate to meet existing demand, based on the California OSV Program EIR information showing that Eldorado National Forest trailheads have rare or no overflow capacity issues (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010). Existing OSV support facilities/services (access roads, trailhead parking, toilets, and garbage service) are generally provided in sufficient quantities to satisfy winter OSV recreation demand (USDA Forest Service 2014), and would continue to do so. Alternative 2 would implement a snow depth requirement of 12 inches for areas designated for OSV use, regardless of underlying surface (including roads), to avoid damage to resources. Six inches would be the minimum snow depth for OSV use to occur on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System. It is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depths to prevent damage to their OSVs. Establishing the forestwide minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use would minimize impacts to soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife resources, as described in the relevant sections of this analysis.
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-motorized Winte r Expe riences Conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences on the Eldorado National Forest would continue to be minor and infrequent, and effects are similar to what is described under Alternative 1.
However, there are approximately 45,900 acres available for quiet, non-motorized winter activities, and 26 miles of cross-country ski trails and other non-motorized trails within 5 miles of plowed trailheads. These areas are free from motorized use and are easily accessible by non-motorized visitors in a typical day trip. This is a 2,400-acre increase from alternative 1. There would be approximately 177,200 acres across the Eldorado National Forest available for quiet, non-motorized experiences, where OSV use is not designated. Alternative 2 provides slightly more quiet non-motorized opportunities than alternatives 1 and 4, resulting in fewer conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses, compared to existing conditions, but fewer quiet non-motorized opportunities than in alternative 3. Under alternative 2, there would be no change in the miles of OSV trail available for grooming, compared to the existing condition.
Other potential conflicts would continue to occur in some areas, as motorized OSVs consume untracked powder snow that is desired by backcountry skiers, create tracks across the snow surface making skiing difficult, and creating safety concerns in areas where motorized and non-motorized use is occurring at shared trailheads and on shared trails.
Eldorado National Forest 59 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Designated Areas The effects to designated and recommended wilderness are the same as described in Alternative 1. The presence of these groomed trails in close proximity to wilderness and recommended wilderness may temporarily impact outstanding opportunities for solitude, when OSVs are present on the trails. Designating areas or trails for OSV use adjacent to wilderness and recommended wilderness does not, however, reduce the wilderness potential of these areas.
Approximately 4 miles of groomed OSV trails are within one-half mile of the Mokelumne Wilderness and the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness boundaries. Portions of the Salt Springs and Tragedy- Elephants Back Inventoried Roadless Areas are open to OSV use, and are in areas where moderate to high OSV use occurs near the groomed trail system. Portions of seven other inventoried roadless areas also fall in areas open to OSV use; however, low to no use is expected in these areas.
Motorized use in close proximity to designated non-motorized areas temporarily degrades opportunities for solitude near these boundaries. There may be temporary impacts to air quality in the vicinity of OSVs, and short-term impacts to scenery when OSV tracks are visible in the snow. The tracks only remain on the landscape until they are covered by additional snowfall or until the snow melts, and do not cause long- term impacts to scenery or the underlying soils and vegetation.
The PCT would remain non-motorized, as it is currently managed. Two designated OSV trails across the PCT would minimize the potential for motorized use to impact the trail experience. Limiting the locations where OSVs cross the trail would enhance the quiet, non-motorized experience while accommodating motorized access to OSV areas. Using the wheeled vehicle roads designated in Subpart B for off-highway vehicle use as PCT crossing trails would limit motorized disturbance to areas of the trail that already contain motorized vehicle trails. In addition, no OSV use would be designated within 500 feet of the PCT to minimize potential impacts on non-motorized recreation opportunities, by eliminating OSV use and reducing the potential for conflict between motorized and non-motorized winter uses along the PCT. Alternative 2 would minimize the potential motorized OSV impacts to the non-motorized PCT experience to a greater extent than current management.
Cumulative Effects The OSV route designations and restrictions increase the management presence across the forest through additional signs, maps, and motorized route designations that visitors must understand and comply with, slightly impacting the managerial component of the forest setting. This could result in cumulative impacts when added to other ongoing and future Forest Service projects that place limitations or temporary restrictions on the recreating public. .
Vegetation management projects adjacent to groomed OSV trails and in areas open to cross-country OSV use may temporarily enhance opportunities for cross-country OSV use by removing trees that would otherwise obstruct OSV riding.
Alternative 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
Recreation Settings and Opportunities Alternative 3 would designate OSV use on fewer acres than any of the alternatives. With additional areas not designated for OSVs, the opportunities for winter non-motorized use (in areas not influenced by the
Eldorado National Forest 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
sights, sounds and exhaust smells of OSV use) are enhanced, and opportunities for winter motorized use are reduced. Alternative 3 emphasizes providing greater non-motorized winter recreation opportunities compared to current management, however this alternative also designates some existing higher-quality OSV areas and trails, including the groomed Silver Bear Trail System.
The areas and trails proposed to be designated for OSV use would maintain a variety of both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities available across the forest. The additional areas not designated for OSV use would reduce the influence of motorized OSV use within these areas and help minimize impacts to non-motorized winter visitors. Implementing a forest plan amendment to increase the snow depth requirement to 18 inches for areas designated for OSV use would impose additional limitations on OSV use that would be more restrictive than in the proposed action. Although it is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depths to prevent damage to their OSVs, the required depth of 18 inches may preclude access to some areas with lower snowfall, and may shorten the riding season due to lower snow depths both early and late in the season. Allowing OSV use on groomed trails with at least 12 inches of snow would be slightly more restrictive than alternative 2; however, it would still provide opportunities for OSVs similar to current condition.
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-motorized Winte r Expe riences Alternative 3 would reduce acreage of areas designated for OSV use thereby enhancing opportunities for non-motorized experiences, and reducing the potential for conflict by providing greater separation of motorized and non-motorized uses compared to alternatives 1, 2, and 4. The areas not designated for OSV use under alternative 3 would enhance opportunities for quiet, non- motorized winter experiences and reduce potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses in areas historically popular for skiing and snowshoeing, such as Van Vleck, Anderson Ridge, and Blue Lakes areas. The proposed designated non-groomed OSV trail on the access road to the Van Vleck Bunkhouse would minimize use conflicts, while allowing OSV access to the bunkhouse. There would be approximately 73,300 acres within 5 miles of plowed trailheads and approximately 60 miles of cross-country ski trails and other non-motorized trails available for quiet, non-motorized winter activities. This would be a 29,800-acre increase over existing conditions. These areas are free from motorized use and are easily accessible by non-motorized visitors in a typical day trip. There would be approximately 487,600 acres across the Eldorado National Forest available for quiet, non-motorized experiences, where OSV use would not be designated. Alternative 3 provides more quiet non-motorized than any other alternative, resulting in fewer conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses. However, this alternative would concentrate motorized users into smaller areas. Under alternative 3, there would be no change in the miles of OSV trail available for grooming, compared to alternative 1 and 2.
Designated Areas The effects are similar to alternative 2, however a few additional areas, including Van Vleck, Silver Lake/Kirkwood, and Blue Lakes (adjacent to Desolation Wilderness, Caples Recommended Wilderness, and Mokelumne Wilderness, respectively) would not be designated for OSV use. This could enhance opportunities for quiet non-motorized recreation
OSV use of the PCT trail would continue to be prohibited; however, motorized use adjacent to, and across the PCT could continue to impact the quiet, non-motorized trail experience. There is a small portion where OSV use is designated within 500 feet of the PCT.
Eldorado National Forest 61 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be similar to those described for alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects
Recreation Settings and Opportunities Alternative 4 would allow OSV use on more acres than all other alternatives for an increase of 5,200 acres, enhancing opportunities for motorized winter experiences in the higher eleveations across the forest, while reducing non-motorized opportunities. The groomed trail opportunities and snow depth requirements would be the same as described in alternative 2, the proposed action.
The proposed OSV designations would require a forest plan amendment to allow OSV use within several forest plan management areas where public OSV use is currently not allowed. These areas are Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness, Loon Lake, and three areas of high elevation Semi-primitive non- motorized management areas being opened to OSV use. This would reduce the amount of quiet, non- motorized winter opportunities in the semi-primitive non-motorized areas.
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-motorized Winte r Expe riences Alternative 4 would increase acreage of areas designated for OSV use, enhancing opportunities for motorized winter experiences. Implementing a forest plan amendment to allow OSV use in the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness and in the Little McKinstry (South), Devils Lake, and Hidden Lake semi-primitive non-motorized management areas, and allowing OSV use in the Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area has the potential to increase use conflict between motorized and non-motorized users.
Non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts may be unable to access areas for desired quiet, non- motorized experiences away from the sights, sounds, and smells of motorized use. However, there would be approximately 28,100 acres available for quiet, non-motorized winter activities within 5 miles of plowed trailheads and approximately 60 miles of cross-country ski trails. This would be a 15,400-acre decrease over existing conditions. There would be approximately 159,000 acres across the Eldorado National Forest available for quiet, non-motorized experiences, where OSV use would not be designated.
Designated Areas The effects to designated wilderness are the similar to those described in Alternative 2.
Introducing motorized use into the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness would temporarily degrade the area’s undeveloped characteristics and outstanding opportunities for solitude when OSVs are present. Allowing motorized use would be inconsistent with managing recommended wilderness areas to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Allowing motorized use may also impact the future manageability of the area as wilderness, since motorized use would become established, and may be difficult to eliminate upon designation of the area as Wilderness by Congress. OSV use of the PCT trail itself would continue to be prohibited; however, motorized use within 500 feet of the PCT, and across the PCT could continue to impact the quiet, non-motorized trail experience as described in Alternative 1.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of alternative 4 would be the same as described for alternative 2.
Eldorado National Forest 62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects
Recreation Settings and Opportunities All action alternatives would provide the same level of groomed motorized OSV trail opportunities. Cross-country OSV use and use of OSV trails would be limited by minimum snow depth requirements for all action alternatives; however, alternative 3 provides the most restrictive snow depth requirement by allowing cross-country OSV use when there is at least 18 inches of snow, as opposed to 12 inches under the other alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 4 would allow OSV use on groomed trails with 6 inches of snow. Alternative 2 would maintain OSV opportunities most similar to the existing conditions on the Eldorado National Forest. Alternative 3 would increase opportunities for quiet, non-motorized recreation with fewer acres designated for OSV use. Alternative 4 would provide the most access for OSV use forestwide, compared to alternatives 2 and 3.
Conflicts between Motorized and Non-Motorized Uses All action alternatives would minimize use conflict between motorized and non-motorized uses to some degree by designating a clear system of OSV trails and areas, and development of the subsequent OSV use maps that would allow visitors to choose areas to recreate that would best meet their expectations and desired settings.
Anticipated levels of conflict under Alternative 2 are not expected to change from current management.
Alternative 3 reduces the potential for conflict by providing greater separation of motorized and non- motorized uses compared to alternatives 1, 2, and 4. However, Alternative 3 displaces OSV use in areas currently available and concentrates OSV use into fewer acres.
Alternative 4 would provide the most acres designated for OSV use, and therefore, would have the potential for continued or increased conflict with non-motorized users in the future. Implementing a forest plan amendment to allow OSV use in the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness and Little McKinstry (South), Devils Lake, and Hidden Lake semi-primitive non-motorized areas, as well as designating OSV use within Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area, would introduce motorized use into areas that have historically been utilized for non-motorized winter recreation and have important non-motorized characteristics and opportunities for solitude.
Designated Areas The effects to designated wilderness is similar under all action alternatives, although alternative 3 may reduce the potential for illegal incursions into designated wilderness as there would be additional non- motorized areas adjacent to wilderness boundaries. Alternative 4 has the potential to increase illegal incursions due to additional motorized opportunities adjacent to wilderness boundaries.
The effects to Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness would be the same under all action alternatives, except Alternative 4 which designates this recommended wilderness for OSV use. Implementing a forest plan amendment to allow OSV use in the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness is inconsistent direction to manage the recommended wilderness to maintain wilderness characteristics. Allowing motorized use in Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness may also impact the future manageability of the area as wilderness, since motorized use would become established, and may be difficult to eliminate upon designation of the area as Wilderness by Congress.
Eldorado National Forest 63 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternative 2 would not designate OSV use within 500 feet of the PCT and would designate 2 OSV trails that cross the PCT to provide connectivity between designated OSV areas. This would maintain non- motorized opportunities and quiet settings along the trail. In alternatives 3 and 4, the PCT itself would remain non-motorized, however, OSV use could occur immediately adjacent to the PCT potentially leading to conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users along the trail.
Table 18 provides a comparison of the alternatives and the degree to which the alternatives address the recreation related issues.
Eldorado National Forest 64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 18. Summary comparison of resource indicators and measures for each alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Element Indicator/Measure No Action Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Motorized Recreation Opportunities Opportunities for 458,600 acres open to 435,600 acres open to OSV 125,200 acres open to 463,800 acres open to motorized w inter uses, OSV use use, a 5 percent decrease from OSV use, a 73 percent OSV use, a 1 percent acreage of designated current management. decrease from current increase from existing public OSV cross- management. conditions. country use; percent Open - Cross-Country change as compared to current management
Snow depth 12-inch snow depth 12-inch snow depth 18-inch snow depth, an 12-inch snow depth, same requirement requirement, no change from increase from current as current management. current management. management. OSV trail designations, 58 miles designated OSV 58.5 miles of designated OSV 63.4 miles of designated 58 miles of designated length of trails (miles) trail (Silver Bear Trail trails (Silver Bear Trail System OSV trails (Silver Bear OSV trails (Silver Bear and change f r om System) and PCT crossings), negligable Trail System and Van Trail System), no change current management increase from current Vleck), slight increase f r om from current management. Designated OSV Trails management current management
Snow depth 12-inch minimum snow 6-inch snow depth on groomed 12-inch snow depth on all 6-inch snow depth depth for trail use trails; 12-inch snow depth on OSV trails non-groomed trails Groom ed OSV Trails OSV trail grooming, 58 miles groomed OSV Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 length of groomed trail (Silver Bear Trail) trails (miles), percent change from current management Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities
Open – Cross Country Size of areas (acres) 43,500 acres available for 45,900 acres available for non- 73,300 acres available for 28,100 acres available for available w ithin 5 miles non-motorized recreation motorized recreation w ithin 5 non-motorized recreation non-motorized recreation of plow ed trailheads w ithin 5 miles of plow ed miles of plow ed trailheads w ithin 5 miles of plow ed w ithin 5 miles of plow ed trailheads trailheads trailheads Size of areas (acres) 154,200 acres 177,200 acres 487,600 acres 149,000 acres available overall
Designated Ski Trails Length of designated 60 miles of designated Same as Alternative Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 cross-country ski trails cross-country ski trails (miles) available.
Eldorado National Forest 65 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Element Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Indicator/Measure No Action Proposed Action Nois e
Noise Impacts Acres anticpated to 44,900 acres Same as Alternative 1 33,300 acres 49,000 acres have high to moderate use levels, and the associated potential noise impacts Designated Areas Designated Wilderness Proximity of OSV trails Approximately 2 miles of Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 relation to designated groomed OSV trails are w ilderness. w ithin ½ mile of the Mokelumne Wilderness. Size of area (acres) 15,200 acres 14,100 acres 6,700 acres 15,300 acres designated for OSV use and w ithin ½ mile of Wilderness. Caples Creek Proximity of OSV trails Approximately 2 miles of Same as Alternatve 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Recommended relation to designated groomed OSV trails are Wilderness w ilderness. w ithin ½ mile.
Size of area (acres) 7,900 acres Same as Alternative 1 5,200 acres 21,000 acres designated for OSV use and w ithin ½ mile of recommended w ilderness. Pacific Crest National Length (miles) of PCT 11 miles None 0.6 miles Same as Alternative 1 Scenic Trail w ithin 500 feet of areas designated for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Noise
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
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 System lands are subject to the State standards described above. The Eldorado LRMP does not identify Standards and Guidelines regulating noise emissions of forest activities (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010).
Methodology The analysis used 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 the Environmental Protection Agency to predict and plan for recreation opportunities in national forests. Input data include commonly available datasets including:
• Digital elevation model
• Land cover
• Local weather conditions (average air temp, relative humidity, wild speed and 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 and Temporal Context for the Effects Analysis The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be analyzed within the forest boundary. Short-term effects occur within one year. Long-term effects occur up to 20 years.
Eldorado National Forest 67 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 19. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Measure Resource Element Resource Indicator (Quantify if possible) Noise Opportunities for motorized winter uses Size of areas (acres) open to public, cross-country OSV use; percentage change compared to current management.
Acres and percent of designated areas (acres) that are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels and associated noise impacts. OSV designations Lengeth of groomed OSV trails (miles), designated and identified for public OSV use.
Affected Environment
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. Opportunities for quality recreation experiences depend on both the settings (physical, social, and managerial aspects), and on the desired experience of the visitor. Conflicts occur when one recreationist effects or degrades the experience of another. Many non-motorized recreationists experience conflict with motorized recreationists (Adams and McCool 2010). Conflict can result in displacement or the abandonment of the use of a particular trail or area, or a change in time of use (Adams and McCool 2010). Conflict related to noise may result if non-motorized recreationists are not able to achieve their desired experience due to the presence of noise from motorized use in the area.
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).
Areas of specific concern to non-motorized users who are typically seeking a quiet recreation setting that is not influenced by the sound of motorized vehicles include cross-country ski trails, the PCT, Wilderness, and Primitive and Semi-Primitive non-motorized ROS classes.
Eldorado National Forest 68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 in this analysis. California Vehicle Code 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).
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 sound’s 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.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects Under the no-action alternative, approximately 458,600 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. Only a portion (approximately 44,900 acres) of the 458,600 acres open to OSV use, such as areas adjacent to groomed OSV trails and areas with highly desirable slope and vegetation conditions are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels (see OSV use assumptions map in Appendix C) and the associated potential noise impacts.
The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail would continue to be managed as a non-motorized trail, however OSV use adjacent to the trail could impact the winter non-motorized trail experience due to noise and the presence of OSVs near the trail, or crossing the trail. No OSV trails across the PCT would be designated and OSVs could cross the PCT at any location where the trail passes through an OSV open area. Most of the PCT in the Eldorado National Forest passes through the Mokelumne Wilderness, Desolation Wilderness, and other areas where OSV use is currently prohibited would continue to provide opportunities for quiet non-motorized trail experiences.
Eldorado National Forest 69 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Ongoing OSV use near designated non-motorized areas could result in short-term impacts to solitude. OSV use across, and adjacent to the PCT would continue, with the potential for ongoing noise-related impacts to non-motorized trail users, when OSVs are present near the trail.
Cumulative Effects Short-term and temporary impacts to opportunities for solitude (due to OSV noise, and the presence of people) may occur when OSVs are present adjacent to Wilderness areas, within Inventoried Roadless Areas, or adjacent to the PCT. Noise from OSVs in areas and on trails across the forest would add to other sound sources, such as OSV grooming equipment, snow plows, vehicles on highways, vehicles on Forest roads, equipment being used for forest management projects, etc.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 2, approximately 435,600 acres would be designated for 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 areas designated for OSV use. Only a portion (approximately 44,900 acres) of the 435,600 acres designated for OSV use, such as areas adjacent to groomed OSV trails and areas with highly desirable slope and vegetation conditions are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels (see OSV use assumptions map in Appendix C) and the associated potential noise impacts. Using average environmental factors for the winter season on the Eldorado National Forest and the SPreAD-GIS model, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 show the anticipated sound propagation away from point source sound locations. The sound points represent a snapshot in time, and were selected based on important non-motorized trails and areas. OSV sound source points include:
• Clover Valley/Deer Valley Trail (19E01);
• Van Vleck Bunkhouse Recreation Rental; • Anderson Ridge cross-country ski trail;
• Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area;
• Spotted Owl activity center near Silver Bear Trail. The noise propagation contour lines in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 show how the OSV sound is expected to spread out from the source location given unique environmental, vegetation and terrain conditions. The contour lines are color coded to show the extent of noise levels where the introduced OSV noise would be above ambient sound conditions. Table 20 shows examples of common sounds and their decibel level.
Eldorado National Forest 70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 20. Examples of Comparative Sound Levels* Sound Source Sound Level dB(A) 75-piece orchestra 130 Car horn, snow blower 110 Pre-1969 snowmobile 102 Blow dryer, diesel truck 100 Electric shaver, lawn mower 85 Garbage disposal, vacuum cleaner 80 Post-1975 snowmobile (full throttle and 50 78 feet; maximum allowed by law) Alarm clock, city traffic 70 Dishwasher 60 Leaves rustling, refrigerator 40
* Table from American Council of Snowmobiles Associations Facts and Myths about Snowmobiling and Winter Trails, 2014 Figure 3. Noise Analysis for the Loon Lake and Van Vleck Area
Eldorado National Forest 71 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Eldorado National Forest 72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 4. Noise Analysis for the Anderson Ridge Area
Eldorado National Forest 73 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 5. Noise Analysis for the Clover Valley/Deer Valley Trail (19E01) (Blue Creek and Deer Creek Area)
Eldorado National Forest 74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The noise analysis maps depicted in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 above, show the extent of potential noise impacts from various OSV sound source locations, including the Loon Lake and Van Vleck Area, the Anderson Ridge Area, and the Clover Valley/Deer Valley Trail. OSV noise from the Loon Lake and Van Vleck sound source points is fairly localized and is not impacting the Desolation Wilderness to the east (Figure 3). Not designating the Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area for OSV use will further limit noise impacts in this area. OSV noise from the Anderson Ridge Wildlife North point spreads over a greater area adjacent to the groomed trail system, whereas sound from the Anderson Ridge Wildlife south point is more confined (as shown in Figure 4). OSV noise from the Clover Valley/Deer Valley Trail points (Figure 5) is primarily spreading to the east and impacting solitude for approximately one mile within the Mokelumne Wilderness boundary.
OSV noise may continue to impact opportunities for solitude within the Mokelumne Wilderness area and the Caples Creek Recommended Wilderness Area, when OSVs are present on the trails, since a total of 4 miles of groomed trails are within one-half mile of the wilderness and recommended wilderness boundaries. Alternative 2 does not designate any areas for OSV use within 500 feet of the PCT. Two designated OSV trails that cross the PCT, located in the Sourdough segment (Pacific OSV Area) and Forestdale/Blue Lakes segment (Amador OSV Area), could be temporarily impacted by noise from OSVs while OSVs are crossing the trail. Limiting the locations where OSVs cross the trail would enhance the quiet, non- motorized experience while accommodating motorized access to areas designated for OSV use. Alternative 2 would minimize the potential motorized OSV impacts to the non-motorized PCT experience to a greater extent than alternative 1 and 4.
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.
Cumulative Effects 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 would not be 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 Eldorado 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
Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 3, approximately 125,200 acres would be designated for 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. Only a portion (approximately 33,300 acres) of the 125,200 acres designated for OSV use, such as areas adjacent to groomed OSV trails and areas with highly desirable slope and vegetation conditions are anticipated to
Eldorado National Forest 75 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
have high to moderate OSV use levels and the associated potential noise impacts. Noise impacts associated with the groomed OSV trail system in alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would designate OSV use on fewer acres than alternative 2. With additional areas where OSV use would not be designated, the opportunities for non-motorized use (in areas not influenced by the sounds of OSV use) are enhanced under this alternative. Additional areas where OSVs would not be designated in the Loon Lake and Van Vleck Area, the Blue Creek and Deer Creek Area, and Anderson Ridge would enhance opportunities for solitude and quiet non-motorized experiences.
Alternative 3 designates OSV use in one small area adjacent to the PCT in the Sourdough segment (Pacific OSV Area).
Cumulative Effects Activities contributing to potential cumulative effects of alternative 3 would generally be the same as those described for alternative 2; however, with fewer acres designated for cross-country OSV use, the potential for cumulative noise impacts is reduced under alternative 3 compared to alternatives 1, 2, and 4.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 would allow OSV use on more acres than alternative 3, and slightly more acres than alternative 2; 462,310 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. Only a portion (approximately 49,068 acres) of the 462,310 acres open to OSV use, such as areas adjacent to groomed OSV trails and areas with highly desirable slope and vegetation conditions are anticipated to have high to moderate OSV use levels (see OSV use assumptions map referenced in the recreation section of this analysis) and the associated potential noise impacts.
Alternative 4 proposes no additional OSV prohibitions, other than those areas closed under existing conditions, and the miles of groomed snow trails would remain the same. Noise impacts associated with the groomed OSV trail system in alternative 4 would be the same as alternative 2.
OSV noise could have a greater impact on the Loon Lake area, since this alternative would not prohibit OSV in the Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area. OSV noise associated with the Van Vleck area, Anderson Ridge Area, and Blue Creek and Deer Creek Area would be the same as described in alternative 2. Implementing a forest plan amendment to allow OSV use in the Caples Creek recommended wilderness and in the Little McKinstry (South), Devils Lake, and Hidden Lake semi-primitive non-motorized areas would impact opportunities for quiet, non-motorized winter recreation for which these areas are managed.
Potential impacts from OSV noise would continue along the PCT, as described in alternative 3. Otherwise, noise impacts of alternative 4 would be similar to those described for alternative 2.
Summary of Effects Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 provide the same level of groomed motorized OSV trail opportunities, as found in current management, and therefore, the same degree of potential noise impacts associated with groomed trail use. Alternative 4 provides the most access for motorized OSV use forestwide, compared to alternatives 2 and 3, and therefore, the greatest potential for noise impacts across the Forest.
Eldorado National Forest 76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternative 3 enhances opportunities for quiet, non-motorized recreation with the designation of areas where OSVs would not be designated, 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 all of the other alternatives.
Eldorado National Forest 77 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 21 summarizes the noise issue indicators and the potential effects to those indicators by alternative.
Table 21. Summary comparison of environmental effects Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator/ Measure Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Element (no-action alternative) (proposed action) Noise Opportunities for 458,600 acres designated 435,600 acres designated 125,200 acres 463,800 acres designated motorized winter uses for OSV use for OSV use, a 5 percent designated for OSV for OSV use, a 1 percent Size of areas (acres 44,900 acres, 10 percent of decrease from existing use, a 73 percent increase from existing designated for OSV use the designated acres are conditions. decrease from existing conditions. that could be affected anticipated to have high to 44,900 acres, 10 percent of conditions. 49,100 acres, 11 percent of by noise; percentage moderate OSV use. the designated acres are 33,300 acres, 27 the designated acres are compared to current 154,200 acres no anticipated to have high to percent of the anticipated to have haigh to management. designated for OSV use and moderate OSV use. designated acres are moderate OSV use. Acres and percent of available for quiet 177,200 acres not anticipated to have high 149,000 acres not designated acres that recreation. designated for OSV use to moderate OSV use. designated for OSV use are anticipated to have and available for quiet 487,600 acres not and available for quiet high to moderate OSV recreation. designated for OSV use recreation. use levels and and available for quiet associated noise recreation. impacts. Noise OSV designations 58 miles groomed OSV trail 58 miles groomed OSV 58 miles groomed OSV Same as Alternative 1 Length of groomed and trail; 0.5 miles ungroomed trail; 5.4 miles ungroomed OSV trails OSV trail that cross the ungroomed OSV trail (miles), designated and PCT in two locations (access to Van Vleck identified for public OSV Bunkhouse) use.
Eldorado National Forest 78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Soil Resources
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
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.
Methodology The potential effects on soil productivity and stability resulting from designating OSV areas were assessed through estimating the area of overlap with sensitive soils including wet meadows, areas with potential low stability, and areas with potential erosion hazards. Project design criteria and monitoring measures have been identified for all of the action alternatives to minimize resource impacts. The soil resources within the project area were analyzed using geographic information system (GIS) data, soil survey data, corporate soils data layers including the geology and geomorphology layers for the Eldorado National Forest, a variety of reports and assessments of OSV impacts, and professional experience and judgement using scientific literature on OSV impacts. The Eldorado National Forest Soil Scientist was consulted to help determine where the sensitive soils are located on the Forest.
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the soil resource are the area of land managed by the Eldorado 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.
Resource Indicators and Measures Soil productivity and soil stability are the two soil resource indicators utilized for this analysis. Resource indicators and measures are shown in Table 22.
Eldorado National Forest 79 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 22. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soil resources Measure Resource Element Resource Indicator (Quantify if possible) Soil Productivity and Soil OSV use on sensitive soils including wet Acres designated for cross-country Stability meadows, areas with potential low stability and OSV use on sensitive soils areas with potential erosion hazards. Soil Stability Minimum snow depths on trails designated for Depth of snow (inches) OSV us e Soil Productivity Minimum snow depths in areas designated for Depth of snow (Inches) cross-country OSV use
Affected Environment The Eldorado National Forest has diverse vegetation because of its wide ranges in precipitation and elevation. In the upper elevations on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, mixed conifer stands dominate. On the lower-elevation areas and on south-facing slopes, ponderosa pine are most commonly found. California black oak, madrone, and tanoak are hardwood species that are commonly found within the Forest’s mixed conifer stands. Jeffrey pine is commonly found in association with the serpentine ultra-mafic soil types on the Forest.
Soils and Geology The Eldorado National Forest is located within the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province, lying on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada range. The Forest is dominated by granitic rocks that have been carved by glaciers at the higher elevations. At the mid elevation ranges, gently sloping volcanic ridges dominate. The far western portion of the Forest contains deep canyons separated by nearly level to sloping, broad ridgetops. Soils on the steep canyon side slopes have developed mainly from metamorphic rocks. In many places river gravels, glacial deposits, and volcanic debris cover the bedrock. The most dominant parent material on the Forest is granitic and makes up about 28 percent of the Forest, followed by andesitic parent material making up about 24 percent of the Forest.
Elevations throughout the Forest range from 1,000 to 10,000 feet. The Forest is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers. The average annual temperature in the Forest ranges from 39 degrees F in the upper elevations to 55 degrees F in the lower-elevation western portions of the Forest with a mean annual precipitation ranging from 40 to 70 inches, mostly falling as snow in the higher elevations and rain in the lower elevations.
The soils are grouped into 215 soil map units within 45 taxonomic groups.
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 bio- diversity (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010).
Eldorado National Forest 80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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.
Soil productivity within the Eldorado 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 Eldorado National Forest (approximately 4,573 acres). These meadows are scattered throughout the Forest and range in size from less than an acre to 170 acres. The majority of the meadows are less than 50 acres in size. 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.
Soil Stability
Shallow debris slides are the most common and most destructive type of landslide found on the Eldorado National Forest, but deeper mass movements, road cut failures, stream channel instability, and rockfalls also occur. Land instability is not extensive on the Forest. Preliminary landslide hazard work shows a higher rate of occurrence of land sliding in various contact zones beneath the Meherten Formation (volcanic mudflows, 131,046 acres or approximately 21 percent of the Forest) especially in contact with the Valley Springs Formation (4,775 acres, less than 1 percent of the Forest), more often on north-facing slopes where springs occur. Generally, the instability and slumping only occurs when soils are excavated deeper than 2 feet. 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 less than 1 percent of the Forest (110 acres). None of the actual proposed snowmobile trails occur on any mapped landslide deposits.
Approximately 20,917 (approximately 3 percent of the area) acres across the Forest have a very severe erosion hazard rating when the soils have no vegetation present.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 81 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1- No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Current OSV use would continue on 458,600 acres of the Eldorado National Forest under the no-action alternative. Approximately 154,200 acres are closed to cross-county OSV travel. The minimum snow depth for OSV cross-country use and trail use is 12 inches of snow with 18 inches of snow for snow trail grooming to occur.
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. A 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). Under the no action alternative, there would be a minimum snow depth of 12 inches for cross- country OSV use or OSV use on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System, so soil resource damage is unlikely.
Soils within the Eldorado National Forest that may be most prone to compaction and rutting include the soils located within the wet meadows that are open to OSV use (4,573 acres under the no-action alternative). 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 OSV use is not occurring without adequate snow levels to protect these sensitive soil types that cover less than 1 percent of the Forest. 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. Landslides within the Eldorado 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 an effect on ground disturbance that could lead to erosion, especially on soils derived from granitic or rhyolitic parent materials (areas with very high erosion hazard ratings) where OSV use is allowed (20,900 acres). Depending on site-specific factors including slope,
Eldorado National Forest 82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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. Generally, OSV operators 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 OSV trails.
Table 23. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Indicator Measure Resource Element (Quantify if possible) (Quantify if possible) (Alternative 1) Soil Productivity and OSV use on sensitive soils Acres designated for 161,425 (4,573 acres of Soil Stability including wet meadows, cross-country OSV use meadows, 20,917 acres of areas with potential low on sensitive soils erosive soils, and 135,821 acres stability and areas with of low stability soils) potential erosion hazards. Soil Stability Minimum snow depths on Depth of snow (inches) 12 trails designated for OSV use Soil Productivity Minimum snow depths in Depth of snow (Inches) 12 areas designated for cross-country OSV use
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. There are more acres open to OSV use under alternative 4, so it is likely alternative 4 would have the most impacts to the soil resource than the other alternatives, with alternative 3 having the least acres open to OSV use, so it would likely have the least impacts to the soil resource.
Under alternatives 2 and 4, cross-country OSV use could occur with a minimum snow depth of 12 inches, whereas under alternative 3, the minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use is 18 inches. However, the effects of cross-country OSV use would be similar under all alternatives since a minimum snow depth of 12 inches has been observed to be adequate to avoid ground contact. Under alternatives 2 and 4, OSV use can occur on the Silver Bear Trail System 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. With most of Silver Bear Trail System overlapping National Forest System roads and trails, the potential for effects to soil resources is minimal. The effects of trail grooming would be similar to those effects described under the no-action alternative above for alternative 3 where 18 inches of snow would be present on trails prior to grooming. Under alternatives 2 and 4, the minimum snow depth for grooming would be reduced to 12 inches of snow required prior to grooming.
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 effects to soil porosity or the disturbance of organic matter including forest floor litter and large woody debris present on the soil surface. During times of the year when
Eldorado National Forest 83 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences snowpacks are potentially more variable, there could be incidental indirect effects including some minor ground disturbance in low-snow areas. Under alternative 4, the acres open to cross-country OSV travel on sensitive soils would be the similar to alternative 2, but that acreage would decrease under alternative 3 (table 24). Alternative 3 would have the least risk of impact on sensitive soils and the least impact on soil productivity overall, because the minimum snow depth required prior to OSV travel is greater and the least acreage would be open to potential cross-county OSV travel within the Eldorado National Forest.
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 not likely increase with adequate snow cover under all the action alternatives. Monitoring under these alternatives is important to determine the site-specific effects of the minimum snow depths on the soil resource.
Table 24. Resource indicators and measures for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 direct and indirect effects Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative Alternative Alternative Element 2 3 4 Soil Productivity OSV use on sensitive Acres designated 160,284 35,956 160,882 and Soil soils including wet for cross-country Stability meadows, areas with OSV use on potential low stability and sensitive soils areas with potential erosion hazards. Soil Stability Minimum snow depths on Depth of snow 6 12 6 trails designated for OSV (inches) use Soil Productivity Minimum snow depths in Depth of snow 12 18 12 areas designated for (Inches) cross-country OSV use
Although Table 23 and Table 24 show that under the no-action alternative, alternative 2 and alternative 4, approximately 26 percent of the Forest has sensitive soils that are open to OSV use, the OSV assumptions map (Appendix C) shows that within the potential high OSV use areas, approximately 8,533 acres of sensitive soils exist. Within the moderate use areas, approximately 9,490 acres of sensitive soils exist. So, the impacts to sensitive soils would likely be less than displayed in Table 24 based on actual OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest.
Cumulative Effects 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 current and future vegetation management activities are occurring on the Eldorado National Forest over approximately 38,544 acres. Potential actions include commercial harvesting, small tree thinning, pile burning, precommercial thinning, aspen restoration, mastication, and under-burning. 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, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance activities associated with vegetation management activities could
Eldorado National Forest 84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 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, and therefore, cumulative effects are not expected.
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 Eldorado 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, but would not likely lead to cumulative effects from OSV use because even though the season may be shortened with less snow pack, OSV use would still be regulated based on an adequate snow depth to protect the soil resource.
Eldorado National Forest 85 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects Table 25 summarizes the soil issue indicators and the potential effects to those indicators by alternative.
Table 25. Summary comparison of environmental effects to the soil resource Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator/ Measure Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Element (no-action alternative) (proposed action) Soil OSV use on sensitive There would be no change Approximately Approximately Approximately Productivity soils including wet in acreage of area currently 160,284 acres of sensitive 35,956 acres of 160,882 acres of sensitive and Soil meadows, areas with open to cross-country OSV soils would be open to sensitive soils would be soils will be open to cross- Stability potential low stability travel on sensitive soils. cross-country OSV travel open to cross-country country OSV travel. This is and areas with potential Approximately within the Forest. This is OSV travel. Under this slightly less than under the erosion hazards. 161,331 acres with mapped less sensitive soils open to alternative, the acreage no-action alternative, but sensitive soil types are open cross-country OSV use open to cross-country would likely have greater Acres designated for to cross-country travel and than under the current OSV use on sensitive risk for impacts than OSV use on sensitive would likely have the management and under soils is less than under alternative 2 or 3, as there soils. greatest risk for impacts on alternative 4, but it is all the other alternatives is more acreage of sensitive soils as this is greater than under and would have the sensitive soils open to OSV more acreage than under alternative 3. least risk for impact on use under alternative 4. any of the action sensitive soils within the alternatives . Forest. Soil Stability Minimum snow depths The minimum snow depth is Minimum snow depth is The minimum snow Same as Alternative 2. on trails designated for 12 inches of snow prior to 6 inches of snow prior to depth is 12 inches of OSV use. any OSV travel over existing any OSV travel over snow prior to any OSV trails. This minimum snow existing trails that are travel over existing Depth of snow (inches) depth has been observed to proposed for grooming. trails. This minimum be sufficient to prevent This minimum snow depth snow depth has been contact of OSVs with the may potentially create observed to be bare soil surface. conditions in which the trail sufficient to prevent surface is exposed to contact of OSVs with OSVs and there is potential the bare soil surface. for some soil erosion or rutting of the trail surface.
Eldorado National Forest 86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator/ Measure Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Element (no-action alternative) (proposed action) Soil Minimum snow depths Minimum snow depth for Minimum snow depth of Minimum snow depth of Same as Alternative 2. Productivity in areas designated for cross-country OSV travel is 12 inches of snow for 18 inches of snow for cross-country OSV use currently 12 inches of snow. cross-country OSV travel cross-country OSV Potential effects to the soil would not change. Potential travel, which is an Depth of snow (inches) are unlikely to occur with at effects to the soil are increase in the least 12 inches of snow unlikely to occur with at minimum snow depth. covering the soil surface. least 12 inches of snow Potential effects to the covering the soil surface. soil are unlikely to occur with at least 12 inches of snow covering the soil surface. Under this alternative, the greatest snow depth is required prior to cross country travel; therefore, this alternative is likely to have the lowest risk for effects on the soil resource.
Eldorado National Forest 87 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Water Resources
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) established a comprehensive aquatic and riparian conservation strategy for all of the National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Key components of this strategy include riparian conservation areas, critical aquatic refuges for threatened and endangered aquatic species, special management for large meadows, and a watershed analysis process.
The 2004 SNFPA includes standards and guidelines in national forests for construction and relocation of roads and trails and for management of riparian conservation areas. These standards and guidelines require the Forest Service to avoid road construction, reconstruction, and relocation in meadows and wetlands; maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, and wetlands by identify roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt flows paths and implementing corrective actions; and determine if stream characteristics are within the range of natural variability prior to taking actions that could adversely affect streams.
The 2004 SNFPA standards and guidelines for riparian conservation areas (RCAs) and critical aquatic refuges (CARs) are intended to minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems. RCA widths for all Sierra Nevada forests: 300 feet on each side of perennial streams; 150 feet on each side of intermittent and ephemeral streams; and 300 feet from lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs. CARs are subwatersheds, generally ranging between 10,000 to 40,000 acres, with some as small as 500 acres and some as large as 100,000 acres, that contain either: known locations of threatened and endangered species, highlight vulnerable populations of native plan or animal species, or localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species. Standards and Guidelines (S&G) for RCAs and CARs: Evaluate new proposed management activities within RCAs and CARs during environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species (S&G 92). The riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) and associated standard and guidelines that may be applicable to this project include:
Riparian Conservation Objective 1:
Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. Beneficial uses describe how water is used and vary by water body. Examples of beneficial uses include water for domestic water supply, fire suppression, fish and wildlife habitat, and contact recreation (swimming).
Eldorado National Forest 88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Riparian Conservation Objective 2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs; (2) streams, including instream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species.
Standard and Guideline 100. Maintain and restore hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where necessary to restore connectivity.
Standard and Guideline 101: Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features.
Standard and Guideline 103: Prevent disturbance to stream banks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities (e.g., livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does not apply to developed recreation sites, sites authorized under special use permits, or designated OHV routes.
Riparian Conservation Objective 4: Ensure that management activities within riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. Standard and Guideline 116: Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day-use sites during landscape analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions.
Riparian Conservation Objective 5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas.
Standard and Guideline 118: Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include the presence of plants in the genus Meesia, and three sundew species (Drosera spp.). Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within grazing allotments prior to re-issuing permits.
Riparian Conservation Objective 6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species.
Eldorado National Forest 89 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Standard and Guideline 122: Recommend restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in excess of soil quality standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that are either actively down cutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management practices that may be contributing to the observed degradation, such as road building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests.
State Laws The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all State laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to water quality (CWC Sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance to the proposed action is Section 13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.
The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Federal Clean Water Act in California. Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act address nonpoint source pollution and require water quality management plans for nonpoint sources of pollution. The Forest Service in the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) has worked with the California water quality agencies to meet Clean Water Act requirements. The greatest emphasis in this coordination has been on the management and control of nonpoint sources of water pollution, with sediment, water temperature, and nutrient levels of most concern. The State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards entered into agreements with the Forest Service to control nonpoint source discharges by implementing BMPs. These BMPs, which are set forth in the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region guidance document, Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (2000), constitute a portion of the State’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan and comply with the requirements of Sections 208 and 319 of the Clean Water Act. The agreements include BMPs related to OSV use, and to road construction and maintenance. The implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs are reviewed annually. In recent years, the Forest Service has emphasized monitoring in national forests to ensure the implemented projects follow approved control measures (USDA Forest Service, 2004b).
Pacific Southwes t Region Best Management Practices and National Core Best Management Practices The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (SRWQCBs) entered into agreements with the Forest Service to control non-point-source discharges by implementing control actions certified by the State Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency as best management practices (USDA Forest Service R5 FSH 2509.22 - soil and water conservation handbook, 2011). These are designed to protect and maintain water quality and prevent adverse effects to beneficial uses, both on site and downstream. Further, the Washington Office has generated National Core BMPs, some of which apply to OSV uses. Through the execution of a formal Management Agency Agreement with the USFS in 1981, the SWQCB designated the USFS as the Water Quality Management Agency for USFS lands in California. The USFS BMPs are in conformance with the provisions and requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and within the guidelines of the Basin Plans developed for the nine RWQCBs in California. The most relevant BMPs to the OSV Program pertain to snow removal and monitoring. The BMPs most relevant to the OSV Program pertain to snow removal and monitoring and include the following:
Eldorado National Forest 90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences BMP 2-25 (USDA Forest Service 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 interdisciplinary team during environmental analysis and incorporate 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 (USDA Forest Service 2000): Water Quality Monitoring of OHV (and OSV) Use According to a Developed Plan a. Objective: To provide a systematic process to determine when and to what extent OHV use will cause or is causing adverse effects on water quality.
b. Explanation: Each forest’s OHV Plan [Travel Management Plan and LRMP] will:
1. Identify areas or routes where OHV use could cause degradation of water quality. 2. Establish baseline water quality data for normal conditions as a basis from which to measure change. 3. Identify water quality standards and the amount of change acceptable.
4. Establish monitoring measures and frequency.
5. Identify controls and mitigation appropriate in management of OHVs. 6. Restrict OHVs to designated routes.
c. Implementation: Monitoring results are evaluated against the OHV 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,
Eldorado National Forest 91 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences immediate corrective action will be taken. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in the amount of OHV 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, snow cats, and snow grooming machines. Snowmobiles and snow cats 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 do motor vehicles traveling over the ground. Unlike other motor vehicles traveling cross-country, over-snow 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, PAHs 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 on over-snow vehicle emissions on air quality and water quality.
• Use applicable practices of BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized 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.
Eldorado National Forest 92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Specify season-of-use to be at times when the snowpack is expected to be of suitable depth.
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) and BMP-10 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.
Methodology The hydrologic analysis includes all water resources that could be affected by the public’s use of OSVs on trails and areas designated for OSV use and on groomed trails. This includes perennial and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, meadows, wetlands and springs.
Seasonal streams include intermittent and ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams run for a short period of time with rainfall and snowmelt, whereas intermittent streams run for most of the year, except during times when water loss exceeds water availability in the channel. Impacts relevant to hydrologic resources include:
• Modification of surface-water runoff timing and magnitude owing to interception of surface and subsurface runoff by routes during rainfall and snowmelt. • Water quality impacts including increased erosion of OSV route surfaces, hillslopes, and channels, with consequent increases in fluvial loads of sediment and other pollutants such as nutrients or organic chemicals derived from OSV emissions.
Analysis Assumptions
Assumption 1: Snow Plowing and Removal Snow plowing and removal occurs on paved surfaces in snow parks and does not cause soil disturbance, alter existing drainage patterns, or affect soil permeability. It is not part of the proposed action, but is an on-going and reasonably foreseeable action that should be considered especially for cumulative effects. Snow removal at trailhead parking areas has been occurring for decades. BMPs would be applied that ensure that snowmelt from snow storage areas does not result in erosion or impair quality of surface waters. The thaw rate in snow storage areas is typically slow, and snow is placed where the runoff percolates into the soil. High runoff rates are uncommon from snow storage areas. As a result, erosion or siltation from snow storage runoff is minimal. With implementation of BMPs, snow removal would not cause significant impacts from erosion. The snow removal operations at trailhead parking areas would not result in direct impacts on water quality. Snowmelt from snow storage areas could contain a more concentrated level of fuel deposits, oils, sand, and particulates. Snow is removed in designated storage areas where the snowmelt can percolate into the soil and sheet flow across parking areas is avoided; and direct discharge into surface water is avoided. As a result, the potential for water quality impacts associated with contaminants in the snow from plow equipment use is considered minimal. Snow removal operations are subject to BMPs, which ensure compliance with Federal Clean Water Act requirements.
Eldorado National Forest 93 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Consequently, project activities including snow removal are consistent with LRMP watershed management standard and guidelines and management prescriptions.
Assumption 2: Trail Grooming Trail grooming does not cause substantial impacts to water quality, perennial, intermittent or ephemeral streams, wetlands, or to other bodies of water. This is because the direct project activities of trail grooming occur over an existing road and trail network and do not alter landforms or result in significant soil disturbance that would change water flow patterns or quantities of surface water runoff. Consequently, project activities including snow removal, trail grooming, and OSV travel on groomed trails are consistent with LRMP watershed management standards and guidelines and management prescriptions.
Assumption 3: OSV Use on Trails Most OSV trails are snow-covered unpaved roads and trails. The primary pollutant of concern in forested environments is eroded sediment from unpaved roads, fill slopes, and cut slopes. According to West (2002), roads in forested lands are the largest source of potential non-point source pollution. Fine-grained sediment from roads and trails that reaches waterbodies can potentially impair water quality. Much of the OSV use under this project would occur on groomed trails where the project calls for adequate snow cover, negligible potential for contact with bare soil, and minimal disturbance of trail and road surfaces. OSV use on the groomed trail system, given adequate snow coverage would not cause substantial impacts to water quality in perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams, in wetlands, or in other bodies of water.
Assumption 4: Cross-country Off-trail Riding by OSVs With adequate snow depths, cross-country use of OSVs would have a negligible effect on ground disturbance that could lead to erosion and sedimentation in streams or other waterbodies, and minimal effect on vegetation, especially along streams and other waterbodies. Some researchers have found that snowmobiles can contribute to erosion of trails and steep slopes. The degree of potential erosion is dependent on site-specific factors such as slope, aspect, elevation, adjacent vegetation, level of use, and weather conditions. Olliff et al. (1999) found that if steep slopes are intensively used, snow may be removed and the ground surface exposed to extreme weather conditions and increased erosion by continued snowmobile traffic. Similar results could occur when snowmobiles use exposed southern exposures. Public OSV use in off-trail open riding areas where there is minimal snow cover or bare patches of ground could possibly result in destruction of vegetation, soil compaction, and erosion in areas of repeated and concentrated use.
Off-trail public OSV use would be generally dispersed and would not result in high concentration of OSV use on bare soil. Also, travel over bare soil can damage machines, so it is generally avoided by operators. With adequate minimum snow levels, this plan would result in no more than incidental soil erosion, and therefore, would not create water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by introducing sediment in water runoff.
Cross-country OSV use could affect woody riparian species by the bending and breaking of branches as recreationists run over the branches (Neumann and Merriam 1972). This is most likely to occur with lower snow depths, such as the beginning of the winter season, and before sufficient snow has accumulated to protect vegetation, and during spring snowmelt. Regenerating timber could also be affected by bending and breaking of leaders with inadequate snow depth. Vegetation trampling from snowmobiles and impacts to riparian resources from public OSV use would be considered negligible with adequate snowpack coverage. Eldorado National Forest 94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Widespread snow compaction from cross-country OSV uses can affect snowmelt patterns, and in turn, the hydrologic regime. Studies have found delayed snowmelt in areas compacted by snowmobiles versus areas of uncompacted snow (Keddy et al. 1979, Neumann and Merriam 1972). During spring snowmelt, these effects can reduce the ability of the snow to slow runoff. It is unknown how much OSV-related snow compaction would affect runoff rate and timing, but some studies suggest up to a 2-week delay. Because snow compaction from off-trail cross-country use is currently not extensive on a watershed scale, measureable changes in hydrology are not expected.
When OSVs are operated on adequate snow depths, the effects of cross-country OSV use are consistent with the Eldorado National Forest LRMP, including RCOs, watershed management standards and guidelines, and management prescriptions.
Assumption 5: Exhaust Emissions Exhaust emissions deposited in the snowpack in the amounts anticipated on the Eldorado National Forest from grooming equipment or OSVs on trails or OSVs traveling cross-country would be considered minor and currently do not functionally impair water quality of adjacent waterbodies. In addition to exhaust emissions, grooming equipment and OSVs could potentially leave behind unburned fuel, lubrication oil, and other compounds on the top layers of snow. Some of the unburned hydrocarbons could accumulate on the snow surface and could eventually wash into streams and lakes. This could cause localized degradation of water quality. Concentrations of pollutants from OSVs have been observed in snowmelt runoff (Arnold and Koel 2006, McDaniel and Zielinska 2014). Discharge from two-stroke snowmobile engines can lead to indirect pollutant deposition into the top layer of snow and subsequently into the associated surface and ground water (Adams 1975). Hagemann and Van Mouweik (1999) found that there is a potential risk to aquatic life from snowmobile emissions, but that the risk could not be quantified because of a current lack of water quality data. Adams (1975) showed that high concentrations of lead and hydrocarbons were found in pond water adjacent to snowmobile trails during the weeks following ice melt. The study also found that juvenile brook trout had increased hydrocarbon intake and reduced stamina, from surface water and food chain feeding.
Studies conducted in the Rocky Mountain region provide some indication of the potential effects of pollution deposition from OSV use. The U.S. Geological Survey monitored the snowpack throughout the northern Rocky Mountains over a period of several years to measure regional water quality trends as well as the effect of OSV use. The monitoring showed a relationship between OSV use and pollutant deposition in the snowpack, but not more than negligible to minor quantities of OSV-related pollution in snowmelt. Detectable vehicle-related pollution in snowmelt was found to be in the range of background or near-background levels (Ingersoll et al. 2005 as cited in NPS 2007). A study in Yellowstone National Park analyzed snowmelt from four test locations adjacent to roadways and parking lots heavily used by OSVs between Yellowstone’s West Entrance at West Yellowstone, Montana, and the Old Faithful visitor area. No cross-country OSV use was allowed, and OSVs were concentrated on one main trail into the park. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether increased snowmobile use within the Park was creating increased potential for emissions to enter pristine surface waters. Specific objectives were to (1) examine snowmelt runoff for the presence of specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs), (2) determine if concentrations of any VOCs exceed safe drinking water criteria, and (3) predict the potential for impacts by VOCs on the fauna of streams near roads heavily used by snowmobiles in the park. In spring 2003 and 2004, water samples were collected and tested. In situ water quality measurements (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity) were collected; all were found within acceptable limits. Five VOCs were detected (benzene,
Eldorado National Forest 95 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ethylbenzene, m- and p-xylene, o-xylene, and toluene). The very low concentrations were found to be below EPA criteria and guidelines for the VOCs analyzed and were below levels that would adversely impact aquatic ecosystems (Arnold and Koel 2006). The number of snowmobiles entering Yellowstone in 2003 and 2004 was 47,799 and 22,423, respectively (Arnold and Koel 2006); all routed through a singe trailhead. The estimated seasonal day use of OSV trails across the Eldorado National Forest is around 10,000 OSVs. These visitations are spread across multiple trailheads and trail systems and do not all occur in the same location. As a result, OSV seasonal use levels at any Eldorado National Forest trailhead or trail system are considerably less than OSV use that occurred at Yellowstone National Park, and are considered very low. Since Yellowstone OSV use levels studied had not resulted in impaired water quality, due to much lower use numbers it follows that the OSV use in the project area would not adversely affect water quality of snowmelt. Therefore, due to very low concentrations of pollutants from OSV use, operation of OSVs on system trails and cross- country would be consistent with water quality objectives adopted by the Forest and consistent with direction in the Eldorado National Forest LRMP, including Riparian Conservation Objectives and watershed management standards and guidelines.
Assumption 6: Other Hydrologic Impacts This project would (1) 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; (2) not expose people or property to a risk of flooding nor increase the risk of flooding for existing development in floodplains; (3) not place housing or other structures within a flood hazard area; (4) not involve a change in water use, affect a private or public water supply, or affect the quantity or quality of groundwater recharge, aquifer volume or cause a lowering of the local groundwater table level; (5) not involve an increase in impervious surfaces, and (6) not involve discharges of storm water or wastewater.
Assumption 7: Equivalent Roaded Area Model not Appropriate The equivalent roaded acre (ERA) model (FSH 1990a: chapter 20) was not used for this analysis to show cumulative watershed effects. Direct impacts to watersheds and stream courses that result from this project are limited. There are no new ground-disturbing activities proposed with this project. As long as adequate snow depths are maintained, because there are virtually no direct or indirect effects, using the ERA model will not show any detectable differences between alternatives and is not appropriate for this scale of analysis, which covers over 600,000 acres. The ERA model is beneficial at demonstrating changes in ERA for plans that intend to disturb hundreds to thousands of acres for fuels reduction, travel management or timber harvest plans, or to show cumulative effects of wildfires. This project is not creating a new disturbance on the landscape for any alternative. Changing the overall acreage of areas open for OSVs will not lead to increases or decreases in ground disturbance as long as OSVs are managed appropriately. Finally, the ERA method would not show any detectable differences within the sixth field watersheds in this analysis.
Assumption 8: Global Climate Change Climate change is expected to substantially affect California over the next 50 years (http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/062807factsheet.pdf). Precipitation is likely to become more variable from year to year. Warmer temperatures would reduce the proportion of precipitation that falls as snow and increase the proportion that falls as rain. This shift would result in higher peak flows, more frequent flooding, increased erosion, reduced summer base flows, more frequent droughts, and increased summertime stream temperatures. The season of use for OSVs use may change as the snowpack becomes more variable from year to year.
Eldorado National Forest 96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial and temporal bounds for discussing and analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on water resources and associated riparian areas and wetlands would be the watersheds within the Eldorado NF. Short-term effects are generally around up to 1 year in duration, and long-term effects are over one year in duration.
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 26. Indicators used for the hydrologic analyses Resource Element Resource Indicator Usefulness of Indicator Measure Water Quality (Ground Area designated for OSV use Impacts are widely dispersed and differences in Disturbance and (acres) alternatives are minor Potential for Soil Erosion) Water Quality (Ground Minimum Snow Depth for OSV Use Minimum snow depths on trails can be evaluated Disturbance and on Designated Trails (Inches) for effectiveness for protecting the trail surface Potential for Soil Erosion) Water Quality (Ground Minimum Snow Depth for Cross- Minimum snow depths for cross-country travel Disturbance and country OSV Use (Inches) can be evaluated for effectiveness for protecting Potential for Soil the ground surface and vegetation Erosion) Water Quality (OSV Number of snowmobiles per year Total amount of use can be compared to use Emissions) using trails across forest amounts in Yellowstone and other studies to gauge potential water quality effects Riparian Conservation Consistency with Riparian Evaluation of the effects to RCAs, water quality Areas Conservation Objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, and beneficial uses of water and 6
Affected Environment The OSV project area on the Eldorado National Forest is located in the central Sierra Nevada mountain range with the majority of the project area occurring on the west side of the crest. There are many streams, lakes and reservoirs within the project area. Many waterbodies are directly accessed or crossed by the Silver Bear Trail System or can be accessed by OSVs going cross-country in areas designated for OSV use.
Table 27 summarizes the affected environment for hydrologic resources, which includes watershed areas on National Forest System lands. The Eldorado National Forest is subdivided into 88 6th-level watersheds. The watershed average size is about 29,000 acres. The existing condition of watersheds (watershed health) on the Forest varies depending upon amount of disturbance found within each watershed and the degree of natural integrity of the system. Disturbance in the form of land management activities, such as timber management, road construction, livestock grazing, mining, recreation, and special-uses can adversely affect a watershed's condition. Management activity effects are influenced in part by the local terrain, the precipitation regime, and other factors.
Eldorado National Forest 97 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 27. Hydrologic characteristics of the OSV analysis area within Eldorado National Forest Hydrologic Characteristics Location . Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California. . Western edge of the ENF is east of Sacramento. . Eastern edge of the ENF is just southeast of Lake Tahoe. Elevation . Approximately 2,000 feet in the western edge of the ENF. . Approximately 10,000 feet in the southeast edge of the ENF.
Climate . Most of the precipitation occurs between November and April. . Above 5,000 feet, precipitation is dominated by snow that equates to roughly 50 to 60 inches of water per year. . Below 4,000 feet, precipitation is dominated by approximately 40 to 50 inches of rain/year. Aquatic features . 1,248 miles of perennial streams and 842 miles of seasonal (intermittent) streams. . 1,108 lakes, which range from less than 1 acre to more than 2,740 acres in size. . 1,857 meadows, which total 10,416 acres with an average size of 5.6 acres. Major drainage . The North Fork American River and the South Fork American River, which both flow basins/rivers to the west and into the Sacramento River. (HUC 4 watersheds)1. . The Cosumnes River and the Mokelumne River, which both flow to the west and into the San Joaquin River. (HUC 4 watersheds).1 1 Watersheds . 4 th field watersheds (HUC 4): 7. Average size of 398,360 acres (622 square miles). . 5th field watersheds (HUC 5): 28. Average size of 95,975 acres (150 square miles). . 6th field watersheds (HUC 6): 88. Average size of 29,070 acres (45 square miles). . 7th field watersheds (HUC 7): 155. Average size of 7204 acres (11.3 square miles); 95% of the 7th field watersheds are between 2,000 and 15,000 acres. Beneficial uses of Municipal water supplies for domestic use; hydropower generation; contact and non- water2 contact recreation; canoeing and rafting; cold freshwater habitat; spawning habitat; and wildlife habitat. Clean Water Act . Two rivers do not meet State water quality standards and are on the 303(d) list: 303(d) Water Bodies Cosumnes River, Upper (above Michigan Bar) (for invas ive species, source unknown), and the South Fork American River below Slab Creek reservoir (for mercury, resource extraction from abandoned mines).3
1 HUC = Hydrologic Unit Code. HUC is the national system for classifying watersheds. The largest scale watersheds are HUC 1 (1st field). The ENF is part of the HUC 1 w atershed that drains into the Pacific Ocean. The ENF includes portions of the HUC 2 and HUC 3 w atersheds (2nd and 3rd fields) - the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. 2 Beneficial uses of w ater are designated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 3 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1972 requires each state to identify w aterbodies that fail to meet applicable w ater quality standards (CVRWQCB 2006).
Surface Water The Eldorado NF contains portions of four major drainage basins: the North Fork American River, the South Fork American River, the Cosumnes River, and the Mokelumne River. These four drainage basins include 155 watersheds (7th field or HUC 7 watersheds) and approximately 1,248 miles of perennial streams and 842 miles of intermittent streams. The forest also has 1,108 lakes and reservoirs ranging in size from less than 1 acre to more than 2,740 acres in size.
Eldorado National Forest 98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The hydrology of the project area is dynamic and evolving. There can be large annual variations in water availability and quality, seasonal flow rates, and water temperatures. Precipitation and snow accumulation also can change over time as a result of climate change. Modern human activities have altered the natural dynamics of water through the construction of dams and diversions, watershed practices that alter water yields, temperature, and sedimentation, and the introduction of pollutants and exotic biota. Surface waters on the forest originate as runoff from snowmelt and rainfall. Snowfall is generally the greatest contributor to total runoff, while intense rainfall events can cause the largest floods. The major runoff season on the forest is from April through June. Snowmelt runoff peaks usually occur from late May into June.
Surface water quality According to the California Water Plan Update (CA DWR 1998) the Eldorado National Forest is encompassed by the Westside of the Sierra Nevada crest region (the Sacramento River Basin). The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board oversees and sets the standards for the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and North and South Fork American River systems. The Forest Service has a memorandum of understanding with the State that names the Forest Service as a “Designated Management Agency” that will prescribe and implement a water quality control program to protect the waters of the state to meet state and Federal regulations as well as the standards set in the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan as amended for commercial silvicultural practices by Resolution R5-2006-0026 (2006).
Compared to other parts of California and the United States, the Sierra Nevada overall has relatively low sediment yields (Kattelmann 1996). General estimates show that the Sierra Nevada has the lowest sediment yield in California (generally less than 100 m³/km²/year). Sediment transport measurements in a variety of streams in the eastern Sierra Nevada were generally less than 10 m³/km²/year. A Soil Conservation Service report classified sediment yield below 150 m³/km²/year as “low” with respect to nationwide rates (Kattelmann 1996). Quality of surface water is affected by the integrity of the fluvial system. Some concerns exist for watersheds where watershed impacts have affected water quality and stream channel potential, including riparian conditions and streambank stability. These effects are in limited locations, and changes in management could improve existing conditions.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states prepare and submit a water quality summary report every two years to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires states to submit to EPA lists of waterbodies that meet 303(d) listing criteria. This list identifies water quality-limited waterbodies. Water quality impacts can be from point and/or nonpoint sources of pollution, and may require additional controls to meet state water quality standards. These waterbodies are prioritized based on the severity of the pollution and other factors. Two rivers do not meet State water quality standards and are on the 303(d) list: Cosumnes River (for exotic species), and the South Fork American River below Slab Creek reservoir (for mercury) (table 28).
Surface water uses Surface water from the Eldorado National Forest is used both consumptively and non-consumptively. Uses in both categories depend on high quality water. Non-consumptive water uses include recreation, wildlife, fisheries, and the aesthetic quality of this resource. Value on the forest is high for these uses. Much of the recreation use on the forest revolves around waterbodies, including sightseeing, camping, fishing, and boating. Most campgrounds on the Forest are located near lakes and streams.
Consumptive water uses include hydropower generation, fish hatcheries, downstream agriculture, road construction, fire protection, dust abatement, and special use permits. The Eldorado contains no municipal
Eldorado National Forest 99 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences watersheds that are managed under any type of agreement. However, water generated from the forest is used for municipal supply for some areas.
Table 28. Impaired waterbodies on the Eldorado NF listed on the EPA 303(d) list Water Body Name Pollutant/Stressor Source Area Affected South Fork American River Mercury Resource extraction abandoned 37 miles below Slab Creek reservoir mines Cosumnes River, Upper Invasive species Source Unknown 17 miles (above Michigan Bar) Source: Cal EPA CVWQCB 2007
Table 29. State water quality standards that are relevant to motorized OSV routes
Category Standard Beneficial Uses Potentially Affected Bacteria Fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed a geometric mean Contact Recreation (REC-1) of 200/100 ml (min. of 5 samples / 30-day period), nor more than 10 percent of samples (30-day period) exceed 400/100 ml. Color Water shall be free of discoloration that causes nuisance or Domestic or municipal adversely affects beneficial uses. Contact Recreation Non- contact Recreation
Floating Water shall not contain floating material in amounts that cause Domestic or municipal Material nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Contact Recreation Non- contact Recreation Power
Oil and Grease Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials All that causes nuisance, a visible film or coating on the surface or on objects in water, or otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses.
Total Dissolved Shall not exceed 125 mg/l (90 percentile). Domestic or municipal Solids Contact Recreation Aquatic organisms Sediment The suspended sediment load and discharge rate of surface All waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Settle-able Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that Domestic or municipal Materials result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or Power adversely affects beneficial uses. Aquatic organisms
Suspended Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations All Material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Turbidity Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance All or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed the following Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)s: For natural turbidity between: Increases shall not exceed 0 and 5 NTUs 1 NTU 5 and 50 NTUs 20 percent 50 and 100 NTUs 10 NTUs Greater than 100 NTUs 10 percent.
Eldorado National Forest 100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Surface Water Protection Measures Public water supplies are protected by the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was amended in 1996. The Safe Drinking Water Act does not require source areas to deliver water of potable quality with no need for treatment. In fact, waters in pristine areas usually need treatment due to natural waterborne parasites, such as giardia.
Best management practices have been adopted to protect water quality in compliance with the Clean Water Act. BMPs cover a wide variety of land management actions on National Forest System lands, including watershed management, timber, transportation and facilities, pesticide-use, recreation, minerals, fish and wildlife habitat, and fire suppression and fuels management. When BMPs are properly applied, pollutant delivery to streams and lakes is minimal and recovery of waters and aquatic sites should be rapid. The physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters in all watersheds should be as good as in watersheds that are managed exclusively for domestic and municipal supplies.
Groundwater Rainfall and snowmelt, as well as producing surface runoff, also recharge groundwater sources on the forest. Groundwater aquifers release water during periods of low precipitation to maintain base flows of streams. Groundwater is of beneficial use both on and off-forest, in the form of water supply wells. Communities use groundwater for part or all of their municipal water supply, while other residents use individua l domestic wells. Consumptive use of groundwater on the forest is low. Such use is limited to special-use permittees and Forest Service campgrounds and administrative sites with domestic wells. The existing condition of groundwater on the forest is good, although not all wells provide high-quality drinking water. Past management activities on the forest do not appear to have adversely affected groundwater quality. No groundwater contamination from recreation uses (toilets) has been recorded, with all road-accessible toilets being of the pump-vault type. Some potential for such groundwater contamination exists at heavily used recreation sites with limited facilities.
Riparian Areas and Wetlands Riparian areas are the transition zone between uplands and water in lakes and rivers. Riparian ecosystems are characterized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous vegetation that require free or unbound water, or conditions that are moister than those of surrounding areas. Riparian ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, wetlands, lakeside zones, and floodplains will be jointly referred to as riparian areas. The terms riparian zones and riparian areas are used interchangeably, but by strict ecological definition, may not be the same in all instances. Riparian areas occur in stream corridors, along lakeshores, and around springs, wetlands, and wet meadows. Vegetation in riparian areas can include characteristic woody riparian hardwood types such as aspen, alder, or willow, or it can include larger and more vigorous trees of the same species as found on adjacent uplands.
The forest contains a variety of wetlands. Wetlands are defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USDD Army Corps of Engineers 1989) as: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, fens, bogs, and similar areas.”
Riparian ecosystems are generally inclusive of wetlands. Healthy riparian areas, with an abundance of trees and other vegetation, slow flood waters and reduce the likelihood of downstream flooding. Riparian areas improve water quality by filtering runoff and sediment from flood flows and adjacent upland slopes. Healthy riparian areas act like a sponge, absorbing water readily during periods of excess. Water slowed by riparian areas enters the groundwater. Some of it is released later, increasing late summer and fall Eldorado National Forest 101 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences streamflow. Riparian areas produce an abundance of stream cover and shade, which in turn limit the amount of water temperature fluctuation in the stream. This limiting in water temperature is generally advantageous to cold-water fish species. Benefits provided by riparian areas include food, cover, and nesting habitat for birds. Many animals visit and live in riparian areas. They come for water, food, cover, and temperature moderation. Riparian areas often provide sheltered upstream and downstream transportation corridors to other habitats. Fish depend upon healthy riparian areas to provide stable channels, sustained water supply, clean and cool water, food, and streambank cover.
Riparian areas are attractive and inviting to forest visitors. People often seek water and riparian environments for recreation activities. Management of riparian areas is considered in the context of the environment in which they are located, while recognizing their special values. Riparian-dependent resources include fisheries, stream channel stability, water quality, and wildlife.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Current OSV use would continue on approximate 458,600 acres under the no-action alternative. Minimum snow depths would be 12 inches for both groomed trails and for cross-country OSV use.
Incidental direct effects including ground disturbance in low-snow areas could potentially occur under current use. Snowmobiles and other OSVs have low ground pressure. However, in some instances snowmobile tracks have the capacity to break through thinner snowpack and churn soil, litter or trail surfaces in to the snow, and create isolated ruts in the soil or trail surface. Churned soil may get incorporated in runoff when snow melts.
However, much of the OSV use under this alternative currently occurs on groomed trails where the management strategy calls for 18 inches of snow cover before grooming can occur and at least 12 inches of snow cover for OSV use to occur. This would result in a low potential for contact with bare soil and practically no disturbance of the underlying road surface.
For cross-country OSV use and OSV use on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System, the 12-inch minimum snow depth has been observed to be adequate to mitigate and eliminate substantial water quality impacts such as stream sedimentation in perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams, in wetlands, or in other bodies of water. Current OSV use has not resulted in more than incidental and isolated direct effects such as soil erosion of groomed trail surfaces, and therefore, have not created indirect water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by increasing sediment in water runoff.
There has been and would continue to be incidental and isolated ground contact in areas where OSVs operating cross-country would contact the ground surface due to variations in snow depths such as on high wind-exposed ridges, and southern-facing slopes. Off-trail OSV use is generally dispersed and does not result in high concentration of ground disturbance from OSV use on bare soil. With adequate minimum snow depths, current conditions would result in no more than incidental surface disturbance and soil erosion, and therefore, would not create water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by introducing sediment in water runoff.
Cross-country OSV use has the potential to directly affect woody riparian species by trampling, including bending and breaking of branches by OSVs running over the branches. This has the potential to directly affect shade along streams by reducing vegetation cover. However, direct effects to vegetation probably
Eldorado National Forest 102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences do occur under current conditions, but the effects are limited by requiring adequate snow cover before allowing OSV use.
As a result, vegetation trampling from snowmobiles and potential impacts to riparian resources from OSV use would be considered negligible with adequate snowpack coverage, and no direct or indirect changes to vegetation would be expected from the no-action alternative. Riparian woody shrub species along stream courses would continue to be protected by the 12-inch snow cover requirement by limiting the direct physical trampling effect from snowmobiles on vegetation.
The direct effect of widespread snow compaction from cross-country OSV use can create more dense snow that leads to an indirect effect of slower melt rate, and could in turn indirectly affect the hydrologic regime by delaying snowmelt rates. It is unknown how much OSV-related snow compaction would affect runoff rate and timing, but some studies suggest up to a 2-week delay. However, because snow compaction from cross-country use is currently not extensive, measureable changes in hydrology on a watershed scale are not expected. Direct and indirect effects from overall numbers of OSVs can be used to gauge water quality effects. About 2,400 OSVs per year are currently using forest trails and would have access to cross-country open areas. OSV users would be spread over several trailheads, so actual user numbers would be lower for a particular area. Studies on OSV impacts on water quality indicate that even at much higher use levels, there would be no adverse effects on water quality from OSV emissions. The number of snowmobiles that entered Yellowstone in 2003 and 2004 was 47,799 and 22,423, respectively. At Yellowstone, OSVs were confined to a few trails. Since the much higher Yellowstone OSV use levels studied have not resulted in impaired water quality, it follows that the OSV use in the project area for this alternative would not adversely affect water quality of snowmelt.
However, the authorized operation of OSVs occurs over a protective layer of snow, and direct and indirect effects to hydrology would be isolated and incidental. Furthermore, for existing minimum operating snow depths, this alternative would not result in more than incidental soil erosion and therefore would not create water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by introducing sediment in to water runoff. Therefore, with adequate snow depths, cross-country OSV use and OSV use on trails would be consistent with the Eldorado National Forest LRMP, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, including RCOs, watershed management standards and guidelines, and management prescriptions.
Water quality effects from OSV exhaust stored in snowpack would be negligible and not exceed water quality standards. As a result, current operation of OSVs on designated trails and open areas would be consistent with water quality objectives in the Eldorado NF LRMP, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, including RCOs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, watershed management standards and guidelines, and management prescriptions.
The RCOs apply to all routes that pass through RCAs and meadows. Under alternative 1, groomed OSV trails and cross-country travel would be allowed within RCAs, but because of the layer of snowpack protecting the ground surface, there is currently a very low resource damage potential. Although no restrictions on OSVs in riparian areas, frozen lakes, or meadows are currently in place, no adverse impacts to these areas have been observed.
Consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives RCOs 1 and 6: Under alternative 1, beneficial uses of waterbodies would be protected and enhanced. There would be no changes in water storage, seasonal availability, or quality.
Eldorado National Forest 103 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences RCOs 2, 4, and 5: Under alternative 1, the geomorphic and biological characteristics of meadows, streams and RCAs would be protected. Because there would be no sedimentation, there would likely be no changes to aquatic primary productivity. Growing season water availability would remain unchanged and would not affect ecosystem integrity.
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 1 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project area include vegetation management, livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and recreation. There are many past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in the Eldorado NF that may be ground-disturbing and could potentially add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters within the Forest. The Forest Service utilizes BMPs in compliance with the Clean Water Act to minimize water quality impacts. The Forest Service monitors roads and trails used by OSVs and implements BMPs to control erosion and other effects.
The risks of cumulative effects from this alternative are very low, because, as a result of the 12-inch minimum snow depth, there would continue to be only incidental ground disturbance, low risk of damage to vegetation or other direct and indirect effects. As a result, there would be no change to cumulative watershed effects or equivalent roaded acres (ERA) calculations for any watersheds under this alternative.
There would be negligible effects from exhaust emissions stored in snowpack. This alternative would open the highest amount of land area to OSVs. This alternative would provide adequate snow cover to protect soils and water resources, and to protect vegetation in riparian areas. This alternative would be consistent with Eldorado National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines, and would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil, water, or riparian resources.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed action would be similar to the current use under Alternative 1 in terms of effects to hydrology. OSV use would be designated as open to cross-country OSV use on approximately 435,600 acres of Eldorado National Forest, which is approximately 23,000 acres fewer than under Alternative 1. The proposed action would require at least 6 inches of packed snow on groomed OSV trails (Silver Bear Trail System), and would require a minimum of 12 inches of snow cover for cross-country OSV use. The minimum snow depth before snow trail grooming could occur would be 12 inches.
Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of alternative 2 would be similar to alternative 1, except for slightly lower number of acres open to OSVs, and the snow depth requirement for use of groomed OSV trails. Under this alternative, about 20,000 acres less National Forest System land would be open to OSV use. Because direct and indirect effects of this alternative would be negligible, having less acreage open to OSVs would lead to no increase in direct or indirect effects on hydrology. As in alternative 1, incidental direct effects including ground disturbance in low-snow areas may occur under this alternative. One substantial difference in this alternative would be the minimum 6 inches of snow depth required for the use of groomed trails. Because minimum snow levels under alternative 2 would be lower than the current conditions on designated groomed trails, there would be a slightly higher risk of ground disturbance and subsequent water quality impacts. The snow on groomed trails would likely be compacted considerably by the grooming process, which would offer more protection of trail surfaces compared to the same depth of un-groomed snow. In addition, the underlying surface of the groomed trail system is mostly NFS roads and trails.
Eldorado National Forest 104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Overall, however, the majority of OSV use in alternative 2 would occur over a protective layer of snow, and direct and indirect effects to hydrology would likely be isolated and incidental. As a result, for proposed minimum snow levels, this alternative would not result in more than incidental soil erosion and therefore would create negligible water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by introducing sediment in to water runoff.
With adequate snow depths, OSV use on trails would be consistent with the Eldorado NF LRMP, including RCOs, watershed management standards and guidelines, and management prescriptions. Although adverse effects would not be expected, periodic monitoring would be required consistent with BMP 4-7 as a mitigation in areas with a 6-inch minimum snow depth to ensure there would not be impacts to the trail surface that could lead to stream sedimentation.
Under alternative 2, much of the OSV use under this alternative would occur on groomed trails where the management strategy calls for 12 inches of snow cover before grooming can occur. This would result in negligible potential for contact with bare soil and practically no disturbance of trail and road surfaces. For OSV use on the groomed OSV trail system, the 6-inch requirement would be adequate to protect trail surfaces. The 6-inch minimum snow depth standard snow coverage for groomed OSV trails would likely be adequate to mitigate and eliminate substantial indirect water quality impacts such as stream sedimentation in perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams, in wetlands, or in other bodies of water.
As in alternative 1, the proposed 12-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use would not result in more than incidental and isolated direct effects such as soil erosion of groomed trail surfaces, and therefore would not create indirect water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by increasing sediment in water runoff. There would continue to be incidental and isolated ground contact in areas where OSVs operating cross-country could potentially contact the ground surface due to variations in snow depths, such as on high wind-exposed ridges and southern-facing slopes. However, cross-country OSV use would be generally dispersed and would not result in a high concentration of ground disturbance from OSV use on bare soil, so effects would be negligible. With adequate minimum snow levels, alternative 2 would result in no more than incidental surface disturbance and soil erosion, and therefore, would not create water quality impacts to streams or waterbodies by introducing sediment in water runoff. Similar to alternative 1, cross-country OSV use would have the potential to directly affect woody riparian species by trampling, including bending and breaking of branches by OSVs running over vegetation. This would have the potential to directly affect shade along streams by reducing vegetation cover. Direct effects to vegetation probably would occur under alternative 2, but the effects would be limited by requiring adequate snow cover before allowing OSV use. As a result, vegetation trampling from snowmobiles and potential impacts to riparian resources from OSV use would be considered negligible with adequate snowpack coverage, and no direct or indirect changes to vegetation would be expected from the proposed action alternative. Riparian woody shrub species along stream courses would continue to be protected by the 12-inch snow cover requirement by limiting the direct physical trampling effect from snowmobiles on vegetation. The direct effect of widespread snow compaction from cross-country OSV use under alternative 2 would create denser snow that could lead to an indirect effect of slower snowmelt rates, and could, in turn, indirectly affect the hydrologic regime by delaying snowmelt rates in localized areas. It is unknown how much OSV-related snow compaction would affect runoff rates and timing, and some studies suggest up to a 2-week delay in melting for heavily compacted snow such as on groomed OSV trails. It is not expected that cross-country snowmobile use would heavily compact snow over large areas. Because the areal extent of snow compaction from cross-country OSV use combined with compacted Eldorado National Forest 105 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences snow on groomed trails would not be extensive on a watershed scale, measureable changes in hydrologic relationships would not be expected.
As described in the assumptions for this alternative, water quality effects from OSV exhaust hydrocarbon emissions stored in snowpack under alternative 2 would be negligible and not exceed water quality standards. Under alternative 2, operation of OSVs on system trails and cross-country would be consistent with water quality objectives in the Eldorado NF LRMP, including RCOs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, watershed management standards and guidelines, and management prescriptions.
The RCOs apply to all routes that pass through RCAs and meadows. Under alternative 2, groomed OSV trails and cross-country travel would be allowed within RCAs, but because of the layer of snowpack protecting the ground surface, there would be a negligible resource damage potential. Similar to the no- action alternative, there would be no restrictions on OSVs in riparian areas, lakes, or meadows. Based on current management observations, adverse impacts to these areas would not be expected to occur.
Consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives RCOs 1 and 6: Under alternative 2, beneficial uses of waterbodies would be protected and enhanced. There would be no changes in water storage, seasonal availability, or quality.
RCOs 2, 4, and 5: Under alternative 2, the geomorphic and biological characteristics of meadows, streams, and RCAs would be protected. Because there would be no sedimentation, there would likely be no changes to aquatic primary productivity. Growing season water availability would remain unchanged and would not affect ecosystem integrity.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project area include vegetation management, livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and recreation. There are many past, on-going, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in the Eldorado NF that may be ground-disturbing and could potentially add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters within the forest. Wildfires are unforeseeable events that could directly impair water quality until vegetation recovers. The risks of cumulative effects from this alternative would be negligible. As a result of the 12-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country use, there would continue to be only incidental ground disturbance. As a result, there would be no change to equivalent roaded acres (ERA) calculations for any watersheds under this alternative, and no change in detrimental cumulative watershed effects. There would be negligible effects from exhaust emissions stored in snowpack, and low risk of damage to vegetation or other direct and indirect effects. This alternative would provide adequate snow cover to protect soils and water resources, and to protect vegetation in riparian areas. This alternative would be consistent with Eldorado NF LRMP standards and guidelines. This alternative would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil, water, or riparian resources.
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would have similar effects to hydrology as under alternative 2, although approximately 310,400 fewer acres would be designated as open to cross-country OSV use. Alternative 3 would designate approximately 125,200 acres of National Forest System land as open to cross-country OSV use. In addition, minimum snow depth requirements under Alternative 3 are increased as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes an 18-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use, 12
Eldorado National Forest 106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences inches for groomed OSV trails, and a minimum of 18 inches of snow cover before grooming of trails could occur.
Direct and Indirect Effects Many of the direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 on hydrology would be the same as described in alternative 2. However, potential effects would be restricted to much fewer acres that would be open to OSVs. Under this alternative, about 310,400 acres less National Forest System land would be designated as open to OSV use. There would be a very low risk of direct and indirect effects on hydrology from this alternative; overall the risk would be negligible as discussed in alternative 2. Less acreage open to OSVs would lead to less risk of direct or indirect effects on hydrology. As in alternative 2, incidental direct effects including ground disturbance in lower snow areas such as wind-swept ridges that could potentially occur under this alternative. This alternative requires a minimum 18 inches of snow depth for cross-country OSV use and for grooming of OSV trails, and a minimum 12 inches of snow depth for the use of designated trails for protection of the underlying trail and road surface.
As in alternative 2, although adverse effects would not be expected, periodic monitoring would be required consistent with BMP 4-7 as a mitigation to ensure there would not be impacts to trail surfaces that could lead to stream sedimentation. The RCOs apply to all routes that pass through RCAs and meadows. Under alternative 3, groomed OSV trails and cross-country travel would be allowed within RCAs, but because of the layer of snowpack protecting the ground surface, there is negligible resource damage potential. Although there would be no restrictions on OSVs in riparian areas, lakes, or meadows under this alternative, no adverse impacts are expected based on observations from current management.
Consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives RCO 1 and 6: Under alternative 3, beneficial uses of waterbodies would be protected and enhanced. There would be no changes in water storage, seasonal availability, or quality.
RCO 2, 4, and 5: Under alternative 3, the geomorphic and biological characteristics of meadows, streams, and RCAs would be protected. Because there would be no sedimentation, there would likely be no changes to aquatic primary productivity. Growing season water availability would remain unchanged and would not affect ecosystem integrity.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project area include vegetation management, livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and recreation. There are many past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in the Eldorado NF that may be ground-disturbing and could potentially add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters within the Forest. Wildfires are unforeseeable events that could directly impair water quality until vegetation recovers.
The risks of cumulative effects from this alternative would be negligible. As a result of the 18-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country use, there would continue to be only incidental ground disturbance. As a result, there would be no change to equivalent roaded acres (ERA) calculations for any watersheds under this alternative, and no change in detrimental cumulative watershed effects.
There would be negligible effects from exhaust emissions stored in snowpack, and low risk of damage to vegetation or other direct and indirect effects. This alternative would provide adequate snow cover to
Eldorado National Forest 107 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences protect soils and water resources, and to protect vegetation in riparian areas. This alternative would be consistent with Eldorado NF LRMP standards and guidelines. This alternative would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil, water, or riparian resources.
Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would be similar to alternative 2 in terms of effects to hydrology. It would differ slightly in that it would increase areas designated for OSV use by about 28,200 acres to approximately 463,800 acres of National Forest System land. Snow depth requirements would be same as proposed under Alternative 2.
Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of alternative 4 would similar to alternative 2. Risks to direct and indirect effects would be negligible. A higher number of acres would be open to OSVs under alternative 4. Despite the additional acres open to OSV use, direct and indirect effects of this alternative would be negligible, and having slightly more acreage open to OSVs would lead to minimal direct or indirect effects on hydrology. As in alternative 2, incidental direct effects including ground disturbance in low snow areas that could potentially occur under this alternative.
As in alternative 2, although adverse effects to hydrology would be not expected, periodic monitoring would be recommended consistent with BMP 4-7 as a mitigation in areas with a 12-inch minimum snow depth to ensure there would not be impacts to the trail surface that could lead to stream sedimentation. The RCOs apply to all routes that pass through RCAs and meadows. Under alternative 4, groomed OSV trails and cross-country travel would be allowed within RCAs, but because of the layer of snowpack protecting the ground surface, there is a very low resource damage potential. Similar to the other alternatives, no restrictions on OSVs in riparian areas, lakes, or meadows are proposed, and no adverse impacts are anticipated based on observations from current management. .
Consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives RCOs 1 and 6: Under alternative 4, beneficial uses of waterbodies would be protected and enhanced. There would be no changes in water storage, seasonal availability, or quality.
RCOs 2, 4, and 5: Under alternative 4, the geomorphic and biological characteristics of meadows, streams and RCAs would be protected. Because there would be no sedimentation, there would likely be no changes to aquatic primary productivity. Growing season water availability would remain unchanged and would not affect ecosystem integrity.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project area include vegetation management, livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and recreation. There are many past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified on the Eldorado NF that could be ground-disturbing and could potentially add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters within the Forest. Wildfires are unforeseeable events that could directly impair water quality until vegetation recovers.
The risks of cumulative effects from this alternative would be negligible. As a result of the 12-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country use, there would continue to be only incidental ground disturbance. As a result, there would be no change to equivalent roaded acres (ERA) calculations for watersheds under this alternative, and no change in detrimental cumulative watershed effects.
Eldorado National Forest 108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences There would be negligible effects from exhaust emissions stored in snowpack, and low risk of damage to vegetation or other direct and indirect effects. This alternative would provide adequate snow cover to protect soils and water resources, and to protect vegetation in riparian areas. This alternative would be consistent with Eldorado NF LRMP standards and guidelines. This alternative would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil, water, or riparian resources.
Summary of Effects The effects to hydrologic resources would be similar under each alternative. The acres designated as open for OSV use would vary between the alternatives, ranging from approximately 125,200 acres under Alternative 3 to approximately 463,800 acres under Alternative 4. However, there would be low potential for resource damage under each of the alternatives because of the layer of snowpack protecting the ground surface. The minimum snow depth requirements under each alternative would be adequate to mitigate or eliminate substantial water quality impacts such as stream sedimentation in perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams, in wetlands, or in other bodies of water. The 6-inch snow depth standard for OSV use on groomed trails under alternative 2 should be adequate to protect trails from damage because the snow would be compacted. However, consistent and timely monitoring would be implemented to ensure that snow depth requirement of 6 inches on groomed trails under alternative 2 is sufficient. Each of the alternatives would have a negilible impact on water quality as a result of hydrocarbon emissions from OSVs due to relatively low OSV use. Water quality would not be impaired and beneficial uses would be protected. There would be no watersheds with a risk of cumulative watershed effects as result of these alternatives, and these alternatives would be consistent with applicable RCOs in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
Consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives
RCOs 1 and 6: Under all alternatives, beneficial uses of waterbodies would be protected and enhanced. There would be no changes in water storage, seasonal availability, or quality.
RCOs 2, 4, and 5: Under all alternatives, the geomorphic and biological characteristics of meadows, streams and RCAs would be protected. Because there would be no sedimentation, there would likely be no changes to aquatic primary productivity. Growing season water availability would remain unchanged and would not affect ecosystem integrity.
Eldorado National Forest 109 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Terrestrial Wildlife
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) are delineated surrounding each territorial owl activity center detected on National Forest System lands since 1986. Owl activity centers are designated for all territorial owls based on: (1) the most recent documented nest site, (2) the most recent known roost site when a nest location remains unknown, and (3) a central point based on repeated daytime detections when neither nest or roost locations are known.
PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact a unit as possible. The best available habitat is selected for California spotted owl PACs to include: (1) two or more tree canopy layers; (2) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes averaging 24 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater; (3) at least 70 percent tree canopy cover (including hardwoods); and (4) in descending order of priority, CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M and other stands with at least 50 percent canopy cover (including hardwoods). Aerial photography interpretation and field verification are used as needed to delineate PACs.
As additional nest location and habitat data become available, boundaries of PACs are reviewed and adjusted as necessary to better include known and suspected nest stands and encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat. PACs are maintained regardless of California spotted owl occupancy status. However, after a stand-replacing event, habitat conditions are evaluated within a 1.5-mile radius around the activity center to identify opportunities for re-mapping the PAC. If there is insufficient suitable habitat for designating a PAC within the 1.5-mile radius, the PAC may be removed from the network.
Desired Conditions: Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to 70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.
Northe rn Goshawk Prote cted Activity Centers Northern goshawk PACs are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories detected on National Forest System lands. Northern goshawk PACs are designated based upon the latest documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the PAC is designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks during the fledgling dependency period. PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible, based on aerial photography. Where suitable nesting habitat occurs in small patches, PACs are defined as
Eldorado National Forest 110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences multiple blocks in the largest best available patches within 0.5 mile of one another. Best available forested stands for PACs have the following characteristics: (1) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes average 24 inches dbh or greater; (2) in west side conifer and east side mixed conifer forest types, stands have at least 70 percent tree canopy cover; and (3) in east side pine forest types, stands have at least 60 percent tree canopy cover. Non-forest vegetation (such as brush and meadows) should not be counted as part of the 200 acres. As additional nest location and habitat data become available, PAC boundaries are reviewed and adjusted as necessary to better include known and suspected nest stands and to encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat.
PACs are maintained regardless of northern goshawk occupancy status. PACs may be removed from the network after a stand-replacing event if the habitat has been rendered unsuitable as a northern goshawk PAC and there are no opportunities for re-mapping the PAC near the affected PAC.
Desired Conditions: Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to 70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.
Gre at Gray Owl Prote cted Activity Centers PACs are established and maintained to include the forested area and adjacent meadow around all known great gray owl nest stands. The PAC encompasses at least 50 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat (CWHR types 6, 5D, and 5M) available in the forested area surrounding the nest. The PAC also includes the meadow or meadow complex that supports the prey base for nesting owls.
Desired Conditions: Meadow vegetation in great gray owl PACs supports a sufficiently large meadow vole population to provide a food source for great gray owls through the reproductive period.
Fore st Carnivore Den Site Buffe rs Marten den sites are 100-acre buffers consisting of the highest quality habitat in a compact arrangement surrounding the den site. CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M in descending order of priority, based on availability, provide highest quality habitat for the marten.
Desired Conditions: Areas surrounding marten den sites have (1) at least 2 conifers per acre greater than 24 inches dbh with suitable denning cavities, (2) canopy closures exceeding 60 percent, (3) more than 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2, and (4) an average of 6 snags per acre on the west side and 3 per acre on the east side. Standard and Guideline 27. Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations.
Standard and Guideline 28. Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species.
Standard and Guideline 82. Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the [CSO or NGO] nest site from existing recreation, off-highway vehicle route, trail, and road
Eldorado National Forest 111 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off-highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest sites.
Standard and Guideline 89. Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the [marten] den site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off-highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites.
Federal Law
Endangerd Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 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 species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires the responsible Federal agency to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning any project or action that may affect a threatened or endangered species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to threatened or endangered species to ensure management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. This assessment is documented in a biological assessment located in the project record.
Bald Eagle Protection Act The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds. The 1972 amendments increased penalties for violating provisions of the act or regulations issued pursuant thereto and strengthened other enforcement measures. The act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury, to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior (USFWS 2007).
Methodology Species biology, habitat information, and potential for OSV-related effects, from the best available scientific information, were discussed in species account sections. Species occurrence information specific to the Eldorado National Forest was disclosed. For quantitative assessment, the amount of suitable habitat with potential to be impacted by OSV use was used to measure effects to species for the purpose of comparison by alternative. Specific reproductive site information, when available, was also used to measure effects to species. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), modeled habitat and reproductive sites for species, when available, was intersected with areas proposed to be designated for OSV use and by OSV use assumptions criteria (see OSV use assumptions on page 40 and maps in Appendix C). The resulting acres and percentages of habitat, by assumption and alternative, were disclosed and compared. Using best available scientific information, known reproductive sites were buffered (California spotted owl activity center points [0.25 mile], goshawk protected activity
Eldorado National Forest 112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences centers [0.25 mile], and bald eagle nest site points [660 feet]) to identify habitats with the greatest potential to be impacted by over-snow vehicle use and associated activities.
Assumptions Snowmobile use patterns vary by day of the week, time of the day, topography, terrain, and vegetation. The following use patterns and categories were developed to create a more accurate description of potential impacts of each alternative to species and habitats.
• Primarily day use (generally 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; grooming occurs at night).
• OSV use is highest on weekends and holidays.
• Highest concentrations of OSV use occur along groomed trails (this is supported by research documented in State Environmental Impact Report (EIR)]. Generally, groomed routes are used to access cross-country areas.
• Use is concentrated at trailheads.
• Higher use occurs in open meadows adjacent to groomed trail access and in flatter areas. • OSV “high marking” occurs primarily on slopes with open vegetation, near groomed trails.
• Lower elevations generally have less OSV use—snow occurs at lower elevations less frequently and persists for short periods of time (2 to 5 days).
• Ungroomed routes receive 50 percent less use than groomed routes (only 25,000 registered OSVs in California per State EIR, most use on groomed trails).
• OSV use is assumed to be very low (fewer than 10 riders per site per day on a weekend), depending on specific snow depths and daily temperatures. Based on surveys of Forest Sno Parks and OSV route access points, OSV use was documented until the end of April, at which point snow levels no longer allow continued use of designated OSV routes (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010). Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, April 30 is used as a cut-off date for the maximum period of interaction between snowmobiles and wildlife.
Indirect Effects (Snow Compaction): Potential indirect effects, including snow compaction and vehicle emissions, are likely to be concentrated in areas assumed to have high to moderate OSV use.
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to all of the species under consideration for analysis, including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and Forest Service sensitive species is the Eldorado National Forest boundary (unless otherwise specified) for the following reasons: the forest boundary is large enough to address wide-ranging species and Forest Service Sensitive Species’ viability is assessed at the Forest Plan area. The temporal boundary for this analysis is 10 years.
Eldorado National Forest 113 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 30. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Resource Measure Resource Element Indicator (quantify if possible) Federally Listed, Potential for All species unless otherwise noted below: Acres and Proposed Species disturbance to percentage of habitat with potential to be impacted by OSV Forest Service individuals from use Sensitive Species noise associated Number of activity centers (California spotted owl and with OSV use northern goshawk) by use category (low, moderate or high) and related within 0.25 mile of trail or open area. activities Number of buffered bald eagle nests sites with potential to be impacted by disturbance OSV use by low, moderate and high use categories.
Federally Listed, Potential for All TES Species unless noted below. Proposed Species injury or mortality Known occurrence within 0.25 mile of trail by over-snow Forest Service of individuals vehicle use. from OSV use or Sensitive Species related activities Number of observations within an open OSV use area. Applicable Potential for Indicator will not be carried forward in the analysis because Federally Listed, habitat there would be alteration to habitat. Proposed Species fragmentation or Applicable Forest modification Service Sensitive Species Marten Potential for loss Acres and percentage of connectivity corridors with potential of habitat to be impacted by OSV use connectivity Applicable Forest Potential for Qualitative discussion Service Sensitive habitat Species (willow degradation flycatcher, western bumble bee, bats) Subnivean Species Potential for Acres and percentage of habitat with potential to be impacted (prey for TES forest effects of snow by over-snow vehicle use carnivores/owls) compaction or snow compaction effects to foraging (marten) individuals
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for Terrestrial Wildlife Species Table 31 and Table 32 identifies terrestrial wildlife that may be present or have suitable habitat within the Eldorado National Forest. The list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate wildlife species for the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project was obtained on October 27, 2016 from the Sacramento Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a, 2016b).
Eldorado National Forest 114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 31. Terrestrial threatened, endangered, and proposed (TEP) species and designated or proposed critical habitat considered within this analysis Species Name TEPC Project Detections Suitable Species Addressed Status 5 Area in or Near Habitat Further/Rationale Within the Project Present Species’ Area Range Yellow-billed FT No No No No cuckoo Project area is outside the known (Coccyzus distribution of this species americanus) Yellow-billed -- No No No No; Project area is outside the cuckoo proposed critical habitat proposed critical habitat California FP/FSS Yes No Yes Yes wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)
Table 32. Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species4 considered within this analysis Species Name Project Detections in Suitable Species Addressed Further/Rationale Area or Near the Habitat Within Project Area Present Species’ Range Late-successional forest species Fisher No No Yes No (Pekania pennanti) Project area is outside the known distribution of this species Pacific marten Yes Yes Yes Yes (Martes caurina) California spotted Yes Yes Yes Yes owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Northern goshawk Yes Yes Yes Yes (Accipiter gentilis) Bats Fringed myotis Yes Yes Yes Yes (Myotis thysanodes) Pallid bat Yes Yes Yes Yes (Antrozous pallidus)
5 FE = federally endangered; FT = federally listed as threatened; FP = federal proposed for listing; FC = federal candidate for listing; FSS = Forest Service sensitive. Sources: Official federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species list obtained on October 27, 2016, from the Sacramento Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Field Offices and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sensitive Animal Species by Forest, June 30, 2013.
Eldorado National Forest 115 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Species Name Project Detections in Suitable Species Addressed Further/Rationale Area or Near the Habitat Within Project Area Present Species’ Range Townsend’s big- Yes Yes Yes Yes eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Species that utilize riparian or wetland habitats Bald eagle Yes Yes Yes Yes (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Great gray owl Yes Yes Yes Yes (Strix nebulosa) Willow flycatcher Yes Yes Yes Yes (Empidonax traillii) Terrestrial invertebrates Western bumble Yes No Yes Yes bee (Bombus occidentalis)
General Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives According to Gaines et al. (2003), the interactions between snowmobile routes and focal wildlife species are poorly documented for many species and these interactions need to be further refined with additional research and monitoring. The most common interactions between snowmobile routes and wildlife that Gaines et al. (2003) documented from the literature included trapping as facilitated by winter human access, disturbance-based displacement and avoidance, and disturbance at a specific site, usually wintering areas. To a lesser degree, hunting, trapping, poaching, collection, and habitat loss and fragmentation were other interactions identified. Specific types of habitat modification that occurred on winter recreation routes include the effect of snow compaction on the subnivean sites used by small mammals and alteration of competitor/predator communities. The same types of responses would be expected off of designated routes (i.e., cross country). Other interactions facilitated by linear recreation routes in general, but not specific to OSV use, include vehicle collision and physiological response.
Trapping Trapping of marten or any of the special-status species under consideration is not legal in California. Poaching and collecting without a valid permit are also illegal activities. These types of activities, facilitated by OSV use, are expected to be rare and addressed as a law enforcement issue. Therefore, they will not be examined in this analysis.
Disturbance
Breeding Disruption This type of disruption could impact late-successional species or wide-ranging carnivores. If the winter season overlaps with the beginning of breeding, the presence of OSVs or grooming
Eldorado National Forest 116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences equipment could disrupt courtship and nesting or denning activities due to noise and/or visual disturbance that result in behavioral changes in the animals.
Winter Range and/or Home Range Use This type of impact could impact late-successional species or wide-ranging carnivores. Noise and extended human presence from OSV activities could reduce the size of the winter home range for several wildlife species. The home range provides food, shelter, and breeding opportunity, and if it is reduced, could compromise species survival, particularly during stressful survival conditions in the winter.
Many of the species that may be active or present during the OSV season are nocturnal and may not be affected by daytime snowmobile activities at all. However, 29 percent of snowmobilers report some nighttime riding (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010) and resulting human disturbance could disrupt home range use by nocturnal species. Trail grooming activities occur at night, are infrequent, and move slowly enough that grooming is not expected to have a substantial negative effect on wildlife home range. For nocturnal and crepuscular species, trail grooming and OSV use may also result in animals avoiding areas frequented by snowmobilers and groomers.
Physiological Response Single or repeated interactions between OSVs and wildlife could lead to energy expenditures from flight or vigilance (orienting) reactions. The energetic cost of flight can be significant for predatory animals. Quantifying these physiological responses in wildlife is extremely difficult. The grooming equipment operates infrequently and moves slowly, so it is estimated that it results in fewer flight or vigilance reactions. Grooming is not expected to have a substantial negative effect on wildlife populations as a result of physiological stress. Snowmobile use likely results in more flight or vigilance reactions because there are more vehicles, they move faster, and they are generally louder than grooming equipment. Physiological stress may impact individuals, but not populations as a whole.
Vehicle Collision As previously discussed, the likelihood of a collision between snow grooming equipment and wildlife is extremely low because the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 miles per hour). There is an increased likelihood of collision with OSVs due to higher frequency of OSV use and higher speeds. This effect would be most specific to mammals. Vehicle collision would be expected to be rare and would impact individuals rather than populations as a whole.
Habitat Modification
Trails as Routes for Competitors and Predators Packed trails resulting from snowmobile use facilitate coyote incursion into deep snow areas (Bunnell et al. 2006) and can negatively impact marten or other mammal populations through increased competition and predation. A study in Utah found that 90 percent of coyote movement was made within 1,150 feet of packed trails (Bunnell et al. 2006). Competition and predation, if occurring, would be predictably restricted to areas in the immediate vicinity of trails. The use of OSV trails and regular grooming is an existing condition that has been in operation for numerous years; and no new trail expansion is proposed at this
Eldorado National Forest 117 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences time. Therefore, coyote incursion, if occurring, would continue, but would not increase as a result of OSV activities.
Avoidance For diurnal species, OSV use of the trails may result in animals avoiding areas used by snowmobilers.
Snow Compaction Mechanical snow compaction can crush, suffocate, or alter the movements of subnivean fauna (small mammals, such as shrews, voles, pocket gophers, and mice that remain active throughout the winter with much of their activity occurring in the subnivean space beneath the snowpack) and medium sized mammals that den under the snow, such as marten. Snow compaction may impact individuals. However, small mammals’ population densities are dependent on numerous factors.
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species
North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)
Species Account Wolverines have a circumpolar distribution and occupy the tundra, taiga, and forest zones of North America and Eurasia (Wilson 1982). The species uses a wide variety of forested and non- forested habitats in North America (Banci 1994). In California, wolverines once occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, Klamath, and northern Coast ranges in alpine, boreal forest, and mixed forest vegetation types (Schempf and White 1977). Following dramatic increases in human development and disturbance (e.g., increased mining, fur trapping, and timber harvest) associated with the California gold rush of the mid-1800s (summarized in Zielinski et al. [2005]) the distribution of wolverine in California was limited to the central and southern Sierra Nevada only (Zielinski et al. 2005; Schempf and White 1977).
Primarily nocturnal, wolverines are difficult to observe, even when they are abundant (Banci 1994). An empirical wolverine habitat model developed for the Rocky Mountains found that wolverine occurrence was strongly associated with low human population density and low road density (Carroll et al. 2001). An extensive furbearer study the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station conducted from 1996 to 2002, using track plates and cameras on approximately 7,500,000 acres in the southernmost Cascades and Sierra Nevada range (estimated 150 of 344 sample units located within suitable wolverine habitats) did not detect this species and found that wolverines may be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within the area sampled (Zielinski et al. 2005).
On February 28, 2008, a lone male wolverine was photographed at baited camera stations on the Tahoe National Forest and adjacent Sierra Pacific Industries land in 2008 thru 2014 (Moriarity et al. 2009; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010; USDA Forest Service NRIS records database 2012, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2014). These records are north of Interstate 80 in Nevada and Sierra counties, west and south of Sierraville, California. This was the first verified record of a wolverine in California since 1922. Agency biologists and researchers used genetic samples (i.e., hair and scat) to determine that the wolverine is most closely related to, and most likely came from, a population on the western edge of the Rocky Mountains rather than
Eldorado National Forest 118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences either the historic California population (compared to samples taken from museum specimens) or contemporary northern Cascades (Washington) population (Moriarty et al. 2009).
This attempted dispersal event may represent a continuation of the wolverine expansion in the contiguous United States and other wolverines may have travelled to the Sierra Nevada and remain undetected (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Although incidental, unconfirmed sightings of wolverine have been reported throughout the Sierra Nevada, including in the Eldorado National Forest, there is no evidence that California currently hosts a wolverine population or that female wolverines have made, or are likely to make, similar dispersal movements (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service considers the Sierra Nevada mountains to be part of the wolverine’s current range, but a population has not been reestablished (the single male identified in 2008 does not make a population) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).
In February 2013, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule to list the North American wolverine as a threatened distinct population segment in the contiguous United States (Federal Register 78(23), Monday, February 4, 2013/Proposed Rules). On August 13, 2014, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew its previous proposal (Federal Register 79(156), Wednesday, August 13, 2014/Proposed Rules). On April 14, 2016, the court remanded the matter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for further consideration consistent with order CV 14-246- M-DLC (consolidated with Case Nos.14-247-M-DLC and 14-250-M-DLC). The species is currently considered proposed for federal listing.
Habitat Status Results of a 5-year study (Copeland et al. 2007) show wolverines used modestly higher elevations in summer versus winter, and they shifted use of cover types from whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in summer to lower elevation Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziezii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) communities in winter. In general, wolverines live at or above timberline, in areas relatively free from human disturbance, moving to lower elevations in winter likely due to prey availability. The average size of wolverine’s home range is between 300 and 500 square kilometers (186 to 310 square miles, USFWS 2013). Home range sizes within the Sierra Nevada remain unknown. Wolverines have been known to occupy habitats from 4,000 to over 10,000 feet elevation in the Sierra Nevada. The presence of deep and persistent snow appears be a major contributing factor to habitat selection by wolverines. Wolverine select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010). No records exist of wolverines denning in snow-free habitats, despite the wide availability of these habitats within their range (USFWS 2013). Wolverines also appear to select areas that are free of significant human disturbance (summarized in USDA Forest Service 2001). A major threat to this species is loss of alpine habitat from climate change. Other possible threats to this species include habitat loss and fragmentation and increasing human presence.
Breeding occurs from late spring to early fall and females give birth in natal dens that are excavated in the snow and require persistent, stable snow conditions greater than 5 feet deep (Magoun and Copeland 1998, Copeland et al. 2010) presumably as thermal and predation protection (USFWS 2013). These dens are typically found at higher elevations than the average elevation used by non-reproductive wolverines (Magoun and Copeland 1998). Natal dens described in California were under rock ‘shelves’ at elevations above 10,000 feet (summarized in USDA Forest Service 2001). Females may use natal dens through late April or early May and
Eldorado National Forest 119 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences may move kits to multiple maternal dens during May. Den abandonment is related to water accumulation from snowmelt, the maturation of offspring, and disturbance (USFWS 2013).
For this analysis, approximately 255,800 acres of suitable habitat is found within the project area.
Threats Potential threats to this species include habitat loss and fragmentation, loss and alteration of alpine (snow) habitat from climate change, and increasing human presence (disturbance). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) noted climate change as the threat with the greatest potential to impact wolverine. A warming climate will likely result in a loss of suitable habitat due to increased summer temperatures and a reduced incidence of persistent spring snowpack. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) noted recreation as an additional threat to wolverines because mother wolverines tend to move their kits to alternate denning areas once humans have been detected nearby.
Direct and Indirect Effects Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects to wolverine are listed in Table 33.
Table 33. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to wolverine Resource Indicator Measure and Effect (quantify if possible) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Potential Acres designated for 124,280 122,409 92,582 138,871 disturbance OSV us e (Indicator and Acres designated for 57,029 56,269 43,388 63,903 Effect) OSV use within Overlap of wolverine moderate to high use habitat (potential areas and unoccupied) by OSV use category Total acres of 255,821 255,821 255,821 255,821 wolverine habitat on
the Eldorado NF
Snowmobile use and associated activities within habitats for wide-ranging carnivores, such as wolverine, have the potential to affect individuals or their habitat (Gaines et al. 2003). Direct effects include: (1) displacement from or avoidance of human activity on or near roads; (2) displacement of individual animals from breeding or rearing habitat; and (3) physiological response to disturbance resulting in changes in heart rate or level of stress hormones.
There is also potential for injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collision. As previously discussed, the likelihood of a collision between snow grooming equipment and wildlife is extremely low because the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 miles per hour). There is an increased likelihood of collision with OSVs due to higher frequency of OSV use and higher speeds. Vehicle collision with a wolverine would negatively affect that particular animal, but the likelihood of occurrence is assumed to be unlikely. Although recreational activities such as snowmobiling and backcountry skiing have the potential to affect wolverines (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), OSV use and related activities
Eldorado National Forest 120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences would not physically modify suitable habitat. Wolverines, if present, would be expected to have little interaction with snowmobiles or snow grooming equipment, whereas the majority of snowmobile use occurs during the daytime, wolverine are highly nocturnal and snow grooming equipment moves at a very slow speed not likely to impact individuals. In addition, wolverines are known to avoid roads and areas of human habitation; areas within 0.5 miles of OSV trails and staging areas receive the highest use and no new trails are proposed under any of the alternatives.
Comparison of the Alternatives There are approximately 255,281 acres of mapped wolverine habitat on the Eldorado National Forest. Potential wolverine habitat (acres open to OSV use) ranges from 92,582 to 138,871 acres of wolverine habitat depending upon the alternative (Table 33). Alternative 2 has 122,409 acres or 47.8% of the potential wolverine habitat proposed to be designated for OSV use. Of the 122,409 acres designated for OSV use, approximately 56,269 acres or 45.9% has moderate to high potential OSV use based on topography, slope, vegetation type, and proximity to the groomed trail system. Alternative 3 has the least potential impact and Alternative 4 has the highest potential impact for disturbance.
Cumulative Effects Wolverine habitat overlaps with vegetation management projects, areas open to Christmas tree and firewood cutting, and recreational activities or use of roads by wheeled vehicles during the season of overlap between OSVs and wheeled vehicles. Due to their secretive nature, wolverines are likely to avoid roaded or heavily used roaded areas where disturbance or displacement would be more likely. Similarly, most non-motorized winter recreation occurs along designated trails and wolverine would probably avoid heavily used trails. Similar activities on State and private lands within the Forest boundary may impact habitat availability outside of National Forest System lands and may increase disturbance locally. However, the potential for this type of disturbance is unknown.
In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions may be additive locally, but are not expected to contribute significantly to potential impacts to wolverine.
Determination Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect wolverine based on the following rationale:
• There have been no verified sightings on the Eldorado National Forest. The nearest verified sighting, the single male wolverine detected near Truckee, California, is genetically most closely related to, and most likely came from, a population on the western edge of the Rocky Mountains, rather than either the historic California population. There is no evidence that California currently hosts a wolverine population or that female wolverines have made, or are likely to make, similar dispersal movements into the area.
• Vegetative composition or structure of suitable wolverine habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use or related activities.
• Wolverines would be expected to have little interaction with snowmobiles or snow grooming equipment: whereas the majority of snowmobile use occurs during the daytime, wolverine are highly nocturnal and snow grooming equipment moves at a very
Eldorado National Forest 121 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
slow speed not likely to impact individuals. In addition, wolverines are known to avoid roads and areas of human habitation.
Forest Service Sensitive Species: Late-successional Forest Species
Pacific Marten (Martes caurina)
Species Account There are numerous marten detections documented on the Eldorado National Forest, although there are currently no known marten dens sites identified. Moriarty (2011) indicates that various 4M habitat types (lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir, subalpine conifer, and white fir) are considered “high quality habitat” for marten. CWHR also classifies some 4M habitat as high quality denning habitat for marten.
The diet of the marten in the Sierra changes with season, as does the time of day that martens search for particular prey. Winter prey is primarily Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), snowshoe hare, voles (Microtus sp.), and flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) (Zielinski 2014).
Habitat Status Marten prefers coniferous forest habitat with large-diameter trees and snags, large down logs, moderate-to-high overstory tree canopy, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows. Important habitat attributes are vegetative diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and large woody debris (Allen 1987). Spencer et al. (1983) found that martens select stands with 40 to 60 percent overstory tree canopy for both resting and foraging and avoided stands with less than 30 percent overstory tree canopy. Martens generally avoid habitats that lack overhead cover, presumably because these areas do not provide protection from predators (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Spencer et al. 1983).
In the Sierra Nevada, this species is known to inhabit high-elevation (4,500 to 10,500 feet) late- successional, mature red fir and lodgepole pine forests with large, decadent live trees and snags, and complex physical structure near the ground composed of an abundance of large dead and downed wood (Buskirk and Powell 1994 in Ruggiero et al. 1994; Zielinski 2014). Martens can inhabit younger forests if important elements of the mature forest are still present, especially structures for resting and denning (Purcell et al. 2012; Zielinski 2014). Riparian areas, especially near mature forest, are important for foraging (Zielinski 2014). There are 273,831 acres of suitable marten winter habitat on National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest boundary.
Because marten predictive denning habitat models are currently lacking, the best that can be done at this point is to use the marten landscape-level habitat model produced by Kirk and Zielinski (2009) that identifies high predictability areas for martens. In doing so, one would assume that areas of high predicted suitability would also be indicative of where den sites would occur. However, this model has low spatial resolution and is probably no better than using the reproductive component of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships as a predictive model (Zielinksi 2015, personal communication). Based on California Wildlife Habitat Relationships
Eldorado National Forest 122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitat types, currently, there are 154,081 acres of high-capability reproduction habitat 6 on Eldorado National Forest.
Threats Threats facing martens include habitat loss and fragmentation, especially clear-cutting, fuel reduction treatments, and wildfire (Zielinski 2014). Marten are very sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation and rarely occupy landscapes after more than 30 percent of the mature forest has been harvested (Zielinski 2014). Martens tend to avoid clearcut openings or will cross only small openings (less than 500 feet). However, martens were more likely to cross openings in the Rocky Mountains that have some structure retained (e.g., isolated trees, snags, logs), even if the openings were relatively large (maximum distance of 600 feet), than if the opening had no structures and were small (summarized in Zielinski [2014]). Females tend to be more specialized than males in their habitat needs and tend to avoid managed areas of lesser habitat value and greater predation risk (summarized in Zielinski [2013]). The effect of thinning treatments (including fuel reduction treatments) on marten in the Sierra Nevada is currently being studied. The effects can be positive and negative for marten; positive if treatments set the trajectory toward historical conditions while retaining key habitat features (e.g., snags, large and complex trees, coarse woody debris), and if unsuitable stands are treated to accelerate the recruitment of mature forest characteristics and reduce the chance of catastrophic wildfire (Slauson and Zielinksi 2008). Effects can be negative if the treated habitat increases the risk of predation by reducing canopy cover significantly, removing resting and denning structures and escape cover (e.g., tree boles), and/or reducing the complexity of the understory (clearcutting from below). Treatment effects can also be negative if habitat patches require a lot of energy and risk to travel between (increased fragmentation), if treatment has adversely affected prey resources, and if den structures are reduced or altered in a way that reduces the survival of young (Slauson and Zielinski 2008).
In addition to vegetation management, marten are also sensitive to recreation activities, particularly snow activities (e.g., ski facilities). Much of the information presented on marten and ski resorts comes directly from Zielinski (2013). Ski resorts are considered likely to affect marten populations because they remove and fragment high-elevation fir forest habitat. The operation of ski resorts includes the continued compaction of snow, presence of high densities of skiers, and nocturnal grooming activities. These factors can have negative effects on marten both directly (females may avoid these areas) or indirectly (snow compaction and forest fragmentation facilitate high predation by coyotes) (Slauson et al. 2008). Skiers and staff are active during the day, and grooming and some skiing activity occur during the night. Thus, martens that are sensitive to these activities may not find time for important foraging activities. There are approximately 25 ski resorts in the Sierra Nevada, and nearly all occur within the range of the marten (Zielinski 2013). The Lake Tahoe region includes approximately half of these resorts (not all found on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit), constituting the highest density of resorts in the Sierra Nevada and one of the highest in North America (Zielinski 2013).
Other snow activities may affect marten, but data from the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit indicate that OHV/OSV use did not affect marten occupancy or probability of detection and that
6 Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, montane hardwood, montane hardwood-conifer, montane riparian, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, subalpine conifer, and white fir California Wildlife Habitat Relationships types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6 mixed above 5,000 feet.
Eldorado National Forest 123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences overall OHV/OSV use in the study areas was low (1 OHV/OSV pass every 2 hours) and exposure occurred in less than 20 percent of a typical home range (Zielinski et al. 2008).
In a study of marten in northeastern California, Kirk and Zielinksi (2009) reported that marten populations detected were associated with areas that contain the largest amount of reproductive habitat consisting of mature, old forest. The highest density of detections was located in the largest protected area in the study region. Moriarty (2011) reported approximately 60 percent fewer detections of marten at Sagehen Experimental Forest on the Tahoe National Forest than those in the 1980s. These results, although on a smaller spatial scale, are similar to those reported by Kirk and Zielinksi (2009). Although the cause of the decreased detections is unclear, Moriarty (2011) hypothesized that this was associated with loss and fragmentation of habitat; during the same period 39 percent of forested areas at Sagehen Experimental Forest experienced some form of timber harvest (11 percent clearcut or shelterwood and 28 percent salvage). Habitat and occupancy models developed by Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos (2012) indicate that habitat connectivity for marten is fragmented north of the Plumas National Forest where martens appear to be restricted to isolated or semi-isolated high-elevation areas (consistent with Kirk and Zielinksi [2009]), whereas south of the Plumas, habitat connectivity does not appear to be greatly limiting for martens, although the authors suggest that Interstate 80 may be a significant barrier to movement.
Under the assumption that OSV use would disrupt marten movement within connectivity corridors (even though there would be no changes in habitat), functional habitat connectivity for martens on the Eldorado National Forest was assessed using GIS cost-distance and least-cost corridor modeling (Kirk and Zielinski 2010). This effort involved two primary steps. First, the landscape was modeled as a permeability surface, which described the relative costs to dispersing martens for moving across each linkage from known source and destination locations. Resistance costs were assigned to different landscape features, primarily vegetation types, which allow behavioral responses to unsuitable habitat to be modeled in a biologically realistic manner. Landcover was considered the primary influence on animal movements. Second, least-cost algorithms were used to determine the least-cost movement corridors, using the “corridor” function, and least-cost path, using the “costdistance” function (see Kirk and Zielinski [2010] for a full description). Dispersal corridors calculated using the “costdistance” and “corridor” functions mapped every possible movement pathway across the landscapes defined by each linkage. Corridors with the lowest total resistance costs were assumed to be the most essential for successful movement. Corridors that depicted the most likely dispersal routes, the top 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively, were extracted from the model. The top 10 percent corridors were generally within the middle of the wider 25 percent corridors. For this analysis, the 25 percent corridors model was used to assess the potential for impact to marten functional habitat connectivity. There are 51,351 acres of 25 percent corridors on National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest boundary.
Direct and Indirect Effects Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects to marten are listed in Table 34.
Eldorado National Forest 124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 34. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to marten Resource Indicator Measure and Effect (quantify if possible) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Potential for Acres and 57,365 56,938 37,383 61,992 disturbance to percentage of (58%) (57%) (38%) (62%) individuals from suitable habitat noise and impacted by OSV increased human use presence, injury or mortality of individuals, habitat modification (i.e., altered movement due to OSV use), or snow compaction effects to foraging or denning individuals Potential for loss Acres and 7,010 6,587 2,303 8,284 of habitat percentage of (38%) (36%) (12%) (45%) connectivity marten corridors impacted by OSV use
Marten associated with late-successional forests can be impacted by activities associated with routes. Gaines et al. (2003) conducted a literature review of 71 late-successional forest- associated wildlife species and identified negative effects on these species that can result from route-associated factors. These impacts include direct loss of habitat from type conversion, diminished quality of habitat attributes or fragmentation, and road avoidance or displacement resulting from direct harassment or noise disturbance. Individuals, environmental groups, and agency biologists have expressed growing concern over habitat fragmentation for late- successional forest-associated species. Various studies have shown that this species group is vulnerable to disturbance, changes in habitat, or displacement by habitat generalists.
The most common interactions between snowmobile routes and wildlife that Gaines et al. (2003) documented from the literature included trapping as facilitated by winter human access, disturbance-based displacement and avoidance,7 and disturbance at a specific site,8 usually wintering areas. To a lesser degree, hunting, trapping, poaching, collection, and habitat loss and fragmentation were other interactions identified. Trapping of marten, or any of the special-status species under consideration, is not legal in California and, therefore, will not be considered as a potential impact in this analysis. Snowmobile use within late-successional forest habitats can directly affect individuals by disturbance and through injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collisions (Gaines et al. 2003).
7 Spatial shifts in populations or individual animals away from human activities on or near roads, trails, or networks. 8 Displacement of individual animals from a specific location being used for reproduction and rearing of young.
Eldorado National Forest 125 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Disturbance • Displacement of populations or individual animals from a route, related to human activities.
• Disturbance and displacement of individuals from breeding or rearing habitats.
• Physiological response to disturbance, resulting in changes in heart rate or level of stress hormones.
As OSV trail use is an existing condition, animals that occur in the areas affected by OSV use during winter may be habituated to OSV disturbance or may have already modified their behavior to avoid areas adjacent to trails. OSV noise resonating in the Eldorado National Forest may cause an alert or startle response in individual animals or may be accepted as ambient noise conditions of the environment as suggested by the study on martens (Zielinski et al. 2007). Although Zielinski et al. (2007), in investigating the response of marten to off-highway vehicle and OSV-related disturbance in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, did not demonstrate an effect of OHV/OSV use on marten occupancy, probability of detection, sex ratio, or activity patterns, the study did not measure behavioral, physiological, or demographic responses, so it is possible that OHVs/OSVs may have effects, alone or in concert with other threats (e.g., timber harvest) that were not quantified in this study. However, those types of responses would be expected to affect individuals rather than the population as a whole.
Potential for Injury or Mortality to Individuals from Vehicle Collision
As previously discussed, the likelihood of a collision between snow grooming equipment and wildlife is extremely low because the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 mile per hour). There is an increased likelihood of collision with OSVs due to higher frequency of OSV use and higher speeds. This effect would be most specific to mammals. Although there is an greater likelihood of collision of individual martens with OSVs than trail grooming equipment due to higher frequency of OSV use and higher speeds, OSV use occurs in more open areas (canopy cover less than 70 percent). Martens generally avoid habitats that lack overhead cover (canopy cover less than 30 percent), such as trails and meadows, where OSV use would most pronounced. Presumably, a marten would hear an OSV and flee prior to injury or collision.
In addition to the roads and trails themselves and associated infrastructure, human use of the trails and roads for dispersed recreation activities (e.g., driving, hiking, mountain biking, OHV and OSV use) can lead to direct mortality and injury in the form of vehicle strikes, temporary and permanent displacement of wildlife, alteration of normal behavior and activities by wildlife species (e.g., foraging, nesting, denning, etc.), and spread of noxious weeds. Prolonged or consistent use of trails and roads can lead to permanent displacement of individuals from territories, nest or den abandonment, and/or alteration of foraging behavior and species-specific effects can lead community-wide effects. Higher trophic level species, such as marten, may be particularly vulnerable to disturbances from dispersed recreation activities (Manley et al. 2004). OSV use does not modify vegetative composition or structure.
Competition and Predation In the winter, OSV use compacts snow and some predators may use compacted snow for travel, changing the spatial pattern of their movements and predation (Manley et al. 2004). Buskirk and Powell (1994) documented predation on marten by coyotes, red foxes, and great-horned owls.
Eldorado National Forest 126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Roads driven during the winter months provide travel corridors for coyotes to enter into marten winter habitat, affecting marten through competition or direct predation. Since marten have unique morphology that allows them to occupy deep snow habitats where they have a competitive advantage over carnivores, such as coyotes and bobcats, human modifications of this habitat, such as winter road use, over-the-snow travel, and snowmobile trails, can eliminate this advantage and increase access for predators and competitors. Perrine et al. (2010) reported in the Sierra Nevada Red Fox conservation assessment that coyotes appear to be expanding their winter season range and identified this as a risk factor to the endemic red fox, needing further investigation. However, the recent species report (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b) noted there is no information to indicate that coyotes are increasing at any of the Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas that overlap with marten observation areas. It is unknown if or how much competition with or predation on martens by coyotes is occurring on the Eldorado National Forest as the result of OSV-related snow compaction or other OSV-related activities.
Snow Compaction Effects to Denning Individuals or Subnivean Prey Martens access subnivean space beneath the snow to prey on subnivean species and use a variety of structures, including rock crevices, for maternal den sites. Potential impacts of OSV use on marten den sites are unknown at this time, but there could be impacts because of the overlap of the marten whelping (March/April) season with the OSV use season. During this time there could be potential for compaction of subnivean habitat where natal and maternal dens may be found (Zielinski 2015, personal communication). Although there currently are no documented marten den sites on the Eldorado National Forest, as they are located, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment standards and guidelines designed to protect marten den sites 9 would apply. OSV-related impacts to marten dens that consist of underground squirrel middens, snags, or logs for denning sites would be expected to be minor and primarily noise disturbance-based due to their structure. Rock crevice-based dens could be subject to a greater degree of impact if the rocks are small enough to compact under the weight of an OSV, in which case they could lead to crushing or burying of individuals.
Although OSV use or related activities would not physically alter the vegetative composition or structure of marten habitat, martens, or their prey species, could be subject to OSV-related impacts from snow compaction, including suffocation or alteration of movement while foraging in the subnivean space beneath the snow. In addition, some small mammals (i.e., voles) may have difficulty navigating through compact snow layers (Manley et al. 2004).
Comparison of the Alternatives The potential for impacts would be greatest in moderate to high over-snow vehicle use (high over-snow vehicle-use areas). Based upon the information displayed in Table 35, 64 percent of marten winter habitat (174,495) is currently designated for OSV use (alternative 1). However, only 20.1 percent is open to over- snow vehicle use and have a moderate/high OSV use category. The potential for over-snow vehicle-related noise-based disturbance, injury or mortality, competition or predation, or snow compaction effects (den sites or subnivean prey) impacting individual martens would be most likely to occur within that 20.8 percent (56,938 acres) of winter habitat. The amount of marten winter habitat with moderate to high potential across the alternatives ranges from 37,383 to
9 “Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing recreation, off- highway vehicle routes, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off-highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites.”
Eldorado National Forest 127 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
61,992 acres. Alternative 3 has the least potential impact and Alternative 4 having the highest potential impact for disturbance.
There are no known marten den sites within the Eldorado National Forest.
Table 35. Acres of marten winter habitat1 on the Eldorado National Forest that overlaps OSV use, by alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 4 Acres Designated for OSV Use 174,495 173,484 98,582 185,417 Acres designated for OSV use within 57,365 56,938 37,383 61,992 moderate to high use category Total acres of suitable marten winter 273,831 273,831 273,831 273,831 habitat 1 Rustigian-Romsos and Spencer (2010) Conservation Biology Institute Marten Habitat Suitability Model.
Marten whelping season (March and April) overlaps with the latter portion of the OSV season. As previously described, once OSV trail grooming season ends on March 31, trail use declines by roughly 50 percent and, therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to marten dens is expected to be low. There are approximately 24,571 acres of modeled marten connectivity habitat (i.e., dispersal corridors) on the Eldorado National Forest, currently 7,010 or 28.5 percent is currently open to over-snow vehicle use (Table 34). Of that 7,010 acres of habitat, high over-snow vehicle use is concentrated within 0.5 mile of snowmobile staging areas, on and within 0.5 miles of groomed trails, and in meadows within 0.5 mile of a designated over-snow vehicle trail, so the majority of over-snow vehicle use occurs within less than 28.5 percent of marten habitat. The amount of habitat connectivity corridors open to OSV use varies by alternative from 2,303 acres to 8,284 acres. As previously noted, data from the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit indicate that off- highway vehicle/over-snow vehicle use did not affect marten occupancy or probability of detection when overall off-highway vehicle/over-snow vehicle use in the study areas was low (one off-highway vehicle/over-snow vehicle pass every 2 hours [Zielinski et al. 2008]). High over-snow vehicle use is concentrated within 0.5 mile of snowmobile staging areas, on and within 0.5 miles of groomed trails, and in meadows within 0.5 mile of a designated over-snow vehicle trail and moderate use occurs within 0.5 miles of marked trails and in areas between 0.5 and 1.5 miles of groomed trails. Alternative 3 has the least impact at of marten winter habitat and connectivity habitat.
Cumulative Effects Actions that could result in a cumulative impact to marten, when combined with alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4, include vegetation management projects, firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting. Vegetation management projects are smaller in comparison to OSV areas and/or do not overlayp with groomed OSV routes or staging areas where the highest OSV use occurs.
Other ongoing and foreseeable future activities include livestock grazing, recreation, timber harvest, fuel reduction, woodcutting activities, wildfire suppression, and other activities. These activities may affect some individuals, but no trends toward Federal listing or loss of species
Eldorado National Forest 128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences viability are expected due to protective measures deemed necessary during environmental analysis and implemented as required. Disturbance to individuals may be expected by the increase in OSV activities as the numbers of national forest visitors’ rise. In general, most non- motorized winter recreation occurs along designated trails, where individuals would either avoid a specific area, if too great a disturbance, or habituate to the noise. Timber harvest, fuel reduction, fire suppression, emergency responses, and other actions carried out by Federal workers or contractors are typically able to provide adequate protection for species. In addition, seasonal limited operating periods that prevent disturbance to marten denning sites would be used to minimize disturbance to these sites once they have been identified.
Determination Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may affe ct individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for marten based on the following rationale: • Marten is distributed wideline on the Eldorado NF with 99 marten detections.
• Vegetative structure or composition of marten habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use and related activities under any of the alternatives.
• The potential for impacts to individuals within winter habitat ranges from 6.9 to 11.5% across alternatives, and connectivity habitat ranges from 36 to 45 percent (it is unknown if over-snow vehicle use or related activities on the Eldorado National Forest is negatively impacting marten using winter habitat or connectivity habitat. The percentage of winter habitat and connectivity habitat impacted by over-snow vehicle use would actually be lower considering that the concentration of over-snow vehicle use is not equal across the landscape, with the highest use occurring on or within 0.5 miles of groomed routes and staging areas. Available research suggests that off-highway vehicle/over-snow vehicle use did not affect marten occupancy or probability of detection when overall off-highway vehicle/over-snow vehicle use in the study areas was low.
• Martens tend to avoid the open areas preferred by OSV users. Therefore, the potential for disturbance or collisions is expected to be low under all alternatives.
• Den sites within above-ground structures (trees, snags) would not be physically impacted due to the types of structures that are used. No known den sites have been found on the Eldorado National Forest. • It is unknown if or how much competition with or predation on martens by coyotes is occurring on the Eldorado National Forest as the result of over-snow vehicle-related snow compaction or other over-snow vehicle-related activities. However, the potential for predation should be reduced because most over-snow vehicle use on the Eldorado National Forest occurs on groomed routes.
California Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis occidentalis)
Species Account The range of the California spotted owl is divided into two major Physiographic Provinces: the Sierra Nevada Province and the Southern California Province, with Tehachapi Pass as the dividing line (Verner et al. 1992). The southern Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges comprise the
Eldorado National Forest 129 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Sierra Nevada Province, while all the mountain ranges of Southern California and the Central Coast ranges at least as far north as Monterey County comprise the Southern California Province (Verner et al. 1992). The range of the California spotted owl was revised in 2005, based on mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) haplotypes as follows: west slope (locally on east slope) of Sierra Nevada in California from Shasta (Pit River) and Eldorado Counties south to Kern County, and mountains of central, coastal, southern, and transverse ranges of California from Monterey (south side of Carmel Valley) and Kern Counties south through San Diego County to the Cuyamaca Mountains in California, and Sierra San Pedro Martir in Baja California Norte, Mexico (Gutierrez and Barrowclough 2005).
Habitat Status In the Sierra Nevada Province, spotted owls spotted owls use the following five vegetation types in the Sierra Nevada: foothill riparian hardwood, ponderosa pine hardwood, mixed-conifer forest, red fir forest, and east side pine forest (USDA Forest Service 2001). Mixed-conifer forest is used most frequently by this species in the Sierra Nevada: approximately 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, 10 percent in red fir forest, 7 percent in ponderosa pine/hardwood forest, and the remaining 3 percent in foothill riparian/hardwood forest and eastside pine (Ibid.). In northern California, the species’ elevational range extends from sea level to approximately 7,600 feet (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015b).
Spotted owl home ranges and nesting and roosting locations are strongly associated with mature coniferous forests with high tree canopy cover (70 percent or greater), multi-layered canopies, and an abundance of large trees and snags (Forsman et al. 1984; Bias and Gutierrez 1992; Call et al. 1992; Verner et al. 1992; Bond et al. 2004; Chatfield 2005). Spotted owl foraging habitat consists of a broader range of vegetation types that may include younger, more open habitat (Williams et al. 2011; Roberts and North 2012; Keane 2013). Large coarse woody debris is a key habitat feature of spotted owl prey. It has been suggested that some level of landscape (forest) heterogeneity may be an important consideration for spotted owl management and can improve spotted owl conservation (Williams et al. 2011; Roberts and North 2012). Spotted owl nest stands may be occupied by breeding spotted owls from February until October. Nesting behavior is initiated in February or early March when pairs begin roosting together and calling to each other more frequently at dusk before foraging or when returning to roost before dawn (Forsman 1976; Forsman et al. 1984). Egg laying occurs in March or April (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015). Hatching peaks May 7 to 21 (Sierra Nevada), and fledging (young leaving the nest) occurs generally when the nestlings are 34 to 36 days old (Forsman et al. 1984). The post-fledging dependency period extends through late summer; dispersal from the natal site occurs in September or October (Gutierrez et al. 1995b, Miller 1989). A spotted owl ecology study found that approximately 90 percent of juveniles fledged by July 8 (Blakesley et al. 2010).
Throughout the Sierra Nevada, California spotted owl nesting habitat is protected in California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs). A PAC includes 300 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat available, and the most recent nest site or activity center within a spotted owl breeding territory as described in management direction for the forest (USDA Forest Service 2004b).
A home range core area includes its associated PAC, is 1,000 acres in size, and is composed of the best available contiguous habitat. The core area corresponds with 20 percent of a breeding pair home range plus one standard error. Home ranges vary substantially across the range of this
Eldorado National Forest 130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences subspecies. Home range sizes of California spotted owls tend to be smallest in lower-elevation hardwood forests, intermediate in size in conifer forests of the central Sierra Nevada, and largest in true fir forests in the northern Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992). Neal et al. (1990) reported that California spotted owl home ranges in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests averaged 3,400 acres, including about 460 acres in stands with 70 percent or greater canopy cover, and about 1,990 acres in stands with 40 to 69 percent canopy cover. Verner et al. (1992) generally concur with these data, indicating that Sierra National Forest owls were found to have a median home range for pairs of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 acres. However, Verner et al. (1992) cite an overall mean home range size of owl pairs during the breeding period in Sierran conifer forests of about 4,200 acres.
Focused studies on northern spotted owls (Shasta-Trinity and Mendocino National Forests), have been conducted to evaluate direct effects of noise on the species during its breeding timeframes. Behavioral responses to disturbance, such as leaving an area, can be readily observed (Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). Physiological responses to disturbance are not as easy to detect because they are not necessarily associated with behavioral responses (Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). Results from this study indicate that there were reduced reproductive success, particularly in adult males in response to acute traffic exposure (Hayward et al. 2011). The highest sensitivity appeared to occur among males in May when they were the sole providers for their mates and offspring, suggesting that spring may be a particularly important time to limit motorized recreation near northern spotted owl territories (Ibid.).
Threats Potential threats and stressors to spotted owls include high-severity stand-replacing fires, expansion of barred owls (Strix varia), loss of large trees and dense canopy cover, habitat fragmentation, climate change, and disease.
Direct and Indirect Effects The general effects to wildlife species section including potential direct (i.e., disturbance, displacement, injury or mortality) and indirect impacts (snow compaction effects to subnivean prey) applies to potential impacts to the California spotted owl.
The only identified potential impacts to spotted owls from OSV activities would be from noise and disturbance (Table 36). Indicators and measures are shown in Table 36. In terms of spotted owl habitat, the emphasis is on breeding habitat because temporary disturbance to early stages of breeding owls would have the most likelihood of conflict or overlap with OSV activity.
Table 36. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to California spotted owl Resource Indicator Measure and Effect (quantify if possible) Potential for # of CSO activity centers within a quarter mile of a disturbance to or groomed trail displacement of individuals from Acres and percentage of CSO breeding habitat noise, injury or impacted by over-snow vehicle use mortality of individuals
Eldorado National Forest 131 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Snowmobile use within late-successional forest habitats can directly affect individuals by disturbance and through injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collisions (Gaines et al. 2003)
Potential for Injury or Mortality to Individuals from Vehicle Collision Although there is the potential for collision of California spotted owls with OSVs or grooming equipment, the likelihood of it is very low for the following reasons: spotted owls spend little time at ground level; whereas spotted owls are nocturnal, most OSV use on the Eldorado occurs during daytime hours; and although snow grooming equipment operates during darkness, the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 miles per hour).
Potential Indirect Effects Include Altered or dispersed movement as caused by a route or human activities on or near a route. Snow compaction (prey base for several of the other late-successional forest species under consideration).
In addition, Gaines et al. (2003) found an interaction that occurred on winter recreation routes was the indirect effect of snow compaction on the subnivean sites used by small mammals in which small mammals can either be suffocated as a result of the compaction, or their subnivean movements can be altered owing to impenetrable compact snow. Adverse effects to subnivean animals could indirectly affect the prey base for many Forest Service sensitive species, including California spotted owl.
According to Forsman et al. (1984) spotted owl courtship behavior usually begins in February or March with the timing of nesting and fledging varying by elevation and latitude. April 1 coincides with incubation in most areas (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a). The OSV grooming season generally begins in mid-December and continues through March. Start and stop times vary by trail location and are dependent upon the presence and depth of snow. As described in the assumptions section, for the purpose of this analysis, April 30 will be used as the cut-off date for the maximum period of interaction between California spotted owls and OSV use and related activities.
The Forest Service considers activities greater than 0.25 mile from a spotted owl nest site to have little potential to affect nesting spotted owl. Snowmobiles passing within 0.25 mile of unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat or an active nest have the potential to disturb nesting spotted owls.
As previously described, OSV use has the potential to affect California spotted owls either directly through disturbance or displacement of individuals from routes, breeding or rearing habitats, physiological response to disturbance or potential for injury or mortality from collision, or indirectly through altered or dispersed movement caused by a route or human activities on or near a route. However, due to the structural nature of suitable habitat (i.e., dense forested stands), the level of cross-country travel in California spotted owl suitable habitat is expected to be relatively low, and most disturbance is likely to occur primarily along existing roads and trails. Based on the OSV use assumptions, once OSV trail grooming ends, it is estimated that use of those trails declines by 50 percent. Therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to California spotted owl protected activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease after March 31. Habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use and related activities.
Eldorado National Forest 132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The Forest Service considers activities greater than 0.25 mile (400 meters) from a spotted owl nest site to have little potential to affect nesting spotted owls. Snowmobiles passing within 0.25 mile of unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat or an active nest have the potential to disturb nesting spotted owls. Under all alternatives, groomed routes and staging areas occur within 0.25 miles of California spotted activity centers and/or important habitat. However, OSV use is not consistent across all available habitat. Although we do not know specifically where impacts will occur at any given time and we cannot quantify the amount of impact, we know the potential for impacts would be greatest in areas most conducive to OSV use (high OSV-use areas). As described in the assumptions section, flatter areas with slopes less than 21 percent and canopy cover less than 70 percent, including the routes and staging areas, themselves, are more conducive to OSV than others and, therefore, likely to receive the highest use. Those assumptions have been incorporated into the following analysis. As previously discussed, behavioral responses to disturbance, such as leaving an area, can be readily observed in spotted owls (Tempel and Gutierrez 2003) and sensitivity in adult male spotted owls in response to acute traffic exposure was highest in May (Hayward et al. 2011).
The intensity and duration of noise-generating activities tested by Hayward et al. (2011) are not expected to occur as a result of the proposed action because the maximum period of interaction between OSVs, and related activities, occurs prior to May when breeding adult males are most sensitive to noise. Noise associated with snowmobile use and associated activities in the action area is expected to be of short duration (amount of time it would take to travel through any one given area) and of intermittent intensity (amount of concentrated noise).
In addition, monitoring of protected activity centers by Lassen National Forest found no apparent relationship between a protected activity center’s distance from a snow park and whether it was recently occupied (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010). Based upon OSV use patterns described in the assumptions section, once OSV trail grooming ends, it is estimated that use of those trails declines by 50 percent. Therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease substantially after March 31 for alternatives 1 through 3, but not necessarily for alternative 4. Due to the structural nature of important spotted owl habitat (i.e., dense forested stands), the level of cross-country travel occurring in this habitat is less than the amount of available habitat. The potential for noise-based disturbance is actually expected to be lower because use, and therefore the highest potential for disturbance is expected within 0.5 miles of existing roads, trails and staging areas, under all alternatives. Habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use and related activities.
Trail grooming occurs on existing roads and trails and primarily occurs at night when fewer species are active, but when spotted owls are more active. Trail grooming would not physically modify habitat. Under all alternatives the grooming season generally begins in mid-December and continues through March. Start and stop times vary per trail location dependent upon snow presence. Grooming starts in most locations with minimum snow depth of 12 inches. Trails are prioritized for grooming based on visitor use. Grooming on priority trails occurs several times per week and after major storms. Trail grooming occurs as soon as possible after a storm in which snow accumulations have been substantial. The ideal air temperature for grooming is 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less with the temperature dropping. Wet snow requires a lower temperature to set and is best groomed at night. Potential effects of noise disturbance would be the same as those noted due to OSV use. In addition, trail grooming and night riding could disturb owls that forage at night. A passing trail grooming machine or OSV may interrupt owl foraging, result in
Eldorado National Forest 133 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences owl prey taking refuge, or cause owls to redirect their foraging away from trail areas. However, due to the limited frequency10 and duration of trail grooming at any trail segment location, as well as grooming activity being an ongoing operation for many years on the same trail routes, the noise disturbance from trail grooming would not have a significant impact on breeding or foraging spotted owls.
Although OSV use or related activities would not physically alter the vegetative structure of spotted owl habitat, spotted owl prey species, that use the subnivean space could be subject to OSV-related impacts from snow compaction, including suffocation or alteration of movement while foraging in the subnivean space beneath the snow.
Comparison of the Alternatives Under the existing condition (Alternative 1), there are 203 CSO activity centers within ¼ mile of an OSV use area. These activity centers were established on the Eldorado National Forest from 1987-2016.The number of activity centers within ¼ mile of an OSV use area overlapping proposed OSV use ranges from 42 activity centers (Alternative 3) to 203 activity centers (Alternative 1) (Table 37). Applying the assumption that OSV areas with the most use (moderate/high) have the greatest potential for disturbance to CSO, the combined moderate/high use category within ¼ mile of an activity center ranges from 0.5% (11/203 activity centers, Alternative 1) to 3.1% (13/42 activity centers, Alternative 3) . Therefore, a very small percentage of CSO activity centers have the potential to be within a quarter mile of a moderate/high use OSV category. The potential for noise-based disturbance would largely overlap with roughly the first 20 percent, or the pair bonding, mating, and egg laying stages, of the March 1 through August 15 California spotted owl breeding season under all alternatives. As previously described, once OSV trail grooming season ends on March 31, trail use declines by roughly 50 percent and, therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease by an estimated 50 percent after March 31 for all alternatives. Additionally, there is no evidence linking OSV vehicle nose disturbance to long-term population declines. In terms of owl habitat, each activity center has a 300-acre protected activity center (PAC) for breeding and nesting. OSV use areas overlapping PACs are relatively small 4,202 acres (Alternative 3) to 25,152 acres (Alternative 4). Again, applying the assumption that OSV areas with the most use (moderate/high) have the greatest potential for disturbance to CSO habitat, the combined moderate/high category OSV ranges from 5% (1,273/25,129 acres, Alternative 4) to 18.9% (794/4,202 acres, Alternative 3) of PAC habitat overlapping an OSV use category (Table 14). OSV proposed actions would not physically modify the vegetative structure or composition of any suitable (nesting, roosting, or foraging), dispersal, or capable habitat within the project area. Due to the structural nature of suitable habitat (i.e., dense forested stands, tall trees), the level of cross-country, OSV travel in California spotted owl suitable habitat is expected to be relatively low, and most disturbance is likely to occur primarily along existing roads and trails.
10 Grooming operations at most trail systems currently operate near a maximum level. Trails are prioritized for grooming based on visitor use. Grooming on priority trails occurs several times per week and after significant storms. Snow removal on access roads and trailhead parking areas, serving the Over-snow Vehicle Program trail systems, occurs several times during storm events as necessary dependent upon weather conditions (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010).
Eldorado National Forest 134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 37. Number of activity centers overlapping areas designated for OSV use by use assumptions category, by alternative
California spotted-owl Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 High 6 6 6 6 Amador OSV Area Moderate 3 3 3 3 Low to None 32 30 3 30 Georgetown High 0 0 0 0 OSV Area Moderate 0 0 0 0 Low to None 49 44 0 49 High 0 0 0 0 Pacific OSV Area Moderate 0 0 0 0
Low to None 28 31 8 29 High 1 1 1 1 Placerville OSV Area Moderate 1 2 0 2
Low to None 83 82 21 81 TOTAL 203 199 42 201 Breeding owl habitat was defined at the PAC boundary (1.4 mile buffer of an activity center). Since PACs boundaries overlapped multiple use categories (e.g., low, moderate or high), a rule set was formed for quantifying owl breeding habitat based on selecting the use category with the largest number of acres. This use category was designated as the primary use category for an activity center. Table 38 below shows breeding habitat by OHV area by use by alternative.
Table 38. Acres designated for OSV use that overlap CSO breeding habitat, use assumptions category, by alternative
California spotted-owl Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 High 717 717 476 717 Amador OSV Area Moderate 377 377 223 377 Low to None 3,469 3,469 4 3,469 Georgetown High 0 0 0 0 OSV Area Moderate 0 0 0 0 Low to None 5,725 5,672 0 5,672 High 0 0 0 0 Pacific OSV Area Moderate 9 13 0 13
Low to None 4,218 4,235 873 4,235
Eldorado National Forest 135 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
California spotted-owl Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 High 94 94 94 94 Placerville OSV Area Moderate 37 41 0 72
Low to None 10,479 10,354 2,532 10,480 TOTAL 25,125 24,972 4,202 25,129
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could result in a cumulative impact to California spotted owl, when combined with alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4, include vegetation management projects, firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, non-motorized winter recreational activities, or use of roads by wheeled vehicles during the season of overlap between OSVs and wheeled vehicles. Vegetation management projects are very small in comparison to the OSV Use Designation action area and/or do not overlap with groomed OSV routes or staging areas where the highest OSV use occurs. Vegetation and fuels management activities in recent years have included primarily thinned, masticated, and/or burned vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. Management prescriptions have emphasized recruitment of large snags and logs, as well as retention of large conifers and canopy cover, over a 20-year period. These are all important habitat attributes for spotted owl nesting and foraging habitat.
California spotted owl habitat also overlaps with areas open to Christmas tree and firewood cutting. There would be minimal overlap between the Christmas tree and firewood cutting season (annually between November 1 and December 31) and OSV trail grooming season (beginning December 26), and potential disturbance or displacement from these activities would occur outside of the California spotted owl breeding season under all alternatives. In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions may be additive locally to individual California spotted owls, but, given the small scale for the potential of overlap of cumulative effects in time and space with any of the alternatives, they are not expected to contribute substantial impacts to effects discussed for the project under any of the alternatives.
Determination Based upon the best available data and scientific information, all of the alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for California spotted owl based on the following rationale: • OSV use would not physically modify the vegetative structure or composition of any suitable (nesting, roosting, or foraging), dispersal, or capable habitat within the project area.
• Due to the structural nature of suitable habitat (i.e., dense forested stands), the level of cross-country, over-snow vehicle travel in California spotted owl suitable habitat is expected to be relatively low, and most disturbance is likely to occur primarily along existing roads and trails.
• The potential for OSV-related noise-based disturbance would overlap with only the early part of the March 1 through August 31 California spotted owl breeding season.
Eldorado National Forest 136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• OSV use is most common on trails. Once OSV trail grooming season ends on March 31, trail use declines by roughly 50 percent and, therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease by an estimated 50 percent after March 31 for all alternatives.
• Other than a single off-highway vehicle study, with uncharacteristically high disturbance exposure times, there is no evidence of a disturbance impact to individuals or reproductive output.
• There is no evidence linking OSV noise-based disturbance to long-term population declines.
• Disturbance to California spotted owl foraging behavior would largely be limited to areas adjacent to OSV trails and short term in nature during trail grooming because the species is nocturnal and OSV use largely occurs during the daytime.
• The potential for OSV collision with individual California spotted owls is very low.
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Species Account Northern goshawks occupy boreal and temperate forests throughout the Holarctic zone (Squires and Reynolds 1997). This broad range of forested communities includes mixed conifer, true fir, montane riparian, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forests (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Within California, this species occurs in the Sierra Nevada, Klamath, Cascade, Inyo- White, Siskiyou, and Warner Mountains, and the North Coast Ranges.
Habitat Status The goshawk prefers mature forests with large trees on moderate slopes with open understories. They nest in coniferous, deciduous, or mixed-pine forests, depending on availability (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The northern goshawk is a year-round resident throughout most of California.
Northern goshawk nesting habitat at the nest stand scale has consistently greater canopy cover, greater basal area, greater numbers of large-diameter trees, fewer small-diameter trees, less understory cover, and gentle to moderate slopes relative to non-used, random sites (USDA Forest Service 2001). The northern goshawk breeding season is February 15 through September 15. Goshawks are morphologically adapted to foraging in forested habitats, but are also adapted to ambushing prey in open habitats (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997). In California, mature and old-growth habitat (20.8 inches and greater dbh, canopy closure 40 percent and greater) were used, whereas open habitats such as meadows and early seral areas were avoided in mixed-conifer forests (Austin 1993). Northern goshawk nest areas may be occupied by breeding goshawks from mid-February until late September, and are the focus of all movements and activities associated with nesting. Goshawks may have multiple nest areas within their home range, and nest areas may be used intermittently for many years. Nest areas have relatively high canopy cover (typically greater than 50 percent) and a high density of large trees.
Eldorado National Forest 137 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The home range increases in size from the breeding season to the non-breeding season and is generally larger for males than for females throughout the year. During the breeding season, the average home range of northern goshawks in the Lake Tahoe area is 6,745 acres for males and 5,040 acres for females. Non-breeding season home ranges averaged 23,448 acres for males and 13,888 acres for females (Keane 1999). Home ranges include areas with a greater proportion of larger tree size classes and higher density classes than that randomly available across the landscape. The area within the home range, but outside the post-fledging family area, is often referred to as the foraging area (Reynolds et al. 1992).
Goshawks are well known to be territorial and exhibit high site fidelity (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994). In the Sierra Nevada, northern goshawk nesting habitat is protected by the delineation of ngoPACs. Northern goshawk PACs are delineated to include the best available 200 acres of nesting habitat, and the most recent nest site and alternate nests within a goshawk breeding territory as described in management direction for the forest (USDA Forest Service 2001, USDA Forest Service 2004). The size of the PACs corresponds with criteria reported by Detrich and Woodbridge (1994) such that territory occupancy rates of approximately 100 percent were associated with clusters of nest stands totaling 150 to 200 acres (USDA Forest Service 2001).
Threats A study conducted by Morrison et al. (2011) in the Lake Tahoe Basin indicated that northern goshawks are susceptible to human disturbance; human activity was twice as high within infrequently occupied territories as compared to frequently occupied territories. Many kinds of human activities have been documented to affect raptors by altering habitats; physically harming or killing eggs, young, or adults; and by disrupting normal behavior (Postovit and Postovit 1987; Delany et al. 1999 as cited in Morrison et al. [2011]). A recent study on nesting northern goshawk response to logging truck noise found that while goshawks alerted (turned their head in the direction of the noise) to the noise, they did not flush and response was inversely proportional to the distance of the nest from the road (Grubb et al. 2012).
Little is known about the goshawk’s sensitivity or responses to human disturbance (Dunk et al. 2011). Human disturbance, including noise disturbance generated by OSVs and associated trail grooming equipment, has the potential to cause goshawks to abandon nests during the nesting and post-fledging period (February 15 through September 15). As a result, Dunk et al. (2011) experimentally tested whether all-terrain vehicles and hikers disturb goshawks in Plumas National Forest of the Sierra Nevada. More specifically, they analyzed whether there was evidence of an effect of all-terrain vehicles or hikers on the behavior or reproduction of goshawks. Given the absence of OSV/goshawk studies, this study is the closest to potential for disturbance from OSV use because sound levels are similar. All-terrain vehicles in this study produced sound in the range of 70 to 110 dBA; noise from snowmobiles manufactured after June 30, 1976, have a noise emission of 73 dBA at 50 feet while traveling at 15 miles per hour, when tested under SAE J1161 procedures,11 and noise generated by snowplows and snowcats used for OSV program operations ranges from 80 to 85 dBA 12 (California Department of Parks and
11 This is the equivalent of a single passenger vehicle or motorcycle on a roadway. A snowmobile under full throttle emits the same sound level as a truck pulling a camper at a constant highway speed applying very little throttle. In a worst case scenario, a snowmobile leaving a stop sign and applying full throttle, the noise produced is still about the same as a passenger vehicle driving down the road (International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association 2008). The effect is audible but not long lasting (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010). 12 This is similar to typical construction equipment (backhoe, excavator, grader). Typical hourly average noise levels from this equipment are 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. These noise levels drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor.
Eldorado National Forest 138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Recreation 2010). Dunk et al. (2011) evaluated the potential effects of three kinds of recreational activity: (1) sustained activity by all-terrain vehicles on roads near nests and fledglings (sustained- all-terrain vehicle experiments), (2) direct approaches by all-terrain vehicles or hikers toward nests (direct-approach experiments), and (3) sustained activity below nests by hikers and a dog (intensive-hiker experiments). For the purpose of this analysis, we will focus on sustained- all-terrain vehicles experiments for nesting goshawks, because the OSV use period is outside of the fledgling period, and direct-approach all-terrain vehicle experiments.
Sustained- all-terrain vehicle treatments were designed to evaluate whether, and how, nesting goshawks and their young respond to sound from all-terrain vehicles operated on nearby roads. Treatments consisted of driving an all-terrain vehicle for approximately 1 hour back and forth on transects on established roads near the nest, exposing the nest to multiple all-terrain vehicle passes during each treatment. Each sustained- all-terrain vehicle treatment during the nesting phase consisted of two portions: slower driving (about 16 kilometers per hour) and faster driving (about 24 to 32 kilometers per hour) to expose goshawks to a realistic variety of sound levels associated with all-terrain vehicle use on these kinds of roads.
Three potential metrics of all-terrain vehicle impacts on goshawks were used to compare sustained- all-terrain vehicle treatment and control territories: (1) percentage of time females spent off the nest, (2) frequency of kekking (calls are also typically associated with alarm or agonism in goshawks [Squires and Reynolds 1997]) bouts, and (3) frequency of prey deliveries. There were no significant differences in the mean percentage of time that females spent off nests, mean number of kekking bouts, or mean number of prey deliveries per hour during control experiments and during sustained-all-terrain vehicle treatments. However, a significant difference between treatment and control territories in the percentage of time that female goshawks spent off the nest during the treatment/control hour and the pre-treatment/control hour was found. This was interpreted to mean that sustained all-terrain vehicle use near nests had an effect on goshawks. However, based on the researchers’ extensive personal observations, the kind of activity goshawks were exposed to during sustained-all-terrain vehicle treatments was more intensive than was typical recreational use of all-terrain vehicles on the Plumas National Forest. The same would be expected of OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest.
The all-terrain vehicle used in direct nest approaches followed a pre-determined transect that, at its midpoint, passed directly below or as close as possible to the nest, and then returned by the same route. The total (round-trip) transect length was 800 meters. Direct-all-terrain vehicle approach treatments did not include slower and faster driving phases. Because they were often located on rough terrain, direct- all-terrain vehicle approaches generally required driving in lower gears at relatively slow speeds. The mean transect duration was 7 minutes (range 4 to 15 minutes). Nesting females did not appear to respond negatively to direct approaches by all- terrain vehicles.
In addition, Dunk et al. (2011) evaluated whether a relationship existed between the number of young produced by a territory and the type(s) of experiments that occurred within it during that year and whether there was any evidence that the frequency or duration of research activities influenced reproduction. No evidence was found indicating experimental treatments, or research visits in general, influenced goshawk reproduction. Longer-term and more rigorous reproductive data, including physiological data, are needed to fully address whether recreational or research activities can impact goshawk reproduction. However, data suggest that recreational and research activities would have to be more intensive and extensive than those conducted to negatively affect goshawk reproduction (Dunk et al. 2011).
Eldorado National Forest 139 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects The general effects to wildlife species section include potential for direct (i.e., disturbance, displacement, injury or mortality) and indirect impacts (snow compaction effects to subnivean prey) also applies to potential impacts to the goshawk, as previously described.
Table 39. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to northern goshawk Resource Indicator Measure and Effect (quantify if possible) Potential for # of northern goshawk activity centers within a quarter mile of a disturbance to or groomed trail displacement of individuals from Acres and percentage of breeding habitat impacted by OSV use noise, injury or mortality of individuals
Snowmobile use within late-successional forest habitats can directly affect individuals by disturbance and through injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collisions (Gaines et al. 2003).
Potential for Injury or Mortality to Individuals from Vehicle Collision As previously discussed, the likelihood of a collision between snow grooming equipment and wildlife is extremely low because the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 miles per hour). There is an increased likelihood of collision with OSVs due to higher frequency of OSV use and higher speeds. However, the potential for this effect on goshawks would be low given that they spend little time at ground level.
Possible Indirect Effects Include • Altered or dispersed movement as caused by a route or human activities on or near a route.
In addition, Gaines et al. (2003) found an interaction that occurred on winter recreation routes was the indirect effect of snow compaction on the subnivean sites used by small mammals in which small mammals can either be suffocated as a result of the compaction, or their subnivean movements can be altered owing to impenetrable compact snow. Adverse effects to subnivean animals could indirectly affect the prey base for many Forest Service sensitive species, including goshawk.
Activities greater than 0.25 mile (400 meters) from a goshawk nest site have little potential to affect nesting goshawks. The OSV season overlaps with the courtship through incubation phases of the goshawk breeding season (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006), so snowmobiles passing within 0.25 mile of unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat or an active nest have the potential to disturb nesting goshawks. Although Dunk et al. (2011) found sustained all-terrain vehicle use near nests had a significant effect on the percentage of time that female goshawks spent off the nest during the treatment, they also noted the kind of activity goshawks were exposed to during sustained- all-terrain vehicle treatments was more intensive than was typical recreational use of all-terrain vehicles on the Plumas National Forest. The same would be expected of OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. In addition, Dunk et al. (2011) found no evidence indicating experimental treatments, or research visits in general, influenced goshawk reproduction. Monitoring and analysis specific to California spotted owl and northern goshawk protected
Eldorado National Forest 140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences activity centers and OSV use was conducted on the Lassen National Forest. Lassen National Forest had 174 northern goshawk protected activity centers, at the time, of which 33 (19 percent) were within 400 meters of designated OSV routes. Twenty-three northern goshawk protected activity centers fell within the scope of the GIS analysis conducted. No relationship was apparent between a protected activity center’s distance from a snow park and whether it has been recently occupied. Although the potential for OSV-related noise-based disturbance overlaps with only the early part of the February 15 through September 15 goshawk breeding season, once OSV trail grooming season ends on March 31, trail use declines by roughly 50 percent. Therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to protected activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease by an estimated 50 percent after March 31 for all alternatives. Although OSV use or related activities would not physically alter the vegetative structure of goshawk habitat, goshawk prey species that use the subnivean space could be subject to OSV- related impacts from snow compaction, including suffocation or alteration of movement while foraging beneath the snow.
Comparison of the Alternatives Under the existing condition (Alternative 1), there are 111 goshawk activity centers within a ¼ mile of an area designated for OSV use. These activity centers were established on the Eldorado National Forest from 1979-2017. The number of activity centers within a ¼ mile of areas designated for OSV use ranges from 27 activity centers (Alternative 3) to 111 activity centers (Alternative 1) (Table 40).
Applying the same assumption to goshawk habitat, OSV areas with the most use (moderate/high) have the greatest potential for disturbance to goshawk, the combined moderate/high use category within ¼ mile of an activity center ranges from 8.0% (678/13,057 acres, Alternative 1) to 28.2% (805/2,857 acres, Alternative 3) (Table 41). However, over-snow vehicle proposed actions would not physically modify the vegetative structure or composition of any suitable (nesting, roosting, or foraging), dispersal, or capable habitat within the project area. Due to the structural nature of suitable habitat (i.e., dense forested stands, tall trees), the level of cross-country, over-snow vehicle travel in goshawk suitable habitat is expected to be relatively low, and most disturbance is likely to occur primarily along existing roads and trails.
Table 40. Number of goshawk activity centers by OSV area by use assumption category, by alterntive
Northern Goshawk ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 High 7 7 4 7 Amador OSV Area Moderate 2 2 2 2 Low to None 17 14 0 15 Georgetown High 0 0 0 0 OSV Area Moderate 0 0 0 0 Low to None 25 24 0 24
Eldorado National Forest 141 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Northern Goshawk ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 High 0 0 0 0 Pacific OSV Area Moderate 0 0 0 0
Low to None 16 17 5 17 High 0 0 0 0 Placerville OSV Moderate 1 1 1 1 Area Low to None 39 39 12 39
TOTAL 111 103 27 102
Breeding goshawk habitat was defined at the PAC level (1.4 mile buffer of an activity center). A goshawk PAC is approximately 200 acres. The same rule set that was used for the spotted owl habitat analysis was applied to goshawk. Again, multiple use categories overlapped the same activity center (e.g., low, moderate or high). The use category with the largest number of acres overlapping an activity center was determined to be the primary OSV use category. Table 41 below shows acres of breeding habitat by OHV area by use by alternative.
Table 41. Acres designated for OSV use that overlap goshawk breeding habitat, use assumptions category, by alternative Northern Goshawk ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 High 676 676 549 676 Amador OSV Area Moderate 253 253 118 375 Low to 1,793 1,793 0 1,793 None Georgetown High 0 0 0 0 OSV Area Moderate 1 1 0 1 Low to 3,115 3,081 0 3,081 None High 0 0 0 0 Pacific OSV Area Moderate 22 22 0 22
Low to 1,991 1,992 655 1,991 None High 2 2 2 2 Placerville OSV Area Moderate 138 138 136 138
Low to 5,066 5,066 1,398 5,066 None TOTAL 13,057 13,024 2,858 13,145
Eldorado National Forest 142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could result in a cumulative impact to goshawk, when combined with alternatives 1, 2, 3 or 4 include vegetation management projects, firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, non-motorized winter recreational activities, or use of roads by wheeled vehicles during the season of overlap between OSVs and wheeled vehicles. Vegetation management projects are very small in comparison to the OSV Use Designation Project area and/or do not overlap with groomed OSV routes or staging areas where the highest OSV use occurs. Seasonal limited operating periods required for vegetation projects would prevent disturbance to breeding individuals. Vegetation and fuels management activities in recent years have included primarily thinned, masticated, and/or burned vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. Management prescriptions have emphasized recruitment of large snags and logs, and retention of large conifers and canopy cover that are important attributes of goshawk habitat. Goshawk habitat also overlaps with areas open to Christmas tree cutting and firewood cutting. There would be minimal overlap between the Christmas tree and firewood cutting season (annually between November 1 and December 31) and OSV trail grooming season (beginning December 26), and disturbance or displacement from this activity would occur outside of the northern goshawk breeding season under all alternatives. In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions may be additive locally to individual goshawks, but are not expected to contribute substantial impacts to those discussed for the project under any of the alternatives.
Determination All Atlernatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may affect individuals, but are not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk based on the following rationale: • Vegetative structure or composition of habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use and related activities under any of the alternatives.
• Due to the structural nature of suitable habitat (i.e., dense forested stands), the level of cross-country OSV travel in northern goshawk suitable habitat is expected to be relatively low, and most disturbance is likely to occur primarily along existing roads and trails under all alternatives.
• The potential for OSV-related noise-based disturbance would overlap with only the early part of the February 15 through September 15 goshawk breeding season.
• OSV use is most common on trails and once OSV trail grooming season ends on March 31, trail use declines by roughly 50 percent. As a result, the potential for direct and indirect effects to protected activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease by an estimated 50 percent after March 31 for all alternatives.
• Lassen National Forest monitoring found no apparent relationship between a northern goshawk protected activity center’s distance from a snow park and whether it was recently occupied, and Dunk et al. (2011) found no evidence indicating experimental recreational treatments influenced goshawk reproduction.
• The potential for OSV collision with individual northern goshawks is very low.
Eldorado National Forest 143 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Forest Service Sensitive Species: Bats
Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)
Species Account Most Myotis thysanodes in California are referable to M. t. thysanodes; populations in the northwestern part of the state (Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Shasta Counties) have recently been placed in the new subspecies, M. t. vespertinus (Manning and Jones 1988), although relatively few specimens have been examined and the boundary between subspecies has not been clearly delineated.
In California, the species is found the length of the state, from the coast (including Santa Cruz Island) to over 1,800 meters (5,900 feet) in the Sierra Nevada. Records exist for the high desert and east of the Sierra Nevada. However, the majority of known localities are on the west side of the Sierra Nevada. Museum records suggest that while M. thysanodes is widely distributed in California, it is rare everywhere. Available museum records offer documentation for only six maternity sites: two in Kern County (including the type locality at Old Fort Tejon), and one each in Marin, Napa, Tuolumne, and Tulare counties. Investigation of four of these sites since 1990 has shown that while the roosts are still available, this species is no longer present at any of these sites.
Habitat Status M. thysanodes occurs in xeric woodland (oak and pinyon-juniper most common) (Cockrum and Ordway 1959, Hoffmeister and Goodpaster 1954, Jones 1965, O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Roest 1951), hot desert-scrub, grassland, sage-grassland steppe, spruce-fir, mesic old growth forest, coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests (including multi-aged sub-alpine, Douglas- fir, redwood, and giant sequoia) (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Pierson and Heady 1996, Weller and Zabel 2001). Although nowhere common, the species occurs primarily from sea level to approximately 3,900 to 6,900 feet (O’Farrell and Studier 1980) with an isolated record from 9,500 feet in New Mexico (Barbour and Davis 1969). A lack of records makes it difficult to assess habitat preferences for this species in California. Orr (1956), in reviewing specimens held at the California Academy of Sciences, notes two localities from the coastal region (Carmel in Monterey County and Woodside in San Mateo County). More recently, records have accumulated from the upper Sacramento River (Rainey and Pierson 1996).
Roosting Habitat Studies conducted in California, Oregon, and Arizona, have documented that M. thysanodes roosts in tree hollows, particularly in large conifer snags (Cross and Clayton 1995, Chung- MacCoubrey 1996, Rabe et al. 1998, Weller and Zabel 2001). M. thysanodes is also known to use a variety of roost sites, including rock crevices (Cryan 1997), caves (Baker 1962, Burt 1934, Commissaris 1961, Easterla 1966, 1973), mines (Cahalane 1939, Cockrum and Musgrove 1964), buildings (Barbour and Davis 1969, Musser and Durrani 1960, O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Orr 1956, Studier 1968), and bridges. It is also one of the species thought to be most reliant on abandoned mines (Altenbach and Pierson 1995).
M. thysanodes is a colonial roosting species. Colonies can be up to 2,000 individuals (Barbour and Davis 1969). Within buildings, this species tends to roost in the open in tightly packed clusters, mostly using the sides of ceiling joists (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Any of these types
Eldorado National Forest 144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of structures are used as both day and night roosts (Barbour and Davis 1969). Barbour and Davis (1969) noted that this species was readily captured at the entrances to night roosts in buildings, mines, and caves. In a 5-year study on the upper Sacramento River, M. thysanodes, though one of the least commonly encountered bats, was more readily detected at bridge night roosts than in netting surveys conducted over water (Rainey and Pierson 1996).
Foraging Habitat M. thysanodes often forages along secondary streams, in fairly cluttered habitat. It also has been captured over meadows (Pierson et al. 2001). Limited information is available on diet. Relatively heavy tooth wear on animals examined in a 5-year study on the Sacramento River suggests that in that area the species feeds primarily on heavy-bodied insects, such as Coleopterans and Hemipterans.
Reproduction Maternity roosts have been found in sites that are generally cooler and wetter than is typical for most other Vespertilionids. Recent radio-tracking studies in the forested regions of northern California have shown that this species forms nursery colonies in predominantly early to mid- decay stage, large-diameter snags 58 to 167 centimeters d.b.h. (23 to 66 inches d.b.h.) (Weller and Zabel 2001).
Mating occurs in the fall following break-up of the maternity colony. Ovulation, fertilization, and implantation occur from April to May and are followed by a gestation of 50 to 60 days. One young is born from May to July, capable of flight in 16 days, and volant within 20 days.
Migration and Hibernation Winter behavior is even more poorly understood than summer behavior. M. thysanodes is thought to migrate short distances to lower elevations or more southern areas (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Scattered winter records suggest, however, that the species does not complete long-distance migrations, and like many species in the more temperate parts of California, may be intermittently active throughout the winter (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). The species has been found hibernating in buildings and mine tunnels along the coast in the San Francisco Bay area and in the coast range north of San Francisco.
Threats Although M. thysanodes does not occur in urban areas, it has often been found in buildings in rural and semi-rural settings (such as wineries, Hearst Castle, Big Bear attic, Bale Grist Mill State Historic Park). These colonies are typically at high risk for negative human interactions. Urban expansion often leads to removal of older buildings that can provide roosts. Newer buildings generally do not provide suitable roosting habitat. Intervention by pest control operators and public health departments can result in the elimination of many roost sites.
Direct and indirect Effects OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest would not change the habitat for fringed bat as no habitat modifications are anticipated
Very little is known about the wintering behavior of fringed myotis bats. Some limited migration to lower elevation may occur. However, if fringed myotis remain on the landscape in winter, there is a low likelihood that behavior of individuals could be modified by the noise or disruption associated with OSV use or grooming of OSV trails. This would be entirely dependent on the
Eldorado National Forest 145 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences location of the winter roost in proximity to a bridge, building, cavity, mine, or tree. There are no known winter roosts on the Eldorado. Should OSV activities create a temporary disturbance, breeding could be impacted; however, it would not preclude breeding at a later time. There should be no impact to the maternal roosts, as they would start in April or May, following snowmelt.
Fringed myotis bats drink water from streams or lakes when they emerge from roosts. In addition, they forage in riparian areas and meadows. Emissions from OSVs, particularly two- stroke engines on snowmobiles, release pollutants like ammonium, sulfate, benzene, PAHs, 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. However, the minimum cross-country snow depth of 12 inches for all of the alternatives, including the existing condition, is expected to be adequate to protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality (see Water Resources section in Chapter 3 for additional information).
Cumulative Effects M. thysanodes habitat would have minimal overlap with areas open to Christmas tree cutting and firewood cutting. There would be minimal overlap between the Christmas tree and firewood cutting season (annually between November 1 and December 31) and OSV trail grooming season (beginning December 26), minimizing the potential for disturbance or displacement of roosting bats. Use of roads within fringed myotis bat habitats after the March 31 termination date for exclusive OSV use can contribute additional disturbance during the early part of the M. thysanodes breeding season. There is a small potential for an additive effect from vehicle fluids from wheeled vehicles used to access firewood and Christmas trees, as well as from the use of wheeled vehicles during the overlap season between OSVs and wheeled vehicles, to enter waterways, modifying bat prey/food base. However, the risk for this impact is low because vehicle use does not occur in waterways and fluids would not normally reach waterways.
In general, most non-motorized winter recreation occurs along designated trails, and individual bats would either avoid roosting in those areas, if too great a disturbance, or habituate to the noise. Similar activities on State and private lands may impact habitat availability outside of National Forest System lands and may increase disturbance locally. However, the potential for this type of disturbance is unknown. In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions may be additive locally to individual bats, but are not expected to contribute substantial impacts to those discussed for the project under any of the alternatives.
Determination All alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for fringed myotis in the Forest Plan area based on the following: • Proposed actions would not physically modify fringed myotis bat habitat.
• Proposed actions would generally occur when the species is hibernating and is generally inactive. However, individuals that emerge to forage during warmer weather could experience missed feeding when snow grooming activities occur during the early evening.
Eldorado National Forest 146 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• Depending upon the location of winter roost structures with respect to OSV use, individual bats within winter roosts could be disturbed by noise associated with OSVs and human presence, and missed breeding attempts could result.
• The low risk of modification of the prey/food base or impact on drinking water quality from oil, gas, or other vehicle fluids entering waterways would be mitigated by the 12- inch minimum snow depth that would protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality.
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Species Account Antrozous pallidus was originally described in 1856 as Vespertilio pallidus, but has had the genus name of Antrozous since 1862, and has most commonly been recognized as Antrozous pallidus (Barbour and Davis 1969; Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). There are currently two subspecies recognized in California (A. p. pacificus and A. p. pallidus) (Hall 1981; Simmons 2005). A. pallidus is distributed throughout much of the West, from southern British Columbia to central Mexico, and as far east as western portions of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, with an isolated subspecies in Cuba (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Simmons 2005).
In California, A. pallidus is found from sea level up to approximately 2,250 meters (7,400 feet) (Baker et al. 2008; Pierson et al. 2001), although it is most commonly found below 1,800 meters (5,900 feet) (Barbour and Davis 1969; Orr 1954; Pierson et al. 2001), and there is a record from 178 feet in Death Valley (Orr 1954). It is found along the coast, in the Coast Ranges, the Central Valley, up to mid-elevation in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges, and in the more xeric and desert habitats east of the Sierra Nevada and in southern California. Pallid bat has been documented on the Eldorado National Forest.
Habitat Status A. pallidus occurs in a number of habitats ranging from rocky arid deserts to grasslands into mid- elevation mixed deciduous/coniferous forests. In California, they are most commonly found in low-elevation desert washes, western sycamore (Plantanus racemosa) open riparian habitat, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Q. lobata) savannah, mid-elevation black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest (black oak, incense cedar (Libocedrus decurrens) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) habitat (Barbour and Davis 1969; Johnston et al. 2006; Orr 1954; Pierson et al. 2001; Pierson et al. 2002; Rainey and Pierson 1996). It is also associated with both coast redwood and giant sequoia forests (Pierson and Heady 1996; Orr 1954; Rainey et al. 1992).
Roosting Habitat Pallid bats are quite eclectic in their roosting habits (Barbour and Davis 1969; Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Lewis 1994, 1996; Orr 1954). They roost in rock crevices (Orr 1954; Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Pierson et al. 2002), under rock slabs (Vaughan and O’Shea 1976; Lewis 1996), in tree hollows (Orr 1954; Rainey and Pierson 1996; Rabe et. al. 1998; Pierson et al. 2004), caves, abandoned mines, and a variety of other anthropogenic structures, including buildings (vacant and occupied), porches and garages (van Zyll de Jong 1985), and bridges (Barbour and Davis 1969; Beck and Rudd 1960; Johnston et al. 2004; Lewis 1996; Orr 1954’ Pierson et al. 2001; Pierson et al. 2002; Vaughan and O’Shea 1976). Tree roosting appears to be
Eldorado National Forest 147 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences preferred in the forested regions of northern California, and has been documented in large conifer snags (e.g., incense cedar, ponderosa pine, sugar pine) (Baker et al. 2008; Johnston and Gworek 2006), inside basal hollows of redwoods (Orr 1954; Rainey et al. 1992) and giant sequoias (Pierson and Heady 1996), and bole cavities in oaks and other trees (e.g., cottonwood, cypress) (Hall 1946; Orr 1954; Pierson et al. 2004; Rainey and Pierson 1996).
Compared to some other California bat species, A. pallidus are relatively intolerant of disturbance (O'Shea and Vaughan 1977; Lewis 1996; Johnston et al. 2004) and may abandon a roost when disturbed. Lewis (1996) noted that distances between day and nighttime roosts were usually less than 200 meters, but ranged from 40 to 1,850 meters.
This is one of the species most likely to be found night-roosting under bridges (Barbour and Davis 1969; Johnston et al. 2004; Pierson et al. 2001), but it can also be found in shallow caves, cliff overhangs, and other human-made structures (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Lewis 1994). Lewis (1994) also noted that bridges used by pallid bats as night roosts were wooden, or concrete girder. Pallid bats show a higher fidelity toward night roosts than day roosts (Lewis 1994). Night roosts are typically located within 1 to 2 kilometers of the day roost. When using anthropogenic roosts in northern California, reproductive female A. pallidus generally occupy maternity roosts in April or May, and move to winter roosts in September, October, or even later if weather is moderate.
Foraging Habitat Pallid bats forage close to the ground and vegetation in desert washes, open grassland, oak savannah, and/or forest with limited understory (e.g., ponderosa pine parkland or granite slabs with sparse vegetation) (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983). Johnston et al. (2006) found that male and female A.pallidus pacificus foraged intermittently through the winter months along and in riparian corridors with western sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), California bay (Umbellularia californica), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) within canyon bottoms in central California; and during summer months, females and males foraged along ridges with grasslands, high open meadows and oak savannah habitats. Johnston and Gworek (2006), and Baker et al. (2008) determined that pallid bats frequently foraged on logging roads and in open and semi-open short grass meadows in the northern Sierra Nevada. Foraging appears to be concentrated in two periods—one just after emergence and one prior to returning to the roost (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983).
Lewis (1996) recorded distances of between 1 and 4 kilometers (0.6 to 2.5 miles) traveled between roost sites and foraging areas and Johnston et al. (2006) found similar distances (0.2 to 4.0 kilometers) for males and females during winter months. A. pallidus feeds primarily on medium to large, ground-dwelling prey, such as flightless arthropods (such as scorpions, Jerusalem crickets, cicadas, wolf spiders, and centipedes) (Hatt 1923; Ross 1961; Easterla and Whitaker 1972; Hermanson and O'Shea 1983) and typically between 20 and 70 millimeters (0.8 to 2.7 inches) in length (Bell 1982). Large cerambycid beetles, particularly Prionus californicus, and ten-lined June beetles (Polyphylla decemlineata) are also major prey items (Barbour and Davis 1969; Johnston and Fenton 2001; Orr 1954; Pierson et al. 2004) during the early part of summer. Johnston and Fenton (2001) found that a colony of A. p. pacificus had specialized individual dietary preferences within the same colony, whereas individuals in a colony of A. p. pallidus all ate generally the same prey items on any given night. Antrozous also gleans prey from vegetation (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983), and take prey in flight (Johnston and Fenton 2001). Bell (1982) stated that pallid bats used passive
Eldorado National Forest 148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences listening, and not echolocation, to detect and capture arthropods. However, A. p. pallidus foraged primarily on a 10-millimeter (0.4 inch) scarab beetle in flight during mid-summer in Death Valley when the prey species was abundant (Johnston and Fenton 2001). Using carbon staple- isotope analysis, Herrara et al. (1993) documented that pallid bats obtained substantial amounts of carbon from plant sources during the blooming periods of bat-visited cacti and agaves, and facultative nectar-feeding by pallid bats on the flowers of cardon cacti (Frick et al. 2009).
Reproduction Pallid bats are gregarious, and often roost in colonies of between 20 and several hundred individuals. Males and females congregate in a central winter roost often associated with smaller satellite roosts in late fall and winter months (Johnston et al. 2006) when breeding occurs (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983). During spring months, pregnant females leave the winter roost and gather in summer maternity colonies (Johnston et al. 2006), with parturition generally occurring between May and July, depending on local climate (Barbour and Davis 1969). Males often leave the winter roost and use a variety of solitary roosts, but they sometimes form a bachelor colony (Johnston et al. 2006). Females can give birth to a single pup, twins, or sometimes triplets, with twins being most common (Barbour and Davis 1969). Young are generally weaned in mid to late August. Maternity colonies generally form in early April (Barbour and Davis 1969) and disband between August and October (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Lewis 1994).
Migration/Hibernation Pallid bats are relatively inactive during the winter; however, Johnston et al. (2006) found that males and females foraged intermittently throughout the winter months, in central California.
They are not known to migrate long distances (Barbour and Davis 1969), and Johnston et al. (2004) determined that the primary female/male winter roost of a large colony in central California was approximately 1.7 kilometers (1 mile) from the primary maternity colony roost. During January and February, pallid bats foraged about once every six nights, at temperatures down to 4 degrees Celsius (39 degrees Fahrenheit) and on rainy nights, and winter prey at a central California coast site included darkling ground beetles (Carabidae), moths (Lepidotera) and other prey types often taken during warmer parts of the year (Johnston et al. 2006). Occasional winter activity has been reported in southern portions of its range and has been observed in Nevada flying during winter when temperatures were as low as 36 degrees Fahrenheit (O’Farrell et al. 1967; O’Farrell and Bradley 1970). Hibernating or mildly torpid bats were reported in buildings and a hollow post (Barbour and Davis 1969), limestone cliffs (Orr 1954), and caves and mines (Hall 1946).
Threats Due to their propensity for using a wide range of buildings as well as bridges, their highly visible roosting habits, urine stains and odor, as well as visible insect prey remains at night roosts, these bats are highly susceptible to negative human contact. Because pallid bats frequently roost in buildings and bridges, display considerable roost loyalty in such roosts, and are often found roosting together with T. brasiliensis and M. yumanensis, two species that form large colonies (several hundreds to thousands), often where they are highly visible (e.g., open rafters) they are frequently subjected to vandalism, exclusion (humane or otherwise), even illegal poisoning. The removal of snags and damaged trees (particularly large ponderosa pines and incense cedars) and hardwoods during timber harvesting and the loss of hardwoods through conifer and brush
Eldorado National Forest 149 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences competition (from a lack of fire management) have caused reductions for both roosting structures and foraging habitat. These practices may be severe on both private and public lands. Prescribed burning of leaf-litter likely results in a reduction or loss of foraging habitat. The loss of hardwoods due to firewood cutting, urban expansion, conversion to agriculture, rangeland management, and disease (e.g., sudden oak death syndrome) has caused serious reductions for both roosting and foraging habitat. Pallid bats are strongly associated with oaks throughout California. They can be found roosting in both dead and live oaks, and are frequently found foraging under or at the edge of the oak canopy (Rainey and Pierson 1996; Johnston and Fenton 2001; Johnston et al. 2006). Radio-tracking studies identified pallid bats roosting in black oaks in mixed deciduous forest (Rainey and Pierson 1996). At Vandenberg Air Force Base, they were radio-tracked foraging in coast live oak habitat (Pierson et al. 2002).
Direct and indirect Effects OSV use and related activities on the Eldorado National Forest would not change the habitat for pallid bat, as no habitat modifications are anticipated. Due to the behavior of pallid bats that they can be seen in winter on warmer nights (39 degrees Fahrenheit), or males moving between winter roosts, or an occasional feeding (once every six nights), there is a low likelihood that pallid bat behavior could be modified by OSV noise or disruption of grooming trails for OSV use. OSV noise could cause disturbance at the winter roost. This would be entirely dependent on the location of the winter roost in proximity to a bridge, building, cavity, mine or tree. Since there are no known winter roosts on the Eldorado, no reduction of noise can be mitigated should there be a noise impact from OSV activities. Should OSV activities have a temporary disturbance, breeding could be impacted. However, it would not preclude breeding at a later time. There should be no impact to the maternal roosts, as they would start in April or May, following snowmelt.
Pallid bats forage on invertebrates in areas with riparian and/or aquatic environments. Emissions from OSVs, particularly two-stroke engines on snowmobiles, release pollutants like ammonium, sulfate, benzene, PAHs 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. However, the minimum cross-country snow depth of 12 inches under all of the alternatives, including the existing condition, is expected to be adequate to protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality (see Water Resources section in Chapter 3).
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for the pallid bat is the same as fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes).
Determination All alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for pallid bat in the Forest Plan area based on the following:
• Proposed actions will not physically modify pallid bat habitat.
• Proposed actions will generally occur when the species is hibernating and is generally inactive. However, individuals that emerge to forage during warmer weather could
Eldorado National Forest 150 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
experience missed feeding when snow grooming activities occur during the early evening.
• Depending upon the location of winter roost structures with respect to OSV use, individual bats within winter roosts could be disturbed by noise associated with OSVs and human presence and missed breeding attempts could result.
• The low risk of modification of the prey/food base from oil, gas, or other vehicle fluids entering waterways would be mitigated by the 12-inch minimum snow depth that would protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality.
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Species Account In California, C. townsendii is found throughout much of the State, except for the Central Valley and very high elevations. The largest populations are concentrated in areas offering caves (commonly limestone or basaltic lava) or mines as roosting habitat. The species is found from sea level along the coast to 1,820 meters (6,000 feet) in the Sierra Nevada (Dalquest 1947; Pearson et al. 1952; Pierson and Rainey 1996). In the White Mountains, summer records for males extend up to 2,410 meters (7,900 feet), and hibernating groups have been found in mines as high as 3,188 meters (10,460 feet) (Szewczak et al. 1998). Maternity colonies are more frequently found below 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) (Pierson and Fellers 1998; Szewczak et al. 1998).
There are four observations of Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Eldorado National Forest.
Habitat Status C. townsendii occurs from the inland deserts to the cool, moist coastal redwood forests; in oak woodlands of the inner coast range and Sierra Nevada foothills; and lower- to mid-elevation mixed coniferous-deciduous forests. Distribution is patchy, and strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, with population centers occurring in areas dominated by exposed, cavity-forming rock and/or historic mining districts (Genter 1986; Graham 1966; Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Kunz and Martin 1982; Pierson and Rainey 1996). Its habit of roosting on open surfaces makes it readily detectable, and it is often the species most frequently observed (commonly in low numbers) in caves and abandoned mines throughout its range.
Roosting Habitat C. townsendii prefers open surfaces of caves or cave-like structures, such as mines (vertical and horizontal) (Barbour and Davis 1969; Graham 1966; Humphrey and Kunz 1976). It has also has been reported in such structures as buildings, bridges, and water diversion tunnels that offer a cavernous environment (Barbour and Davis 1969; Dalquest 1947; Howell 1920; Kunz and Martin 1982; Pearson et al. 1952; Perkins and Levesque 1987; Brown et al. 1994; Pierson and Rainey 1996). Roosting structures often contain multiple openings. It seems to prefer dome-like areas, possibly where heat or cold is trapped (warm pockets for maternal roosting, cold pockets for hibernation). It has also been reported in rock crevices and large hollow trees (Fellers and Pierson 2002).
Eldorado National Forest 151 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Specific roosts may be used only one time of year or may serve many different functions throughout the year (i.e., maternal, hibernation, dispersal, bachelor, breeding, etc.). Roosting surfaces often occur in twilight conditions; however, some have been located very deep inside caves or mines. There is evidence that maternity colonies may use multiple sites for different stages (pregnancy, birthing, or rearing) (Sherwin et al. 2000). Males remain solitary during the maternity season. C. townsendii is very sensitive to human disturbance, however, in some instances it can habituate to reoccurring and predictable human activity.
Foraging Habitat Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats (Brown et al. 1994; Fellers and Pierson 2002; Pierson et al. 2002). Recent radio-tracking and light-tagging studies have found C. townsendii foraging in a variety of habitats. Brown et al. (1994) showed that on Santa Cruz Island in California, they avoided the lush introduced vegetation near their day roost, and traveled up to 5 kilometers (3 miles) to feed in native oak and ironwood forest. Radio-tracking and light-tagging studies in northern California found C. townsendii foraging within forested habitat (Rainey and Pierson 1996). In Oklahoma, C. t. ingens preferred edge habitats (along intermittent streams) and open areas (pastures, agricultural fields, native grass) over wooded habitat (Clark et al. 1993). C. townsendii has been known to travel up to 24 kilometers (15 miles) from roost sites while foraging (Dobkin et al. 1995). They forage as long as weather permits in the fall, and are periodically active in winter (Pierson et al. 1991). Although diet has not been examined in detail for any California populations, it is likely that C. townsendii here, as elsewhere, is a Lepidopteran specialist, feeding primarily (over 90 percent of the diet) on medium-sized (6 to 12 millimeter) (0.2 to 0.5 inch) moths (Dalton et al. 1986; Ross 1967; Sample and Whitmore 1993; Whitaker et al. 1977, 1981). Shoemaker and Lacki (1993) determined that P. t. virginianus differentially selected noctuid moths, with geometrids, notodontids, and sphingids also making up a significant portion of the diet. Representatives of the family Arctiidae constituted 37.5 percent of the available moth prey items, but were not consumed. Sample and Whitmore (1993) identified moth species from wing fragments collected at maternity caves. Of the 28 moth taxa identified, 15 were noctuids. Twenty-one species were forest-dwelling, and six were associated with open, field habitats. In addition to Lepidopterans, small quantities of other insects have been detected in the diet of C. townsendii, particularly Coleoptera and Diptera (Dalton et al. 1986; Ross 1967; Sample and Whitmore 1993). Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, and Plecoptera have also been found sporadically (Dalton et al. 1986; Whitaker et al. 1977).
Re production C. townsendii is a colonial species with maternity aggregations forming between March and June (based on local climate and latitude). Colony size ranges from a few dozen to several hundred. Mating generally takes place in both migratory sites and hibernacula between September or October and February. Young bats are capable of flight at 2.5 to 3 weeks of age and are fully weaned at 6 weeks (Pearson et al. 1952). Nursery colonies start to disperse in August about the time the young are weaned, and break up altogether in September and October (Pearson et al. 1952; Tipton 1983). Pearson et al. (1952) estimated annual survivorship at about 50 percent for young, and about 80 percent for adults. Band recoveries have yielded longevity records of 16 years, 5 months (Paradiso and Greenhall 1967).
Eldorado National Forest 152 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Migration/Hibernation C. townsendii is a relatively sedentary species, for which no long-distance migrations have been reported (Barbour and Davis 1969; Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Pearson et al. 1952). The longest movement known for this species in California is 32.2 kilometers (20 miles) (Pearson et al. 1952). There is some evidence of local migration, perhaps along an altitudinal gradient.
Hibernation sites are generally caves or mines (Pearson et al. 1952; Barbour and Davis 1969), although animals are occasionally found in buildings (Dalquest 1947; Pierson 2015, personal observation). Winter roosting is typically composed of mixed-sexed groups from a single individual to several hundred or several thousand; however, behavior varies with latitude. In areas with prolonged periods of non-freezing temperatures, C. townsendii tends to form relatively small hibernating aggregations of single to several dozen individuals (Barbour and Davis 1969; Pierson et al. 1991; Pierson and Rainey 1996). Larger aggregations (75 to 460) are confined to areas which experience prolonged periods of freezing temperatures (Pierson and Rainey 1996). Studies in the western U.S. have shown that C. townsendii selects winter roosts with stable, cold temperatures, and moderate air flow (Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Kunz and Martin 1982). Temperature appears to be a limiting factor in roost selection. Recorded temperatures in C. townsendii hibernacula range from minus 2.0 to 13.0 degrees Celsius (28 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit) (Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Genter 1986; Pearson et al. 1952; Pierson et al. 1991; Twente 1955), with temperatures below 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) being preferred (Pierson and Rainey 1996). The period of hibernation is shorter at lower elevations and latitudes.
Threats Surveys conducted by Pierson and Rainey (1996) show marked population declines for both subspecies in California. This species has been petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered status in the State. Over the past 40 years, there has been a 52 percent loss in the number of maternity colonies, a 45 percent decline in the number of available roosts, a 54 percent decline in the total number of animals, and a 33 percent decrease in the average size of remaining colonies for the species as a whole Statewide. The status of particular populations is correlated with amount of disturbance to or loss of suitable roosting sites. The populations that have shown the most marked declines are along the coast, in the Mother Lode country of the western Sierra Nevada foothills, and along the Colorado River.
The combination of restrictive roost requirements and sedentary behavior suggests that C. townsendii is roost limited, and that roost loss, through disturbance or destruction, has been primarily responsible for population declines in most areas. Although fire, winter storms, or general deterioration are sometimes responsible, in all but 2 of 39 documented cases, roost loss in California can be directly linked to human activity (e.g., demolition, renewed mining, entrance closure, human-induced fire, renovation, or roost disturbance). Population declines are most highly correlated with roost destruction in the San Francisco Bay area, along the northern coast, and in San Diego County, and with roost disturbance in the Mother Lode country and along the Colorado River. Although C. townsendii is often found using human-made structures, such as barns, large houses, historic buildings, and bridges, they are very sensitive to disturbance, and will readily abandon a day roost, particularly a maternity roost, if disturbed. Bats are often not tolerated in historic structures, even those that are not open to the public, due to concerns over damage to the historic fabric of a building, so even a rare species such as C. townsendii, one that forms relatively small colonies, is subject to permanent loss of critical roost habitat. Because C. townsendii is a large
Eldorado National Forest 153 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences cavity-roosting species, and not a crevice-roosting species, they will not use bat houses as replacement habitat, so loss of structure roosts is highly significant for this species.
Maternity colonies are impacted by inappropriate cave closures or disturbance during human visitation. The increasing and intense recreational use of caves in California provides the most likely explanation for why most otherwise suitable, historically significant roosts are currently unoccupied. It is well documented that C. townsendii is so sensitive to human disturbance that simple entry into a maternity roost can cause a colony to abandon or move to an alternate roost (Pearson et al. 1952; Graham 1966; Stebbings 1966; Mohr 1972; Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Stihler and Hall 1993).
Direct and Indirect Effects OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest would not change the habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat, as no habitat modifications are anticipated. Very little is known about Townsend’s big-eared bats’ wintering behavior. Some limited migration to lower elevation may occur. However, if Townsend’s big-eared bats remain on the landscape in winter, there is a low likelihood that their behavior could be modified by the noise or disruption associated with OSV use or grooming of OSV trails. This would be entirely dependent on the location of the winter roost in proximity to a bridge, building, cavity, mine or tree. Since there are no known winter roosts on the Eldorado, no reduction of noise can be mitigated should there be a noise impact from OSVs. Should OSV activities have a temporary disturbance, breeding could be impacted; however, it would not preclude breeding at a later time. There should be no impact to the maternal roosts, as they would start in April or May, following snowmelt.
Townsend’s big-eared bats forage in riparian areas and meadows outside of the hibernation period. Emissions from OSVs, particularly two-stroke engines on snowmobiles, release pollutants like ammonium, sulfate, benzene, PAHs 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. However, the minimum cross-country snow depth of 12 inches under all of the alternatives, including the existing condition, is expected to be adequate to protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality (see Water Resources section in Chapter 3).
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effect for Townsend’s big-eared bats is the same as fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes).
Determination All alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Forest Plan area based on the following: • Proposed actions would not physically modify Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat.
• Proposed actions would generally occur when the species is hibernating and is generally inactive.
Eldorado National Forest 154 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• Depending upon the location of winter roost structures with respect to OSV use, individual bats within winter roosts could be disturbed by noise associated with OSVs and human presence and missed breeding attempts could result.
• The low risk of modification of the prey/food base from oil, gas, or other vehicle fluids entering waterways would be mitigated by the 12-inch minimum snow depth that would protect aquatic and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to vegetation or water quality.
Forest Service Sensitve Species that Utilize Riparian or Wetland Habitats
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Species Account The bald eagle, (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), was federally de-listed on August 8, 2007 (Federal Register 72(130), pages 37346–37372), and then placed on the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.
This species occurs and winters throughout California, except in desert areas. Migratory individuals from northern and northeastern parts of the State arrive between mid-October and December, and remain until March or early April. Most bald eagle breeding in California occurs in the northern counties (Butte, Lake, El Dorado, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties), typically at low elevations; breeding in the high Sierra Nevada is rare (USDA Forest Service 2001).
Habitat Status Bald eagles winter throughout California near lakes, reservoirs, riverine, and marsh habitats. They breed mainly in the northern portion of the State near coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams that support an adequate food supply. They often nest in mature or old-growth trees; snags (dead trees); cliffs; rock promontories; rarely on the ground; and with increasing frequency on human-made structures such as power poles and communication towers. In forested areas, bald eagles often select the tallest trees with limbs strong enough to support a nest that can weigh more than 1,000 pounds. Nest sites typically include at least one perch with a clear view of the water where the eagles usually forage (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Egg-laying dates vary throughout the United States. On the Eldorado National Forest, bald eagles initiate breeding in January. Incubation begins in late February to mid-March. Incubation lasts for approximately 35 days, and hatching occurs in early May to June. Both parents provide care for the nestlings for approximately 10 to 12 weeks. Juveniles fledge in late July and exhibit nest site dependency for 4 to 11 weeks following the first flight.
Bald eagles are usually monogamous and pair for life, though re-pairing may occur if either of the pair dies. Bald eagles require 4 to 5 years to reach sexual maturity and full adult plumage. Dispersal distances can be substantial; this species often disperses several hundred miles from the natal site. Females tend to disperse farther than males. Breeding home ranges vary substantially by location from 58 acres in Alaska to 5 acres in Arizona. Migration distances of up to 1,712 miles have been recorded. Fidelity to wintering grounds is strong (summarized in USDA Forest Service [2001]). Nest trees are “typically established in large, dominant live trees with open branch work and are often located within 1.6 km [0.96 miles] of open water” (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Nest trees
Eldorado National Forest 155 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences must be sturdy to support the large, heavy stick nests built by this species at or just below the tree canopy (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Nests are located most frequently in stands with less than 40 percent canopy cover (Call 1978 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). There are two nest sites, Union Valley and Stumpy Meadows (63 acres each) buffered by 660 feet13 and 22,022 acres of bald eagle reproductive habitat 14 on forest system lands within the Eldorado National Forest boundary. No bald eagle nest sites are within 660 feet of areas designated for OSV use within moderate to high use under any of the alternatives and, therefore, no disturbance impacts to breeding bald eagle are anticipated.
Threats The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986) states that the main threats to this species in Sierra Nevada Mountains (zone 28) are disturbance at wintering grounds and loss of potential nesting habitat to logging or development. The Plan’s proposed management directions are maintenance of winter habitat and evaluation of potential reintroduction/expansion of “breeders.” The most urgent site-specific task (1.3211) identified for the Forest Service in the Sierra Nevada Mountains is to prohibit logging of known nest, perch, or winter roost trees (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986).
Bald eagles are also sensitive to human or recreation disturbance. Numerous studies have reported that eagles avoid or are adversely affected by human disturbance during the breeding period, which may result in nest abandonment and reproductive failure (Stalmaster and Newman 1978; Andrew and Mosher 1982; Fraser et al. 1985; Knight and Skagen 1988; Buehler et al. 1991; Grubb and King 1991; Chandler et al. 1995). The response of bald eagles to human activities is variable. Individual bald eagles show different thresholds of tolerance for disturbance. This variability may be related to a number of factors, including visibility, duration, noise levels, extent of the area affected by the activity, prior experiences with humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting pair (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Forested habitats can mute noise generated by vehicles and screen the vehicle from sight. Disturbance effects are greatest during nest building, courtship, egg laying, and incubation. However, disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and foraging areas can also negatively affect bald eagles. Disruptive activities in or near eagle foraging areas can interfere with feeding, reducing chances of survival or productivity (number of young successfully fledged). Migrating and wintering bald eagles often congregate at specific sites, usually in mature trees where the eagles are somewhat sheltered from the wind and weather, for purposes of feeding and sheltering because of their proximity to sufficient food sources. Human activities near or within communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if no other undisturbed and productive feeding and roosting sites are available. Stalmaster and Newman (1978) found that wintering bald eagles were adversely affected by human disturbance and distribution patterns were significantly changed by human activity. Eagles were displaced in areas of high human activity and moved to areas of lower human activity. Flush distances were lower when the disturbance was on land than in the water and lower still if the eagle could not see the cause of the disturbance.
13 660-foot nest site buffers based on USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2007). 14 Ponderosa Pine [CWHR (2014) types 5S, 5P, 5M, 5D)] and Sierran Mixed Conifer and White Fir [CWHR (2014) types 5S, 5P, 5M, 5D, and 6)] within 1 mile of waterbodies and major rivers. Buffered nest sites are not included in total to prevent double counting with nest site analysis.
Eldorado National Forest 156 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Additional studies indicate that animals, including bald eagles, infrequently demonstrated active responses to OSVs and associated human presence (USDI National Park Service 2013). In a study based on approximately 5,688 interactions 15 over four winters between groups of wildlife and groups of snowmobiles and/or snowcoaches, White et al. (2009) found the following observed responses of bald eagles to OSV use: no apparent response (17 percent), look-resume (64 percent), alert (9 percent), travel (4 percent), flight (6 percent), and defensive (0 percent). Based on these findings, it would appear that eagles have become desensitized to OSV use and other human disturbance in the park during winter to some extent (USDI National Park Service 2013). White et al. (2009) also assessed the relationship between wildlife behavioral responses and factors including wildlife group size or distance from road, interaction time, group size of snowmobiles or snowcoaches, type of habitat, and cumulative winter OSV traffic. For bison, elk, swans, and bald eagles, the odds of a movement response (travel, flight) decreased with increasing distance of the animals from the road. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) include a buffer of 100 meters (330 feet) for off-road vehicle use, including snowmobiles, in forested landscapes and/or variable terrain, and 200 meters (660 feet) in open landscapes where line of sight to nest trees may be a concern.
Direct and Indirect Effects Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects to bald eagle are listed in Table 42.
Table 42. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to bald eagles Resource Indicator and Measure Effect (quantify if possible) Potential for # of bald eagle nests within 660 ft of a trail disturbance to individuals from noise and increased human presence, injury or
mortality of individuals Acres and percentage of buffered bald eagle nests impacted by OSV use
The majority of associated risk factors within wetland and riparian habitats apply to roads and trails and primarily include the following direct effects (Gaines et al. 2003): site disturbance and potential for injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collisions. Site disturbance includes (1) displacement or avoidance by populations or individual animals away from human activities; and (2) disturbance and displacement of individuals from breeding or rearing habitats. Potential for injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collision: The likelihood of a collision between snow grooming equipment and bald eagles is extremely low because the equipment travels slowly (3 to 6 miles per hour) and snow grooming occurs at night when eagles are roosting. There is an increased likelihood of collision with OSVs due to higher frequency of
15 An interaction sampling unit was defined as the interaction between a group of over-snow vehicles and associated humans and a group of bison or elk within 1,500 feet (500 meters) of the road.
Eldorado National Forest 157 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
OSV use and higher speeds, but the potential is still very low. OSV proposed actions would not physically modify any suitable bald eagle habitat within the project area.
Comparison of the Alternatives Error! Re fe rence source not found. Table 44 shows and compares, by alternative, the amount of buffered bald eagle nest sites and reproductive habitat, respectively, with the potential for direct and indirect effects (disturbance, injury, or mortality) from OSV use and related activities.
The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) recommended a 660-foot nest buffer for off-road vehicle use to prevent impacts to nesting bald eagles. Therefore, bald eagle nest sites are not expected to be impacted under all of the action alternatives.
Table 43. Number of of bald eagle nest sites, buffered by 660 feet, overlapping moderate/high OSV Areas by Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 4 Number of bald eagle nest sites 0 0 0 0
Unoccupied reproductive habitat with potential for disturbance impacts from OSV activities from moderate to high use ranges from 1,150 acres (Alternative 3) to 1,907 acres (Alternative 4).
Table 44. Acres of high-value bald eagle reproductive habitat with potential to be impacted by OSV use and related activities, by alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 4 Acres Designated for OSV use within moderate to high use areas 1,828 1,828 1,150 1,907
Cumulative Effects Bald eagle habitat overlaps with areas open to Christmas tree cutting and firewood cutting. There would be minimal overlap between the Christmas tree and firewood cutting season (annually between November 1 and December 31) and OSV trail grooming season (beginning December 26), and disturbance or displacement from this activity would occur outside of the bald eagle breeding season under all alternatives. Use of roads within bald eagle habitats after the March 31 termination date for exclusive OSV use can contribute additional disturbance during the early part of the bald eagle breeding season, particularly for nests within 0.25 mile of roads. In general, most non-motorized winter recreation occurs along designated trails, where birds would either avoid the area, if too great an impact, or habituate to the noise. Similar activities on State and private lands within the Forest boundary and within 0.25 mile of bald eagle nests may impact habitat outside of National Forest System lands and may increase disturbance locally. However, the potential for this type of disturbance is unknown. In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions may locally increase the potential for disturbance to or displacement of bald eagles, but are not expected to contribute substantial impacts to those discussed for the project under any of the alternatives
Eldorado National Forest 158 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Determination All Alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may affect individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for bald eagle in the Forest Plan area for the following reasons: • OSV proposed actions would not physically modify the structure or composition of suitable bald eagle habitat within the project area.
• No bald eagle nest sites are within 660 feet of moderate to high OSV use areas under any of the alternatives and, therefore, no disturbance impacts to breeding bald eagles are expected.
• The potential for injury or mortality from OSV collision with individua l bald eagles is very low under all of the alternatives.
Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)
Species Account The great gray owl population estimate for California is fewer than 300 individuals (Wu et al. 2015). The present known population is centered in and adjacent to Yosemite National Park. Nesting activity on the Stanislaus National Forest has been documented at five distinct locations. There have also been several recent sightings on the Sierra National Forest, including a successful nest site in 2002. Recent sightings of great gray owls have also been recorded in or near Modoc, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. There is one Great Gray Owl Protected Activity Center (PAC) on the Eldorado National Forest although the nest is on private land adjacent to the forest.
Habitat Status As described by Beck and Winter (2000), the great gray owl requires mid- or late-succession conifer forests at size class 4 (dominant and co-dominant trees 12 to 23 inches), containing large (over 24 inches d.b.h.), broken-top snags in the forest matrix in sufficient numbers (five to six snags per acre) to provide nest sites. These sites are typically red and/or white firs vegetation types; however, old and decadent black oaks have been used for nesting at lower elevations. More recently, Wu et al. (2015) characterized habitat at known nesting sites and found that 30 percent of nests were in oak trees and 21 percent were below 1,000 meters (3,281 feet), which loosely corresponds to the lower conifer-zone limit. Suitable nest sites were located near (less than 440 yards or approximately 400 meters) montane meadows between 2,000 and 8,000 feet in elevation. Forest canopy closures are greater than 60 percent in at least some portion of the forest stands adjacent to meadows or other natural or managed herbaceous openings (i.e., patch cut regenerated forest). Foraging areas include meadows and openings that have sufficient herbaceous cover to support pocket gophers and microtine rodents (i.e., meadow voles); pocket gophers and meadow voles are believed to comprise the majority of the owl’s diet (Kalinowski et al. 2014). Meadows or portions of meadows, with standing water remaining at mid-summer, are not suitable because they would be void of these prey rodents. Potential territories include meadows which total 10 acres or more in size adjacent to these mature closed-canopy forest stands (Beck and Winter 2000). Van Riper et al. (2013) found that human recreational activities seem to have a negative influence on great gray owl distribution in Yosemite National Park, particularly in remote natural areas of the park, largely avoiding those areas where people are present. In the park, owls primarily use meadows
Eldorado National Forest 159 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences with lower levels of human activity. Loss of mature forest habitat for nesting and the degradation of montane meadows remain the major sources of habitat loss.
Potentially suitable habitat for the great gray owl is scattered across the Eldorado National Forest. There were three observations recorded on the Eldorado in 2010. There are 2,410 acres of great gray owl high-value reproductive habitat 16 on National Forest System lands within the project area.
Direct and Indirect Effects Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects to great gray owl are listed in Table 45.
Table 45. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to great gray owl Resource Indicator and Measure Effect (quantify if possible) Potential for Acres and percentage of high-reproductive habitat impacted by OSV use disturbance to individuals from noise and increased human presence, injury or mortality of individuals, or habitat modification
The majority of associated risk factors within wetland and riparian habitats apply to roads and trails and primarily include the following potential direct effects (Gaines et al. 2003): site disturbance and potential for injury or mortality to individuals from vehicle collisions. Site disturbance includes (1) displacement or avoidance by populations or individual animals away from human activities; and (2) disturbance and displacement of individuals from breeding or rearing habitats. Although great gray owls have not been confirmed nesting on the Eldorado National Forest, snowplay in meadows may prevent great gray owl use of in or adjacent to those meadows. Like the other raptor species under consideration in this analysis, potential noise-based disturbance to breeding individuals is the primary concern. If great gray owls are present on the Eldorado National Forest, the potential for disturbance to breeding individuals would be limited to the early portion of the March 1 through August 15 great gray owl breeding season that overlaps with the OSV use season.
Owls are nocturnal whereas the majority of OSV use and associated activities on the Eldorado National Forest, with the exception of trail grooming, occur during the daytime, so the potential for collisions of OSVs with great gray owls, should they be present, would be negligible and foraging behavior would generally not be interrupted.
16 Areas < 440 yards (~ 400 meters) to montane meadows >10 acres in size and between 2,000 and 8,000 feet in elevation with forest canopy closures >60 percent (CWHR closure class “D”) in at least some portion of the forest stands adjacent to meadows; habitat query includes adjacent meadows that are foraging habitat.
Eldorado National Forest 160 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Potential effects of noise disturbance would be the same as those noted due to OSV use. In addition, trail grooming and night riding could disturb owls that forage at night. Trails are generally located away from meadows, but the passage of a trail grooming machine on a trail adjacent to or nearby a meadow, may interrupt owl foraging, result in owl prey taking refuge, or cause owls to redirect their foraging away from that particular area. However, due to the limited frequency17 and duration of trail grooming at any trail segment location, noise disturbance from trail grooming would probably not have a significant impact on breeding or foraging great gray owls. Although night riding could have similar impacts to foraging owls, it would be uncommon because most OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest occurs during daytime hours. Based on OSV use patterns described in the assumptions section, once OSV trail grooming ends, it is estimated that use of those trails declines by 50 percent. Therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects to activity centers within 0.25 mile of groomed trails would decrease substantially after March 31 for all alternatives.
Although OSV use or related activities would not physically alter the vegetative structure of spotted owl habitat, great gray owl prey species that use the subnivean space could be subject to OSV-related impacts from snow compaction, including suffocation or alteration of movement while foraging in the subnivean space beneath the snow. The degree of this impact is unknown, but would be more likely in high use areas, including meadows used by great gray owls for foraging
Comparison of the Alternatives
Table 46 displays, by alternative, the acres of great gray owl reproductive habitat with the potential for direct and indirect effects from OSV use and related activities.
In the event that great gray owls are found on the Eldorado National Forest, the potential for OSV-related noise-based disturbance would overlap with only the early part of the March 1 through August 15 great gray owl breeding season.
Table 46. Acres of high-value great gray owl reproductive habitat with highest potential to be impacted by OSV use and related activities, by alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 4 Acres Designated for OSV use 1,761 1,748 1,546 1,772 Acres Designated for OSV use within 1,650 1,640 1,449 1,660 moderate to high use areas Total acres of great gray owl reproductive 2,410 2,410 2,410 2,410 habitat
17 Grooming operations at most trail systems currently operate near a maximum level. Trails are prioritized for grooming based on visitor use. Grooming on priority trails occurs several times per week and after significant storms. The total hours of trail grooming occurring expected at each site for an average season vary from 94 annual snowcat hours at Swain Mountain to 680 hours at Bogard and Fredonyer on the Lassen National Forest. Snow removal on access roads and trailhead parking areas, serving the Over-snow Vehicle Program trail systems, occurs several times during storm events, as necessary dependent upon weather conditions (California Parks and Recreation 2010).
Eldorado National Forest 161 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could result in a cumulative impact to great gray owl, when combined with alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4, include those with the potential for disturbance to or displacement of great gray owls such as the vegetation management projects, fire salvage projects, firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, non-motorized winter recreational activities or use of roads by wheeled vehicles during the season of overlap between OSVs and wheeled vehicles. Vegetation management projects are very small in comparison to the OSV Use Designation action area and/or do not overlap with groomed OSV routes or staging areas where the highest OSV use occurs. Vegetation and fuels management activities in recent years have included primarily thinned, masticated, and/or burned vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires that benefit great gray owl.
Great gray owl habitat also overlaps with areas open to Christmas tree cutting and firewood cutting. There would be minimal overlap between the Christmas tree and firewood cutting season and OSV trail grooming season (beginning December 26), and disturbance or displacement from this activity would occur outside of the great gray owl breeding season under all alternatives.
In general, most non-motorized winter recreation occurs along designated trails, where birds would avoid roosting in the area, if too great a disturbance, or habituate to the noise. In summary, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions could be additive locally to individual great gray owls, but are not expected to contribute substantial impacts to those discussed for the project under any of the alternatives.
Determination Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project may affect individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing for great gray owl in the Forest Plan area for the following reasons: • Structure or composition of great gray owl habitat would not be physically modified by OSV use and related activities.
• In the event that nesting great gray owls are found on the Eldorado National Forest, the potential for OSV-related noise-based disturbance would overlap with only the early part of the March 1 through August 15 great gray owl breeding season.
• Due to their nocturnal behavior, great gray owls, if present, would be expected to have little interaction with snowmobiles or snow grooming equipment resulting in very little potential for direct effects from snowmobiles or grooming equipment.
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)
Species Account This neotropical migrant species breeds within the contiguous United States, except the Southeast, and the southern margins of Canada (Green et al. 2003), and winters from Mexico to northern South America (USDA Forest Service 2001).
Historically, this species likely occurred in suitable habitats throughout California and portions of Nevada including the central coast, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, and Great Basin (summarized in USDA Forest Service [2001]). Willow flycatchers were common in the Sierra
Eldorado National Forest 162 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Nevada until as recently as 1910, and locally abundant through 1940 (USDA Forest Service 2001). However, this species has declined precipitously in the Sierra Nevada since 1950 (summarized in Green et al. [2003]). Urbanization and the draining, channelization, and filling of wetlands; grazing; mining; and pesticide use are likely responsible for the decline in range and abundance of this species.
Livestock grazing, predation, and human activity have all been considered threats to flycatcher nesting habitat. Poorly managed grazing can alter the hydrologic and vegetative characteristics of meadows and contribute to poor quality habitat for nest selection and increased visibility (vulnerability) of nests to predation (Stanley and Knopf 2002). Nest predation is the leading cause of nest failure in willow flycatcher nests (Mathewson et al. 2011). Human activity (presence of people, dogs, and vehicles) has also been found to be a significant impact to land birds, surpassing that of habitat loss from development (Schlesinger et al. 2008).
In the past three decades, willow flycatchers have undergone substantial population declines in California. Multiple factors likely contributed to the decline including poor quality of meadow habitat, shortened breeding-season length and stochastic weather events, the initial small population size, and low reproduction that influenced dispersal dynamics (Mathewson et al. 2011). Nest predation was the primary cause of nest failure at their study sites. The authors recommend two types of restoration, including: (1) restore meadows currently occupied by willow flycatchers, and (2) restore meadows within 5 miles of occupied sites to provide habitat for dispersing flycatchers. Mathewson et al. (2011) suggest that restoration could enhance nest success and recommend increasing riparian shrub cover (e.g., willow) and improving meadow wetness to both increase vegetation and reduce predation rates on nests, fledglings, and adults. Willow flycatchers currently occur and breed in areas (e.g., Upper Truckee River Watershed) where they were thought to have “all but disappeared” (USDA Forest Service 2001), though at very low densities and with limited reproductive success. The recent extirpation of this species from Yosemite National Park, where suitable habitats are presumably better preserved than those located outside the park, suggests that other factors may be contributing to the decline of this species in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel et al. 2008). Siegel et al. (2008) tentatively suggested that severe habitat degradation during the 19th century (due to grazing, which was discontinued in Yosemite National Park decades ago), meadow desiccation (due to global warming and resulting in earlier spring melts and a reduction in site wetness), disrupted meta-population dynamics, or conditions on the wintering grounds or along migration routes may explain the decline in Yosemite National Park.
Habitat Status Suitable habitat for this species in the Sierra Nevada is defined by site elevation, shrub coverage, foliar density, wetness, and meadow size (summarized in Green et al. [2003]). Known willow flycatcher sites range in elevation from 1,200 to 9,500 feet, though most (88 percent, 119 of 135) are located between 4,000 and 8,000 feet (Stefani et al. 2001). Willow flycatchers are closely associated with meadows that have high water tables in the late spring and early summer, and abundant shrubby, deciduous vegetation (especially Salix spp.). Shrubs in these preferred habitats are typically 6.5 to 13 feet in height, with the lower half composed of dense woody stems. Live foliage density within the shrub layer is moderate to high and uniform from the ground to the shrub canopy (summarized in USDA Forest Service [2001]). Sites are “significantly more likely to support multiple willow flycatchers, and result in successful breeding efforts, as riparian shrub cover in meadows and willow flycatcher territories increases” (Bombay 1999 as cited in USDA Forest Service 2001).
Eldorado National Forest 163 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Within preferred sites, “the herbaceous community is consistent with high water tables and late seral conditions” (USDA Forest Service 2001). Furthermore, this species prefers and is significantly more likely to occupy and defend territories that have standing water or saturated soils during the breeding season, often selecting the wettest portions within meadows (USDA Forest Service 2001). Occupied meadows range in size from less than 1.0 acre to 716 acres, averaging approximately 80 acres (USDA Forest Service 2001). More than 95 percent of breeding meadows are larger than 10 acres, and meadows where multiple territories have fledged young are larger than 15 acres (summarized in Green et al. [2003]). This species exhibits some site fidelity; 15 percent of adult birds tarsal-banded in the Sierra Nevada in 1997 and 1998 returned in a subsequent year, compared to 31 percent at the Kern River Preserve (California), and 50 percent at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon (Green et al. 2003). Between-year site fidelity on wintering grounds in Costa Rica averaged 68 percent (Koronkiewicz et al. 2006).
This species typically nests from June 1 to August 31 and fledges young between July 15 and August 31. Fledglings remain in territories for 2 for 3 weeks after fledging (USDA 2004). However, these dates vary due to factors such as when willow flycatchers arrive on the breeding grounds, snowpack, late spring and summer weather, nest predation, and brown-headed cowbird parasitism (Green et al. 2003).
This species may attempt nesting as many as three times during a single breeding season in the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2004). Nest predation has been positively associated with edge effects, distance of the nest to edges and isolated trees, and aspects of meadow size and wetness (Cain and Morrison 2003).
Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to willow flycatchers from OSV use, since willow flycatchers would arrive on their breeding grounds within the project area in mid to late May. The minimum cross-country snow depth varies between 12 to 18 inches under all the action alternatives and is expected to be adequate to protect vegetation from measurable impacts.
Cumulative Effects The Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project would not result in measurable direct or indirect impacts to the willow flycatcher and, therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to this species.
Determination None of the alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project would impact the willow flycatcher or its habitat for the following reasons:
• Willow flycatcher is a neotropical migrant that arrives well past the end of the OSV season of use, so no direct impacts to the species would occur.
• OSV use has not been identified as a factor in meadow degradation for this species, and the minimum cross-country snow depth of 12 inches under all of the alternatives, including the existing condition, is expected to protect meadow and riparian habitats from measurable impacts to water quality or vegetation.
Eldorado National Forest 164 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Forest Service Sensitive Species: Terrestrial Invertebrates
Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis)
Species Account Historically, the western bumble bee was one of the most broadly distributed bumble bee species in North America (Cameron et al. 2011). The species was broadly distributed across western North America along the Pacific Coast and westward from Alaska to the Colorado Rocky Mountains (Thorp and Shepard 2005; Koch et al. 2012). Currently, the western bumble bee occurs in all states adjacent to California, but is experiencing severe declines in distribution and abundance due to a variety of factors including diseases and loss of genetic diversity (Tommasi et al. 2004; Cameron et al. 2011; Koch et al. 2012).
The overall status of populations in the West largely depends on geographic region: populations west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains are experiencing dire circumstances with steeply declining numbers, while those to the east of this dividing line are more secure with relatively unchanged population sizes. The reasons for these differences are not known. The western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) has 94 collection records on 11 national forests in Region 5 (Hatfield 2012) including the Eldorado National Forest.
Habitat Status Bumble bees are threatened by many kinds of habitat alterations that may fragment or reduce the availability of flowers that produce the nectar and pollen they require and decrease the number of abandoned rodent burrows that provide nest and hibernation sites for queens. Major threats that alter landscapes and habitat required by bumble bees include agricultural and urban development. Exposure to organophosphate, carbamate, pyrethroid, and particularly neonicotinoid insecticides has recently been identified as a major contributor to the decline of many pollinating bees, including honey bees and bumble bees (Hopwood et al. 2012). In the absence of fire, native conifers encroach upon meadows and this can also decrease foraging and nesting habitat available for bumble bees.
Queens overwinter in the ground in abandoned rodent (i.e., mouse, chipmunk or vole) burrows at depths from 6 to 18 inches. In the late winter or early spring, the queen emerges from hibernation and then selects a nest site, which is often a pre-existing hole, such as an abandoned rodent hole. Bumble bees require habitats with rich supplies of floral resources with continuous blooming from spring to autumn. Isolated patches of habitat are not sufficient to fully support bumble bee populations. Bumblebee colonies are annual.Queens end the year by locating a sheltering burrow, where they may spend the winter months under cover. Where nesting habitat is scarce, bumble bee species having queens that emerge early (mid-March) in the season like B. vosnesenskii, which co-occurs with the later-emerging western bumble bee, may be able to monopolize available nest sites and reduce the chances of success for bumble bee species emerging later.
Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat loss and fragmentation may be playing a role in the decline of these bumble bee species. Habitat alterations that destroy, fragment, degrade, or reduce their food supplies, nest sites (e.g., abandoned rodent burrows or undisturbed grass), and hibernation sites for overwintering queens can harm these species (Evans et al. 2008). The minimum cross-country snow depth of 12 to 18
Eldorado National Forest 165 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences inches under all of the alternatives, including the existing condition, is expected to be adequate to protect vegetation from measurable impacts.
Cumulative Effects The Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project would not result in measurable direct or indirect impacts to the western bumble bee and, therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to this species.
Determination None of the alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project would impact the western bumble bee or its habitat based on the following rationale:
• Colonies are annual outside of the OSV season.
• Queens of the species hibernate during the OSV season of use and, therefore, proposed actions would not result in noise impacts or impacts to foraging or breeding.
• Known information suggests that queens burrow under duff under trees and on steeper slopes where OSV use does not occur (refer to OSV use assumptions).
• OSV use is not expected to degrade terrestrial habitat based upon a minimum cross- country snow depth of 12 to 18 inches to be maintained under all of the alternatives.
Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Eldorado National Forest are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The habitats and ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the project were selected from this list of MIS, as indicated in Table 47. In addition to identifying the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), and the associated MIS (3rd column), the table discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation (4th column). MIS habitat is within the project area, but would not be directly or indirectly affected by the project under each alternative.
Table 47. Summary of effects of Eldorado OSV use designation project on management indicator species Habitat or CWHR Type(s) defining the Sierra Nevada Forests Category for Ecosystem habitat or ecosystem component Management Indicator Project Component 1 Species Analysis 2 Riverine & lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) Aquatic macroinvertebrates Lacustrine 2 Shrubland (west- montane chaparral (MCP), mixed Fox sparrow (Passerella slope chaparral chaparral (MCH), chamise- iliaca) 2 types) redshank chaparral (CRC) Oak-associated montane hardwood (MHW), Mule deer (Odocoileus Hardwood & montane hardwood-conifer (MHC) hemionus) 2 Hardwood/conifer Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley Yellow warbler (Dendroica 2 foothill riparian (VRI) petechial) Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), freshwater Pacific tree (chorus) frog emergent wetland (FEW) (Pseudacris regilla) 2
Eldorado National Forest 166 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Habitat or CWHR Type(s) defining the Sierra Nevada Forests Category for Ecosystem habitat or ecosystem component Management Indicator Project Component 1 Species Analysis 2 Early Seral ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran Mountain quail (Oreortyx Coniferous mixed conifer (SMC), white fir pictus) Forest (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy closures 2 Mid Seral ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran Mountain quail (Oreortyx Coniferous mixed conifer (SMC), white fir pictus) Forest (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy closures Late Seral Open ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran Sooty (blue) grouse Canopy mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (Dendragapus obscurus) Coniferous (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine 2 Forest (EPN), tree size 5, canopy closures S and P Late Seral ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran California spotted owl Closed Canopy mixed conifer (SMC), white fir Coniferous (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 Forest (canopy closures M and D), and Marten 2 tree size 6. Northern flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) Snags in Green Medium and large snags in green Hairy woodpecker (Picoides Forest forest villosus) 2 Snags in Burned Medium and large snags in burned Black-backed woodpecker Forest forest (stand-replacing fire) (Picoides arcticus) 2
1 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height; Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure); Tree size classes: 1 (Seedling)(<1" dbh); 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh); 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 2 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project. Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.
Migratory Landbirds Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). Direction for integrating migratory bird conservation into forest management and planning includes the January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, the Partners in Flight (PIF) Landbird Conservation Plans, the 2001 Executive Order (EO)13186 and the 2017 Department of Interior Solicitor’s Opinion M-37050. Within the National Forests, migratory bird conservation focuses on providing a diversity of bird habitats at multiple spatial and temporal scales over the long-term.
Eldorado National Forest 167 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
In 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other Federal, State, Tribal and local governments. Within the national forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.
Effects to various habitats would be minimal to none considering that forested cover is not modified. Similarly, OSV use is concentrated between December 26 and March 31, which predominately avoids overlap with the active breeding season for most migratory bird species. The Eldorado OSV Designation Project would have minimal impacts to individual migratory birds and would not adversely affect migratory landbird conservation.
Summary of Effects
Table 48. Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species considered within this analysis Species Name Project Detections in Suitable Determination and Summary of Area Within or Near the Habitat Effects for all alternatives Species’ Project Area Present Range Federally Listed Species California wolverine Yes No Yes May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely (Gulo gulo luteus) Affect Potential for disturbance effects, however species not currently known to occur on the Eldorado National Forest; project will not affect habitat Forest Service Sensitive Species: Late-successional forest species Fisher No No Yes No Effect (Pekania pennanti) Project area is outside the known distribution of this species; project will not affect habitat Pacific marten Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Martes caurina) Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing Marten are known to occur in the project area, but no known den sites; no affect to habitat California spotted Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to owl (Strix Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing occidentalis OSV use may overlap with early part occidentalis) of CSO breeding season; no affect to habitat Northern goshawk Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Accipiter gentilis) Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing OSV use may overlap with early part of goshawk breeding season; no affect to habitat
Eldorado National Forest 168 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Forest Service Senstive Species: Bats Fringed myotis Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Myotis Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing thysanodes) Bats are generally hibernating during OSV use, however there is a slight potential of disturbance; no affect to habitat Pallid bat Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Antrozous Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing pallidus) Bats are generally hibernating during OSV use, however there is a slight potential of disturbance; no affect to habitat Townsend’s big- Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to eared bat Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing (Corynorhinus Bats are generally hibernating during townsendii) OSV use, however there is a slight potential of disturbance; no affect to habitat Forest Service Sensitive Species that utilize riparian or wetland habitats Bald eagle Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Haliaeetus Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing leucocephalus) No bald eagle nest sites within 660 feet of high to moderate OSV use areas, so disturbance to nesting bald eagles is unlikely; no affect to habitat Great gray owl Yes Yes Yes May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to (Strix nebulosa) Lead to a Trend Tow ard Federal Listing OSV use may overlap with early part of GGO breeding season, however no known nest sites would be affected; no affect to habitat Willow flycatcher Yes Yes Yes No Effect (Empidonax traillii) Willow flycatcher breeding season does not overlap with OSV use; no affect to habitat Forest Service Sensitive Species: Terrestrial invertebrates Western bumble Yes No Yes No Effect bee (Bombus occidentalis)
Eldorado National Forest 169 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Aquatic Resources
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Regulatory Framework
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) The Eldorado National Forest LRMP provides direction specific to management of fish, water and riparian areas, and is found as goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines in chapter 4 of the LRMP as well as in the SNFPA. The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment amended each of the forest plans in the Sierra Nevada and provides regional direction to restore aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and provide for the viability of native plant and animal species associated with these ecosystems. This includes mountain yellow-legged frogs, Yosemite toads, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and their habitats. This regional direction is represented by an array of features that, in their entirety, constitute an aquatic management strategy for the Sierra Nevada. The fundamental principle of the aquatic management strategy is to retain, restore, and protect the processes and landforms that provide habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms. Accomplishment of these objectives are achieved through a combination of tactics such as standards and guidelines and policies that are intended to work collectively, and include a suite of interrelated actions that work together to manage and conserve aquatic habitats.
Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 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 species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat for these species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires the responsible Federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning threatened or endangered species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to threatened or endangered species species to ensure management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat for these species.
Methodology This analysis used relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers from the Eldorado National Forest and Regional Office. The GIS layers of proposed OSV designations and groomed trails were overlain with the aquatic resource (i.e. species distribution, critical habitat, suitable habitat, surveys) layers to identify areas of potentially affected. The aquatics analysis reviewed the proposed action and alternatives in sufficient detail to determine the level of effect that would occur to federally listed aquatic and Region 5 sensitive 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 biologist who completed the evaluation. The four possible determinations for Region 5 sensitive species (from FSM 2672.42) are:
1. “No impact” – where no impact is expected; 2. “Beneficial impact” – where impacts are expected to be beneficial;
Eldorado National Forest 170 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3. “May adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area” – where impacts are expected to be immeasurable or extremely unlikely; and 4. “May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area” – where impacts are expected to be detrimental and substantial. Similar categories for federally listed threatened and endangered species are: 1. No effect 2. May affect, not likely to adversely affect 3. May affect, likely to adversely affect
Assumptions • Aquatic species are unlikely to be directly affected by authorized OSV use (OSVs are not authorized to operate over bare ground or areas with inadequate snow depth that would cause resource damage as described in 36 CFR part 261.15).
• 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) because OSV use is concentrated. Therefore, an area within 25 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.
• Only authorized OSV uses will be analyzed. Concerns arising from unauthorized uses will be addressed as law enforcement issues and may prompt corrective actions.
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The project area boundary (the ENF boundary) serves as the analysis boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Effects to aquatic species or their habitat 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. Long term effects beyond 2 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 aquatic resources is the project area boundary, because all expected effects relevant to this resource 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.
The project area boundary is the National Forest boundary for the Eldorado National Forest for the following reasons: the forest boundary is large enough to address wide-ranging species and Forest Service Sensitive Species’ viability is assessed at the Forest Plan area. The temporal
Eldorado National Forest 171 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences boundary for this analysis is 10 years from the signing of the decision document and is based on adequate time for an effectiveness monitoring to be implemented and results assessed.
Incomplete and Unavailable Information There is little research and information available regarding the responses of each aquatic species from OSV uses, including indirect effects from snow compaction and vehicle emissions during the winter. OSV use is not consistent across all available habitat. Although we don’t know specifically where impacts will occur at any given time and we cannot quantify the amount of impact contributing to snow compaction, vehicle emissions, or the amount of impact on habitat connectivity. We know the potential for impacts would be greatest in areas most conducive to OSV use and in high-use areas (see OSV use assumptions map in Appendix C). No field observations or site specific aquatic surveys or monitoring related to OSV use and their potential effects to aquatic species was done to support this analysis. Eldorado recreation staff monitor snowmobile and other winter recreation use on the forest, but no water quality sampling or assessments on effects of OSV use on aquatic species have been made. Assessments of impacts of snowmobiles were primarily based on past monitoring, current scientific literature, and professional judgement.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Aquatics Species Official species lists for this project were obtained on September 1, 2016, from the Sacramento, and Nevada Field Offices of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a, 2016b). The lists identify aquatic species to consider because they may be present within the general area of the Eldorado National Forest.:
Species Considered in the Analysis Species or Critical Habitat that may occur in the action area or be affected by activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives were reviewed. The species and Critical Habitat in Table 50 were evaluated for potential presence in the action area. Species which don’t provide potential to occur in areas that may be open to OSV use are not carried forward into the effects analysis.
Table 49. Threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive (TEPS) aquatic species considered and designated or proposed Critical Habitat considered within this analysis. Species Status Elevation Range of Known or Potential Addressed Habitat Occurrence within further/Rationale (ft.)/Preferred project area Habitat Amphibians California red-legged Threatened Below 4,000 ft. Potential Occurrence Yes/Potential to frog Ponds and slow occur within the (Rana draytonii) moving streams. project area, as the Final Designated project area is within Critical Habitat the elevation range of species.
Eldorado National Forest 172 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Species Status Elevation Range of Known or Potential Addressed Habitat Occurrence within further/Rationale (ft.)/Preferred project area Habitat Critical Habitat may occur within project area. Sierra Nevada Endangered Above 4,500 ft. Potential Occurrence Yes/Historical yellow-legged frog High elevation low occurrence. Potential (Rana sierrae) gradient streams and to occur within small ponds. project area, as the Final Designated project area is within Critical Habitat elevation range of species. Critical Habitat may occur within project area. Yosemite toad Threatened Above 6,400 ft. Potential Occurrence Yes/Potential to (Anaxyrus canorus) High elevation occur within project wetland areas and area, as the project Final Designated meadows. area is within Critical Habitat elevation range of species. Critical Habitat may occur within project area. Foothill yellow- FS Sensitive Below 5,000 ft. / No Potential Yes/Potential to legged frog High gradient Occurrence occur within project streams with area, as the project cobbles, riffles, and area is within open areas elevation range of species. Fishes Cui-Ui (Chasmistes Endangered No Potential No/This project falls cujus) Occurrence outside the species range. Lahontan cutthroat Threatened NA / Alpine lakes Potential Occurrence Yes/Although this trout where stocked; not project falls outside (Oncorhynchus clarkii known to occur the native range of henshawi) within streams on this species, there is the ENF. potential to occur within project area because this species has been stocked in some reservoirs in the Upper Mokelumne drainage. Delta smelt Threatened NA / Sacramento-San No Potential No/No Effect. Does (Hypomesus Joaquin delta Occurrence not occur within transpacificus) project area, and are located far enough downstream so that there will be no measurable effects to this species or habitat. Hardhead FS Sensitive 30-4,800 ft. / No Potential No/No Effect. Sacramento-San Occurrence Although Hardhead Joaquin delta, and up may occur inside
Eldorado National Forest 173 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Species Status Elevation Range of Known or Potential Addressed Habitat Occurrence within further/Rationale (ft.)/Preferred project area Habitat the S. Fork American project boundaries, River. this species occurs in large rivers and reservoirs found in steep canyons where OSV use would not occur. No effects to the habitat where this species occur is expected. Pacific lamprey FS Sensitive From sea level-4,300 No Potential No/Never ft. / Lower North Occurrence documented on the Fork Cosumnes River forest, though there is potential habitat in Camp Creek. No Effects are expected because OSV use is prohibited over water and areas with inadequate snow depth. And there are not expected any effects to water quality. Reptiles Species Status Elevation Range Known or Potential Addressed (ft.)/Preferred Occurrence further/Rationale Habitat Western pond turtle FS Sensitive Below 5,000 ft. / Potential Occurrence Yes/Potential to (Emmys marmorata) Ponds and slow occur within project moving streams area, as the project area is within elevation range of species.
California Red-legged Frog (CRLF; USFWS Threatened) On June 24, 1996, the California red-legged frog (CRLF), Rana draytonii, was listed as federally threatened (USFWS 1996). The final California Red-legged Frog Recovery Plan was released on September 12, 2002 (USFWS 2002; 67 FR 57830).
The ENF falls within the Sierra Nevada Foothills and Central Valley recovery unit (recovery unit #1) (USFWS 2002). There are 2 core recovery areas in the ENF: Traverse Creek/Middle Fork American River/Rubicon River and the Cosmunes River core areas. While the goal of the recovery plan is to protect the long-term viability of all existing populations within each recovery unit, recovery actions would be focused within, but not limited to, core areas (USFWS 2002).
In the Sierra Nevada foothills, Barry and Fellers (2013) identified historical breeding habitat and have found that manmade habitat on private property capable of supporting large populations has supplemented historical breeding habitat, which probably supported only very small, localized populations.
Eldorado National Forest 174 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Potentially suitable CRLF habitat occurs in the lower elevations of Georgetown, Placerville, and Amador OSV Areas. A condensed version of the potentially suitable habitat for CRLF follows:
▪ Breeding habitat for CRLF includes low-gradient fresh water bodies, including natural and manmade ponds, slow moving streams or pools within streams, backwaters within streams and creeks, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies with less than 2% gradient, less than 50 acres in size, below 4,000 feet in elevation, have a hydroperiod of a minimum of 20 weeks, and with salinities less than 4.5 ppt (USFWS 2010.
▪ Foraging and Dispersal habitat is defined as being all aquatic habitat and adjacent 300 feet of riparian and upland habitat within 1-mile of breeding habitat, excluding large reservoirs and large rivers. Riparian vegetation, comprised of grasslands, woodlands, and/or wetland/riparian plant species that provides the frog shelter, forage, and predator avoidance (Rathbun et al. 1993; Bulger et al. 2003; Tartarian 2008, USFWS 2010). For the purpose of comparing alternatives for this analysis, this foraging and dispersal habitat is what is referred to as suitable CRLF habitat.
▪ Dispersal habitat provides corridors between breeding and on-breeding habitats from predatory species (Service 2002, pp. 12–14; Fellers and Kleeman 2007,pp. 276–277) (USFWS 2010). Dispersal habitat may include upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding habitat up to a distance of 1 mile in most cases and comprised of various vegetation such as grasslands, woodlands, wetland, or riparian plant species that provide the frog shelter, shade, moisture, cooler temperatures, a prey base and predator avoidance.
All known California Red-legged Frog on the ENF have been documented at elevations below 1,372 meters (4,500 feet). CRLF have been documented in generally 4 localities on the ENF. In the Georgetown OSV Area, CRLF have been documented in a pond on top of Ralston Ridge, in Little Silver Creek (a small headwater tributary to Rock Creek), and in the Bear Creek drainage. In the Amador OSV Area, CRLF have been documented in the Clear Creek drainage (a tributary to Steely fork Cosumnes River).
California Red-legged Frog Critical Habitat (Eld-1) On March 17, 2010, the USFWS finalized designation of Critical Habitat for CRLF in one location in and adjacent to the ENF (USFWS 2010; 75 FR 12816) in the Weber Creek drainage (Eld-1), which falls in the lower elevations of the Placerville OSV area.
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (SNYLF; USFWS Endangered) As of June 30, 2014, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF), Rana sierrae is a federally endangered species (Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 82) and a California state threatened species. Prior to 2007, R. sierrae and R. muscosa were considered to represent a single species, Rana muscosa sensu lato (Vredenburg et al. 2007). R. sierrae is endemic to the northern and central Sierra Nevada range, and R. muscosa is endemic to the southern Sierra Nevada range (CDFG 2011, Vredenburg et al. 2007). Because most studies cite R. muscosa sensu lato, and both species occupy similar niches in their respective ranges, this account will address both species together and refer to them as Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs (SNYLF).
Potentially suitable SNYLF habitat defined in the Amendment of the Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct
Eldorado National Forest 175 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad (June 15, 2017) as areas above 4,500 feet in elevation that includ permanent water bodies or those hydrologically connected with permanent water such as wet meadows, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks, permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks, and pools, such as a body of impounded water contained above a natural dam. Suitable habitat includes adjacent areas, up to a distance of 82 feet. Additionally, when water bodies occur within 984 feet of one another, as is typical of some high mountain lake habitat in the Wilderness areas on the ENF, suitable habitat for dispersal and movement includes the overland areas between lake shorelines. In mesic areas such as lake and meadow systems, the entire contiguous or proximate areas are suitable habitat for dispersal and foraging.
Though suitable habitat exists in all OSV Areas, SNYLF have only been documented in Pacific, Placerville, and Amador OSV Areas. SNYLF are known to be present within a number of locations in the ENF, with the large majority of the populations occurring over 6,000 feet elevation in the Desolation and Mokelumne Wilderness areas of the ENF, which are not proposed to be open to OSV use.
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Critical Habitat (Sub-Units 2E and 2F) On August 26, 2016, the USFWS finalized designation of Critical Habitat for SNYLF in two locations in the ENF (USFWS 2016; 81 FR 59045): Crystal Range (sub-unit 2E) and East Amador (sub-unit 2F).
Yosemite Toad (YOTO; USFWS Threatened) As of June 30, 2014, Yosemite toad (YOTO), Anaxyrus [Bufo] canorus, is a federally threatened species (Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 82; USFWS 2014). It is also listed as a California State Species of Special Concern. YOTO are currently recognized as one taxonomic unit, but genetic data imply that more than one discrete lineage may be concealed within what is now called YOTO. Moreover, the relationship between YOTO as a taxonomic unit and its closest relatives is ambiguous and needs clarification (Camp 2017, Mullally and Powell 1958, Morton and Sokolski 1978, Martin et al. 1992, Goebel 1996, Shaffer et al. 2000, Goebel 2005, Goebel et al. 2009, and Wang 2012). The northern extant of the current assumed range of the YOTO extends only slightly into the southern portion of the ENF. In this part of the YOTO range, morphological and genetic results of surveys have yet to determine a consistent pattern of speciation or hybridization with Western toads (Anaxyrus [Bufo] boreas) (Brown et al. 2015).
Potentially suitable YOTO habitat is defined in the Amendment of the Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad (June 15, 2017). Suitable breeding and rearing habitat includes wet portions of meadows, slow- moving streams, shallow ponds, spring systems, and lakes with shallow areas that are inundated at snowmelt and hold water for a minimum of 5 weeks in most years. Suitable habitat that is not used for breeding or development of early life history stages includes all portions of meadows or other occupied breeding habitats and surrounding areas up to a distance of 0.78 mile depending on surrounding landscapes and dispersal barriers. On the ENF suitable habitat is assumed to be above 6,400 feet in elevation.
Suitable habitat for the YOTO occurs only in the high elevations of Placerville and Amador OSV Areas. Inside suitable habitat on the ENF, toads are known to be present within a number of locations but the only documented YOTO is an incidental adult sighting in 2014 in an
Eldorado National Forest 176 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences unnamed tributary to the North Fork Mokelumne in the Mokelumne Wilderness, which is not proposed to be open to OSV use. All other adult toads found in suitable habitat have been documented as Western toads based on their appearance. The remaining toad occurrences inside YOTO suitable habitat cannot be identified to species, as it is impossible to distinguish tadpoles and sub-adults between Western toads and YOTO, and these are the life stages that are generally found when surveying for toads in high elevations.
Yosemite Toad Critical Habitat (Unit 1) On August 26, 2016, the USFWS finalized designation of Critical Habitat in one location in the ENF (USFWS 2016; 81 FR 59045): Blue Lakes/Mokelumne (Unit 1).
Foothill yellow-legged Frog (FYLF; FS Sensitive) The foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), Rana boylii, have suffered significant population declines across the majority of their known range (Fellers 2005; Jennings and Hayes 1994). In the Sierra Nevada Mountains range, FYLF area distributed along the length of the western flank of the mountain range from the Cascades to Kern Co. The documented elevation range is from sea level to 1,940m (6,370 ft.) in the Sierra Nevada (Jennings and Hayes 1994).
FYLF are frequently found in rocky streams and rivers with rocky substrate and open, sunny banks, in forests, chaparral, and woodlands. Sometimes they are found in isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded, spring-fed pools.
In the ENF, FYLF observations have been made in all OSV Areas (Georgetwon, Pacific, Placerville, and Amador). Of the 220 foothill yellow-legged frog detections on or adjacent to the ENF, a single detection was above 1,525 m (5,000 ft.). The mean elevation for these detections was approximately 787 m (2,583 ft.). Given this information, the max upper elevation extent for foothill yellow-legged frog on the ENF is believed to be 4,500 feet.
Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT; USFWS Threatened) Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi, was listed as an endangered species in 1970, but reclassified as threatened in 1975 to facilitate management and to allow for regulated angling (Federal Register Vol. 40, p.29864). In 1995, the USFWS released its recovery plan for LCT.
LCT habitat may include high elevation oligotrophic, lakes, lower elevation terminal lakes, and river/tributary systems. Generally, LCT occur in cool flowing water with available cover of well- vegetated and stable stream banks, in areas where there are stream velocity breaks, and in relatively silt free, rocky riffle-run areas. Like other cutthroat trout species, LCT is a stream spawner, spawning between February and July depending on flows and water temperature.
LCT are not native to the ENF, but they have been stocked by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the following lakes: Upper and Lower Blue Lakes, Granite Lake, Evergreen Lake, Meadow Lake, Round Top Lake, Twin Lake, and Frog Lake in the Amador OSV Area; and Echo Lakes in the Pacific OSV Area.
Western Pond Turtle (WPT; FS Sensitive) Western pond turtles (WPT), Actinemys [Emys] marmorata, have significantly declined in number with many populations representing less than 10 percent of the historical population. In California alone, there has been a loss of 80 to 85 percent of western pond turtles since the 1850s. The major threat to this species is habitat loss or degradation. Most of the historical
Eldorado National Forest 177 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitat for this species has been permanently lost as a result of development for human occupancy.
WPT are habitat generalists and can occur in and adjacent to a variety of aquatic habitats, both lotic (moving water, streams and rivers) and lentic (still water, ponds and lakes, marshes, and roadside ditches). Preferred habitat for the pond turtle consists of calm waters, such as near stream banks, backwater, or pools, with vegetated banks and logs or rocks for basking. In streams, adults prefer pools to shallower areas. Perennial water is preferred, but there is an indication that the turtle can persist in environments where water is seasonally available by means of a process referred to as aestivation (Holland 1994; Rathbun et al. 2002). Turtles may utilize upland habitat extending as far as 1,700 feet away from water as stream-dwelling individuals will occasionally move away from flood-prone creeks during the rainy season (http://hcp.stanford.edu/turtle.html). Nesting habitat is somewhat variable. Eggs can be laid in sandy banks located close to water, or may be laid considerable distances away from water. Generally, nests are located within 300 feet of aquatic habitat, but primarily along stream or pond margins consisting of herbaceous dominated areas on low angle slopes facing south or west with well-drained soils (Holland 1994, Reese 1996, Reese and Welsh 1997, Rathbun et al. 2002). Hatching time is roughly 70 to 80 days, after which young generally remain in nests through the winter. Once the hatchlings emerge from the nest the following spring, they make their way to water.
Habitats used for aestivation (upland use when water is not present) are similar to those used for hibernation (overwintering) with the primary requirement being leaf duff or mud for burrowing. Juvenile and adult turtles aestivate during summer droughts by burying in soft bottom mud. When creeks and ponds dry up in summer, some turtles will travel along the creek until they find an isolated deep pool, while others stay within moist mats of algae in shallow pools. Winter hibernation can occur underwater in the muddy bottom of pools, or typically within 650 feet of aquatic habitat in vegetation that provides a duff layer or loose soil. Hillslope and aspect do not appear to play a significant role in the selection of upland habitat use and there is some indication of turtles returning to the same site annually (Holland 1994, Reese 1996, Reese and Welsh 1997, Rathbun et al. 2002). Turtles will remain in hibernation until spring when temperatures warm up enough for them to become active and the heavy winter flows of the creek have subsided. For the purpose of this analysis, potential WPT habitat was identified as all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and waterbodies lower than 5,000 feet in elevation, buffered by 1,000 feet to capture approximate upland dispersal. In the ENF, pond turtle observations have been made in Georgetown, Placerville, and Amador OSV Areas. All but 4 occurrences on the ENF are documented below 4,000 feet elevation. Western pond turtles have been observed at approximately 20 locations within the ENF. Most of the observations have been associated with pond or big river habitats, although some observations were of turtles walking some distance from an aquatic habitat (e.g., turtle walking across a road).
Eldorado National Forest 178 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequences
General Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives Because the Alternatives propose the same activities, with the differences being mainly the spatial extent of OSV use, most of the effects for all aquatic species 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 aquatic resources affected, and provide the basis for determinations. A summary comparison of Alternatives will follow, providing the decision-maker a quick reference for evaluating the Alternatives along with the other resources that need to be considered.
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). Direct impacts to fish, amphibians and other aquatic species discussed in this document would be nonexistent to extremely infrequent as amphibians are typically dormant during the winter, and OSVs would have to travel through water to collide with fish and other aquatic species. Due to the infrequency of this occurring, the direct impacts to fish, amphibians and aquatic species are expected to be minor and discountable.
OSV use during the winter is not expected to result in habitat disturbance because the minimum snow depths (all Alternatives) and restriction of OSV use that causes resource damage (Alternative 3) are likely sufficient to prevent contact between OSVs and the soil surface. Additionally, it is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depth to prevent damage to their OSVs. However, more direct studies examining snow depth and OSV use in relation to the potential effects to aquatic species or their habitat is needed.
Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance. Potential indirect impacts include changing hydromorphology, snow compaction and impaired water quality or pollutants entering waterways. A discussion of the potential indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants are described below.
Hydromorphology The Eldorado OSV Designation project does not involve the construction of any structures that could impede or redirect flood flows, nor any ground surface modifications that could change drainage patterns, impervious surfaces, soil permeability, or other hydrological characteristics such as surface water volumes. Therefore, there will be no effect to hydromorphology for all aquatic dependant species from all Alternatives
Snow Compaction Snow compaction could indirectly affect aquatic dependant species through delayed snowmelt, affecting the hydrologic regime, and alteration of habitat or riparian vegetation potentially leading to erosion and sediment into waterways. Widespread snow compaction from cross-country OSV uses can affect melt patterns, and in turn the hydrologic regime. Studies have found delayed snowmelt in areas compacted by snowmobiles versus areas of uncompacted snow (Keddy et al., 1979; Neumann and Merriam, 1972). During spring snowmelt, these effects can reduce the ability of the snow to slow runoff. It is unknown how much OSV related snow compaction would affect runoff rate and timing, but
Eldorado National Forest 179 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences some studies suggest up to a two-week delay. Because snow compaction from off-trail cross- country use is currently not extensive on a watershed scale, measureable changes in hydrology are not expected from cross-country use (McNamara 2016). Riparian vegetation important to aquatic species could potentially be affected by snow compaction. 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 ENF 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 (Hydrology report, McNamara 2016).
Cross-country OSV use has the potential to affect woody riparian species by bending and breaking of branches by recreationists running over the branches (Neumann and Merriam, 1972). This is most likely to occur with lower snow depths such as the beginning of the winter season and before sufficient snow has accumulated to protect vegetation, and during spring snowmelt. Regenerating timber could also be affected by bending and breaking of leaders with inadequate snow depth. However, both the hydrology report (McNamara 2016 and botany report (Davidson 2016) concluded that vegetation trampling from snowmobiles and potential impacts to riparian resources from OSV use would be discountable and extremely unlikely to occur with adequate snowpack coverage.
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 (Botany Report, Davidson 2016). On the ENF, OSV travel on snow-free areas is prohibited in the current and proposed scenarios. By prohibiting cross country OSV use when and where there is not adequate snow depth, the ENF minimizes the possibility of direct damage to soils and ground vegetation.
Similarly, the hydrology analysis (McNamara 2016) found that with adequate snow depth, cross country use of OSVs would have discountable effects on ground disturbance that could lead to erosion and sedimentation in streams or other water bodies, and a negligible effect on vegetation, especially along streams and other water bodies. It further states “…off-trail OSV use would be generally dispersed and would not result in high concentration of OSV use on bare soil. Also, travel over bare soil can damage machines so is generally avoided by operators. With adequate minimum snow levels, this plan would result in no more than incidental soil erosion and therefore would not create water quality impacts to streams or water bodies by introducing sediment in water runoff.” These conclusions are generally attributed to the fact that OSV use on the ENF is considerably less than Yellowstone National Park where detailed studies were conducted on OSV use and their potential effects to the aquatic environment and hydrologic regime. The number of snowmobiles that entered Yellowstone in 2003 and 2004 was 47,799 and 22,423 respectively (Arnold and Koel 2006). The estimated seasonal day use of OSV Program trails across the ENF is much lower (6,785 visits in 2007, 899 visits in 2012) OSVs. These visitations are spread across multiple trailheads and trail systems and do not all occur in the same location. As a result OSV seasonal use levels at any ENF trailhead or trail system are considerably less than OSV use that
Eldorado National Forest 180 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences occurred at Yellowstone National Park, and are considered very low. Since Yellowstone OSV use levels studied had not resulted in impaired water quality, due to much lower use numbers it follows that the OSV use in the Project Area from this Plan would not adversely affect water quality of snowmelt.
Snow Compaction Effects Summary For all Alternatives, there are no direct impacts to habitat from snow compaction along designated OSV trails because the ground beneath the OSV trails is on existing road and trail system, which does not provide habitat for aquatic species. Outside the designated OSV trail corridors, dispersed cross country OSV travel is much less likely to compact snow with enough intensity and repetition to measurably or predictably affect ground vegetation or the hydrologic regime. Snow compaction from cross-country OSV use may affect aquatic species habitat, if present, however the magnitude, timing, and location potentially affected is difficult to determine because of the large area open to OSV use and its dispersed nature. Therefore snow compaction is not considered further in this analysis as a reasonably foreseeable source of indirect effects to aquatic dependant species from any of the Alternatives.
Pollutants Emissions from OSVs, 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. Four-stroke snowmobile engines produce considerably lower amounts of pollutants. A portion of these compounds may become trapped and stored in the snowpack, to be released during spring runoff. Some of the airborne pollutants would enter the snowpack and be released during snowmelt. Similar responses can be assumed to occur in aquatic species 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).
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 in-road 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 p-xylene, 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
Eldorado National Forest 181 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 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, overwintering amphibians are typically hibernating. Airborne compounds would only be taken up by respiring species. Airborne pollutants normally disperse quickly in mountain environments that are prone to windy conditions, such as the Sierra Nevada. The levels of OSV exhaust contaminants on the ENF (considerably less than those observed in Yellowstone National Park) are not expected to impair water quality (McNamara 2016).
The available research on OSV pollutants (both airborne and in the snowpack) indicate that some effects to aquatic species 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. 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 aquatic resources, and therefore is not considered in this analysis as a reasonably foreseeable source of indirect effects to species that live in aquatic environments for all Alternatives. Based on multi-year studies in Yellowstone National Park, researchers concluded that Yellowstone OSV use levels have not resulted in impaired water quality. Given that OSV use levels on the ENF at OSV trailheads are less than OSV use levels occurring at Yellowstone during the study period, it is determined that water quality is not impaired by the OSV Program (Hydrology report, McNamara 2016). There are few studies regarding effects of snowmobiles on aquatic biota but, Adams, 1975 addressed the effects of high levels of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmachine exhaust on brown trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). His study found that that high-level exposure to lead and hydrocarbon can lower activity levels and feeding. All Alternatives of the project are expected to have negligible effects to water quality and fish because snowmachine use on the ENF is widely
Eldorado National Forest 182 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences dispersed and does not occur at concentrations that have been shown to cause adverse effects to water quality or aquatic organisms. The results of the Adams Study support this contention and state that the levels of hydrocarbons found in the study are “unrealistic for all but a few small lakes in well populated areas.”
Pollutants Effects Summary Pollutants which are trapped and then later released during snowmelt may have some adverse effects, however the extent and direction of specific effects is unknown. Impacts to water quality are assessed in the Hydrology Section which concluded that water quality is not impaired by the ENF OSV Project for any of the Alternatives. For this reason, it is expected that pollutant concentrations would be low enough that water quality would not be impaired for aquatic species, and thus it is likely any species response would be discountable.
Based on findings on studies of OSV related effects to aquatic species and/or their habitat, negative impacts to special-status fish and amphibians due to impaired water quality are considered less than significant. In addition, effects are more likely to occur along designated OSV trails compared to areas open to cross country OSV use because dispersed OSV travel is much less likely to contribute harmful contaminants with high enough levels and repetition to measurably or predictably affect aquatic resources.
Cumulative Effects to All Species and All Alternatives 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). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions include vegetation management activities, maintenance of roads and campgrounds, road re- construction, fuels reduction activities, recreational use, timber harvest, and grazing.
There are many on-going and reasonably foreseeable projects identified by the ENF which may be ground disturbing and could add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters within the forest. The USFS utilizes BMPs in compliance with the Clean Water Act to minimize water quality impacts. The ENF monitors roads and trails used for OSVs and implements BMPs to control erosion and other effects.
Potential effects to aquatic species or their habitat that are most likely to combine with present or reasonably foreseeable future actions, include increased disturbance to individuals from OSV use; increased habitat fragmentation or modification; and snow compaction effects on aquatic species habitat that could add sediment or other pollutants to surface waters.
Additionally, a changing climate may result in less high mountain meadow habitat, more frequent droughts, and changing seasonal timing in the Sierra’s, decreasing the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat depending on many factors (for example year, season, location). This could cumulatively contribute to the direct and indirect effects to all aquatic species by decreasing suitable habitat and stressing existing populations. However, it is impossible to quantify changes in habitat or populations in the aquatic analysis area, due to the uncertainty of exactly where, what, and when climatic changes could occur at the scale of the project area. Because there is a low risk of direct and indirect effects from all Alternatives to all aquatic species analyzed, the risks of cumulative effects from are negligible. The risks of cumulative effects from all Alternatives are low because existing requirements of 12 inch snow depths for OSV cross-country use appear to be sufficient to protect the ground surface currently, and all
Eldorado National Forest 183 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternatives require at least 12 inches. There would continue to be only incidental ground disturbance, low risk of damage to vegetation, and the general direct and indirect effects discussed above. As a result, there would be no change to cumulative watershed effects (CWE) or equivalent roaded acres (ERA) calculations for any watersheds under any of the Alternatives (Water Resources section). California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
Direct and Indirect Effects For all Alternatives, direct effects from OSV collision with CRLF could occur from cross- country use. However, the probability of collision is very low and considered discountable for the following reasons:
. CRLF would not likely be migrating around the landscape at temperatures above freezing and in areas with more than 12 inches of snow.
. In CRLF habitat, OSV use would only be cross-country and away from areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that might cause damage to CRLF habitat because OSV operators avoid travel over bare ground and soil to avoid damage to their machines.
. There are no OSV trails in CRLF habitat in all Alternatives, minimizing the risk of pollutants directly entering CRLF habitat. Alternative 3 has the least amount of suitable CRLF habitat acreage (Table 51) within areas open to cross-country OSV use because much of the lower elevation is excluded from OSV use in this Alternative. Alternative 3 has a higher snow level requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4), which may result in less disturbance to CRLF or their habitat. Additionally, the CRLF habitat that is open to OSV cross- country use in Alternative 3 falls within the highest elevational range of the species, where occurrences and habitat use by CRLF are least likely. Alternatives 2 and 4 allow cross-country OSV use on the same acres of CRLF habitat, which is about 300 times more habitat than in Alternative 3. Alternative 1 has the most amount of suitable CRLF habitat acreage within areas open to cross-country OSV because it allows approximately 20,000 acres more of open cross- country OSV use in the Georgetown OSV Area, than the in Alternatives 2 and 4.
Eldorado National Forest 184 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 50. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to California Red Legged Frog Suitable Habitat on the Eldorado NF.
Alternative 2 Alternative 1 (no action) (Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Action)
CRLF foraging* habitat within OSV trail 0 0 0 0 system (acres)
LOW USE 34,710 14,709 12 14,709
MODERATE CRLF foraging* habitat 381 381 40 381 within areas open to USE cross country OSV use HIGH 161 161 66 161 (acres) USE
TOTAL 35,252 15,251 118 15,251
*Foraging habitat is defined as being aquatic habitat and adjacent 300 ft of riparian and upland habitat within 1 mile of potential breeding habitat.
Critical Habitat: California Red-Legged Frog (Eld-1) Alternative 3 will not effect CRLF Critical Habitat because no OSV use would be designated in the elevational range of the CRLF Critical Habitat (Table 52). For Alternatives 1 and 2 the total acres of CRLF Critical Habitat within areas open to cross country OSV use are the same 719 acres. Alternative 4 has only 5 more acres of Critical Habitat than Alternatives 1 and 2.
OSV use during the winter is not expected to result in CRLF Critical Habitat disturbance because the minimum snow depths (all Alternatives) and restriction of OSV use that causes resource damage are likely sufficient to prevent contact between OSVs and the soil surface. It is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depth to prevent damage to their OSVs. Additionally, in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 there are no OSV trails in CRLF Critical Habitat, and the cross-country OSV use is low, minimizing the risk of any effects to CRLF Critical Habitat.
Eldorado National Forest 185 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 51. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to California Red Legged Frog Critical Habitat on the Eldorado NF. Alternative 2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (no action) Action)
CRLF Critical Habitat within OSV 0 0 0 0 trail system (acres)
LOW 719 719 0 724
CRLF Critical Habitat MODERATE 0 0 0 0 within areas open to cross country OSV use (acres) HIGH 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 719 719 0 724
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae)
Direct and Indirect Effects For all Alternatives, direct effects would not occur during the majority of the OSV operating period because
• SNYLF overwinter underwater and are restricted to deep lakes (over 5 feet deep) that do not freeze solid in winter, and therefore, are not located in areas where OSV use would typically occur.
• OSV use is not allowed over snow-free areas that would cause resource damage to underlying SNYLF habitat.
• Direct effects from OSV collision could occur from cross-country use during spring thaw when breeding occurs from April at lower elevations to June or July in high elevations. Adults can travel over ice or snow to reach preferred breeding sites early in the breeding season (USDA Forest Service 2014b). However, the probability of vehicle collision was considered low based on the following reasons:
o SNYLF would not likely be migrating around the landscape at temperatures above freezing and in areas with large patches of snow (at least 12 inches) where cross-country OSV use occurs
o OSV use is not allowed over snow-free areas that would cause resource damage to underlying SNYLF habitat.
• OSV operators avoid cross country travel over bare ground or soil because it can damage machines.
Suitable SNYLF habitat in relation to OSV trails and areas open to cross-country OSV use are shown in Table 53. In general, suitable habitat was defined using the Regional Suitable Habitat dataset, which was derived using streams, lakes, ponds reservoirs, and meadows within the species’ range or distribution as defined by Roland Knapp during the summer of 2014.
Eldorado National Forest 186 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of SNYLF habitat because it has the least amount of acres open to cross country and trail OSV use because the lower elevations were dropped from OSV use in this Alternative (Table 53). Additionally, Alternative 3 has a higher snow level requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) which may result in less disturbance to habitat, especially on the Silver Bear OSV trail system. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 propose the Silver Bear OSV Trail use on the same acres of SNYLF habitat. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose cross-country OSV use on nearly the same acres of SNYLF habitat (Table 53), which is over twice as much habitat than Alternative 3. Alternative 1 has slightly more acres open to OSV cross-country because it allows for OSV in some special interest areas while Alternative 2 doesn’t. Alternative 4 has the most amount of suitable SNYLF habitat acreage open to cross-country mainly because it proposes OSV use in the recommended Wilderness in Placerville OSV Area around Caples Creek drainage, and in some Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Management Areas.
Table 52. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog Suitable Habitat on the Eldorado NF. Alternative 2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (no action) Action) Suitable SNYLF habitat within OSV 23 23 20 23 trail system (acres)
LOW USE 20,378 20,128 7,963 22,949
*Suitable SNYLF MODERATE 3,809 3,758 2,196 4,247 Habitat within areas USE open to cross country OSV use HIGH 2,140 2,140 1,886 2,196 (acres) USE
TOTAL 26,328 26,027 12,046 29,391
*excluding suitable habitat within designated Critical Habitat Critical Habitat: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog The ENF’s current OSV plan has 56,125 acres (Alternative 1, no action) of Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Critical Habitat open to cross country OSV usage. Alternative 2 slightly reduces the open OSV cross country area in SNYLF Critical Habitat to 53,929 acres. Alternative 4 has the greatest number of acres open to OSV use with SNYLF Critical Habitat at around 66,667 acres. Alternative 3 has the lowest number of acres of Critical Habitat within areas open to cross country OSV use at 35,392 acres (Table 54).
Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of SNYLF Critical Habitat because it has the least amount of acres open to cross country OSV (Table 54). Additionally, Alternative 3 has a higher snow level requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) which may result in less disturbance to habitat. Alternatives 1 and 2 allow cross-country OSV use on similar acres of SNYLF Critical Habitat (Table 54), which is about 1.5 times more habitat than Alternative 3. Alternative 1 has slightly more acres open to OSV cross-country because it allows for OSV in some special interest areas. Alternative 4 has the most amount of suitable SNYLF habitat acreage open to cross-country OSV mainly because
Eldorado National Forest 187 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences it allows OSV use in the recommended Wilderness in Placerville OSV Area around Caplets Creek drainage, and in Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Management Areas.
For all Alternatives, OSV use during the winter is not expected to result in habitat disturbance because the minimum snow depths (all Alternatives) and restriction of OSV use that causes resource damage are likely sufficient to prevent contact between OSVs and the soil surface. It is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depth to prevent damage to their OSVs.
Table 53. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog Critical Habitat on the Eldorado NF. Alternative 2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (no action) Action)
SNYLF Critical Habitat within OSV 223 223 204 223 trail system (acres)
LOW 31,490 29,306 14,651 40,062
Critical Habitat MODERATE 10,045 10,033 7,925 11,987 within areas open to cross country OSV use (acres) HIGH 14,590 14,590 12,815 14,618
TOTAL 56,125 53,929 35,392 66,667
Yosemite Toad (Anaxyrus canorus)
Direct and Indirect Effects For all Alternatives, direct effects would not occur during the majority of the OSV operating period because
• OSV use is not allowed over snow-free areas that would cause resource damage to underlying YOTO habitat.
• Direct effects from OSV collision could occur from cross-country use during spring thaw when breeding occurs from May to July. However, the probability of vehicle collision was considered low based on the following reasons:
o YOTO habitat on the ENF is located mainly in low OSV use areas
o OSV use is not allowed over snow-free areas that would cause resource damage to underlying SNYLF habitat.
o OSV operators avoid cross country travel over bare ground or soil because it can damage machines.
All Alternatives effect the same amount of YOTO acres on the Silver Bear OSV Trail System. Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of suitable YOTO habitat acreage within areas open to cross-country OSV use (Table 55). Additionally, Alternative 3 has a higher snow depth
Eldorado National Forest 188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4), which may also result in less disturbance to soils and vegetation. Alternative 2, has less YOTO habitat acreage overlap with OSV use than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 has the most amount of suitable YOTO habitat acreage open to cross-country.
Table 54. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to Yosemite Toad Suitable Habitat on the ENF. Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Yosemite Toad Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (no action) (Proposed Action) OSV roads or trails crossing Yosemite Toad Habitat (acres) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
LOW 27,048 24,530 7,772 29,968
SUITABLE Habitat MODERATE 0 0 0 0 within areas open to cross country OSV use (acres) HIGH 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 27,048 24,530 7,772 29,968
Critical Habitat: Yosemite Toad Alternative 3 will not effect YOTO Critical Habitat because this Alternative does not allow OSV use in the area where YOTO Critical Habitat occurs (Table 52).
For Alternatives 1 and 4 the total acres of YOTO Critical Habitat within areas open to cross country OSV use are the same 4,557 acres. Alternative 2 has about 219 less acres of Critical Habitat than Alternatives 1 and 4, because it prohibits OSV use in some special interest areas and in Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Management Areas.
For Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, OSV use during the winter is not expected to result in YOTO Critical Habitat disturbance because the minimum snow depths (all Alternatives) and restriction of OSV use that causes resource damage are likely sufficient to prevent contact between OSVs and the soil surface. It is likely that most OSV owners would not ride with less than adequate snow depth to prevent damage to their OSVs. Additionally, in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, YOTO Critical Habitat occurs in mainly in low OSV cross-country use areas, minimizing the risk of effects to most of the YOTO Critical Habitat. Alternatives 1 and 4 allow cross-country OSV use on similar acres of YOTO critical habitat (Table A7), with Alternative 2 being slightly less (3,916 acres), which is more habitat than Alternative 3.
Eldorado National Forest 189 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 55. Alternatives comparison of potential effects to Yosemite Toad Critical Habitat on the Eldorado NF. Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Yosemite Toad (Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (no action) Action)
OSV trails crossing Yosemite Toad 0 0 0 0 Habitat (acres)
LOW 4,207 3,916 0 4,207
Critical Habitat MODERATE 350 350 0 350 within areas open to cross country OSV use (acres) HIGH 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 4,557 4,266 0 4,557
Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) For All Alternatives, the probability of vehicle collision with Foothill Yellow-legged frogs (FYLF) are very low and considered discountable for the following reasons:
. FYLF breed at temperatures above freezing and in snow-free areas where OSV use is unlikely to occur.
. FYLF on the Eldorado National Forest are not generally located in high OSV use areas. FYLF populations are typically found at elevations below about 5,000 feet.
. FYLF typically breed in streams containing cobble-sized or larger rock substrates, which are areas generally avoided by OSV use since they are typically snow-free and in areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that might cause resource damage.
. Cross-country OSV operators typically avoid travel over bare ground or soil because it can damage their machines.
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 FYLF, breeding occurs when snow begins to melt. The short delay of snowmelt and colder soil temperatures from OSV-compacted snow would not likely delay or reduce FYLF. The effects of snow compaction and OSV emissions are concentrated in areas of heavy use, such as along designated OSV trails. No FYLF occurrences are present within 20 feet of existing or proposed designated OSV trails; therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no meaningfully measurable or predictable indirect effects to FYLF or their habitat.
Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of FYLF habitat because it has the least amount of acres open to cross country and trail OSV use because the lower elevations were dropped from OSV use in this Alternative (Table 53). Additionally, Alternative 3 has a higher snow level requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) which may result in less disturbance to habitat, especially on the Silver
Eldorado National Forest 190 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Bear OSV trail system. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 propose the OSV use on FYLF habitat acres, and so effects would be the same for these 3 Alternatives. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi)
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 will not effect LCT because this Alternative prohibits OSV us in the areas where LCT have been stocked.
For Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 there would be no direct effects to LCT because OSV use would not occur over unfrozen lakes, areas with inadequate snow depth, or areas exposed to bare ground that would cause resource damage as described in 36 CFR part 261.15 and OSVs would have to travel through water to collide with fish, therefore no direct impacts to individuals would occur. Additionally, there are no crossings of designated OSV roads or trails with LCT recovery populations in the ENF for any Alternatives. For Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, indirect impacts would be limited to the small areas near the lakes LCT currently inhabit on the ENF. There are approximately 15 acres of habitat around known populations on Forest Service land (calculated using a 25 foot border around the few lakes that have been stocked LCT). Of those 15 acres only roughly 9 acres are open to cross country OSV usage in the area near the Mokelumne Wilderness for Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Impacts to water quality are assessed in the Hydrology section, which concluded that water quality is not impaired by the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation Project for any of the alternatives. For this reason, it is expected that pollutant concentrations would be low enough that water quality would not be impaired for aquatic species, and thus, it is likely that Lahontan cutthroat trout response would be discountable. Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata)
Direct and Indirect Effects For All Alternatives, the probability of vehicle collision is very low and considered discountable for the following reasons:
. Western Pond Turtle (WPT) breed at temperatures above freezing, usually in April-May and in snow-free areas where OSV use is unlikely to occur.
. WPT on the Eldorado National Forest are not located in high OSV use areas. WPT populations are typically found at elevations below about 5,000 feet.
. WPT typically breed near stream or pond margins, which are areas generally avoided by OSV use since they are typically snow-free and in areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that might cause resource damage.
. Cross-country OSV operators typically avoid travel over bare ground or soil because it can damage their machines.
There would be no direct effects because OSV use would not be allowed over areas with inadequate snow depth or areas exposed to bare ground that would cause resource damage as described in 36 CFR part 261.15, therefore, no direct impacts to individuals would occur.
Eldorado National Forest 191 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
For western pond turtle, hatchlings emerge in the spring, during snowmelt. The short delay of snowmelt and colder soil temperatures from OSV-compacted snow would not likely delay or reduce western pond turtle emergence. The effects of snow compaction and OSV emissions are concentrated in areas of heavy use, such as along designated OSV trails. No western pond turtle occurrences are present within 25 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.
Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of WPT habitat because it has the least amount of acres open to cross country and trail OSV use because the lower elevations were dropped from OSV use in this Alternative. Additionally, Alternative 3 has a higher snow level requirement before OSV use is allowed (18 inches in Alternative 3 versus 12 inches in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) which may result in less disturbance to habitat, especially on the Silver Bear OSV trail system. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 propose the OSV use on WPT habitat acres, and so effects would be the same for these 3 Alternatives.
Determinations
California Red-legged Frog Although occurrences for CRLF are located within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because authorized activities would occur at a time of year when the amphibians are hibernating and occurrences are located in low OSV use areas. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of CRLF habitats. Therefore, the all alternatives may affect, not likely to adversely affect CRLF.
Critical Habitat: California Red-legged Frog Alternative 3 does not allow any OSV use within Critical Habitat, therefore Alternative 3 would Not Effect CRLF Critical Habitat.
Critical Habitat for CRLF is located within the project area in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect critical habitat because OSV use is not allowed over areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that would cause resource damage under all of the alternatives and OSV use on required minimum snow depths in Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 are not expected to result in any changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of their aquatic habitats. The re fore, Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 may affect, not likely to adversely affe ct CRLF Critical Habitat.
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) Although occurrences for SNYLF are located within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because authorized activities would occur at a time of year when the amphibians are hibernating. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of SNYLF habitats. Therefore, all alternative of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation project may affect, not likely to adversely affect SNYLF.
Eldorado National Forest 192 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Critical Habitat: Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Critical Habitat for SNYLF is located within the project area for all Alternatives. Proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect critical habitat because OSV use is not allowed in areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that would cause resource damage under all of the alternatives and OSV use on required minimum snow depths are not expected to result in any changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of their aquatic habitats. The re fore, all Alternatives may affect, not likely to adversely affe ct SNYLF Critical Habitat.
Yosemite Toad (Anaxyrus canorus) Although YOTO habitat is located within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because authorized activities would occur at a time of year when the amphibians are hibernating. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of YOTO habitats. Therefore, all alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation project may affect, not likely to adversely affe ct YOTO.
Critical Habitat: Yosemite Toad Alternative 3 does not allow any OSV use within Critical Habitat, therefore Alternative 3 would Not Effect YOTO Critical Habitat.
Critical Habitat for YOTO is located within the project area in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect critical habitat because OSV use is not allowed over areas with inadequate snow depth or exposed ground that would cause resource damage under all of the alternatives and OSV use on required minimum snow depths in Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 are not expected to result in any changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of their aquatic habitats. The re fore, Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 may affect, not likely to adversely affect YOTO Critical Habitat.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) Although LCT have been stocked in some high elevation lakes and reservoirs within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because OSV use would not occur over open water, unfrozen lakes, areas with inadequate snow depth, or exposed ground that would cause resource damage under all of the Alternatives. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of LCT habitats. Therefore, all alternatives of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation project may affect, not likely to adversely affect LCT.
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Although occurrences for FYLF are located within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because authorized activities would occur at a time of year when the amphibians are hibernating. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of FYLF habitats. Therefore, all Alternatives for the Eldorado 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.
Eldorado National Forest 193 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Western Pond Turtle (Emmys marmorata) Although occurrences for WPTF are located within the proposed project area, proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect populations because authorized activities would occur at a time of year when the reptiles are hibernating. For all alternatives, OSV use on the required minimum snow depths respectively is not expected to result in any meaningful measurable changes to soils, vegetation, or hydrology of WPT habitats. Therefore, all Alternatives for the Eldorado 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.
Summary of Effects The proposed project effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive aquatic species have been evaluated and measures taken to ensure that sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. All alternatives would maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native species and would be compliant with Forest Service Manual direction. All alternatives would also comply with the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment because sensitive aquatic species populations would remain viable and their habitats would be maintained. The effects of all Alternatives are similar except for varying acres of aquatic and riparian habitat open to OSV cross country use, and minimum snow depth requirements. Table 9 shows the total number of acres open to cross country OSV use on the National Forest for each of the Alternative. Alternative 4 would generally have the greatest potential or probability for effects to aquatic resources due to larger areas of open OSV use for most aquatic species, and Alternative 3 would generally have the least potential or probablility for effects to aquatic resources due to less OSV acres open for use. Because effects of cross country open OSV use on aquatic resources are expected to be discountable, having relatively more or less acreage open to OSVs will lead to minimal changes in direct or indirect effects on aquatic species or their habitat. Effects would be more pronounced if OSV activity increased at the same spatial and temporal context as the aquatic species discussed. Overlap, in general, would be during spring snowmelt and where aquatic species occurrences and habitat exist.
Table 56. Summary comparison of potential environmental effects to aquatic resources by alternative. Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Element TESP Aquatic Greater potential Greater Least Greatest Species than Alt. 2 and 3. potential than potential potential for Less potential Alt. 3 and effects to effects to than 4 less than 1, aquatics aquatics and 4 Rating: 1-4 2 3 4 1 greatest potential to least
Eldorado National Forest 194 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Botany
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Federal Law and Policy Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Land and Resource Management Plan
Invasive Plant Species 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.
Standard and Guideline 36: Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups, and organizations in communities near national forests about noxious weed prevention and management.
Standard and Guideline 37: 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. Standard and Guideline 38: 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.
Standard and Guideline 47: Complete noxious weed inventories, based on regional protocol. Review and update these inventories on an annual basis.
Standard and Guideline 48: 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.
Eldorado National Forest 195 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Standard and Guideline 49: 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 Aquatic Features - Fens Standard and Guideline 118 (bog and fen habitat): 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.
Botanical Special Interest Areas Special interest areas (SIAs) may have specific management objectives for unique botanical features or other features of interest. Botanical SIAs have been specifically designated to conserve and manage unique botanical communities, rare species, or other elements of biological diversity, and to provide for public enjoyment of these areas in a manner that is consistent with the values for which the areas were established.
Management Area 4 – Special Areas (Geological, Botanical, Archeological and National Trails)
Management Emphasis: Manage the areas principally for their recreation use substantially in their natural condition. Preserve the integrity of the special interest features for which the areas were established. (LRMP pp. 4-142)
Management Practice 28-Closed Off-Road Vehicle Management (LRMP pp. 4-145): Close the following Special Areas: Round Top Botanical/Geological, Pacific Crest Trail, Pony Express Trail, Emigrant Summit Trail (northeast of Horse Creek Saddle).
Methodology This analysis uses ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers from the Eldorado National Forest. The GIS layers of proposed OSV designations and groomed trails were overlain with the TES plant data layers to identify areas of potential effects.
Table 61 lists federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed plants and their critical habitats and Eldorado National Forest, as well as Forest Service sensitive plants that may be present or are known within the planning area. The potential effects to each species were evaluated based on growth form, timing of important life cycle elements (e.g., 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.
Analysis Assumptions • Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants are unlikely to be directly affected by authorized OSV use (with the specified requirements of specific snow depths or adequate snow depth to avoid damage to resources) when their living tissues are not present above ground. Therefore, only shrub or tree species are likely to be directly affected by OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 196 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• 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 assumed to potentially be affected by snow compaction, emissions, or other contamination. Because OSV use is expected to be concentrated in the designated OSV trail corridor, and grooming activities are restricted to identified trails, areas open to OSV use outside these concentrated use corridors are much less likely to experience measurable indirect effects.
• OSVs, towing vehicles, or trailers may carry mud or other debris containing weed seeds from infested areas to trailheads and possibly indirectly into any areas open to OSV use.
• Only authorized OSV uses are analyzed. Concerns arising from unauthorized uses will be addressed as law enforcement issues and may prompt corrective actions.
• Resource monitoring may identify unexpected types or levels of impacts to botanical resources, and may also prompt corrective actions as warranted.
Spatial and Temporal Context 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.
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. Cumulative effects are considered for a time period within 20 years of project implementation.
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 57. Botanical resources indicators and measures for assesseing effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Vegetation – TES Species Presence Acres of TES plant occurrences within plant species designated OSV areas. Acres of TEPS plant occurrences within 100 feet of designated OSV trails. Vegetation – TES Qualitative Discussion of TES Determination category plant species species’ responses to proposed activities Vegetation – Special Presence of Fens Acres of fens within areas designated for Aquatic Features- OSV use. Fens Acres of fens within 100 feet of designated OSV trails. Vegetation – Invasive species response to Level of risk (high, moderate, low) for the Invasive Plant proposed activities project introducing or spreading invasive Species weeds.
Eldorado National Forest 197 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Vegetation – Presence of designated botanical Acres of botanical resource areas within Botanical Special resource areas (special interest areas designated for OSV use. Interest Areas areas) Acres of botanical resource areas within 100 feet of designated OSV trails.
Affected Environment This proposal would be implemented on all of the National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest. The Eldorado National Forest occupies a portion of the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, from the foothills to the Sierra crest. Many plant communities are present, including chaparral, oak and pine woodlands, montane forests and subalpine areas, along with numerous wetlands and other special habitats.
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Forest Service Sensitive (TEPS) Plant Species Considered in this Analysis
Table 58. TEPS plant species considered Scientific Name Species Habitat Effects Habitat Common Name present? present? analysis needed? Threatened Plants Packera layneae Grows on rocky, gabbro or serpentine soils in chaparral and Layne’s butterweed cismontane woodland below 3,000 feet. Yes Yes Yes Forest Service Sensitive Plants Allium tribracteatum Open ridges with gravelly lahar soils (lava cap communities) in chaparral and lower & upper montane coniferous forests from No Potential Yes Three-bracted onion about 3,300 to 10,000 feet in elevation. Perennial herb. Arctostaphylos Highly acidic slate and shale soils, often associated with closed- nissenana cone conifer forest from about 1,400 to 3,600 feet. Flowers Yes Yes Yes El Dorado manzanita February – March. Evergreen shrub. Balsamorhiza Chaparral, vernally moist meadows & grasslands, grasslands macrolepis var. within oak woodland, and ponderosa pine forest below 4,600 feet. No Potential Yes macrolepis Perennial herb. Big-scale balsamroot Botrychium ascendens Found in lower montane coniferous forest, meadows, and seeps No Potential Yes upswept moonwort from 4,900 to over 7,500 feet in elevation. Perennial herb. Fens, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows, seeps, and Botrychium crenulatum freshwater marshes from 4,900 feet to 10,500 feet in elevation. Yes Yes Yes scalloped moonwort Perennial herb. Botrychium lunaria Meadows, seeps, subalpine and upper montane coniferous forest No Potential Yes common moonwort from 7,450 feet to over 11,000 feet in elevation. Perennial herb. Botrychium Occurs in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows, minganense and seeps from 4,900 feet to 6,750 feet in elevation. Perennial Yes Yes Yes Mingan moonwort herb. Occurs in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows, Botrychium montanum and seeps from 4,900 feet to 7,000 feet in elevation. Perennial Yes Yes Yes Mountain moonwort herb. Found in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows, Botrychium paradoxum and seeps from 4,900 feet to 7,000 feet in elevation. Perennial Yes Yes Yes Paradox moonwort herb. Botrychium Grows in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows, pedunculosum and seeps from 4,900 feet to 7,000 feet in elevation. Perennial No Potential Yes Stalked moonwort herb.
Eldorado National Forest 198 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Scientific Name Species Habitat Effects Habitat Common Name present? present? analysis needed? Meadows and fens in montane and subalpine communities from Bruchia bolanderi about 5,500 to 9,000 feet. Grows in ephemeral habitats such as Yes Yes Yes Bolander’s bruchia erosional ditches or small streamlets through wet meadows. Bryophyte, Moss (perennial). Calochortus clavatus Openings in mixed conifer & ponderosa pine forest, usually on var. avius ridgetops and south-facing slopes from 2,500 to 5,600 feet. Yes Yes Yes Pleasant Valley Perennial herb. mariposa lily Cypripedium Moist areas and upland sites with northerly aspects, loamy soils montanum and shade, from 3,500 to 5,700 feet (generally <5,000 feet. No Potential Yes Mountain lady's-slipper Perennial herb. Dendrocollybia Grows on remains of decayed mushrooms or occasionally in racemosa Branched duff/leaf litter, in mid-mature to old-growth stands of mixed Yes Yes Yes collybia hardwood-conifer forests. Fungi (perennial) Draba asterophora Restricted to rocky ledges and talus slopes in subalpine and var. asterophora No Potential Yes alpine habitats above 8,200 feet. Perennial herb. Tahoe draba Draba asterophora Restricted to sandy slopes, rocky ledges, and talus slopes in var. macrocarpa Yes Yes Yes subalpine and alpine habitats above 8,200 feet. Perennial herb. Cup Lake draba Eriogonum tripodum Serpentine soils in foothill and cismontane woodlands below Yes Yes Yes Tripod buckwheat 5,300 feet. Subshrub. Wet meadows, fens, & seeps in subalpine coniferous forest and Helodium blandowii alpine lakes from 6,100 to 9,000 feet. Bryophyte, Moss No Potential Yes Blandow’s bog moss (perennial). Grows on stony, disturbed, slightly acidic soils in open chaparral Horkelia parryi and cismontane woodland below 3,400 feet. Flowers April- Yes Yes Yes Parry’s horkelia September. Perennial herb. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Openings in upper montane coniferous forest, often on slate soils hutchisonii and on soils that are sandy granitic to erosive volcanic from 4,800 Yes Yes Yes Hutchison’s lewisia to 7,000 feet. Flowers July-August. Perennial herb. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Granitic and volcanic balds from about 5,000 to 8,000 feet. kelloggii Yes Yes Yes Flowers April-August. Perennial herb. Kellogg’s lewisia Restricted to subalpine & alpine slopes or basins with deep snow Lewisia longipetala accumulations, above 8,200 feet. Flowers July-September. Yes Yes Yes Long-petaled lewisia Perennial herb. Restricted to steep, nearly vertical cliffs in inner gorges of Lewisia serrata perennial streams and rarely near seeps and intermittent Yes Yes Yes Saw-toothed lewisia streams. Grows between 2,800 and 4,800 feet in the American River watershed. Flowers May-June. Perennial herb. Meesia uliginosa Grows in permanently wet, primarily spring-fed meadows and Broad-nerved hump fens in montane to subalpine coniferous forest from 4,200 to No Potential Yes moss 9,200 feet. Bryophyte, Moss (perennial). Grows on metamorphic, sedimentary, limestone, and serpentine rock outcrops that often contain copper or other heavy metals and that are seasonally moist or less commonly on moist soil. Mielichhoferia elongata Usually in foothill woodland habitats dominated by oaks or No Potential Yes Elongate copper-moss chaparral and sometimes with scattered incense cedar, Douglas- fir, and ponderosa pine. Sea level to 3,550 feet. Bryophyte, Moss (perennial) Vernally wet to moist sites which are open and flat or slightly Mimulus pulchellus sloping. Typically found on lava caps but soils can be clay, Yellow-lip pansy No Potential Yes volcanic, or granitic. 2,200 to 6,400 feet. Flowers June-August. monkeyflower Annual herb.
Eldorado National Forest 199 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Scientific Name Species Habitat Effects Habitat Common Name present? present? analysis needed? Grows in openings in or adjacent to mixed conifer forest or Navarretia prolifera cismontane woodland on rocky ridgelines, saddles, or eroding ssp. lutea Yes Yes Yes Yellow bur navarretia ephemeral drainages from 2,300 to 5,000 feet. Flowers May-July. Annual herb. Ophioglossum pusillum Moist habitat including wet meadows and roadside ditches. Yes Yes Yes Adder’s tongue Flowers in June. Perennial herb. Grows on rocks in cold, unpolluted spring-fed streams without marked seasonal fluctuation. Submerged most of year. Peak Peltigera gowardii Veined water lichen flows must not scour the rocks & gravels where this species Yes Yes Yes attaches. Located on the Eldorado National Forest in 2008. Aquatic jelly lichen (perennial). Phacelia stebbinsii Dry, open, rocky sites (bedrock outcrops, rubble or talus) on ledges or moderate to steep slopes and on damp, mossy inner Yes Yes Yes Stebbins’ phacelia gorges from 2,000 to 6,800 feet. Flowers May-July. Annual herb. Phaeocollybia olivacea Decaying humus layer in conifer and hardwood forests. Known from a private inholding on Eldorado National Forest. Fungi No Potential Yes Olive phaeocollybia (perennial). Whitebark pine typically occurs on cold and windy high elevation Pinus albicaulis sites in western north America (7,000 to 12,000 feet). Coniferous Yes Yes Yes whitebark pine tree. Grows in lower montane coniferous forest on steep, shady, moist Poa sierra slopes from 1,200 to 3,800 feet. Flowers April-June. Perennial Yes Yes Yes Sierra blue grass grass (herb).
Federally Listed Species Information
Packera laynea (Layne’s butterweed) Layne’s butterweed, a perennial herb, is listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened species (USFWS 1996). It is known from several localities within the foothills of El Dorado, Tuolumne, and Yuba Counties (USFWS 2002) and in Placer County near Foresthill, California. On the Eldorado National Forest, it occurs at two locations: Little Bald Mountain (about 3,000 feet elevation) and Rock Creek (about 2,400 feet elevation). This early seral species occurs in temporary openings in chaparral plant communities on gabbro and serpentine soils and “is eliminated as vegetation grows up around it” (USFWS 2002). Habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, alteration of natural fire regime, and suppression of disturbance (all mainly due to urbanization) are the major threats facing this species (USFWS 2002). In this project area, because of its relatively low elevation, Layne’s butterweed occurrences do not consistently receive enough snowfall to allow OSV use on a regular basis.
Forest Service Sensitive Species Information
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 33 sensitive 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). On the Eldorado National Forest,
Eldorado National Forest 200 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Arctostaphylos nissenana, Eriogonum tripodum, and Pinus albicaulis are the sensitive plants in this category.
• Perennial herbaceous species, including grasses, mosses, and in this case fungi, whose living tissues are at or below the soil surface in winter, 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. On the Eldorado National Forest, there are 26 sensitive plants in this category.
• 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 of the terrestrial plants to be impacted by the indirect effects of exhaust contaminants and snow compaction. Mimulus pulchellus, Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea, and Phacelia stebbinsii are the three annual sensitive plants considered.
• Aquatic plant species grow under water 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. Although many sensitive plants may be found in wet habitats, Peltigera gowardii is the only aquatic species considered.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens Fens are peat-forming wetlands, supported by nearly constant groundwater inflow. Their permanent saturation creates oxygen-deprived soils with very low rates of decomposition, allowing the accumulation of organic matter produced by wetland plants. Fens also are hotspots of biological diversity. In California, the perennial supply of water provides refugia for plant and animal species that persist only in fens. Fens were determined to be particularly important for their biological diversity and as habitat for species of Sphagnum, Meesia, and other bryophytes. Currently, 490 acres of fen habitats on the Eldorado National Forest are mapped.
Special Interest Areas Five Special Interest Areas (SIA) are designated on the Eldorado National Forest with a botanical emphasis.
• Leonardi Falls Botanical SIA – Designated for moist cool ravines that create hanging gardens for rare plants, such as Saw-Toothed Lewisia, Stebbins’ Phacelia, and Sierra Bluegrass. It is located on the steep north-facing cliffs of the Rubicon River Canyon. • Rock Creek Botanical SIA– Located about 6 miles south of Georgetown, this low-elevation portion of the steep Rock Creek canyon contains a unique assemblage of plants that are commonly associated with the more moist/humid climate of the Pacific Coast. The vegetation types of the Rock Creek Botanical SIA are quite diverse with tall stands of mixed conifer forest, open woodlands of ponderosa pine and black oak, dense patches of chaparral dominated by manzanita and deer brush, and steep hillsides with canyon live oaks and sword ferns. Along Rock Creek and its tributaries one can find relict species such as California nutmeg and Pacific yew that were once more common before the climatic changes that accompanied and followed the ice ages. There are 384 acres in total, and 164 acres are currently open to OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 201 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• Round Top Botanical/Geological SIA – Botany and geology emphasis area, popular for recreational botanizing, contains easily accessible sub-alpine and alpine communities. There are 4,377 acres, mostly in the Mokelumne Wilderness. • Traverse Creek Botanical SIA – Consists of a shallow valley surrounded by moderately steep serpentine hills. Serpentine soils predominate in the western and southern portions of the SIA. These soils generally have high levels of magnesium, nickel, and chromium. Only plant species tolerant of or adapted to these conditions are capable of growing here, thereby, giving rise to the unique plant assemblages, including a federally listed plant. Soils derived from metamorphosed sedimentary rocks predominate in the canyon bottoms in the eastern and northern portions, where they overlay the serpentine bedrock. This diversity of soils contributes to the overall diversity of plant communities within the SIA. The 221-acre SIA is currently open to OSV use. • Wrights Lake Bog Botanical SIA – Contains a montane wetland at about 7,300 feet, providing high-quality habitat for sensitive plants and wetland-dependent species. Currently, approximately 65 acres are open to OSV use.
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, discussions of each alternative’s effects will include a summary of the extent of TEPS plants affected, plus any specific differences noted, and provide the basis for determinations. The effects analysis for TEPS is 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.
Direct Effects 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 Forest Service 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 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).
Eldorado National Forest 202 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 snow-free 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 Eldorado National Forest, OSV travel on snow-free areas is prohibited in the current and proposed scenarios. By not allowing OSV use when there is less than adequate snow to avoid damage to resources , the Eldorado National Forest expects to prevent direct damage to soils and ground vegetation.
Indirect Effects 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 is described further down in it’s own section.
For areas proposed to be designated as open to cross-country OSV use, these indirect effects are expected to be more dispersed and repeated less often than along the groomed OSV trail system. There may be some meadows and other open areas where OSV use is more attractive to riders, and these may experience more concentrated use. However, OSV use has not been identified as a threat and is unlikely to cause damage to any non-woody TEPS plants in areas of dispersed use on the Eldorado National Forest.
Snow Compaction Snow is compacted by any of the allowed OSVs, including snowmobiles, snowcats, 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 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 2009). The thermal conductivity of compacted snow is greater than undisturbed snow, and can
Eldorado National Forest 203 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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). Keddy et al. (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 five 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 (2009) 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 heavy snow compaction, early spring growth of some plant species may be delayed or may not occur under an OSV trail; however, the current and proposed OSV trails are mostly underlain by existing roads and trails that are already compacted and/or disturbed and little, if any, additional impacts are expected to the vegetation.
Trail grooming on the Eldorado National Forest occurs mostly over an existing road and trail network and does not alter landforms or result in substantial soil disturbance that would change water flow patterns or quantities of surface water runoff. Trail grooming is not expected to cause
Eldorado National Forest 204 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences adverse impacts to water quality, perennial, intermittent or ephemeral streams, wetlands or other bodies of water (Chapter 3, Water Resources). No hydrological changes are expected from any OSV uses. 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 cross-country OSV use. Due to the intensive, repetitive, and predictable compaction of snow along designated OSV trails, these areas are much more likely to have a degree of compaction that could adversely 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. Each species is evaluated for this risk below. Outside the designated OSV trails, dispersed OSV travel would not compact snow with enough intensity and repetition, year after year, to predictably affect ground vegetation, and therefore is not considered a likely source of indirect effects.
Pollutants Emissions from OSVs, 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. Four-stroke 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 (Falkengren-Grerup 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 may 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 in-road 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
Eldorado National Forest 205 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 p-xylene, 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 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 Eldorado National Forest (considerably less than those observed in Yellowstone National Park) are not expected to impair water quality (Water Resources, Chapter 3).
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 is possible that there may be some changes in plant species cover and composition. On the Eldorado National Forest, mortality or damage to roadside TES plants due to vehicle pollutants has not been observed, even considering year-round vehicle uses. Therefore, the level of effect to TES plants from OSV pollutants is expected to be minimal to none, and would not result in loss of individuals.
Eldorado National Forest 206 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 expected to be concentrated in areas of heavy OSV use. Therefore, in this analysis, areas within 100 feet of designated OSV trails are assumed to be at risk from the effects of OSV pollutants. Away from the designated OSV trails, 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 likely source of indirect effects.
Relative Potential Effects to Plant Life Forms Considering the combination of direct and indirect effects described above, and the and the minimum snow depth requirements of each of the 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:
• Evergreen trees and shrubs – most likely to be directly affected, due to mechanical damage; indirect effects are expected if the species occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur in all areas designated for OSV use. • Deciduous trees and shrubs – somewhat less likely, due to winter dormancy; indirect effects are expected if the species occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur in all areas designated for 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 expected if the species occurs near designated OSV trails. Effects may occur in all areas designated for 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. • 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 if spring flowering could be altered by persistent compacted snow. Indirect effects may occur near trailheads and along designated OSV trails, but are not likely in areas without high levels of 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 designated for OSV use.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Packera layneae (Laynes’s butterweed)
Direct Effects Layne’s butterweed is an herbaceous perennial that dies back to the ground each year. Because of the plant’s dormancy during the winter OSV use period and the requirement of adequate snow to avoid resource damage or minimum snow depths preventing OSV contact with soil and ground vegetation, Layne’s butterweed would not be directly affected by OSV use or snow trail grooming activities.
Eldorado National Forest 207 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Indirect Effects The Layne’s butterweed occurrences do not exist in high-use areas, where snow compaction and pollutants would be concentrated. There would be no indirect effects to Layne’s butterweed because dispersed OSV use as described for all alternatives would not likely cause any noticeable changes from compaction of snow or pollutants.
Forest Service Sensitive Plants
Trees, shrubs, or sub-shrub species
Direct Effects Snowmobile activities may damage vegetation on and along trails and in areas open to cross- country OSV use. The most commonly observed effect from snowmobiles has been 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 1 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. On the Eldorado National Forest, OSV use may directly damage individuals of the Region 5 Sensitive species Arctostaphylos nissenana, Eriogonum tripodum, and Pinus albicaulis and the following Special Interest plant species: Ceanothus fresnensis, Myrica hartwegii, Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea, Taxus brevifolia, Torreya californica, and Viburnum ellipticum.
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 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
Eldorado National Forest 208 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences snow when OSV use would occur (Eriogonum tripodum), the exposure to airborne pollutants would be negligible.
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 noticable.
Perennial herbaceous species (including bryophytes)
Direct Effects With the 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 OSV use.
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. While they are also generally adapted to sub-freezing temperatures, because their living tissues are present at or near the ground surface, colder temperatures from compacted snow could result in freeze damage to some individuals.
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. 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 OSV use because they would not be growing during the 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. Snowmelt in compacted areas may be delayed by up to 3 to 4 weeks. Annual plants must be adapted to a wide variety of natural snowmelt times in mountainous regions, due the variability of snowpack, temperature, and precipitation. Annual plants would not yet be growing in an area at the same time when the snowpack is sufficient to allow OSV use.
Airborne pollutants would not affect annual species because the new generation of plants (seeds) would still be dormant under the snow. It is expected that pollutant concentrations in the snowpack 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. Pollutant effects are not expected to occur outside areas of concentrated OSV use, such as trailheads and snow trails. Annual sensitive plant species are not known to occur within identified high-use areas, and these plants, due to their annual life cycle, are not likely to be affected by OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 209 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Aquatic Species
Direct Effects Aquatic plant species would not be directly affected by OSV use because OSVs would not 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 under water. 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.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens Fens can be threatened by activities affecting the watershed such as livestock grazing and trampling, timber harvest, road building, off-road vehicle use, water pumping, and water pollution. Any condition or activity that disturbs the hydrologic regime or soil temperature of a fen, causing drying or warming, may threaten the function of that fen (Sikes et al. 2013).
In fens, it is important to recognize that plant growth is not just in summer. New shoots emerge from soil in winter under the snow. Sedges have special winter leaves that are evergreen, while other species have pre-formed buds near ground surface and flower before leaves emerge. Much of the summer growth occurs in the 2 to 4 weeks after snowmelt (Gage and Cooper 2009).
Direct Effects
The minimum snow depth requirements is expected to prevent direct disturbance of soils or ground vegetation, but trees or shrubs may be damaged in or near fen habitats.
Indirect Effects
Snow compaction poses the greatest threat to fens from the proposed OSV uses. Delayed snowmelt and colder temperatures under compacted snow may cause changes to fen communities. The effects vary with differing usage patterns. A single snowmobile pass is far less likely to negatively affect hydrologic or ecological processes in wetlands than a series of intensely used snowmobile trails or groomed ski runs (Gage and Cooper 2009). Effects are much more likely to occur where fens are present near designated OSV trails, and would be more dispersed in areas open to cross country OSV travel. Possible changes to the fen communities could include shifts in species composition due to colder temperatures and disruption of the insulating space that naturally develops beneath the snow. Delayed snowmelt may cause later flowering times, which could result in reduced seed production from a misalignment with specific pollinators for some species. In order for substantial species composition to change as a result of snow compaction, the same areas would need to be compacted year after year, and the likelihood of this occurring is much greater where OSV use is concentrated, such as along the designated OSV trails. Because so many site-specific variables are involved, compositional changes due to snow compaction would be very difficult to predict. Where fen habitats exist within 100 feet of designated OSV trails (0.1 acre in all alternatives), some compositional changes could result from snow compaction, but these are expected to be minor and not impair the function of the fen habitat.
Eldorado National Forest 210 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Airborne pollutants would not affect fens because these communities would be under a blanket of snow when the emissions are produced. As with any of the plant groups, pollutants that 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 fen responses, if any, would be minor.
Invasive Species On the Eldorado National Forest, 34 invasive plant species are documented. There have been no indications of weed introductions or spread specifically related to OSV use. Roadside weed infestations are routinely treated during their active growing season each year. There have been no observations or literature found that point to OSV use causing introduction or spread of invasive plants. Given that typical factors promoting the spread and establishment of weeds (i.e. soil disturbance and vegetation cover reductions) are not expected with the proposed OSV use, the seasonal timing of the activities, 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.
Special Interest Areas (SIA) Potential impacts to resources within these areas are limited to those from cross-country OSV use which may result in direct impacts to woody plant species, and much less likely, small magnitude effects from snow compaction and pollutants. Due to the very small amount of change anticipated, even with differences in areas open to OSV use, all alternatives are expected to retain the vegetation and other habitat characteristics for which the SIAs were established.
Wrights Lake Bog is the only SIA that would be open to OSV use in all alternatives.
Cumulative Effects (all alternatives)
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 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.
Snow plowing at the established OSV trailheads is an ancillary activity associated with this project, and is not analyzed as a part of the proposal. Snow plowing is not expected to affect TES plants, other than providing an additional vector for the possible transport of invasive weed species. The risk of weed invasion by this means is very. Other ongoing and foreseeable future activities include livestock grazing, recreation, timber harvest, fuels reduction, woodcutting activities, wildfire suppression, and other activities. These activities may affect some sensitive 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.
Eldorado National Forest 211 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Federally Listed Plants Ongoing activities (grazing, recreation, etc.) and natural growth and succession would contribute to some changes to Packera layneae habitat as they have in the past. Future actions are also not expected to adversely affect this species because avoidance measures would be incorporated into the planning and implementation of the projects. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to Packera layneae or their associated critical habitat, there are no cumulative effects to consider for this species.
Forest Service Sensitive Plants The effects of present and future projects on Forest Service sensitive 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 this project, there would be no loss of viability for any plant species.
Fens Impacts to fens are evaluated for all projects occurring on the Eldorado National Forest. Most ground disturbing activities avoid these features due to application of standard activity buffers around wetlands. However, livestock grazing is a considerable source of ground disturbance in these habitats. The contribution of potential OSV impacts to fen disturbances is small, and fen function is typically being maintained.
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 Eldorado National Forest weeds program. The low weed risk of the Eldorado National Forest OSV Use Designation project would add minimal risk to the ongoing and foreseeable actions in the planning area.
Special Interest Areas The vegetation and habitat characteristics for which the SIAs were established would be maintained. Minimum snow depths to avoid damage to resources would prevent or minimize the potential for impacts.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There are no additional types of effects to TES plants and the other botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All Alternatives that are specific to alternative 1. In comparison with other alternatives, alternative 1 would generally have greater potential to affect botanical resources due to larger areas designated for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 212 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 59. TES plant indicators and measures for alternative 1 Acres in areas Total acres on Acres within 100 designated for Analysis Topic Eldorado NF feet of OSV trails OSV use Threatened and Endangered plants 2.3 0 2.3 (Packera layneae) Sensitive plants 1,075 1.1 1,044
Federally Listed Plants As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct effects to Packera layneae. Indirect effects are not likely to occur from the small amounts of snow compaction and pollutants associated with dispersed OSV use. Because no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species are expected, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Packera layneae.
Fore st Service Sensitive Plants For the three sensitive woody plant species, Arctostaphylos nissenana, Eriogonum tripodum, and Pinus albicaulis, due to the possibility of direct damage to individuals and minor indirect effects from snow compaction and OSV pollutants where they occur in areas designated for OSV use, alternative 1 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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. After evaluating the specific habitat requirements of each species and potential interactions with OSV use, minor indirect effects of snow compaction and OSV pollutants would be possible for any of the sensitive plant species present in areas open to OSV use. Therefore, alternative 1 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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 Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium paradoxum, Bruchia bolanderi, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Horkelia parryi, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Lewisia serrata, Mimulus pulchellus, Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea, Phacelia stebbinsii, Poa sierrae, and Peltigera gowardii.
Because no occurrences are known to exist in areas designated for OSV use, alternative 1 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Allium tribracteatum, Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium pedunculosum, Cypripedium montanum, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Helodium blandowii, Lewisia longipetala, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia elongata, Ophioglossum pusillum, and Phaeocollybia olivaceae.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens In this alternative, 37 of the 38 currently mapped fens (439 of 490 acres) would be areas designated for OSV use, with 0.1 acre within 100 feet of a designated OSV trail. As described earlier, direct effects would be limited to tree or shrub species, and some minor indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants could occur, especially near the designated OSV trails or other heavily used areas.
Eldorado National Forest 213 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Special Interest Areas In alternative 1, four of the botanical SIAs would be at least partially open to cross country OSV use, totaling approximately 450 acres, but the allowed OSV use would not cause significant damage to the vegetation and habitat resources for which the SIAs were established.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There are no additional types of effects to TES plants and other botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All Alternatives that are specific to alternative 2. In comparison with other alternatives, alternative 2 would have a moderate potential to affect botanical resources due to larger areas of areas designated for OSV use and snow depth requirements designed to avoid damage to resources.
Table 60. TES plant indicators and measures for alternative 2
Total acres on Eldorado Acres within Acres in areas Analysis Topic 100 feet of OSV National Forest open to OSV use trails Threatened and Endangered plants 2.3 0 1.8 Sensitive plants 1,075 1.1 1,031
Federally Listed Plants As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct effects to Packera layneae. Indirect effects are not likely to occur from the small amounts of snow compaction and pollutants associated with dispersed OSV use. Because no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species are expected, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Packera layneae.
Forest Service Sensitive Species For two of the three Sensitive woody plant species, Arctostaphylos nissenana and Pinus albicaulis, due to the possibility of direct damage to individuals and minor indirect effects from snow compaction and OSV pollutants where they occur in areas designated for OSV use, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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. Because it does not occur in areas that would be designated as open to OSV use, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Eriogonum tripodum.
After evaluating the specific habitat requirements of each species and potential interactions with OSV use, minor indirect effects from snow compaction and OSV pollutants would be possible for any of the Sensitive plant species present in areas open to OSV use. Therefore, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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 Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium paradoxum, Bruchia bolanderi, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Horkelia parryi, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Lewisia serrata, Mimulus pulchellus, Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea, Phacelia stebbinsii, Poa sierrae, and Peltigera gowardii.
Eldorado National Forest 214 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Because no occurrences are known to exist in areas open to OSV use, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Allium tribracteatum, Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium pedunculosum, Cypripedium montanum, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Helodium blandowii, Lewisia longipetala, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia elongata, Ophioglossum pusillum, and Phaeocollybia olivaceae.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens In alternative 2, 37 of the 38 currently mapped fens (434 of 490 acres) would be open to OSV use, with 0.1 acre within 100 feet of a designated OSV trail. Similar to alternative 1, but with 5 fewer acres open to OSV use, direct effects would be limited to tree or shrub species, and some minor indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants could occur, especially near the designated OSV trails or other heavily used areas.
Special Interest Areas In alternative 2, two of the botanical SIAs would be at least partially open to cross-country OSV use, totaling approximately 280 acres, but the allowed OSV use would not cause significant damage to the vegetation and habitat resources for which the SIAs were established.
Wrights Lake Bog and Leonardi Falls SIAs would be entirely open to OSV use.
Alternative 3 There are no additional types of effects to TES plants and other botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All Alternatives that are specific to alternative 3. In comparison with other alternatives, alternative 3 would have the least potential for effects to TES plants because considerably fewer acres would be open to OSV use, and thus fewer TES plant occurrences would be present in these areas. In addition, alternative 3 would require a minimum snow depth of 18 inches for cross-country OSV use, providing more than the minimum that is assumed to be adequate to avoid damage to resources. This extra measure of protection may result in fewer impacts to Sensitive plants.
Table 61. TES plant indicators and measures for alternative 3 Analysis Topic Total acres on Acres within 100 Acres in areas Eldorado NF feet of OSV trails open to OSV use Threatened and Endangered plants 2.3 0 0 Sensitive plants 1,075 1.1 233
Federally Listed Plants The areas and trails proposed to be designated for OSV use under alternative 3 do not occur within the range of Packera layneae. There will be no affect to this species.
Fore st Service Sensitive Plants Of the three Sensitive woody plant species, only Pinus albicaulis habitat remains in areas designated for OSV use in alternative 3. Mapped occurrences of Pinus albicaulis are outside of areas proposed to be designated for OSV use; however, because the mapping of this species is incomplete, occurrences are very likely to be present in some high-elevation areas that would be
Eldorado National Forest 215 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences designated for OSV use. Due to the potential for direct damage where it occurs in areas designated as open to OSV use and indirect effects from snow compaction or pollutants, alternative 3 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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 Pinus albicaulis. Because they occur at lower elevations that are not proposed to be open to OSV use, alternative 3 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Arctostaphylos nissenana and Eriogonum tripodum.
After evaluating the specific habitat requirements of each species and potential interactions with OSV use, very minor indirect effects from snow compaction and OSV pollutants would be possible for any of the Sensitive plant species present in areas open to OSV use. Therefore, alternative 3 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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 Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Phacelia stebbinsii, and Peltigera gowardii.
Because no occurrences are known to exist in areas open to OSV use, alternative 3 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Allium tribracteatum, Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium paradoxum, Botrychium pedunculosum, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Cypripedium montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Helodium blandowii, Horkelia parryi, Lewisia longipetala, Lewisia serrata, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia elongata, Mimulus pulchellus, Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea, Ophioglossum pusillum, Phaeocollybia olivaceae, and Poa sierrae.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens In alternative 3, 24 of the 38 currently mapped fens (233 of 490 acres) would be designated as open to OSV use, with 0.1 acre within 100 feet of a designated OSV trail. With nearly half the acreage of fens open to OSV use as the other alternatives, alternative 3 would have the least impact to fens. Direct effects would be limited to tree or shrub species, and some minor indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants could occur, especially near the designated OSV trails or other heavily used areas.
Special Interest Areas In alternative 3, only Wrights Lake Bog SIA (65 acres) would be designated for OSV use. The allowed OSV use in Wrights Lake Bog SIA would not cause significant damage to the vegetation and habitat resources for which it was established.
Alternative 4
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There are no additional types of effects to TES plants and other botanical resources beyond those described in Effects Common to All Alternatives that are specific to alternative 4. In comparison with other alternatives, alternative 4 have similar potential for effects as alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 4 would require a minimum snow depth of 12 inches for cross-country OSV use, providing the minimum assumed to be adequate to avoid damage to resources.
Eldorado National Forest 216 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 62. TES plant indicators and measures for alternative 4 Total acres on Acres within 100 Acres in areas Analysis Topic Eldorado NF feet of OSV trails open to OSV use Threatened and Endangered plants 2.3 0 1.8 Sensitive plants 1,075 1.1 1,043
Threatened and Endangered Plants As described above in Effects Common to All Alternatives, there would be no direct effects to Packera layneae. Indirect effects are not likely to occur from the small amounts of snow compaction and pollutants associated with dispersed OSV use. Because no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species are expected, alternative 2 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Packera layneae.
Fore st Service Sensitive Plants Of the three Sensitive woody plant species, only Arctostaphylos nissenana and Pinus albicaulis are known to occur in areas open to OSV use. Due to the potential for direct and indirect effects to Arctostaphylos nissenana and Pinus albicaulis, alternative 4 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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. Because it does not occur in areas open to OSV use, alternative 4 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Eriogonum tripodum. After evaluating the specific habitat requirements of each species and potential interactions with OSV use, minor indirect effects from snow compaction and OSV pollutants would be possible for any of the Sensitive plant species present in areas open to OSV use. Therefore, alternative 4 of the Eldorado OSV Use 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 Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium paradoxum, Bruchia bolanderi, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Horkelia parryi, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Lewisia serrata, Mimulus pulchellus, Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea, Ophioglossum pusillum, Phacelia stebbinsii, Poa sierrae, and Peltigera gowardii.
Because no occurrences are known to exist in areas that would be designated for OSV use, alternative 4 of the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project would have no e ffe ct on Allium tribracteatum, Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium pedunculosum, Cypripedium montanum, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Helodium blandowii, Lewisia longipetala, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia elongata, and Phaeocollybia olivaceae.
Special Aquatic Features – Fens In alternative 4, 37 of the 38 currently mapped fens (439 of 490 acres) would be open to OSV use, with 0.1 acre within 100 feet of a designated OSV trail. This the same as alternative 1, and direct effects would be limited to tree or shrub species, and some minor indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants could occur, especially near the designated OSV trails or other heavily used areas.
Eldorado National Forest 217 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Special Interest Areas In alternative 4, three of the botanical SIAs would be at least partially open to cross-country OSV use, totaling approximately 1,095 acres, but the allowed OSV use would not cause significant damage to the vegetation and habitat resources for which the SIAs were established. Wrights Lake Bog and Leonardi Falls SIAs would be entirely within an area designated as open to OSV use.
Summary of Effects
Table 63. TES plant species summary of indicator measures for all alternatives Total acres on Eldorado Acres within 100 Acres in areas Analysis Topic feet of OSV trails open to OSV use NF Threatened and Endangered plants 2.3 Alt. 1 (Packera layneae) 1.8 Alt. 2 2.3 0 all alternatives 0 Alt. 3 1.8 Alt. 4 Sensitive plants 1,044 Alt. 1 1,031 Alt. 2 1,075 1.1 all alternatives 233 Alt. 3 1,043 Alt. 4
Table 64. TES plant species summary of determinations Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Packera layneae No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Allium tribracteatum No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Arctostaphylos nissenana May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Botrychium ascendens No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Botrychium crenulatum May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Botrychium lunaria No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Botrychium minganense May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Botrychium montanum May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Botrychium paradoxum May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Botrychium pedunculosum No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Bruchia bolanderi May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Calochortus clavatus var. avius May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Cypripedium montanum No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Dendrocollybia racemosa May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Draba asterophora var. asterophora No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Draba asterophora var. No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect macrocarpa Helodium blandowii No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Eldorado National Forest 218 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Horkelia parryi May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Lewisia longipetala No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Lewisia serrata May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Meesia uliginosa No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Mielichhoferia elongata No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Mimulus pulchellus May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea May Affect May Affect No Effect May Affect Ophioglossum pusillum No Effect No Effect No Effect May Affect* Peltigera gowardii May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* May Affect* Phacelia stebbinsii May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* Phaeocollybia olivaceae No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Poa sierrae May Affect* May Affect* No Effect May Affect* *May Affect = May affect individuals, but not likely to trend tow ard federal listing or result in the loss of viability in the planning area.
Table 65. Other botanical resources summary of indicator measure for all alternatives Total acres on Eldorado National Acres within 100 feet Acres in areas open to Resource Element of OSV trails OSV use Forest Special Aquatic 439 Alt. 1 Features – Fens 434 Alt. 2 490 0.1 all alternatives 233 Alt. 3 439 Alt. 4 Invasive Plant Species 4,545 Alt. 1 3,853 Alt. 2 68 Alt. 3 3,853 Alt. 4 4,756 2.1 all alternatives Level of risk for the project introducing or spreading invasive weeds is low under all alternatives. Botanical Special 450 Alt. 1 Interest Areas 280 Alt. 2 5,262 0 all alternatives 65 Alt. 3 1,095 Alt. 4
Special Aquatic Features – Fens Direct effects to fen habitats would be limited to tree or shrub species, and some minor indirect effects from snow compaction and pollutants could occur, especially near the designated OSV trails or high use areas. Fen function is not expected to be impaired with the proposed OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 219 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Invasive Plants Thirty-four invasive plant species are documented in the project area, and many 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 this uncertainty 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 low for all alternatives. For all alternatives, the Eldorado OSV Use Designation project carries an overall low risk of spreading or introducing weeds.
Special Interest Areas As shown in Table 68, alternative 4 would have the most acreage (1,095 acres) of SIAs open to OSV use, followed by alternative 1 (450 acres), alternative 2 (280 acres), and finally alternative 3 (65 acres). For all alternatives, the vegetation and habitat characteristics for which the SIAs were established would be maintained. Minimum snow depths to avoid damage to resources would prevent or minimize the potential for impacts.
Eldorado National Forest 220 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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, including the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 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 Eldorado National Forest include issues related to OSV (OSV) emissions. This analysis describes the existing condition of air quality on the Eldorado National Forest and evaluates the potential changes and effects of the alternatives on air quality.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Federal Clean Area 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 would 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 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.
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 table 62 and accompanying footnotes. (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
Eldorado National Forest 221 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 would 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 EPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations 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.
Methodology
Analysis Assumptions 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 per day and was averaged based on the responses received through a survey forum (snowest.com).
Approximate annual use was an estimated 2,329 OSV visitors.
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.
Resource Indicators and Measures Designating areas and trails for OSV use and grooming trails for OSV use could generate exhaust and emit pollutants into the air. This could degrade air quality, which can impact recreational uses and sensitive areas.
The air quality analysis is a qualitative discussion of the potential contribution of OSV emissions from the estimated number of OSV enthusiasts to the Eldorado National Forest each year.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition 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 fifteen air basins, the Eldorado
Eldorado National Forest 222 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
National Forest is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin with a small portion within the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin to the southeast (figure 6).
Figure 6. Designated air basins in California
Air Pollution Control Districts/Air Quality Management Districts
Air quality for the Eldorado National Forest is managed and regulated by air pollution control or air quality management districts. These districts were created by state law to enforce local, state and Federal air pollution regulations, and often, but not always, follow county boundaries. The Eldorado National Forest lies primarily within El Dorado County, with portions of the Forest within Alpine and Amador counties to the south and Placer County to the north. The Air Pollution Control Districts of El Dorado, Placer, and Amador Counties administer air quality management programs for those counties, and therefore, the Eldorado National Forest. Alpine County lies within the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and within the southeastern portion of the Eldorado National Forest. Air quality rules and regulations for each air pollution control district can be found at their websites.
Class I and II Areas
The Desolation Wilderness and the Mokelumne Wilderness are Class I areas located within the Eldorado National Forest. The portion of Desolation Wilderness within the Eldorado National Forest is approximately 42,054 acres and the portion of the forest within Mokelumne Wilderness is approximately 61,487 acres. The Clean Air Act as amended in August 1977, was developed for the preservation of air quality. Section 160-169 of the Act established a detailed policy and regulatory program to protect the quality of the air in regions of the United States in which the
Eldorado National Forest 223 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences air is cleaner than required by the NAAQS. One purpose of the program is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and to preserve, protect and enhance air quality in national parks and national wilderness areas. Under Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions, Congress established a land classification scheme for those areas with air quality better than the NAAQS. Class I allows very little deterioration of air quality, Class II allows moderate deterioration, and Class III allows more deterioration. In all cases, the pollution concentrations shall not violate NAAQS.
Visibilit y 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 that either scatter or absorb light. The net effect is the creation of a hazy condition. Sources for visibility impairment in these Class I 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 I Areas in California. The BLIS1 monitor location represents two wilderness areas located along the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, just west of Lake Tahoe. The wilderness areas associated with the BLIS1 monitor are Desolation Wilderness Area (within Eldorado and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit) and Mokelumne Wilderness Area (within the Stanislaus, Eldorado and Toiyabe National Forests). The BLIS1 site has been operating since November 1990 (ARB 2016). However, the Air Resources Board also noted that, as evidenced by reductions in anthropogenic source emissions in California and the concurrent improvement in visibility at all of California’s Class I 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).
Eldorado National Forest 224 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Figure 7. Class I areas in California
Air Quality Standards
The Eldorado 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).
These pollutants can affect human health, reduce visibilit y, and lead to acidic deposition in sensitive, high-elevation lakes. Air quality within the Eldorado 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.
Eldorado National Forest 225 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Currently, the Eldorado National Forest complies with Federal and State standards, and there are no known violations of the Clean Air Act. According to the EPA, portions of El Dorado and Placer Counties are in non-attainment for 8-hour ozone. The concern for ozone is in the summer only according to the Air Pollution Specialist at the California Air Resources Board (Lopina 2015). Please see table 69 for more information on criteria pollutant designations.
Table 66. Federal non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants County 8- Carbon Lead Particulate Particulate Nitrogen Sulfur and/or Air hour Monoxide (Pb) Matter2.5 Matter10 Dioxide Dioxide District Ozone (CO) (PM2.5) (PM10) (NO2) (SO2) Alpine U U U U U U U Amador U U U U U U U Eldorado N* U U U U U U Placer N* U U U U U U N= Non-attainment, U= Unclassified, A= Attainment. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/gislib/gislib.htm *Part of the county is listed in non-attainment for criteria pollutant.
Table 67 below shows the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) state designations for all criteria pollutants in California. As stated above, California has set standards for certain pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, which are more protective of public health than respective Federal standards. 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 three counties in non-attainment for ozone and PM10. The remaining counties are in attainment or unclassified for the criteria pollutants.
Table 67. State-designated non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants County Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Visibility- and/ or Ozone Monoxi Lead Sulfate Hydrogen PM2.5 PM10 Dioxide Dioxide reducing Air (O3) de (Pb) s Sulfide (NO2) (SO2) Particles District (CO) Alpine U U A A N A A A U U Amador N U A U U A A A U U El Dorado N U A U N A A A U U Placer N U A U N A A A U U N= Non-attainment, U= Unclassified, A= Attainment. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/gislib/gislib.htm
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 of each CBSA. Within each Metropolitan Statistical Area, at least one site should be sited to capture maximum ozone concentrations and the site type should be identified as ‘Highest Concentration.’ As shown in Table 71, the 11 metropolitan statistical areas met minimum ozone monitoring requirements for ozone in 2015. Sites from districts not covered are listed to provide a complete picture of all of the sites contributing towards the minimum monitoring requirements in each Metropolitan Statistical Area. High concentration sites are denoted with bold text. (CARB 2016)
Eldorado National Forest 226 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 68. CBSAs with Minimum ozone monitoring requirements
Metropolitan Population 2013-2015 # SLAMS Sites Operating in 2015 Statistical (2010 Design Required (District where site is located) Area Census) Value Sites High Concentration Sites Denoted by (% of Bold Text NAAQS) DV Site Bakersfield 839,361 0.090 ppm 2 Arvin-Di Giorgio (San Joaquin Valley) (129%) Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue (San Bakersfield- Joaquin Valley) Municipal Bakersfield-Municipal Airport (San Airport Joaquin Valley) Edison (San Joaquin Valley) Maricopa-Stanislaus Street (San Joaquin Valley) Mojave-923 Poole Street (Eastern Kern) Oildale-3311 Manor Street (San Joaquin Valley) Shafter-Walker Street (San Joaquin Valley) Chic o 220,000 0.074 ppm 1 Chic o-East Avenue (Butte County) (106%) Paradise-4405 Airport Road (Butte Paradise County) El Centro 174,528 0.078 ppm 1 Calexico-Ethel Street (Imperial) (114%) El Ce n t r o-9th Street (Imperial) El Centro Niland-English Road (Imperial) Westmorland (Imperial) Los Angeles- 12,828,837 0.094 ppm 4 Lancaster-43301 Division Street (Antelope Long Beach- (134%) Valley) Anaheim Santa Clarita Anaheim-Pampas Lane (South Coast) Azusa (South Coast) Burbank (South Coast) Compton-700 North Bullis Road (South Coast) Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive (South Coast) Glendora-Laurel (South Coast) La Habra (South Coast) Long Beach-2425 Webster Street (South Coast) Los Angeles-LAX (South Coast) Los Angeles-North Main Street (South Coast) Mission Viejo-26081 Via Pera (South Coast) Pasadena-S Wilson Avenue (South Coast) Pico Rivera-4144 San Gabriel (South Coast) Pomona (South Coast) Reseda (South Coast) Santa Clarita (South Coast) West Los Angeles-VA Hospital (South Coast) Oxnard- 823,318 0.077 ppm 2 El Rio-Rio Mesa School #2 (Ventura) Thousand (110%) Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road (Ventura) Oaks-Ventura Simi Valley Ojai-Ojai Avenue (Ventura) Pir u-3301 Pacific Avenue (Ventura) Simi Valley-Cochran Street (Ventura) Redding 177,223 0.067 ppm 1 Anderson-North Street (Shasta County) (98%) Redding-Health Dept Roof (Shasta County) Anderson Shasta Lake-13791 Lake Blvd (Shasta County)
Eldorado National Forest 227 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Metropolitan Population 2013-2015 # SLAMS Sites Operating in 2015 Statistical (2010 Design Required (District where site is located) Area Census) Value Sites High Concentration Sites Denoted by (% of Bold Text NAAQS) DV Site Riverside-San 4,224,851 0.102 ppm 3 Barstow (Mojave Desert) Bernardino- (146%) Blythe-445 West Murphy Street (Mojave Ontario Crestline Desert) Hesperia-Olive Street (Mojave Desert) Phelan (Mojave Desert) Trona-Athol and Telegraph (Mojave Desert) Victorville-14306 Park Avenue (Mojave Desert) Banning Airport (South Coast) Crestline (South Coast) Fontana-Arrow Highway (South Coast) Indio-Jackson Street (South Coast) Lake Elsinore-W Flint Street (South Coast) Mira Loma-Van Buren (South Coast) Palm Springs-Fire Station (South Coast) Perris (South Coast) Redlands-Dearborn (South Coast) Riverside-Rubidoux (South Coast) San Bernardino-4th Street (South Coast) Upland (South Coast) Winchester-33700 Borel Road (South Coast) Sacramento- 2,149,127 0.081 2 Cool-Highway 193 (El Dorado County) Roseville-Arden (116%) Echo Summit (El Dorado County) Arcade Placerville Placerville-Gold Nugget Way (El Dorado County) Auburn-11645 Atwood Road (Placer County) Colfax-City Hall (Placer County) Lincoln-1445 1st Street (Placer County) Roseville-N Sunrise Blvd (Placer County) Tahoe City-221 Fairw ay Drive (Placer County) Elk Grove (Sacramento) Folsom (Sacramento) North Highlands (Sacramento) Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (Sacramento) Sacramento-Goldenland (Sacramento) Sacramento-T St (Sacramento) Sloughhouse (Sacramento) Dav is -UCD Campus (Y olo-Solano) Woodland-Gibson Road (Yolo-Solano) Santa Rosa 483,878 0.058 ppm 1 Sebastopol (Bay Area) (83%) Healdsburg-Municipal Airport (Northern Healdsburg- Sonoma) Muni Vallejo-Fairfield 413,344 0.066 ppm 2 Fairfield-Chadbourne Road (Bay Area) (94%) Vallejo-304 Tuolumne Street (Bay Area) Vacaville- Vacaville-Ulatis Drive (Yolo-Solano) Ulatis Yuba City 166,892 0.073 ppm 1 Sutter Buttes-S Butte (Feather (104%) Rive r )Yuba City- Sutter Buttes Almond Street (Feather River) Source: ARB 2016
Eldorado National Forest 228 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 70 displays the annual average emissions (tons/year) generated for the air districts within the Eldorado National Forest (EPA 2013).
Table 69. Estimated annual average emissions (tons per year) by air district
Air District TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5 Alpine** 5,095.40 2,664.50 15,282.55 1,565.85 237.25 29,601.50 18,337.60 3,000.30 Amador 3,288.65 1,693.60 5,369.15 1,522.05 36.50 2,941.90 1,722.80 835.85 Eldorado 9,292.90 4,208.45 20,651.70 2,668.15 54.75 5,942.20 3,609.85 1,025.65 Placer 22,403.70 7,639.45 31,922.90 8,230.75 98.55 9,453.50 5,445.80 1,781.20 TOTAL 40,080.65 16,206.00 73,226.30 13,986.80 427.05 47,939.10 29,116.05 6,643.00 Emissions for Air Districts (tons/year) Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/statemap/dismap.htm. Accessed October 4, 2016 ** Alpine County is w ithin the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Values above are for the entire Great Basin APCD w hich also includes Mono and Inyo Counties.
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. The transportation sector made up 27 percent of the 2015 greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Almost all (95 percent) of the world's transportation energy comes from petroleum-based fuels, largely gasoline and diesel. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. CO2 can also be emitted from direct human-induced impacts on forestry and other land use, such as through deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and degradation of soils. Likewise, land can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.
Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90 percent, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors (Edenhofer et al 2014). In 2001, the EPA estimated the percentage contributions made by snowmobiles to the overall output in the United States to be: hydrocarbons (HC) 1.2 percent, carbon dioxide (CO) 0.5 percent, nitrogen oxides (NOx) 0.007 percent, and particulate matter (PM) 0.07 percent. This is truly a tiny contribution to the total emissions released in a year, but snowmobile engines were lumped in with many off-road engine types and standards were established for them all (Snow Goer 2006).
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 in North West Wyoming. They emit hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-combusted fuel vapors (USDI NPS 2000). Combustion engine emissions contain carcinogens, including benzene, butadiene, and polycyclic aromatic
Eldorado National Forest 229 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences hydrocarbons (USDI NPS 2000). Combustion engines also emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.
In the case of snowmobiles, the EPA measures and regulates only HC and CO levels in the exhaust. Levels of NOx are inherently low in two-stroke engines because of their lower combustion chamber temperatures. While four-stroke engines would have higher NOx emissions, they are not of great concern in the winter when temperatures aren’t high enough to act as the catalyst to create smog (Snow Goer 2006).
In 2002, EPA issued a regulation that imposed stringent pollution regulations on snowmobiles, requiring that snowmobiles fall under regulations of the Clean 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). The result is that snowmobile engines now have significantly lower emissions and are much cleaner. EPA regulations target model year 2006 or newer snowmobiles (Raap 2014). 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 2015b).
Table 70. Exhaust emission standards for snowmobiles Phase Model year Phase-in Emission standards Maximum allowable family (percent) emission limits
HC CO HC CO Phase 1 2006 50 100 275 - - Phase 1 2007-2009 100 100 275 - - Phase 2 2010 and 100 75 275 - - 2011 Phase 3 2012 and later 100 (1) (1) 150 400 Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Accessed November 2015 1 See § 1051.103(a)(2): (a) * * * (1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards. You may generate or use emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program for HC and CO emissions, as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a family emission limit for each pollutant you include in the ABT program for each engine family. These family emission limits serve as the emission standards for the engine family w ith respect to all required testing instead of the standards specified in this section. An engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the w hole averaging set of applicable engine families meets the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles w ithin the family meet the family emission limit. The phase-in values specify the percentage of your U.S.-directed production that must comply w ith the emission standards for those model years. Calculate this compliance percentage based on a simple count of your U.S.-directed production units w ithin each certified engine family compared w ith a simple count of your total U.S.-directed production units. Table 1 also show s the maximum value you may specify for a family emission limit, as follow s: (2) For Phase 3, the HC and CO standards are defined by a functional relationship. Choose your corporate average HC and CO standards for each year according to the follow ing criteria: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/06/25/E8-14411/exhaust-emission-standards-for-2012-and-later- model-year-snowmobiles
Eldorado National Forest 230 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Best Available 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 CO and hydrocarbon emissions (USDI NPS 2013) is not currently required on the Eldorado National Forest.
Motorized Winter Recreation
The Eldorado National Forest has a well-developed winter recreation program that emphasizes snowmobile use and includes 58 miles of groomed snowmobile trails.
The following data are 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), estimated use per winter season would be 2,329 OSV users forestwide. However, visitor use levels vary by season depending on the amount of snowfall, adequate snow depths, and length of season. The season is from mid-December through March (approximately 14 weeks), which is equivalent to approximately 33 weekend/holidays and 65 weekdays. In 2012, snowmobiling was reported as a main activity for 0.1 percent, and in 2007 snowmobiling was reported as a main activity for 0.5 percent (see Recreation Section in Chapter 3).
Grooming Activities Currently, 58 miles of National Forest System trails are groomed for OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest. The grooming season generally begins in mid-December and continues through March. Start and stop times are dependent upon the presence and depth of snow. Grooming historically has occurred several times per week with a maximum of 12-hours per day and a total of approximately 120 hours for the season. 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. Due to the CARB requirement, grooming activities on the Eldorado National Forest are not discussed in detail.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative represents the existing, baseline condition or trends by which the action alternatives can be compared. Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to the existing system of OSV use on snow trails and areas within the Eldorado National Forest except as prohibited by forest order.
Approximately 458,600 acres are currently open to OSV use, and 58 miles of snow groomed trails designated for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest 231 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Air quality on the Eldorado 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, and 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 Eldorado 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 I areas. There are three factors, largely beyond State control, that can interfere with air quality in Class I 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). Table 71 displays the potential contribution of snowmobile emissions from the estimated 2,329 OSV visitors that recreate on the Eldorado National Forest each year. All calculations were made using emission estimates from a 2-stroke snowmobile (EPA 2010). As shown in table 74, it is estimated that emissions from OSV use on the Eldorado contribute approximately 0.05 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) to the air districts under the no-action alternative and less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 0.08 of particulate matter (PM).
Table 71. Emission estimate (tons per year) for OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest
Source Number of OSVs Miles* CO NOx PM Snowmobile (2-stroke) 2,329 50 38 0.11 0.35 % Pollutant Contribution to Air Districts -- -- 0.05 <0.01 0.08 *Assumes 2,329 OSVs recreate on the Eldorado per year and travel an average of 50 miles.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would designate OSV use on fewer acres than alternative 1 (435,600 versus 458,600 acres respectively). This is approximately a 5 percent reduction in acres designated for OSV use forestwide as compared to the existing condition. The reduction of acres may cause a shift in OSV use to other areas. However, it is not likely this shift would result in increased accumulation or notable effects to air quality. 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 74 above under the no-action alternative. Current emissions are estimated to contribute approximately 0.05 percent of carbon monoxide (CO), less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 0.08 percent of particulate matter (PM) of pollutants to the air districts within the Eldorado 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 snowcats. 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
Eldorado National Forest 232 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences issue where concentrated motorized use conflicts with non-motorized uses and nuisance smell occurs.
Although there can be localized air quality impacts where a large number of snowmobiles are occupying a parking lot,as studied at Yellowstone National Park, those conditions do not apply in this case. The number of anticipated recreationists for this assessment would be considered low as compared to Yellowstone National Park, which records 75,000 snowmobile visitors each winter (Millner 2015). The issue of snowmobile emissions and air quality was studied more intensely in Yellowstone National Park than anywhere else in the world during the early 2000s. Intensive studies confirmed that, despite high levels of unregulated snowmobile use, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were never close to being exceeded in Yellowstone National Park due to snowmobile use. NAAQS thresholds have also never been exceeded elsewhere due to snowmobile use (Raap 2014).
The estimated 2,400 OSV visitors forestwide for the winter season on 58 miles of trail would equate to approximately one to 1.5 recreationist per mile of trail each weekend day (assuming 13 to 15 weekends and two days per weekend). It is expected OSV emissions would dissipate and the possibility of accumulation would be eliminated, based on topographic influences and wind dispersion. It is anticipated that any impacts to air quality fromwinter motorized recreation under alternative 2 would not result in violations to National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.
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 on 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 were 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 and Korfmacher 2007). It was also determined that pollutant concentrations were generally low in both winter and summer, and were considerably lower than maximum levels allowed by the NAAQS (Raap 2014).
Class I Are as 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. Snowmobiles that meet BAT requirements have higher NOx emissions than snowmobiles 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 snowmobiles, fewer snowmobiles entering the park in recent years, and carbureted snow coaches being replaced with modern fuel-injected engines. Requiring the use of only BAT snowmobiles 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
Eldorado National Forest 233 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences some facilities in the park, still contribute to winter CO and PM2.5 concentrations (USDI NPS 2013).
Climate Change Projected climate change through the 21st century would generate warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation that are expected to decrease the duration and extent of natural snow cover across the northern hemisphere (Wobus et al. 2017).
Average snowmobile seasons in the 2020s are projected to be reduced between 11 and 40 percent under a low-emission climate change scenario and between 39 to 68 percent under a high- emission climate change scenario. Under the high-emission scenario for the 2050s, a reliable snowmobiling season would essentially be eliminated from Canada’s non-mountainous regions (Wakefield 2016).
A study in Vermont concluded declining snowfall in Vermont at the normal elevations of most snowmobile trails has already occurred and is likely to continue in coming years. Days of snow cover were a significant detractor and with fewer days of snow cover, participation rates would begin to decline. (Wakefield 2016). Based on this research, snowmobile usage on the Eldorado could also decline or usage could shift to higher-elevation areas due to availability of snow. The quantity of greenhouse gas emitted is not expected to increase. With estimated annual OSV visitor use of 2,400 on the Eldorado, it is likely emissions contributions to the atmosphere would decline as visitor use may decline due to lack of snow. Insufficient information is available to predict the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change from snowmobile use on the Eldorado National Forest.
Conclusion It is anticipated that 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 Eldorado National Forest, low inversion potential, and low emissions generated from OSVs as compared to other potential sources. It is anticipated air quality of the Class I areas would be similar to the existing condition. Compliance with State and Federal air quality standards is expected to occur under alternative 2. Motorized recreation emission sources on the national forest are localized, transient and not expected to result in any significant air quality impacts under alternative 2. No violations of the Clean Air Act are expected to occur.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have the potential to impact air quality and are summarized below. Air quality on the Eldorado National 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 Eldorado. 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 snowcats utilized for plowing and grooming of parking lots and trailheads could also contribute to localized air pollution on the national forest. However, it is estimated the contribution of administrative snowcat 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 Eldorado National Forest. Substantial impacts to air quality are not expected to occur during
Eldorado National Forest 234 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences winter months on the Eldorado 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, alternative 2 is not expected to significantly contribute to 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 the Eldorado. There are no known unavoidable adverse, irreversible, or irretrievable effects to air quality as a result of implementing alternative 2. 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 during the OSV season.
Alternative 3
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would designate fewer acres for OSV use than alternative 1 (125,200 acres versus 458,600 acres, respectively) and alternative 2. Although there is a substantial reduction in areas designated for OSV use (77 percent reduction), it is likely emissions generated as a result of OSVs would be similar to or less than is currently estimated and displayed in Table 74 under the no-action alternative. Current emissions are estimated to contribute approximately 0.05 percent of carbon monoxide (CO), less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 0.08 percent of particulate matter (PM) of pollutants to the air districts within the Eldorado National Forest. These emissions are minor compared to other off-forest sources of air pollution that can impact the forest.
The direct and indirect effects discussed in detail under alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 3.
Cumulative Effects – Alternative 3 The cumulative effects disclosed for alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 3.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 would designate slightly more acres for OSV use than alternative 1 (463,800 versus 458,600 acres, respectively) and alternative 2. With a proposed 1 percent increase in areas designated for OSV use, it is likely emissions generated as a result of OSVs would be similar to or less than is currently estimated and displayed in Table 74 under the no-action alternative. Current emissions are estimated to contribute approximately 0.05 percent of carbon monoxide (CO), less than 0.01 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 0.08 percent of particulate matter (PM) of pollutants to the air districts within the Eldorado National Forest. These emissions are minor compared to other off-forest sources of air pollution that can impact the forest.
The direct and indirect effects discussed in detail under alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 4.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects disclosed for alternative 2 would also apply for alternative 4.
Eldorado National Forest 235 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects 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 Eldorado National Forest during the OSV season.
Potential impacts of public OSV use on Class I areas would be fairly similar for all action alternatives. Alternative 3 would provide slightly more protection due to fewer acres designated as open for OSV use. In all action alternatives, Class I areas are not designated as open for OSV use. There are no known violations of ambient air quality standards and to the Clean Air Act under the existing condition, and it is anticipated there would also be no violations with the action alternatives. Short-term impacts to air quality in some areas, including trailheads and parking lots may be noticeable due to the concentration of OSVs, particularly in the morning and/or at engine start-up. However, this is likely a nuisance smell issue rather than an air quality issue. Cultural Resources
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Land and Resource Management Plan The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment described the following elements of managing cultural resources (Volume 2, Chapter 3, Part 5.8, p. 510):
• Conducting inventories of proposed undertakings within the area of potential effects to identify types and locations of historic properties.
• Determining which historic properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• Assessing potential project effects on eligible historic properties. • Avoiding or mitigating adverse effects on historic properties eligible for the National Register or other significant sites.
• Follow-up monitoring to assess the effectiveness of management procedures such as implementing site protection measures.
National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, directs all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. Implementing regulations are found at 36 CFR 800.
Region 5 Programmatic Agreement This undertaking complies with the “Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for
Eldorado National Forest 236 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region, February 2013” (Region 5 PA).
Methodology
Assumptions The assumptions used in this effects analysis include:
• Snowpack creates a protective barrier between over-snow vehicles and archaeological sites.
• Snow levels at 12 inches and 6 inches compacted provide adequate protection.
Affected Environment Cultural resources, the remains of past human activity, provide a record of human activity within the ecosystem and provide a meaningful context for resource managers to assess the existing condition of a landscape. The analysis area contains evidence of an extensive record of human activity, with the heaviest use occurring within the last 4,000 years. Materials discovered from the Forest indicate that people have been visiting the general vicinity for at least 7,000 years. Cultural resource sites in the analysis area are comprised of both historic and prehistoric properties that represent several thousand years of human occupation. By 5,000 years ago, permanent villages were well established on the western Sierran slopes at elevations generally below 3,500 feet. Three Native American ethnographic groups (Northern Sierra Miwok, Nisenan, and Washo) were utilizing the resources within the ENF boundary by late prehistoric times. Archaeological evidence confirms rather widespread use and activities due to a wide array of site types; small prehistoric surface scatters of lithic tools and debitage; relatively complex sites containing a range of resource classes such as bedrock mortars, groundstone, lithic scatters (flaked and ground stone); middens (culturally modified soil) rockshelters, petroglyphs temporary and base camps; and possible year-round villages. Prior to the opening of the Trans-Sierra roads by immigrant parties, native people utilized an extensive transportation system throughout the Sierra. Many of the trails used for seasonal travel by the Washo, Nisenan, and Miwok later became some of the major routes into California.
Historic activities, such as mining, logging, homesteading, recreation, and ranching, also left an imprint on the landscape within the project area. Linked to these activities; access to and through the region had a great impact on the development of California. Some of the most important historic transportation corridors, such as the Carson Emigrant Trail, Pony Express, and Lincoln Past archeological support of Forest projects has resulted in a approximately 300,000 acres surveyed for cultural resources. At present, a total of 2,591 cultural resource sites has been located within the ENF.
Several important historic trails and roads pass through the project area such as the Carson Emigrant Trail, Mormon Emigrant Trail, Lincoln Highway, and Johnson's-Cutoff, and include
Eldorado National Forest 237 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences portions of two designated National Historic Trails; the Pony Express National Trail and the California National Historic Trail.
Environmental Consequences
All Action Alternatives Activities associated with the action alternatives will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and its’ implementing regulations 36 CFR 800. Compliance is in accordance with the provisions set forth within the “Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region, February 2013” (Region 5 PA).
The procedures and stipulations within the Region 5 PA include the identification and treatment of at-risk historic properties. An at-risk historic property is a property that has been identified as susceptible to being adversely affected as a result of activities associated with this project. A property is identified as "at risk" based on that property's characteristics and proximity to any project activity with a potential to adversely affect those values that contribute to eligibility of historic property into the National Register of Histor Places. Due to the nature of this undertaking, no at-risk properties have been identified.
Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects to cultural resources are those that physically alter, damage, or destroy all or part of a resource; alter characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s significance; introduce visual or audible elements out of character with the property or that alters its setting; or resource neglect to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed.
Under all alternative, direct effects and indirect effects would not likely occur due to the nature of the activities, therefore this federal undertaking is not a type of activity that has a potential to cause effects on historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR800.3 (a)(1) as amended and the Region 5 PA.
Cumulative Effects Since alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not have direct or indirect effects on cultural resources, no cumulative effects are anticipated.
Eldorado National Forest 238 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Transportation and Engineering Resources This analysis evaluated and discloses potential effects to engineering and roads (safety, traffic, affordability, jurisdiction, and the underlying forest transportation system) that could result from the alternatives designed to implement Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR 212). These regulations require designating trails and areas for OSV use.
While transportation and engineering are not directly related to the purpose and need, the forest transportation system does include OSV trails, and most of the trails are located atop underlying NFS roads and trails.
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Federal Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations • 36 CFR Part 212 (Forest Service Travel Management) • 36 CFR Part 251 (Land Uses)
• 36 CFR 261 (Prohibitions)
Forest Service Manual and Handbooks • FSM 7700 Travel Management
• FSM 7730 Transportation System Operation and Maintenance • FSH 7709.55 Chapter 10 – Travel Planning for Designations
• FSH 7709.59 Chapter 20 – Traffic Management
State Direction • California Snowmobile Trail Grooming (1997 Grooming Standards) • Over Snow Vehicle Program Final Environmental Impact Report, Program Years 2010- 2020 (State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation)
• California OSV Laws
Methodology The Forest Transportation Atlas was the primary source of data used, along with professional expertise. The atlas is primarily composed of roads and motorized trail information as contained in geographic information system (GIS) spatial data and Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) tabular data. In addition, the proposed OSV trail network for designation, by alternative (GIS data) were included. Last of all, the existing NFS roads and OSV-related engineering facilities, including snow parks, warming huts, and parking areas (GIS data) were considered.
All distance figures are approximate values based on the Forest Transportation Atlas (including spatial GIS data and tabular INFRA data) and are limited to the accuracy of those sources, which includes measurements from GIS, GPS, field instruments, and aerial photography. Mileages have
Eldorado National Forest 239 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences been updated throughout the planning process as better information has been made available and may change slightly with additional field verification and project implementation.
Temporal and Spatial Context for the Analysis The affected spatial area where direct, indirect, and cumulative transportation effects may be caused by proposed activities involves the project area (Eldorado National Forest).
The temporal boundaries for transportation effects from the proposed activities are indefinite, as long as snow conditions exist to provide for the designations as described under each alternative.
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 72. Transportation resource indicators and measures Resource Measure Element Resource Indicator Safety Public Safety and Traffic Qualitative effects to motor vehicle operatorsa and other users of the trail system. Cost Affordability Qualitative effects to the total cost of maintaining the Forest transportation system that would be designated for OSV use. Transportation Effect to underlying NFS roads and Wear and tear that may affect wheeled Property trails motor vehicle use.
Affected Environment
Existing Condition The existing system of available OSV trails and areas on the Eldorado National Forest is the culmination of multiple agency decisions over recent decades. Currently, the Forest Service requires 12 or more inches of snow on the ground to operate an OSV on the Eldorado National Forest. The Silver Bear Trail System (58 miles) is the only groomed OSV trail on the forest. Most of the Silver Bear Trail System overlaps with existing dirt, gravel, or paved trails or roads. These trails and roads are used in the summer for highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles, and non-motorized recreation. Snow grooming currently is allowed when there is a minimum snow depth of 18 inches.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to the existing system of OSV use on trails and areas within the Eldorado National Forest except as prohibited by Forest Order. The Travel Management Regulations, Subpart C, would not be implemented, and no OSV use map (OSVUM) would be produced.
Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 The current Eldorado National Forest winter recreation opportunity guide and Silver Bear Snowmobile Trails recreation opportunity guide (www.fs.usda.detail/eldorado/maps-pubs) and forest website (www.fs.usda.gov/activity/eldorado/recreation/wintersports) provides adequate
Eldorado National Forest 240 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences information to maintain a reasonable level of public safety and avoid traffic conflicts. The winter recreation opportunity guide publication includes information on travel in the Forest, dirt road closures from January 1 to March 31, refers to the MVUM (map), a snowmobiling section includes general Forest winter snowmobile travel, and Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail System information. The Silver Bear Snowmobile Trails recreation opportunity guide provides more specific information about staging areas, grooming, rules and regulations, maps and directions to assist users.
There would be minor adverse effects (minor costs) due to OSV use on access roads to popular parking and staging areas. A minimum snow depth of 12 inches for OSV use and 18 inches for OSV trail grooming to occur provides adequate protection of roads under the snow.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 would require 12 inches of snow depth for trail grooming and cross-country OSV use, regardless of underlying surface. A 6-inch snow depth would be required for OSV use on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System.
Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects under alternative 2 would be similar to alternative 1. In addition to the information provided through the winter recreation opportunity guide, the forest would produce an Over Snow Vehicle Use Map (OSVUM). The OSVUM winter recreation users would be provided adequate information to maintain a reasonable level of public safety and avoid traffic conflicts.
There would be minor adverse effects (minor costs) on access roads to popular parking and staging areas due to OSV use. Minimum snow depth requirements would avoid damage to resources, typically a minimum of 6 inches on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System would provide adequate protection of underlying roads. A minimum snow depth of 12 inches would be required for snow trail grooming under alternative 2. Snow depth requirement would provide adequate protection of roads under the snow.
Cumulative Effects There would be negligible cumulative effects from present and future Forest projects under alternative 2. Activities on many of the present and future management projects would occur outside of the snowmobile season.
Temporary closure for harvest, product removal and other forest operations would eliminate conflicts. Effects on public safety, road maintenance costs and effects on underlying roads and trails would be negligible. Present and future harvest operation contracts would include road maintenance requirements.
Eldorado National Forest 241 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would require 18 inches of snow depth for trail grooming and cross-country OSV use, regardless of underlying surface. A 12-inch snow depth would be required for OSV use on the groomed Silver Bear Trail System.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects under alternative 3 would be essentially the same as under alternative 2 (proposed action). The snow depth requirements under alternative 3 would provide adequate protection of underlying roads and trails.
Alternative 4 Snow depth requirements would be the same as under alternative 2 (proposed action).
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects under alternative 4 would be essentially the same as under alternative 2 (proposed action).
Summary of Effects The summary comparison of effects to transporation and engineering resources is provided in Table 73 below.
Eldorado National Forest 242 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 73. Summary comparison of environmental effects to transportation and engineering resources Resource Indicator/ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Element Measure The OSV use map (OSVUM) would provide adequate The current Eldorado National Forest Winter information to maintain a reasonable level of public Recreation Opportunity safety and avoid traffic Public Safety and Guide map provides Safety conflicts; the map and Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 Traffic adequate information to information would also maintain a reasonable level of public safety and avoid improve understanding of areas and trails designated traffic conflicts. for OSV use, and prohibitions.
Minor effects (minor costs) due to OSV use for access Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Cost Affordability roads to popular parking and (current management) (current management) (current management) staging areas.
12-inch snow depth for 18-inch snow depth for grooming, cross-country and grooming, cross-country and 18-inch snow depth for ungroomed trail OSV us e, ungroomed OSV trail use, grooming, and 12 inch snow and 6-inch snow depth for and 12-inch snow depth for Effects to depth requirement for cross- Transportation OSV use on the groomed OSV use on the groomed underlying NFS country and OSV trail use property Silver Bear Trail System Silver Bear Trail System Same as alternative 2 roads and trails provides more than would provide adequate would provide adequate adequate protection of protection of underlying protection of underlying underlying roads and trails. roads, trails and other roads, trails, and other resources. resources.
Eldorado National Forest 243 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Socioeconomics
Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy
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.
National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 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.
Environmental Justice, Executive Order 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 section identifies minority and low-income populations in the analysis area and addresses the potential for disproportionate and adverse effects to these populations.
Methodology
Economic Analysis Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.1 with 2014 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 Eldorado NF. 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 part-time or full-time job. Seasonal jobs are treated as a fraction of a job (e.g., a job lasting three months is recorded as 0.25 jobs). In the economic impact tables, direct, indirect and induced contributions are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database describes the economy in 536 sectors using federal data from 2014.
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
Eldorado National Forest 244 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 Eldorado NF 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.
Assumptions Due to incomplete and unavailable information, the socioeconomic analysis uses the following assumptions:
• Local economic composition (e.g., sectoral specialization, size of labor market) is constant throughout the analysis period.
• OSV trail grooming increases OSV visitor use.
• Forest visitors’ recreation preferences do not change during the analysis period. • 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 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 Eldorado NF’s economic area of influence encompasses Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mono, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties in California, and Douglas County in Nevada. These nine 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 (2028). 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.
Resource Indicators and Measures
Table 74. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures Resource Measure Element Resource Indicator Economic Employment Number of jobs and amount of labor income activity Quality of life Recreation visitation Number of recreation visits Quality of life Values, beliefs, and attitudes Qualitative evaluation of public values, beliefs, and attitudes
Eldorado National Forest 245 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Resource Measure Element Resource Indicator Environmental Low-income and minority Change in cost of participating in recreation Justice populations activities
Affected Environment
Existing Condition
Demographic and Economic Characteristics The Eldorado National Forest is located within the boundaries of the following four counties: Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and Placer (highlighted in grey in Table 75, Table 76, and Table 77). The area directly surrounding the Eldorado National Forest is mostly non-metropolitan; but the forest is in close proximity to California’s capital city, Sacramento.
With the exception of Yolo, Sacramento, and Mono counties, the economic analysis area counties have a higher share of older residents compared to California (12.1%) and Nevada (13.1%); particularly, Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras counties. Older populations may have different recreational preferences. For instance, mobility limitations associated with age may increase the importance of easy access to recreational sites.
Table 75. Demographic Characteristics by County Location Population Rural-Urban Continuum Code Share of (ACS 2014 5-year (ERS 2013) Population Over Estimate) 65 (ACS 2014 5-year Estimate) Alpine County, CA 1,202 8 (Non-metro, completely rural) 18.7% Amador County, CA 37,159 6 (Urban, pop. 2500-19,999) 22.8% Calaveras County, CA 44,921 6 (Urban, pop. 2500-19,999) 23.3% El Dorado County, CA 181,465 1 (Metro, more than 1 Million) 16.3%
Mono County, CA 7 (Non-metro, not adjacent to 11.3% 14,193 metro) Placer County, CA 361,518 1 (Metro, more than 1 Million) 16.6% Sacramento County, CA 1,450,277 1 (Metro, more than 1 Million) 12.0% Yolo County, CA 204,162 1 (Metro, more than 1 Million) 10.6% Douglas County, NV 47,135 4 (Non-metro, adjacent to metro) 22.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a and USDA ERS 2013
The nine counties in the economic analysis area experience varying degrees of economic insecurity compared to the state. Comparing median incomes, Amador, Calaveras, Sacramento, and Yolo counties all experience greater economic insecurity than California. Alpine and Mono County have median incomes similar to California, and El Dorado and Placer County have considerably higher incomes. Douglas County, NV has a median income higher than Nevada’s, but lower than California’s median.
Eldorado National Forest 246 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
With two exceptions, the unemployment rates for the planning area counties are similar compared to California (6.2%). Alpine County has the highest rate at 7.9%, and Placer has the lowest at 5.0%. Otherwise, the planning area unemployment rates are within a half percent of California’s rate. The difference between Douglas County’s unemployment rate and Nevada’s is negligible. These economic characteristics suggest that changes in local employment and income will be felt differently across the planning area. Eldorado NF recreation visitors spend money on lodging, food, fuel, and other goods and services in the economic analysis area. The designation of OSV trails 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 76. Economic Characteristics by County Location Median Household Annual Unemployment Share of Tourism- Income Rate related Employment (ACS 2014 5-year (2015, Local Area (County Business Estimate) Unemployment Patterns 2015, Statistics, BLS) accessed via EPS) Alpine County, CA $61,343 7.9% 44.8 Amador County, CA $52,964 6.6% 29.9 Calaveras County, $54,936 6.5% 25.6 CA El Dorado County, CA $68,507 5.7% 27.2 Mono County, CA $61,814 6.1% 65.5 Placer County, CA $73,747 5.0% 22.7 Sacramento County, $55,615 6.0% 16.2 CA Yolo County, CA $55,508 6.4% 18.0 Douglas County, NV $58,940 6.8% 19.6 California $61,489 6.2% 16.5 Nevada $52,205 6.7% 35.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a and U.S. Census Bureau 2015b
Much of the Eldorado NF 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, especially those counties who encompass the Eldorado NF, and those who are in closer proximity to it (see column 4 in Table 79). This suggests that the analysis area economy is reliant on tourism (including outdoor recreation). For example, Alpine County’s share of tourism related employment is 44.8% and its unemployment rate is the highest at 7.9%; any changes to recreation spending may have a much larger economic impact on Alpine County than on Placer County, which encompasses the Eldorado NF, but also has the lowest unemployment rate in the planning area.
Eldorado National Forest 247 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Recreation Visitors National Visitor Use Monitoring data was last collected on the Eldorado NF in fiscal year 2012. Approximately 899,000 visits to the Eldorado NF occur each year (USFS 2015b). Only 0.4% percent of survey respondents indicate that they participate in snowmobiling during their trip, with 0.1% reporting that snowmobiling is the primary purpose of their trip (USFS 2015b). That makes snowmobile use the second least common recreation activity on the forest (out of 29 separate activities), in front of horseback riding. The top three activities on the Eldorado are hiking/walking, relaxing, and downhill skiing, which account for 50%, 44%, and 43% of main activities, respectively (USFS 2015b). The Eldorado NF has two ski operations located within its boundaries, Kirkwood Mountain Resort and Sierra at Tahoe. Cross-country skiers also recreate on the Eldorado NF. According to NVUM data, participation in cross-country skiing on the Eldorado is 2.1% of total activity, and ranks 24th in participation out of 29 separate activities.
The majority of forest visitors (24.6%) traveled 101-200 miles to reach the site and only 7.1 % traveled from within 25 miles. Nearly one-fifth of visits originated from a single zip code (95667), which covers the city of Placerville, California in El Dorado County (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 $798 ($2007) and $64 ($2007) for downhill skiers, and $537 ($2007) and $27 ($2007) for cross-country skiers (White and Stynes 2010). The average spent by visitors of all recreation types is $366 ($2007) and $34 ($2007), for non-local overnight and local day trips respectively. Therefore, snowmobilers spend nearly twice what an average recreation user spends on their trip, but slightly less than downhill skiers, and slightly more than cross-country skiers.
Recreation visitation (all activities and trip types) on the Eldorado NF supports approximately 515 jobs 18 and $18.4 million in labor income on an average annual basis (USFS 2015a). The largest contributions are to the accommodation and food services sectors followed by retail trade (USFS 2015a). Due to the high spending of snowmobilers, changes to OSV opportunities on the Eldorado NF have the potential to measurably affect economic contributions associated with national forest recreation. The environmental consequences analysis addresses the economic impact of OSV route and area designations.
18 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.
Eldorado National Forest 248 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
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 trail and area designation may affect nearby residents and visitors to the Eldorado NF. 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 Eldorado NF.
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 commenters found the snow depth reduction favorable, “Likewise, we support the proposal to reduce minimum snow depth for designated trails from 12 inches to 6 inches and the minimum depth for grooming from 18 inches to 12 inches” (Amador County Board of Supervisors).
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. In contrast, users are also concerned with the environmental impact that lower snow depth limits will have on riparian and meadow areas, the lack of enforcement, and uneven snowfalls that push the depth limits in sensitive areas (Snowlands Network).
The contribution of OSV use to local economic activity, and the potential for restrictions to decrease these economic contributions, was noted by a commenter: “The economy is a major concern for local communities who rely on winter recreation for their livelihoods. Snowmobilers buy food, gas, repairs, and lodging during their stay” (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).
Eldorado National Forest 249 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
A number of non-motorized winter recreationists expressed concerns that shared motorized and non-motorized 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 the Forest Service should prohibit OSV use on lands that have been historically managed as non-motorized. For example, one comment argued that “there is substantially greater demand for non-motorized winter recreation on the ENF than for motorized recreation…” (Snowlands Network). 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 [the] receding snowline” (Winter Wildlands Alliance 2014).
These views led some commenters to suggest that the forest dedicate some terrain to non- motorized snow sports only, to reduce conflict numerous individuals identified the following areas as particularly important for non-motorized recreational users: areas along and between Highway 50 and Highway 88, Carson Pass, Meiss Sno-Parks, Loon Lake, Van Vleck Bunkhouse, Anderson Ridge, Blue Lake Road, Woods Lake, and Winnemucca Lake.
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 against restricting OSVs to only a few crossing points along the PCT (Off-Road Business Association).
Enforcement of regulations was a concern for many commenters. The Alpine County Board of Supervisors state, “Currently the Alpine County Sheriff’s Office patrols all accessible wilderness boundaries and any additional closures will add an unfunded burden to the agency. The Alpine County Sheriff is concerned about criminalizing normally legal conduct through excessive closures and regulations.” In contrast, many non-motorized recreationists feel that OSV users already violate restrictions without consequence.
Environmental Justice As noted above, residents of the analysis area counties experience varying degrees of economic insecurity than California residents overall. Poverty data in Table 80 provides more detail on the economic conditions in the planning area counties. The counties that contain the largest portion of the Eldorado NF (highlighted in gray) have some of the lowest poverty levels and are all below California’s rate (which is equal to the U.S. rate). Sacramento and Yolo counties have the highest poverty rates, however, they are large metropolitan areas that are not particularly close to the Eldorado NF. These diverse economies are likely facing economic struggles that are unrelated to NF Travel Management activities and would be unlikely to benefit or be harmed by planning area activities.
In California, 61 percent of the population identifies other than non-Hispanic white. In the economic analysis area counties, the share of minority residents ranges between 17 percent and 53 percent of the population. The counties closest to the Eldorado NF have some of the lowest numbers of Hispanic and nonwhite (minority) populations.
Eldorado National Forest 250 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 77. Environmental justice Characteristics by county Location Poverty Rate 19 Share Other than White Alone, Non- (ACS 2014 5-year Hispanic Estimate) (ACS 2014 5-year Estimate) Alpine County, CA 15.1% 31% Amador County, CA 13.0% 20% Calaveras County, CA 12.1% 17% El Dorado County, CA 10.3% 21% Mono County, CA 5.0% 33% Placer County, CA 8.9% 25% Sacramento County, 18.1% 53% CA Yolo County, CA 20.0% 51% Douglas County, NV 16.4% 18% California 15.6% 61% Nevada 11.5% 44% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a
Given the wide range of poverty levels in the analysis area, the environmental consequences analysis addresses 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 Eldorado National Forest.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Economic Activity Alternative 1 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 Eldorado National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters discussed recreation opportunities and user conflict. Alternative 1 would not implement management activities that affect recreation opportunities or user conflict. As
19 “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).
Eldorado National Forest 251 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences noted in the recreation analysis, conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences on the Eldorado National Forest are currently minor and infrequent. Occasional incursions into adjacent Wilderness areas and non-motorized areas on other Federal lands would continue to occur. However, conflict may increase as population and visitor use increase. As a number of commenters noted, user conflict is often asymmetrical (motorized use inhibit non- motorized 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.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Economic Activity Alternative 2 would decrease the acres open to OSV use to 435,600 acres, a 5 percent reduction from current management. This alternative would designate approximately 58 miles of groomed OSV trails, which is the same as current management. 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 alternative 1. As a result, recreation-related employment, income, and tax revenue would not change relative to alternative 1.
Quality of Life The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to public OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters discussed recreation opportunities and use conflicts. The proposed action would not designate 177,200 acres for OSV use (154,200 acres are not designated for OSV use under current management), which is approximately 15 percent increase in areas not designated for OSV use relative to current management. Therefore, the proposed action would improve quality of life for non-motorized winter recreation users on the Eldorado who prefer to have areas separated from OSV enthusiasts. The increase in areas not designated for 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 groomed OSV trails would not change relative to current conditions, some OSV enthusiasts may feel that the reduction in acres designated for OSV use adversely affects their quality of life by reducing the acreage available for cross-country OSV travel relative to current management.
Environmental Justice The reduction in acres designated for OSV use may require some OSV enthusiasts to travel farther to recreate on the forest. However, under alternative 2, miles of groomed trails would not
Eldorado National Forest 252 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences change from alternative 1, and with the reduction in snow depth requirements for OSV use on the groomed OSV trail and trail grooming, the effect of the reduction in acres designated for OSV use on travel costs is expected to be minor. Like Alternative 1, climate change may affect travel costs due to reduced precipitation and warmer winters. Low-income individuals may be disproportionately affected by changes in the cost of participating in winter recreation on the forest. Overall, alternative 2 is expected to have a minor effect on recreation travel costs.
Cumulative Effects 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.
Alternative 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
Economic Activity Alternative 3 would decrease the acres open to OSV use to 125,200 acres, a 73 percent reduction from current management. Alternative 3 would designate 58 miles of groomed OSV trails, which is the same as current management. 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 alternative 1. 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 Eldorado National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters discussed recreation opportunities and use conflict. Alternative 3 would not designate approximately 487,600 acres for OSV use (154,200 acres are not designated for OSV use under current management), which is a 215 percent increase in areas not designated for OSV use relative to current management. Therefore, alternative 3 would improve quality of life for non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts relative to both alternatives 1 and 2. The increase in acres not designated for OSV use may alleviate some concerns expressed by non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts related to vehicle exhaust fumes, disparities in speed, noise, and competition for fresh powder. Although the miles of groomed OSV trails would not change relative to current conditions, some OSV users may feel that the increase in acres not designated for OSV use adversey affects their quality of life by reducing the acreage available for cross- country OSV travel relative to current management.
Eldorado National Forest 253 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Environmental Justice The reduction in acres designated for OSV use and the increase in snow depth requirements to 18 inches may require some OSV enthusiasts to travel farther to recreate on the forest. However, under alternative 3, miles of groomed trails would not change from alternative 1 or alternative 2, so the effect of the reduction in acres designated for OSV use on travel costs is expected to be minor. Like alternative 1, climate change may affect travel costs due to reduced precipitation and warmer winters. Low-income individuals may be disproportionately affected by changes in the cost of participating in winter recreation on the forest. Alternative 3 may affect travel costs for OSV enthusiasts.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects under alternative 3 would be similar to the cumulative effects described under alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Direct and Indirect Effects
Economic Activity Alternative 4 would increase the acres designated for OSV use to 463,800 acres a 1.1 percent increase relative to current management. Alternative 4 would designate 58 miles of groomed OSV trails, which is the same as current management. 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 EIS. As a result, recreation-related employment, income, and tax revenue would not change relative to alternative 1.
Quality of Life The values, beliefs, and attitudes discussion above identified several key issues related to OSV use on the Eldorado National Forest and quality of life for visitors and area residents. In particular, commenters discussed recreation opportunities and use conflict. Alternative 4 would not designate approximately 149,000 acres for OSV use (154,200 acres are not designated for OSV use under current management), which is a 3 percent reduction from current management. Fewer acres Alternative 4 would not designate OSV use on fewer acres than the other alternatives. The net effect on motorized and non-motorized quality of life is expected to be consistent with current management.
Environmental Justice The increase in acres designated for OSV use would not require some OSV enthusiasts to travel farther to recreate on the forest and miles of groomed trails would not change from alternative 1. Like alternative 1, climate change may affect travel costs due to reduced precipitation and warmer winters. Low-income individuals may be disproportionately affected by changes in the cost of participating in winter recreation on the forest. Overall, alternative 2 is expected to have a minor effect on recreation travel costs. Like Alternative 2, snow depth requirements on the groomed trail system under alternative 4 are also reduced. This action may reduce the distance some OSV users would have to travel to reach adequate snow or increase the number of days that are usable for OSV recreation. However, the miles of groomed trails would not change, so the effect of snow depth reductions on travel costs
Eldorado National Forest 254 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences is expected to be minor. Overall, alternative 4 is expected to have a minor effect on recreation travel costs.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects under alternative 4 would be similar to the cumulative effects described under alternative 2.
Summary of Effects Table 78 summarizes the socioeconomic consequences by alternative using the resource indicators and measures.
Eldorado National Forest 255 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 78. Summary comparison of environmental effects to socioeconomic resources Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Economic Employment, No change due to Similar as alternative 1 Similar as alternative 1 Similar as alternative 1 Activity income, tax management; increased revenue visitor use over time would increase number of jobs, labor income, and tax revenue Quality of Life Recreation No change due to Similar to alternative 1 Similar to alternative 1 Similar to alternative 1 visitation management; visitor use expected to increase over time Quality of Life Values, beliefs, No net change in quality of 5% increase in acres not 73% increase in acres not Minimal net change in and attitudes life relative to current designated for OSV use designated for OSV use quality of life relative to conditions; user conflict compared to current compared to current current conditions may increase due to management would benefit management would benefit population growth and quality of life of non- quality of life of non- increased visitor use motorized winter recreation motorized winter recreation users and may affect users quality of life for OSV enthusiasts Environmental Low-income and No change due to Minor change due to a Minor change due to an Same as alternative 2 Justice minority management; climate reduction in snow depth increase in snow depth populations change may increase requirements for trail requirements; may increase distances winter recreation grooming and OSV use on distances winter recreation users must travel for groomed trail system; m ay users must travel for adequate snow depth reduce distances winter adequate snow depth; recreation users must travel climate change may still for adequate snow depth; increase distances winter climate change may still recreation users must travel increase distances users for adequate snow depth must travel for adequate snow depth
Eldorado National Forest 256 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). OSV use with adequate snow depths would not affect long-term productivity. Long and short term effects of project activities under each alternative are described in the effects section specific to each resource. Unavoidable Adverse Effects Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse environmental effects. For example, allowing motorized OSV use, which is an acceptable use of National Forest System lands, unavoidably affects non-motorized or quiet recreation opportunities in some areas, as discussed in the analysis related to conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter experiences. In addition, OSV use has the potential to adversely affect wildlife through disturbance of individuals. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. Designations of areas and trails for OSV use are not irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.”
Principle Environmental Laws The following laws contain requirements for protection of the environment that apply to the proposed action and alternatives. The proposed designations of areas and trails for OSV use were reviewed to determine their consistency with the following applicable laws, regulations and policies:
• Wilderness Act of 1964;
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968;
• 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);
Eldorado National Forest 257 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
• 2005 Travel Management Regulation – Subpart C (36 CFR Parts 212 and 261) as amended in 2015 - Use by Over Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Regulation)
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.
All project alternatives meet requirements for the National Forest Management Act through compliance with the 1989 Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
Endangered Species Act The Endganered Species Act of 1973 requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangerd species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning endangered and threatened species under their jurisdiction. Biological Assessments will be prepared for federally listed species that may be affected by this project and consultation will be initiated. Refer to the Terrestrial Wildlife and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources sections in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences.
Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act, as amended, regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or filled material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (section 401 and 404). No dredging or filling is part of the project alternatives and no permits are required. Refer to the Hydrology Resources section in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences.
Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. No exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is anticipated for any of the project alternatives. Refer to the Air Quality section in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences.
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects on historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and opportunity to comment. Potential impacts to archaeological and historic resources have been evaluated in compliance with section 106 of the NHPA. Refer to the Heritage Resources section in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences.
Eldorado National Forest 258 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Executive Orders
Use of Off-Road Vehicles, Executive Order 11644, February 8, 1972, as amended 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.”
Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 Requires that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Environmental justice is discussed in the Socioeconomics section in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences. None of the project alternatives would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations.
Eldorado National Forest 259 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors
Chapter 4. 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 Debra Proctor Interdisciplinary Team 29 years with the USDA BS, Water Resources Leader, TEAMS Forest Service (12 as (Watershed Management Enterprise Unit Interdisciplinary Team Emphasis, Soil Science) Leader, 3 as Acting or Deputy District Ranger, 7 as Watershed Specialist, & 6 as Soil Scientist.) Traci Allen Forest Wildlife Biologist, 15 years experience in BS Biology Eldorado National Forest wildlife and natural MS, Ecology resources USDA Forest Service Tracie Buhl Fire Management 17 years in Fire Undergraduate education in Specialist, Air Quality Management/Natural Natural Resources, Fire Analysis, TEAMS Resources with the Science. Enterprise Unit USDA Forest Service. Seven years conducting air analyses. Tricia Burgoyne Soil Scientist, TEAMS 8 years experience BS, Forest Ecology and Enterprise Unit working as a soil scientist Management for the USDA Forest Service Bruce Davidson Botanist, TEAMS 24 years botany and BS, Botany Enterprise Unit natural resource management with the USDA. Forest Service and USDI-BLM Vickey Eubank GIS Support Specialist 24 years in GIS Applied Associate Degree in and Project Record, management with the Science and Business TEAMS Enterprise Unit USDA Forest Service. Teresa Fraser Recreation and Resource 30 years in Recreation B.S. Forest Resource Officer, Eldorado and natural resource Manager National Forest management with the USDA Forest Service Pat Goude Writer-Editor, TEAMS 6 years as a Writer-editor BA, Technical Journalism Enterprise Unit with the USDA Forest Service Mike McNamara Hydrologist, TEAMS 25 years experience as a BS, Geology Enterprise Unit USDA Forest Service MS, Forest Hydrology Hydrologist Jennifer Marsolais Forest Environmental 20 years experience with BS, Wildlife Management Coordinator, Eldorado natural resource National Forest management and environmental planning with the USDA Forest Service
Eldorado National Forest 260 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors
Name Title/Discipline Relevant Experience Education Janet Moser Wildlife Biologist 29 years experience with BS, Wildlife Resources TEAMS Enterprise Unit the USDA Forest Service as a wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service Anthony Olegario Fisheries Biologist, 15 years as a U.S. Forest BS, Mechanical Engineering TEAMS Enterprise Unit Service Fisheries MS, Fisheries Science Biologist Cindy Oswald Forest Recreation Officer 40 years experience with BS, Forest Resource (retired 3/3/18) the USDA Forest Service Managerment in Recreation and natural resource management Katy Parr Public Services Staff 28 years experience with BA, Sociology and Officer the USDA Forest Service Anthropology in cultural resources and natural resource management Nikki Sandhoff Economist 1 year experience in MA, Economics TEAMS Enterprise Unit economics with the U.S. Forest Service Maura Santora Aquatics Biologist, 14 years experience as BA, Aquatic Biology Eldorado National Forest aquatic biologist with the MS, Fisheries Management USDA Forest Service. Kristi Swisher Project Manager 26 years as Project BS, Zoology Manager, Environmental Specialist, and Wildlife Biologist for FS, FWS, BOR, and FHWA Debra Tatman GIS Program Manager, 39 years experience with BA, Gelogical Resources Eldorado National Forest GIS with the Forest Service Stephanie Valentine Outdoor Recreation 18 years serving as an BS, Outdoor Recreation Planner, TEAMS Outdoor Recreation Management Enterprise Unit Planner for Federal agencies, 6 years with the U.S. Forest Service Frank Yurzyck Transportation Planner, 50 plus years in BS Forest Management TEAMS Enterprise Unit transportation planning; NEPA (IDT lead); fuel reduction and community protection operation plans, economic efficiency analysis; timber sale - planning, design, layout, and fire suppression; Burn area rehabilitation
Eldorado National Forest 261 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4. Distribution of the EIS
Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement to Federal agencies, Tribes, elected officials and State and local governments pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.19
Federal, State and Local Agencies
Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, South Pacific Division Chief of Naval Operations, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, EIS Review Coordinator Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific Region Federal Highway Administration NOAA Fisheries Service, SW Region, Habitat Conservationist Division Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator APHIS PPD/EAD, Deputy Director National Agricultural Library, Acquisitions and Serials Branch US Coast Guard, Office of Environmental Management US Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
California State Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Department of Parks and Recreation OHMVR Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Local Agencies El Dorado Irrigation District Pacific Gas & Electric Placer County Water Agency Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sierra Avalanche Center
Local Elected Officials Alpine County Board of Supervisors Amador County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Placer County Board of Supervisors
Tribes Jackson Rancheria Sierra Native American Council Shingle Springs Rancheria El Dorado County Indian Council Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-wuk Indians Colfax-Todd Valley Consolidated Tribe Washoe Tribe of Nevada and Calfornia Buena Vista Historical Mewuk Members United Auburn Indian Community Miwok Tribe of the El Dorado Rancheria Wilton Rancheria California Indian Basketweavers Association Ione Band of Miwok Indians Sierra Native Alliance
Eldorado National Forest 262 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4. Distribution of the EIS
Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement to Individuals and Organizations The following individuals and organizations were either contacted directly in the scoping process, or made themselves known to the Forest Service by submitting comments during scoping for the Eldorado National Forest OSV Designation analysis. These individuals and organizations will be notified of the availability of the draft environmental impact statement and the 45-day comment period pursuant to 36 CFR 218.24 (a)(3).
Organizations and Individuals Kirkwood Mountain Resort Off Road Business Association Adventure Mountain Lake Tahoe Pacific Crest Trail Association AAUW Outdoor Enthusiasts Sacramento Municipal Utility District American Council of Snowmobile Associations Sierra Access Coalition Blue Ribbon Coalition Sierra-at-Tahoe California Native Plant Society Sierra Club, Bay Area Chapter California Nevada Snowmobile Association Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Section California Off Road Vehicle Association Sierra Club, Maidu Group California Wilderness Society Sierra Forest Legacy Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Pacific Industries Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation Sierra Snowmobile Foundation Disabled Sports USA Snowlands Network El Dorado Nordic Ski Patrol Trout Unlimited Friends of Hope Valley Winter Wildlands Alliance Kirkwood Cross Country Wilderness Society Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District
Eldorado National Forest 263 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Index
Index
Air Quality, vii, xi, 37, 221, 223, 225, 226, 232, Purpose and Need, iv, xi, 1, 11 233, 258, 260, 296 Recreation, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, xi, 1, 7, 12, 14, 16, Aquatic Resources, vii, xi, 34, 170, 258 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, Bald Eagle, 33, 112, 155, 156, 157, 10 50, 51, 53, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 70, Best Management Practices, 46, 90, 266, 267, 75, 76, 85, 93, 100, 161, 231, 239, 243, 245, 276 248, 256, 260, 261, 265, 266, 268, 279, 280, Botany, vii, xi, 35, 180, 195, 202, 260, 268, 293 282, 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 5, 6, 15, 19, 35 California Department of Parks and Recreation, Recreation Settings and Opportunities, 50, 57, 1, 8, 24, 42, 46, 50, 56, 59, 67, 69, 113, 117, 58, 60, 62, 63 133, 134, 138, 139, 262, 265, 279, 280, 293, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, 34, 173, 175, 298 186, 187, 4, 18, 26, 34 California red-legged frog, 34, 172, 174, 184, significant issues, v, 13, 22 271, 274, 11 Silver Bear Trail System, iv, vi, vii, viii, 3, 7, 12, California Spotted Owl, 110, 129 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 51, 55, 56, 57, Conflicts between Motorized and Non- 59, 61, 65, 82, 83, 97, 102, 104, 240, 241, motorized Winter Experiences, 53, 57, 59, 61, 242, 243, 1, 23, 32, 33, 34 62 Snow trail grooming, v, 3, 17, 48 Cultural Resources, xi, 37, 236 Socioeconomics, vii, xi, 38, 244, 259, 297 General Designation Criteria, 3, 5 Soil Productivity, 31, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 minimization criteria, 4, 5, 6, 17 Soil Resources, vii, xi, 31, 79, 266 Motorized Recreation Opportunities, v, vi, viii, Soil Stability, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86 14, 28, 29, 49, 65 Specific Designation Criteria, 5 Noise, vii, ix, xi, 30, 49, 58, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, Terrestrial Wildlife, vii, xi, 32, 110, 114, 115, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 117, 133, 265 168, 258, 277, 293 Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities, v, viii, Transportation and Engineering Resources, xi, 14, 65 239 Northern Goshawk, 110, 137, 141, 142, 290, Travel Management Regulations, iii, iv, 3, 4, 5, 292 6, 8, 9, 15, 239, 240 Off-highway Motor Vehicle Division, 8, 50 Water Resources, vii, xi, 31, 88, 90, 146, 150, OSV Use Assumptions, 40 154, 184, 205, 206, 260, 266, 267, 268, 269, over-snow vehicle use map, iii, 2, 3, 38 274 Pacific Marten, 122 Yosemite Toad, 35, 176, 177, 188, 189, 190, Proposed Action, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, xi, 1, 11, 17, 193, 276 19, 21, 27, 28, 58, 65, 104, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 214, 241, 252, 266
Eldorado National Forest 264 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
References Recreation Adams, J.C. and S.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. 2010. Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. OSV Program. Draft Environmental Impact Report Program Years 2010 – 2020. State Clearinghouse # 2009042113. Code of Federal Regulations. 36 CFR Part 212. Travel Management Regulation
Code of Federal Regulations. 36 CFR Part 294. Roadless Area Conservation. Final Rule.
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 2016. http://www.raws.dri.edu. Station maps data. California, Northern. Sugarloaf, Homewood, Beaver Camp Loc, Baron.
Reed, S.E., J.L. Boggs, and J.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 Reed, S.E., J.L. Boggs, and J.P. Mann. 2012. A GIS tool for modeling anthropogenic noise propagation in natural ecosystems. Environmental Modelling & Software 37 (2012). P. 1-5 Rolloff, D.B., E. Erickson, and B. 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. 2014. Analyzing Snowmobile Impacts to Other Winter Recreation Users in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. December 2014.
USDA Forest Service. 1988. Pacific Southwest Region Eldorado National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service.
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. 2004. Reconciliation: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2004 ROD and 1988 Eldorado Forest Plan. Eldorado National Forest. Framework Implementation Team. October 22, 2004.
USDA Forest Service. 2007. Natural Resource Manager. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Visitor Use Report. Eldorado National Forest. Data collected FY 2007.
Eldorado National Forest 265 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Recreation Facility Analysis. 5-year Program of Work and Programmatic Results of Implementation. Eldorado National Forest. July 29, 2008.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Natural Resource Manager. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Visitor Use Report. Eldorado National Forest. Data Collected in 2012.
USDA Forest Service. 2012a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990a.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Region 5 Five Forest Over-snow Vehicle Program NEPA Project. Eldorado National Forest. Need for Change and Proposed Action Worksheet. October 29, 2014.
Soil Resources Baker, E. and E. Buthmann. 2005. Snowmobiling in the Adirondack Park: Environmental and Social Impacts. St. Lawrence University, Department of Biology, Canton, Ne w 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 Arapaho-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 sub-alpine 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. 1985. Soil Survey: Eldorado National Forest, California. 166 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1988. Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. Placerville, California. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Handbook, R-5 Supplement 2509.18-95-1. Soil Management Handbook. San Francisco, California. 10 pp.
Eldorado National Forest 266 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
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.
Water 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 T.M. Koel. 2006. Effects of Snowmobile Emissions on the Chemistry of Snowmelt Runoff in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone National Park, Center for Resources – Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section. Available online at: http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/snwmbil_snwmlt_rpt.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). 2007. Climate Change in California. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/062807factsheet.pdf.
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 2011.
Hagemann, M. and M. Van Mouwerik. 1999. Potential water quality concerns related to snowmachine usage. Internal memo. USDI, National Park Service, Water Resources Division
Ingersoll, G.P. 1999. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4148. 24 pp.
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., and B.K. Zielinska, 2014: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Snowpack and Surface Water in Blackwood Canyon, Lake Tahoe, CA, as Related to Snowmobile Activity. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 35(1), 102-119. National Park Service (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.
Neumann P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972: Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field Naturalist, volume 86: 207-212.
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.
Snowmobile Forum. 2008. Available online at http://www.snowmobileforum.com/general-sled- chat/25036-whats-minimum-amount-snow-you-should.html. Accessed 2015.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2000. Water quality management for forest system lands in California: best management practices. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 138 pp.
Eldorado National Forest 267 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. Pacific Southwest Region,Vallejo, CA. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm (accessed May 14, 2009).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment: final supplemental environmental impact statement; record of decision. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/index.html (accessed May 14, 2009). 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. Aquatics and Fisheries
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.
Boyer, D. R. 1965. Ecology of the basking habit in turtles. Ecology 46(1-2):99-118.
Bradford, D. F., F. Tabatabai, and D. M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, California. Conservation Biology 7(4):882-888.
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.
CDFG (California Department of 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. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp.
California Off-Highway Motor 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. 2016. Botany Report for Eldorado National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Susanville, California.
Eldorado National Forest 268 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014- 04-29/pdf/2014-09488.pdf.
Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80 on Thursday, April 25, 2013 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-04-25/pdf/2013-09600.pdf 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.
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.
Hammond, J. A., J. R. Spotila, and E. A. Standora. 1988. Basking behavior of the turtle Pseudemys scripta: effects of digestive state, acclimation temperature, sex, and season. Physiological Zoology 61(1):69-77. Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: Habitat and history. Final Report. Project number 92- 068. 293 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.
Ingersoll, G. 1998. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park, USGS, Department of Interior, Wa ter-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. 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.
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. Knapp R.A., and K.R. Matthews. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology, 14 (2000), pp. 428– 438
Eldorado National Forest 269 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
McNamara, M. 2016. Hydrology Report for Eldorado National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Eldorado 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.
Rachowicz LJ, Knapp RA, Morgan JAT, Stice MJ, Vredenburg VT, Parker JM et al. (2006).
Rathbun, G. B., N. Siepel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata. Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):319-324.
Rathbun, G. B., N. J. Scott, and T. G. Murphey. 2002. Terrestrial habitat use by Pacific pond turtles in a Mediterranean climate. Southwestern Naturalist 47(2):225-235.
Skerratt, L. F., L. Berger, R. Speare, S. Cashins, K. R. McDonald, A. D. Phillott, H. B. Hines, and N. Kenyon 2007. Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. Ecohealth 4:125–134.
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. 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 Rule). Federal Register, June 18, 2014. 79(117): 34678-34681.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 270 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
Vredenburg, V. T., Knapp, R. A., Tunstall, T. S., and Briggs, C. J. 2010. Dynamics of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(21), 9689-9694. 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. Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylii group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54:207-292.
Aquatics Resources
Alford, R.A., and S.J. Richards. 1999. Global Amphibian Declines: A Problem in Applied Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 133-65.
Arkle, R.S. and D.S. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: a stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 893-903.
Ashton, D. T., A. J. Lind, and K. E. Schlick. 1997. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_usfs_ashtonetal_1997_turtle.pdf
Bagne, K.E., and K. Purcell. 2009. Response of two terrestrial salamander species to spring burning in the Sierra Nevada, California. Research Note: RMRS-RN-41.
Barry, S.J. and Fellers, G.M., 2013. History and status of the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 8(2), pp.456-502 Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. Written in 2002, revised in 2007.
Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, M.D. Dettinger, 2008. Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States. Science. 19: 1080-1083.
Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Mangement. 218: 37-59.
Berg, N., and K. Roby. 2002. Prospectus – Hydrosphere – Surface Water Thermal Dynamics. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.
Eldorado National Forest 271 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Berrill, M., S. Bertram, L. McGillivary, M. Kolohon, and B. Pauli. 1994. Effects of Low Concentrations of Forest-use Pesticides on Frog Embryos and Tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(4):657-664.
Bettaso, J. and D.H. Goodman. 2008. Mercury contamination in two long-loved filter feeders in the Trinity River basin: a pilot project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata
Fisheries Technical Report Number TR2008-09. Arcata, California.
Bidwell, J.R., and J.R. Gorrie. 1995. Acute toxicity of a pesticide to selected frog species. Final Report. Department of Environmental Protection, Perth, Western Australia. Technical Series 79, June 1995. 14 pp.
Birge, W.J., and J.A. Black. 1977. Sensitivity of Vertebrate Embryos to boron compounds. EPA- 560/1-76-008, prepared by University of Kentucky, Lexington KY, under contract No. 68-01- 3920, Office of Toxic Substances, US EPA, Washington, DC.
Borrecco, J., Neisess, J. 1991. Risk assessment for the impurities 2-butoxyethanol and 1,4-dioxane found in Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicide formulations. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Pest Management. Report No. R91-2. 33 pages.
Bosh, J.M, and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A Review of Catchment Experiments to Determine the Effect of Vegetation Changes on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 3-23.
Bringmann G., and R. Kuhn. 1977. Befunde der Schadwirkung wassergefahrdender Stoffe gegen Daphnia magna. Z.f. Wasser- und Abwasser-forcsh. 10: 161-166. As cited in Hovatter and Ross 1995.
Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California Red-Legged Frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85–95.
Bury, R. B. 1986. Feeding ecology of the turtle Clemmys marmorata. Journal of Herpetology 20:515- 521.
Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis Concerning the Causes of the Disappearance of Boreal Toads from the Mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7(2): 355-362.
Carey, C., and C.J. Bryant. 1995. Possible interrelations among environmental toxicants, amphibian development, and decline of amphibian populations. Environmental Health Perspectives 103 (Suppl. 4): 13-17.
CA Dept. of Forestry. 2014. Timber harvesting plans; 10 January 2014. http://www.fire.ca.gov/ResourceManagement/THPStatusUpload/THPStatusTable.html. California Department of Forestry, Resource Management Program. Sacramento, California.
Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), “Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats.” American Fisheries Society,
Eldorado National Forest 272 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Special Publication Number 19. Bethesda, Maryland
Clark F.D., D.D. Frame, and M.M. Jensen. 1993. Occlusive laryngotracheitis in turkeys following drinking water administration of Gentian Violet. Avian Dis. 37(1): 226-228.
Collins, Sarah J. and Ronald W. Russell. Toxicity of road salt to Nova Scotia amphibians. Environmental Pollution 157 (2009) 320–324.
Cox H.N., C. Moss, M.F. Hannon. 1989. Compound allergy to a skin marker for patch testing: A chromatographic analysis. Cont. Dermat. 212(1): 12-15.
Davis, M.G., and R.G. Shaw. 2001. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science. 292: 673-679.
Dissmeyer, G.E. (editor). 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. Asheville, North Carolina. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Delcourt, H.R. and P.A. Delcourt, eds. 1991. Quaternary ecology: a paleoecological perspective. New York: Chapman and Hall. 252 p. Ernst, C. H., and J. E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 2nd Edition. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Federal Register, 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching ActivitiesVol. 71, No. 71 Thursday April 13, 2006. Rules and Regulations.
Fischer, J.R., M.C. Quist, S.L. Wigen, A.J. Schaefer, T.W. Stewart, and T.M. Isenhart. 2010. Assemblage and population – level responses of stream fish to riparian buffers at multiple scales. Tans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 139:185-200.
Garcia and Associates. 2008. Results of 2007 Surveys for Foothill Yellow-Legged frog (Rana Boylii) on the South Fork American River, El Dorado County, CA for the El Dorado Hydroelectric Project (FER No. 184). San Francisco, CA
Goodman, D.H. and S.B. Reid. 2012. Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) Assessment and Template for Conservation Measures in California.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California. 117 pp.
Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems in Forested Biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:193-221.
Hamlet, A.F.; Mote, P.W.; Clark, M.P.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. 20th century trends in runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the Western U.S. Journal of Climate. 20: 1468-1486.
Harper, E.B., T.A.G. Rittenhouse, and R.D. Semlitsch. 2008. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool – breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology. 22: 1205-1215.
Heyerdahl, E.K., D. McKenzie, L. Daniels, A.E. Hessl, J.S. Littell, and N. J. Mantua. 2008. Climate
Eldorado National Forest 273 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland Northwest (1651-1900). International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2008(17): 40-49.
Holland, D.C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. ODFG final report.
Hopkins, B.D, Wilson, J.D. and W.A. Hopkins. 2013. Mercury exposure is associated with negative effects on turtle reproduction. Environmental Science Technology. Mar 5;47(5):2416-22.
Hossack, B.R., and P.S. Corn. 2007. Responses of pond-breeding amphibians to wildfire: short-term patterns in occupancy. Ecological Applications. 17:1403-1410.
Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog, Rana draytonii Baird and Girard.
Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of Amphibians. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report No. 37: 921-944. University of California. Davis. Davis, California.
Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, California.
Joyce, L., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson, D.L. [In press]. National forests. In: Adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Washington, DC: Lewis, William M. Studies of Enviornmental Effects of Magnesium Chloride Deicer in Colorado. Colorado Department of Transportation Research Branch. Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-99-10 Final Report.
Langhans, M , Peterson, B. ,Walker, A., Smith, G. R. & Jessica E. Rettig (2009) Effects of Salinity on Survivorship of Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) Tadpoles, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 24:2, 335-337a.
MacDonald, L.H., and J.P. Stednick. 2003. Forests and Water: A State-of-the-Art Review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 196. Macdonald, J.S., MacIsaac, E.A., and H.E. Herunter. 2003. The Effect of Variable retention Riparian Buffer Zones on Water Temperatures in Small Headwater Streams in Sub-boreal Forest Ecosystems in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1371-1382.
Malmqvist, Bjorn. 2002. Aquatic Invertebrates in Riverine Landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:679- 694.
Markman, S. 2014. Hydrology Report: Trestle Forest Health Project. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, California.
McKenzie, D.H., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890-902.
Eldorado National Forest 274 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30: 1601.
Mote, P.W. A.F. Hamlet, M. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 86: 39-49.
Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, and E.P. Salathé. 2008. Has spring snowpack declined in the Washington Cascades? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 12: 193-206.
National WIldifre Coordination Group. 2012. Interagency Aerial Ignition Guide. PMS 501 (March, 2012). http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/pms501.pdf
Parkyn, S. 2004. Review of Riparian Buffer Zone Effectiveness. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Technical Paper No. 2004/05. ISBN No. 0-478-07823-4. ISSN No. 1171-4662.
Reese, D. A. 1996. Comparative demography and habitat use of western pond turtles in northern California: effects of damming and related alterations [dissertation]. Berkeley (CA): University of California. 253 p.
Reese, D.A., and H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata): Implications for management. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. An International Conference, pp. 352-357, held 1997 by the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society.
Reid, L.M. and R.R. Siemer. No date. 2. Evaluating the Biological Significance of Intermittent Streams. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California.
Reid, L. M., and S.Hilton. 1998. Buffering the buffer. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-168.
Renner, R. 2004. Double Distress. Scientific American, April 2004.
Shehade SA; Beck MH; Chalmers R JG. 1987. Allergic contact dermatitis to Crystal Violet in carbonless copy paper. Cont. Dermat. 17(5): 310-311.
Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climatology. 18: 1136–1155.
Taylor, A.H., V. Trouet, C.N. Skinner. 2008. Climatic influences on fire regimes in montane forests of the southern Cascades, California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2008(17): 60-71.
Todd, BD., Wilson, J.D., Bergeron, C.M. and W.A. Hopkins. 2012. Do effects of mercury in larval amphibians persist after metamorphosis? Ecotoxicology. Jan;21(1):87-95.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Washington Office Amendment 2600-90-1. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC.
Eldorado National Forest 275 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.
USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.
USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium: Science for Management and Conservation. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, California.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Road Sediment Source Inventory and Risk Assessment - Eldorado Road Inventory – South Fork American - Chili Bar Watershed. Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, California.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands – Draft. Volume 1. National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS- 990a (Aptil 2012).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Viii + 173pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog. Federal Register 75:12816–12959.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Endangered Species Status for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened Species Status for Yosemite Toad. Federal Register 79, No. 82: 24256–24310.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad. Federal Register 81:89046–59119.
Welsh, H.H., A.J. Lind, L.M. Ollivier, G.R. Hodgson, and N.E. Karraker. 1998. Comments on the Palco HCP/SYP and EIS/EIR with Regard to the Maintenance of Riparian, Aquatic, and Late Seral Ecosystems and Their Associated Amphibian and Reptile Species. Unpublished.
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313: 940-943.
Zeiner, D. C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. eds. 1988. California's Wildlife. Volume I. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Department of Fish and Game, Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.
Eldorado National Forest 276 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Terrestrial Wildlife- Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 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. 1995. Entering mines to survey bats effectively and safely. Inactive mines as bat habitat: guidelines for research, survey, monitoring, and mine management in Nevada. Biological Resources Research Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA, pp 57-61. 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., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Publications, p.34. Arthur, S.M. and W.B. Krohn. 1991. Activity patterns, movements, and reproductive ecology of fishers in southcentral Maine. Journal of Mammalogy 72(2), pp.379-385. 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.
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 pp.
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, 41:266- 267.
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. 1961. Life histories of North American birds of prey, Part 1. Dover Publications Inc. New York, NY U.S.A.
Bias, M.A. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 56(3):584-595.
Blakesley, J.A., M.E. Seamans, M.M. Conner, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, T.E. Munton, D.W.H. Shaw, J.J. Keane, G.N. Steger, and T.L. McDonald. 2010. Population dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Monographs. 174: 1–36.
Eldorado National Forest 277 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short- term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30(4):1022-1028.
Bond, M.L., M.E. Seamans, 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.
Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and J.P. Ward. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(7):1116-1124.
Brown, P.E., R. Berry, and C. Brown. 1994. Foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii) on Santa Cruz Island. Pages 367-369 in W.L. Halvorson and G.J. Maender, editors. Fourth California islands symposium: update on the status of resources. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.
Brown, P.E., R.D. Berry, and C. Brown. 1995. The California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) and American Girl Mining joint venture - impacts and solutions. pp. 54-56 In: Proceedings VI: Issues and techonology in the management of impacted wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, CO. Brown, P.E., and R.D. Berry. 1991. Bats: habitat, impacts and mitigation. pp 26–30. In: R.D. Comer, P.R. Davis, S.Q. Foster, C.V. Grant, S. Rush, O. Thorne II, and J. Todd, editors, Proceedings of the Thorne Ecological Institute: issues and technology in the management of impacted wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute, Snowmass, CO.
Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, and J.K. Seegar. 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., J.T. Flinders, and M.L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the intermountain west. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3), pp. 828-838. Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Field guide to survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the northwest forest plan. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 126 pp. Burt, W.H. 1934. The mammals of southern Nevada. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist.7:375-428.
Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 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.
Eldorado National Forest 278 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Cahalane, V.H. 1939. Mammals of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 20(4):418-440.
Cain, J.W. and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Reproductive ecology of dusky flycatchers in montane meadows of the central Sierra Nevada. Western North American Naturalist 63(4):507-512.
Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habits and survey techniques for common western raptors. U. S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage, Portland, OR. Tech. Note No. 316. 115pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1987. Sierra Nevada red fox: Five-year status report. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game. 6 pp. In USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp#guide_pub Retrieved Mar 6, 2015.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR Version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015a. SNRF species report comments. Email w attachment from Chris Stermer, May 29, 2015. 4 pp total In USFWS 2015b.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015c. CDFW News, CDFW reminds hunters of wolf pack in Siskiyou County. 2 pp.
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR). 2013. Species information reports. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 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., R.J. Gutierrez, 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.
Chandler, S.K., J.D. Fraser, D.A. Buehler, and J.K. Seegar. 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. 59 pp. 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.
Clark, D. R., and R. G. Anthony, and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Survival Rates of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-Fire Landscapes of Southwest Oregon. Journal Raptor Research 45(1):38-47.
Eldorado National Forest 279 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Clark, D. R. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-Fire Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. Master Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Clark B. S., Leslie D. M. Jr.., Carter T. S. 1993. Foraging activity of adult female Ozark big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii ingens) in summer. Journal of Mammalogy 74:422–427
Clark, D. R., and R. L. Hothem. 1991. Mammal mortality at Arizona, California and Nevada gold mines using cyanide extraction. Calif. Fish and Game, 77:61-69.
Cockrum, E.L. and B.F. Musgrove. 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 E. Ordway. 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., J.J. Keane, C.V. Gallagher, G. Jehle, T.E. Munton, P.A. Shaklee, and R.A. Gerrard. 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., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J.R. Squires, and A. Magoun. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88(3):233-246.
Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. Long, and C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2201-2212.
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.
Cryan, P. 1997. Distribution and roosting habits of bats in the southern Black Hills, South Dakota. Unpublished Master’s 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.
Dalton V. M., Brack V. W., McTeer P. M. 1986. Food habits of the big-eared bat, Plecotus townsendii virginianus, in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 37:248–254.
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
Eldorado National Forest 280 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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 color- marked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:130-132. Dobkin D. S., Gettinger R. G., Gerdes M. G. 1995. Springtime movements, roost use, and foraging activity of Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) in central Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55:315–321.
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 J. Baccus. 1973. A collection of bats from the Fronteriza Mountains, Coahuila, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 17:424-427.
Esmoil, B. J., and S. H. Anderson. 1995. Wildlife mortality associated with oil pits in Wyoming. Prairie Naturalist, 27:81-88.
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.
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.
Flickinger, E. L., and C. M. Bunck. 1987. Number of oil-killed birds and fate of bird carcasses at crude oil pits in Texas. Southwestern Nat., 32:377-381.
Forsman, E.D. 1976. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis. 127pp.
Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 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.
Eldorado National Forest 281 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 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.
Frost, D. R., and R. M. Timm. 1992. Phylogeny of plecotine bats (Chiroptera: "Vespertilionidae"): proposal of a logically consistent taxonomy. Am. Mus. Novitates 3034:1-16.
Gaines, D. 1977. Status and habitat requirements of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California, 1977. Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game, Project E-1-1, Job IV-1.4.
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. 79 pp. 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 G.B. Rathbun. 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. 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.
Goldade, C. M., J. A. Dechant, D. H. Johnson, A. L. Zimmerman, B. E. Jamison, J. O. Church, and B. R. Euliss. 2002. Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Yellow Rail. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 21 pp. 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. Graham, R.T., R.T. Reynolds, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, D.A. Boyce. 1994. Sustaining forest habitat for the Northern goshawk: A Question of Scale. Studies of Avian Biology. No.16 Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay, 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.
Eldorado National Forest 282 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 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., A.B. Franklin, and P.C. Carlson. 1995a. 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., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. LaHaye. 1995b. 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. 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, J.E., D.L. Peterson, K.A. O’Halloran, and C.H. Hoffman, 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.
Hayward, L.S., A.E. Bowles, J.C. Ha, and S.K. Wasser. 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 M.J. O'Farrell. 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/Are- Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces-Society1.pdf
Eldorado National Forest 283 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 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):169- 177.
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.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.
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. 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. 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. 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. and A. Hall. 2010. Observed climate–snowpack relationships in California and their implications for the future. J Climate 23:3446–3456. Keane, J.J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Doctoral dissertation from the University of California, Davis, CA. 124 pp. Keane, J. 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 S.K. Skagen. 1988. Agonistic Asymmetries and the Foraging Ecology of Bald Eagles. Ecology 69(4):1188-1194.
Eldorado National Forest 284 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
Lande, R. and G.F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In: Soule M editor: Viable populations for conservation. New York:Cambridge Univ Press. Pages 86–123 In USFWS 2015h. 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. Magoun, A.J. and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. The Journal of Wildlife Management, pages1313-1320. Manley, P.N., J.P. Stumpf, W.B. Davis, D. Craig, K. Mick. 2004. Pilot test of programmatic approach to monitoring winter conditions and trends of wildlife populations and habitats in off- highway vehicle use areas; first winter pilot test, winter 2002-2003, final report. March 20 2004. 38 pp.
Marcot B. G. 1984. Winter use of some northwestern California caves by western big-eared bats and long-eared Myotis. Murrelet 65:46.
Mathewson, H.A., H.L. Loffland, and M.L. Morrison. 2011. Demographic Analysis for Willow Flycatcher Monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada, 1997–2010: Final Report. Texas A & M University. 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.
Eldorado National Forest 285 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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. 139 pp.
Miller, J.D. and A.E. Thode. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment 109:66-80. Mohr, C. E. (1972). The status of threatened species of cave-dwelling bats. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society, 34(2), 33-45. Moriarty, K. 2011. Decline in American marten occupancy rates at Sagehen Experimental Forest, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(*):1774-1787. Moriarty, K., W.J. Zielinski, A.G. Gonzales, T.E. Dawson, K.M. Boatner, C.A. Wilson, F.V. Schlexer, K.L. Pilgrim, J.P. Copeland, and M.K. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine confirmation in California after nearly a century: native or long-distance immigrant? Northwest Science 83(2):154-162.
Morrison, M.L., R.J. Young, J.S. Rosmos, and 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 S.D. Durrani. 1960. Notes on Myotis thysanodes in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 41(3):393-394.
Navo, K. 1995. Guidelines for external surveys of mines for bat roosts. Pp. 49-54, In: Inactive mines as bat habitat: guidelines for research, survey, monitoring and mine management in Nevada. (B. R. Riddle, ed.). Biol. Resources Res. Ctr., Univ.of Nevada, Reno, NV. O’Farrell. M.J., and W.G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring. Journal of Mammalogy 51(1):18-26. 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. O’Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species 137:1-5.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2015. 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 March 31, 2015, from http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/minutes/15/04_April/Exhibit%20F_Attachme 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.
Eldorado National Forest 286 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Paradiso, J. L., and A. M. Greenhall. 1967. Longevity records for American bats. American Midland Naturalist 78: 251-252.
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 big- eared 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. Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: bald eagle (breeding season) (No. 82/10.126). US Fish and Wildlife Service. Piaggio, A. J., K.E.G. Miller, MD. Matocq, and S.L. Perkins. 2009. Eight polymorphic microsatellite loci developed and characterized from Townsend's big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii. Molecular Ecology Resources 9(1): 258-260.
Piaggio, A. J., K.W. Navo, and C.W. Stihler. 2009. Intraspecific comparison of population structure, genetic diversity, and dispersal among three subspecies of Townsend's big-eared bats, Corynorhinus townsendii, C. t. pallescens, and the endangered C. t. virginianus. Conservation genetics 10(1): 143-159. Pierson, E. D. 1989. Help for Townsend's big-eared bats in California. Bats, 7:5-8.
Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, D.M. Koontz. 1991. Bats and mines: experimental mitigation for Townsend’s big-eared bat at the McLaughlin Mine in California. 12 pp.
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 big- eared 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., 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.
Eldorado National Forest 287 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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., 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.
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. 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.
Rainey, W. E. 1995. Tools for low-disturbance monitoring of bat activity. pp. 62-71, In: Inactive mines as bat habitat: guidelines for research, survey, monitoring and mine management in Nevada. (B. R. Riddle, ed.). Biological Research Center, Univ. Nevada, Reno. 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, 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. Roberts, S.L., J.W. van Wagtendonk, A.K. Miles, and D.A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation 144:610-619.
Eldorado National Forest 288 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Roest, A.I. 1951. Mammals of the Oregon Caves area, Josephine County. Journal of Mammalogy 32:345-351.
Rosenberg, D.K., C.J. Zabel, and B.R. Noon. 1994. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base – a comment. Ecology 75(5):1512-1515.
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.
Rustigian-Romsos, H.L. and W.D. Spencer. 2010. Predicting habitat suitability for the American marten on the Lassen National Forest, final report. Produced by Conservation Biology Institute. 33pp. Sample B. E., Whitmore R. C. 1993. Food habits of the endangered Virginia big-eared bat in West Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 74:428–435 Sanders, S. and M.A. Flett. 1989. Ecology of a Sierra Nevada population of willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), 1986-1987. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. 27 pp.
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 sage-grouse in North America. The Condor 106:363-376. Scott, N.J., G.B. Rathbun, T.G. Murphy, and M.B. Harker. 2008. Reproduction of pacific pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in coastal streams of central California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):143-148.
Sherwin, R. E., D. Stricklan, and D. S. Rogers. 2000. Roosting affinities of Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in northern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 81:939-947.
Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, 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. R.L. Wilkerson, and D. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the willow flycatcher from Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39:8-21. Simmons, N.B. 2005. Chiroptera. Pages 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., and W. J. Zielinski. 2008. A review of the effects of forest thinning and fuels reduction on American martens (Martes americana) pertinent to the Southern Cascades region of California. Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory.
Eldorado National Forest 289 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Spencer, W. and H. Rustigian-Romsos. 2012. Decision support maps and recommendations for conserving rare carnivores in the interior mountains of California. Conservation Biology Institute. 36 pp. + Appendices. 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, J.R. and R.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. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 42:506-13.
Stebbings, R. E. 1966. Bats Under Stress. Studies in speleology 1(4): 168-173. Stefani, R.A., H.L. Bombay, and T.M. Benson. 2001. Willow Flycatcher. Pages 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.
Stihler, C.W and J.S. Hall. 1993. Endangered bat populations in West Virginia caves gated or fenced to reduce human disturbance. Bat Research News 34(4). [ABS].
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.
Tempel, D.J. and R.J. Gutierrez. 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 R.J. Gutiérrez. 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.
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, R. 2015. Personal communication between R. Thorp (Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California Davis) and Katherine Malengo regarding hibernation habitat for western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). October 19, 2015.
Tipton, V. M. 1983. Evidence of movement of a maternity colony of Plecotus townsendii virginianus throughout the summer. Virginia Journal of Science, 35, 90.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 290 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Tumlison, R., and M. E. Douglas. 1992. Parsimony analysis and the phylogeny of the plecotine bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 73(2):276-285.
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. 2004. Record of Decision for Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USFWS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 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.
USFWS. 2007. Bald eagle management guidelines and conservation measures. USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 2016. Eldorado National Forest over-snow vehicle use designation updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
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., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, and T.W. Beck. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 285 pp.
Ve rts , B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Pgs. 360-363.
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.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 291 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
Whitaker J. O Jr, Maser C., Keller L. E. 1977. Food habits of bats of western Oregon. Northwest Scientist 51:46–55.
Whitaker J. O Jr, Maser C., Cross S. P. 1981. Food habits of eastern Oregon bats, based on stomach and scat analyses. Northwest Scientist 55:281–292.
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.
Williams, P.J., R.J. Gutierrez, and 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., S.K. Martin, and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-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, and C. Stermer. 2015. Diversity of Great Gray Owl Nest Sites and Nesting Habitats in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(6):937-947. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. 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.
Zielinski, W. 2015. Personal communication between William (Bill) Zielinski (Research Ecologist, PSW Redwood Sciences Lab) March 26, 2015, with Katherine Malengo regarding potential impacts of OSV use on martens and marten den sites in the Sierra Nevada of California.
Zielinski, W.J. 2014. The forest carnivores: marten and fisher. In: Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.; Skinner, C.N., eds. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 393-435. Chap. 7.1.
Eldorado National Forest 292 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, and A.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, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Sacramento.
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.
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.
Terrestrial Wildlife- MIS and Migratory Landbird Conservation 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. 166 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. Pacific Southwest Region. December 2007. 18 pp.
Botany Arnold, J.L., and T.M. Koel. 2006. 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 Low- alkalinity Pond in Colorado. Energy and Resources Group, Berkeley, California. ERG-88-1. 15 pp. 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. 2016. Botany Specialist Report for Eldorado OSV Use Designation project DEIS. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, California.
Eagleston, H. and C. Rubin. 2012. 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.
Eldorado National Forest 293 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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. 2009. Winter Recreation Impacts to Wetlands: A Technical Review. Unpublished document prepared for Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest, and Black Hills National Forest. Greller, A.M., M. Goldstein, and L. Marcus. 1974. Snowmobile impact on three alpine tundra plant communities. Environmental Conservation 1(2): 101–110. 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.
Ingersoll, G. 1998. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park, USGS, Department of Interior, Wa ter-Resources Investigation Report 99-4148.
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. 2016. Hydrology Report for Eldorado National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation DEIS. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, 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 Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources. Open-File Report 2007-1353. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Sikes, K., D. Cooper, S. Weis, T. Keeler-Wolf, M. Barbour, D. Ikeda, D. Stout, and J. Evens. 2013. Fen Conservation and Vegetation Assessment in the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada and Adjacent Mountains, California. Unpublished report to the U.S. Forest Service, Region 5.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 294 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Taylor, K., J. Mangold, and L.J. Rew. 2011. Weed Seed Dispersal by Vehicles. Montana State University Extension. MT201105AG. June 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, 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. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Chapter 2671 – Cooperation. 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 Rule). Federal Register, June 18, 2014. 79(117): 34678-34681.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Four Plants and Threatened Status for One Plant From the Central Sierran Foothills of California. Federal Register, October 18, 1996. 61(203): 54346-54358. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for Gabbro Soil Plants of the Central Sierra Nevada Foothills. Portland, Oregon. xiii + 220 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Updated list of Threatened and Endangered species list for the Eldorado NF OSV Project. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, California.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. Updated list of Threatened and Endangered species list for the Eldorado NF OSV Project. Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Reno, Nevada.
Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 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.
Williams, M.S. 2014. The ecology and distribution patterns of a rare serpentine endemic, Packera layneae. Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Chico.
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.
Eldorado National Forest 295 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
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.
Air Quality Bishop, G.A., D.A. Burgard, T.R. Dalton, and D.H. Stedman. 2006. In-use Emission Measurements of Snowmobiles and Snowcoaches in Yellowstone National Park. University of Denver, Department of Chemistry and BioChemistry. Denver, CO.
BRP. 2011. BRP SKI-DOO Snowmobiles: 10 Models BAT Certified for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Valcourt, Quebec. Available online at: http://www.brp.com.
California Air Resource Board. 2016. Annual Network Plan. Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts. June. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/amnr/amnr2016.pdf
California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2014. Appendix B. California Class I Area Visibility Descriptions. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/final/appb.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Federal Standard Area Designations. California EPA Air Resources Board. September 7, 2016. Online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm Jehl, D. 2002. Air Pollution Regulations Extended to Snowmobiles. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/14/us/air-pollution-regulat ions-extended-to- snowmobiles.html
Lopina, C., Air Pollution Specialist, California Air Resources Board. Personal and email communications. 2015.
Millner, J. 2015. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park: An American right, or wrong? Geoscience Education Web Development Team, Montana State University.
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.
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (USDI NPS). 2000. Air quality concerns related to snowmobile usage in National Parks. USDI, National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, CO. Available online at http://www2.nature. nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/yell/Snowmobile_Report.pdf. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (USDI NPS). 2013. Yellowstone National Park Winter Use Plan. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Exhaust Emission Factors for Non-road Engine modeling- Spark-Ignition NR-010f. Assessment of Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. AIR Data. Non-attainment listings for criteria pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-pm-25-2012-area-information
Eldorado National Forest 296 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015b). Office of Transportation and Emission Standards for nearly all types of non-road engines, vehicles and equipment. FAQs.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 1988. Eldorado National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). USDA-Forest Service, PSW Region, Eldorado National Forest, California U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2016. Over- Snow Vehicle Use Designation. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Eldorado National Forest. U.S Government Publishing Office. 2015. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed November 2015 at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=debdc659dece22de01aab5b6a8745c76&mc=true&node=se40.33.1051_1103&rgn= div8
Valentine, S. 2016a. Five Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Eldorado Recreation Report. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit.
Valentine, S. 2016b. Email communication- Visitor use data for Eldorado National Forest. September 9, 2016.
Socioeconomics Allen, S.D., Wickwar, D.A.; Clark, F.P.; [and others]. 2009. Values, beliefs, and attitudes technical guide for Forest Service land and resource management, planning, and decision making. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-788, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 120 p.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015a. American community survey, 2009–2014 5-year estimates. [accessed July 23, 2016; http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system].
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015b. County business patterns 2013. [accessed October 11, 2016; from EPS http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system].
USDA Economic Research Service. 2013. Rural-urban continuum codes. [accessed December 6, 2016; http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/.aspx].
USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Ecosystem management coordination, National Forest recreation economic contributions. [accessed December 6, 2016; http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/recreation-contributions]. USDA Forest Service. 2015b. National visitor use monitoring for the Eldorado NF (data collected FY 2012). [accessed December 6, 2016; http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/]. White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2010. Updated spending profiles for national forest recreation visitors by activity. [accessed October 11, 2016; http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_files/White_Stynes_NVUM2010b.pdf].
White, E.M., Gooding, D.B.; Stynes, D.J. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from national visitor use monitoring: Round 2. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-883, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 71 p.
Eldorado National Forest 297 Draft Environmental Impact Statement References
Transportation California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2010. Over Snow Vehicle Program Final Environmental Impact Report, Program Years 2010 – 2020. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2012. Off-Highway Vehicle Law Enforcement Information (Quickbook). Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, Sacramento, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1988. Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Decision Memo for 2012-2014 OSV Maintenance and Grooming Activities, USDA, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, October 2012 USDA Forest Service. 2015. Forest Service Directive System, Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks, 7700 Series: Travel Management. USDA Forest Service. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/, accessed October 31, 2015.
USDA Forest Service 2016a. OSV Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Eldorado National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Forest transportation atlas – GIS Spatial and INFRA Tabular Data, Eldorado National Forest., Eldorado NF, Placerville, CA.
U.S. Government. 2015. Code of Federal Regulations. Government Printing Office. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR, accessed October 31, 2015.
Eldorado National Forest 298 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendices
Appendix A – Maps
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest A-1
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest A-2
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest A-3
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest A-4
Appendices
Sourrdough Segmentt
Forressttdalle//Bllue Lakess Segmentt
I Eldorado National Forest A-5
Appendices
Appendix B – Minimization Criteria
Amador OSV Area The Amador OSV Area consists of the southern portion of the Eldorado National Forest along the Highway 88 corridor within the vicinity of Bear River Reservoir, Silver Lake, Carson Pass, and Forestdale/Blue Lakes. With the 58-mile groomed Silver Bear Trail System located within this area, this area is where most of the OSV use occurs on the forest. Specific Criteria for OSV Designated Trails and Areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas:
(b)(1) Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.
A) Would the trail or area No No N/A be located in a watershed that is of concern?
B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes A minimum snow depth 12 contain sensitive riparian inches for OSV use in open areas, regardless of underlying 1) Minimize damage to areas, for example wet surface would provide a soil and water quality. meadows, bogs, fens, etc.? protective layer for sensitive riparian areas resulting negligible ground disturbance and minimal to no disturbance to vegetation.
Eldorado National Forest B-1
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects?
C) Would the trail or area Yes No - The North Fork Consumnes River, N/A drain into a 303(d)-listed which does not meet State Water waterbody? Quality Standards for Invasive Species. Winter OSV use is unlikely to contribute to the presence or extent of invasive species within watershed. No adverse effects are anticipated.
D) Would the trail or area Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 contain sensitive soils inches for OSV use in open (including wet meadows, areas, regardless of underlying areas with potential low surface would result in minimal stability, and areas with to no impact on soil resources potential erosion and minimize the potential for hazards)? erosion on these sites.
A) Are TES plants known Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 to occur in or around the inches for OSV use in open trail or area? areas, regardless of underlying surface would prevent or minimize direct or indirect 2) Minimize damage to effects. vegetation and other B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes - Round Top Botanical/Geological Round Top forest resources. include Special Interest Area SIA Botanical/Geological Area will
Areas (SIA) or Research not be designated for OSV use. Natural Area (RNA)? No - Snow Canyon RNA - Snow Canyon RNA is located within the Mokelumne Wilderness, which OSV use is prohibited.
Eldorado National Forest B-2
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects?
C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within a NAAQS Class I area (air quality)?
D) Are cultural resource Yes No – OSV use is not likely to cause N/A sites known to be located direct or indirect effects to cultural in or around the trail or resources. area?
(b)(2) Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. A) Is the trail or area Yes Yes – northern goshawk and California If OSV use increases or located within or adjacent spotted owl activity centers. patterns of use change, to TES breeding bird sites monitoring of California spotted AND also used during the Generally, goshawks and spotted owls owl and northern goshawk breeding period of the initiate breeding in February or March, activity centers within high use species? respectively. OSV use during the areas may occur to determine if breeding season has the potential to disturbance is occurring and if disturb nesting owls and goshawks and changes in management are could potentially disrupt breeding necessary. activities. 1) Minimize harassment of wildlife. B) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to TES forest carnivore (i.e. fisher, marten, or wolverine) den sites AND used during the denning period for these species? C) Is the trail or area Yes No – Direct impacts to fish, amphibians N/A located within or adjacent and other aquatic species are not
Eldorado National Forest B-3
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? to occupied habitat for anticipated as they are typically TES aquatic species? dormant during the winter. No adverse impacts anticipated. A) Would the trail or area Yes Yes – Suitable and critical habitat for A minimum snow depth of 12 contain TES aquatic Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and inches for OSV use, regardless habitat and/or designated Yosemite toad. of the underlying surface, critical habitat? would prevent changes to soils, No – The Blue Lakes area is located in vegetation, or hydrology of a watershed that provides suitable aquatic habitats. habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout. However, OSV use would not occur 2) Minimize significant over open water or unfrozen lakes, disruption of wildlife therefore no adverse impacts are habitats. anticipated. B) Would the trail or area Yes No – OSV use would not affect habitat, N/A contain habitat for TES habitat connectivity, or result in habitat terrestrial wildlife fragmentation. The limited amount of species? concentrated OSV use is not anticipated to significantly disrupt movements of TES wildlife species that could occur in the area. (b)(3) Minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.
A) Would OSV use of this Yes Yes – 3 plowed trailheads (Sno-Parks) Encourage public awareness 1) Minimize conflicts – Iron Mountain, Meiss, Carson Pass – and education regarding between motor vehicle trail or area cause provide access to both non-motorized locations of non-motorized use and existing or conflicts with non- motorized visitors’ desire and motorized users. areas where OSV use is proposed recreational prohibited; implement uses of NFS lands for solitude and quiet recreation (for example,
Eldorado National Forest B-4
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? near popular quiet areas additional signage to minimize or high value areas for OSV encroachment. backcountry skiing?)
B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes – Mokelumne Wilderness, Semi- OSV use will not be designated be within or adjacent to a primitive areas (Devils Lake, Hidden as open in the Mokelumne location valued for non- Lake, and Little Indian) are managed for Wilderness, Semi-Primitive motorized use, such as, non-motorized use, primitive and areas, and Kirkwood Resorts. wilderness, P C T, unconfined recreation, solitude. recommended Encourage public awareness wilderness, and ski areas. Yes – Kirkwood Mountain Resort and and education regarding Kirkwood Nordic Ski Area are managed locations of non-motorized for non-motorized public use. areas where OSV use is prohibited; implement Yes – OSV travel near Blue additional signage to minimize Lakes/Forestdale and on Humboldt- OSV encroachment. Toiyabe and Stanislaus NFs is adjacent to Mokelumne Wilderness; frequency of Continue current enforcement trespass into Wilderness is high. efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Yes –The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) runs along the eastern Most of the PCT is located boundary of the Eldorado NF (adjoining within the Mokelumne Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Wilderness; segments of the and Humboldt-Toiyabe NF) and is PCT outside Wilderness (Meiss managed as a non-motorized trail. and Forestdale/Blue Lakes segments) – areas designated Yes – Emigrant Lake Trail and Carson- for OSV use would be at least Emigrant National Recreation Trail from 500 feet from the PCT and one Horse Canyon saddle to Caples Lake non-groomed OSV trail would
Eldorado National Forest B-5
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? Trailhead is managed for non-motorized be designated across the PCT trail use. (Forestdale/Blue Lakes segment) to provide connectivity to areas designated for OSV use.
OSV use will not be designated as open on the Emigrant Lake Trail and Carson-Emigrant National Recreation Trail. A) Would the trail or area No No N/A 2) Conflicts between abut a wilderness area or motor vehicle use and National Park managed existing or proposed by other agencies? recreational uses of B) Would the trail or area No No N/A neighboring Federal lands abut a developed recreation site? (b)(4) Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. A) Would this trail or area No No N/A allow wheeled motor 1) Minimize conflicts vehicle use over snow? If among different classes of so, does this affect safety motor vehicle uses of NFS and winter management lands or neighboring of this area? federal lands. B) Would this trail or area Yes No – Use of tracked OSVs is expected N/A allow tracked motor to be low to no use. vehicle use over snow? If so, does this affect safety
Eldorado National Forest B-6
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? and winter management of this area? C) Would this trail or area No No N/A conflict with plowed roads allowing vehicle use? Are road crossings allowed by OSVs? (b)(5) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
A) Would the trail or area Yes No – Kirkwood Meadows. OSV use is N/A be adjacent to year currently prohibited at Kirkwood around neighborhoods Mountain Resort and Kirkwood Nordic and communities? Ski Area on NFS lands.
1) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes – Small private inholdings Encourage public awareness existing conditions in be located adjacent to and education regarding populated areas, taking private land? locations of non-motorized into account sound, areas where OSV use is emissions, and other prohibited; implement factors. additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment.
Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-7
Appendices
Georgetown OSV Area The Georgetown OSV Area consists of the northwestern portion of the Eldorado National Forest in the vicinity of Stumpy Meadows Reservoir and Hell Hole Reservoir. This area is within a zone of historically minimal snowfall and low to no OSV use. Although designated for OSV use, OSV opportunities are irregular throughout this area as there may not be sufficient snow in most of this area for much of the year. In addition, the checkerboard ownership pattern limits the amount of OSV opportunities within this area and likely contributes to the low to no OSV use. Specific Criteria for OSV Designated Trails and Areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects? (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas: (b)(1) Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.
A) Would the trail Yes No – No measurable changes in N/A or area be located hydrology are expected on a in a watershed watershed scale. that is of concern?
B) Would the trail Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 inches or area contain for OSV use in open areas, sensitive riparian regardless of underlying surface areas, for would provide a protective layer for 1) Minimize damage example wet sensitive riparian areas resulting in to soil and water meadows, bogs, negligible ground disturbance and quality. fens, etc.? minimal to no disturbance to vegetation. C) Would the trail Yes No - The South Fork of the N/A or area drain into American River below Slab a 303(d)-listed Creek Reservoir does not meet waterbody? State Water Quality Standard for mercury due to past mining activity. OSV use would not alter the level of mercury within the watershed.
Eldorado National Forest B-8
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects?
D) Would the trail Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 inches or area contain for OSV use in open areas, sensitive soils regardless of underlying surface (including wet would result in minimal to no impact meadows, areas on soil resources and minimize the with potential low potential for erosion on these sites. stability, and areas with potential erosion hazards)?
A) Are TES plants Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 inches known to occur in for OSV use in open areas, or around the trail regardless of underlying surface or area? would prevent or minimize direct or indirect effects.
2) Minimize damage B) Would the trail Yes Yes – Traverse Creek Botanical OSV use will not be designated as to vegetation and or area include SIA, Rock Creek Botanical Area open in the Traverse Creek Botanical other forest resources. Special Interest SIA, and Leonardi Falls Area, Rock Creek Botanical Area, Areas (SIA) or Botanical Area SIA and Leonardi Falls Botanical Area. Research Natural Areas (RNAs)? Yes - Big Crater Geological A minimum snow depth of 12 inches Area SIA and Little Crater for OSV use in open areas, Geological Area SIA regardless of underlying surface would result in no impact to the special interest features. 3) Minimize damage A) Is the trail or No No N/A to other forest area located resources. within a NAAQS
Eldorado National Forest B-9
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects? Class I area (air quality)?
B) Are cultural Yes No – OSV use is not likely to N/A resource sites cause direct or indirect effects to known to be cultural resources. located in or around the trail or area? (b)(2) Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. A) Is the trail or Yes Yes – northern goshawk and If OSV use increases or patterns of area located California spotted owl activity use change, monitoring of California within or adjacent centers. Generally, goshawks spotted owl and northern goshawk to TES breeding and spotted owls initiate activity centers within high use areas bird sites AND breeding in February or March, may occur to determine if also used during respectively. OSV use during disturbance is occurring and if the breeding the breeding season has the changes in management are period of the potential to disturb nesting owls necessary. species? and goshawks and could potentially disrupt breeding If OSV use increases or patterns of 1) Minimize activities. use change, monitoring of bald eagle harassment of wildlife. Yes – Bald Eagle nest site nest sites may occur to determine if located at Stumpy Meadows disturbance is occurring and if Reservoir. OSV use in the changes in management are Stumpy Meadows area is necessary. anticipated to be low to no use.
B) Is the trail or No No N/A area located within or adjacent to TES forest
Eldorado National Forest B-10
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects? carnivore (i.e. fisher, marten, or wolverine) den sites AND used during the denning period for these species? C) Is the trail or Yes Yes – California red-legged frog The area around Rock Creek Zone area located in the lower elevations near will not be designated for OSV use. within or adjacent Rock Creek. to occupied habitat for TES aquatic species? A) Would the trail Yes Yes – Suitable habitat for A minimum snow depth of 12 inches or area contain California red-legged frog. for OSV use, regardless of the TES aquatic underlying surface, would prevent habitat and/or changes to soils, vegetation, or designated critical hydrology of aquatic habitats. habitat? OSV use will not be designated as 2) Minimize significant open in the Rock Creek Zone. disruption of wildlife habitats. B) Would the trail Yes No – OSV use would not affect N/A or area contain habitat, habitat connectivity, or habitat for TES result in habitat fragmentation. terrestrial wildlife The no to low amount of OSV species? use is not anticipated to significantly disrupt movements of TES wildlife species that could occur in the area. (b)(3) Minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. Eldorado National Forest B-11
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects?
A) Would OSV No No – Limited OSV use to Hell N/A use of this trail or Hole for wintertime fishing area cause conflicts with non- Other hiking and solitude only motorized visitors’ use is in the non-snow periods. desire for solitude and quiet recreation (for example, near popular quiet 1) Minimize conflicts areas or high between motor vehicle value areas for use and existing or backcountry proposed recreational skiing?) uses of NFS lands B) Would the trail No No N/A or area be within or adjacent to a location valued for non-motorized use, such as, wilderness, P C T, recommended wilderness, and ski areas. 2) Conflicts between A) Would the trail No No N/A motor vehicle use and or area abut a existing or proposed wilderness area or recreational uses of National Park neighboring Federal managed by other lands agencies?
Eldorado National Forest B-12
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects? B) Would the trail Yes Yes – Rock Creek OHV Trail OSV use will not be designated as or area abut a System (year-round). open in the Rock Creek Zone to developed provide feasible restrictions and recreation site? enforcement on OSV cross-country use. (b)(4) Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. A) Would this trail Yes No – Potential conflict between N/A or area allow wheeled use on Wentworth wheeled motor Springs Road (County road) and vehicle use over Blodgett (where plowing stops) snow? If so, does and OSV use, however few this affect safety conflicts recorded. and winter management of this area? 1) Minimize conflicts B) Would this trail Yes No – Use of tracked OSVs is N/A among different or area allow expected to be low to no use. classes of motor tracked motor vehicle uses of NFS vehicle use over lands and neighboring snow? If so, does federal lands. this affect safety and winter management of this area? C) Would this trail No No – Wentworth Springs Road N/A or area conflict (El Dorado County) is plowed to with plowed roads Blodgett, and no crossing issues allowing vehicle to private land. use? Are road crossings allowed by OSVs? Eldorado National Forest B-13
Appendices
POTENTIAL Would OSV use of the trail or If the trail or area is designated, CRITERIA EFFECT Yes / No area have the potential to what measures will be taken to INDICATORS cause effects? minimize these effects? (b)(5) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
A) Would the trail Yes No – Georgetown, Garden Encourage public awareness and or area be Valley, Quintette, Volcanoville education regarding locations of non- adjacent to year motorized areas where OSV use is around It is expected that the prohibited; implement additional neighborhoods Georgetown Open Area would signage to minimize OSV and communities? continue to have low use. encroachment.
1) Consider Continue current enforcement efforts compatibility of motor through law enforcement funding vehicle use with (Federal, State) existing conditions in populated areas, B) Would the trail Yes Yes – Checkerboard ownership Encourage public awareness and taking into account or area be located with Simorg West Forests, large education regarding locations of non- sound, emissions, and adjacent private areas owned by Sierra Pacific motorized areas where OSV use is other factors. land? Industries and other small prohibited; implement additional inholdings signage to minimize OSV encroachment. Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-14
Appendices
Pacific OSV Area The Pacific OSV Area consists of the Crystal Basin Recreation Area in the vicinity of Ice House Road, Union Valley Reservoir, Ice House Reservoir, Gerle Creek Reservoir, Loon Lake, Wrights Lake Tie Road, and Wrights Lake. OSV opportunities within the lower elevation portions of this OSV Area are irregular as there may not be sufficient snow for much of the year. Although there is sufficient snow in the upper elevations of this OSV Area, this area currently receives low OSV use. Specific Criteria for OSV Designated Trails and Areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas: (b)(1) Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources. A) Would the trail or area No No N/A be located in a watershed that is of concern? B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 contain sensitive riparian inches for OSV use in open areas, areas, for example wet regardless of the underlying meadows, bogs, fens, surface would provide a protective etc.? layer for sensitive riparian areas 1) Minimize damage to resulting negligible ground soil and water quality. disturbance and minimal to no disturbance to vegetation. C) Would the trail or Yes No - The South Fork of the N/A area drain into a 303(d)- American River below Slab listed waterbody? Creek Reservoir does not meet State Water Quality Standards for mercury due to past mining activity. OSV use would not alter the level of mercury within this watershed.
Eldorado National Forest B-15
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects?
D) Would the trail or Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 area contain sensitive inches for OSV use in open areas, soils (including wet regardless of the underlying meadows, areas with surface would result in minimal to potential low stability, no impact on soil resources and and areas with potential minimize the potential for erosion erosion hazards)? on these sites.
A) Are TES plants Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 known to occur in or inches for OSV use in open areas, around the trail or area? regardless of the underlying surface will prevent or minimize direct or indirect effects.
B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Wrights Lake Bog A minimum snow depth of 12 area include Special Botanical Area SIA inches for OSV use in open areas, 2) Minimize damage to Interest Areas (SIA) or regardless of the underlying vegetation and other Research Natural Areas Yes - Peavine Point RNA surface would prevent or minimize forest resources. (RNA)? direct or indirect effects to vegetation for which the Wrights Lake Bog Botanical Area was established.
Peavine Point RNA will not be designated for OSV use.
A) Is the trail or area No No N/A 3) Minimize damage to located within a NAAQS other forest resources. Class I area (air
quality)?
Eldorado National Forest B-16
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects?
B) Are cultural resource Yes No – OSV use is not likely N/A sites known to be to cause direct or indirect
located in or around the effects to cultural resources. trail or area?
(b)(2) Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. A) Is the area be located Yes Yes – northern goshawk If OSV use increases or patterns within or adjacent to and California spotted owl of use change, monitoring of TES breeding bird sites activity centers. Generally, California spotted owl and AND also used during goshawks and spotted owls northern goshawk activity centers the breeding period of initiate breeding in February within high use areas may occur the species? or March, respectively. OSV to determine if disturbance is use during the breeding occurring and if changes in season has the potential to management are necessary. disturb nesting owls and goshawks and could If OSV use increases or patterns potentially disrupt breeding of use change, monitoring of bald activities. eagle nest sites may occur to 1) Minimize determine if disturbance is harassment of wildlife. Yes – Bald eagle nest site occurring and if changes in at Union Valley Reservoir. management are necessary. Generally, bald eagles initiate breeding in February or March. OSV use during the breeding season has the potential to disturb breeding activities. OSV use in the Union Valley area is anticipated to be low to no use.
Eldorado National Forest B-17
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects?
B) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to TES forest carnivore (i.e. fisher, marten, or wolverine) den sites AND used during the denning period for these species? C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to occupied habitat for TES aquatic species? A) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Suitable habitat for A minimum snow depth of 12 area contain TES Sierra Nevada yellow- inches for OSV use, regardless of aquatic habitat and/or legged frog. the underlying surface, would designated critical prevent changes to soils, habitat? vegetation, or hydrology of aquatic habitats. 2) Minimize significant disruption of wildlife B) Would the trail or Yes No – OSV use would not N/A habitats. area contain habitat for affect habitat, habitat TES terrestrial wildlife connectivity, or result in species? habitat fragmentation. The no to low amount of OSV use is not anticipated to significantly disrupt movements of TES wildlife
Eldorado National Forest B-18
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? species that could occur in the area. (b)(3) Minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.
A) Would OSV use of Yes Yes – OSV use at Loon OSV use will not be designated as this trail or area cause Lake (near the beginning of open in the Loon Lake Winter conflicts with non- the Rubicon Trail) can Recreation Area. motorized visitors’ desire conflict with non-motorized for solitude and quiet users accessing cross- Encourage public awareness and recreation (for example, country ski trails. education regarding locations of near popular quiet areas non-motorized areas where OSV or high value areas for Yes – 1 plowed trailhead at use is prohibited; implement backcountry skiing?) Loon Lake provides access additional signage to minimize to non-motorized users. OSV encroachment.
1) Minimize conflicts B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Desolation OSV use would not be designated between motor vehicle area be within or Wilderness, Primitive High as open in the Desolation use and existing or adjacent to a location Country, Semi-primitive Wilderness, Primitive High proposed recreational valued for non- areas (Little McKinstry, Country, and Semi-Primitive uses of NFS lands motorized use, such as, Shadow Lake, Rockbound, areas. wilderness, P C T, July Flat) are managed for recommended non-motorized use, Most of the PCT is located within wilderness, and ski primitive and unconfined the Desolation Wilderness; the areas. recreation, solitude. segment outside Wilderness (Sourdough segment) – areas Yes –The Pacific Crest designated for OSV use would be National Scenic Trail (PCT) at least 500 feet from the PCT runs along the eastern and one non-groomed OSV trail boundary of the Eldorado would be designated acress the NF (adjoining Lake Tahoe PCT to provide connectivity to Basin Management Unit areas designated for OSV use.
Eldorado National Forest B-19
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? and Tahoe NF) and is managed as a non- A minimum snow depth of 12 motorized trail. inches for OSV use, regardless of the underlying surface, would protect the semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation.
Encourage public awareness and education regarding locations of non-motorized areas where OSV use is prohibited; implement additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment.
Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State).
A) Would the trail or No No N/A 2) Conflicts between area abut a wilderness motor vehicle use and area or National Park existing or proposed managed by other recreational uses of agencies? neighboring Federal B) Would the trail or No No N/A lands area abut a developed recreation site? (b)(4) Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands.
Eldorado National Forest B-20
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? A) Would this trail or Yes No – Potential conflict N/A area allow wheeled between wheeled use on motor vehicle use over Wentworth Springs snow? If so, does this Road/Icehouse Road and affect safety and winter Rubicon Trail and OSV use, management of this however few conflicts area? recorded.
1) Minimize conflicts among different B) Would this trail or Yes No – Use of tracked OSVs N/A classes of motor area allow tracked motor is expected to be low to no vehicle uses of NFS vehicle use over snow? use. lands or neighboring If so, does this affect federal lands. safety and winter management of this area? C) Would this trail or Yes No – Ice House Road (El N/A area conflict with plowed Dorado County) is plowed roads allowing vehicle and potential conflict near use? Are road crossings Loon Lake and Gerle allowed by OSVs? Creek, however few conflicts recorded. (b)(5) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
1) Consider A) Would the trail or No No N/A compatibility of motor area be adjacent to year vehicle use with around neighborhoods existing conditions in and communities? populated areas,
Eldorado National Forest B-21
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? taking into account B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Large areas owned Encourage public awareness and sound, emissions, and area be located adjacent by Sierra Pacific Industries education regarding locations of other factors. to private land? and other small inholdings. non-motorized areas where OSV use is prohibited; implement additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment.
Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-22
Appendices
Placerville OSV Area The Placerville OSV Area consists of the Highway 50 corridor to Echo Summit on the north, along Mormon Emigrant Trail, and down to near the Highway 88 corridor to the south. The OSV Area is located east of the communities of Pollock Pines and Grizzly Flats. Similar to the Pacific OSV Area, opportunities within the lower elevation portions of this area are irregular as there may not be sufficient snow for much of the year. Most of the OSV use in this area occurs in the vicinity of Mormon Emigrant Trail and Silver Bear Trail System, with some use in the upper elevations along the Highway 50 corridor east of Wrights Lake Road to Echo Summit. Specific Criteria for OSV Designated Trails and Areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas: (b)(1) Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.
A) Would the trail or No No N/A area be located in a watershed that is of concern?
B) Would the trail or Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 area contain sensitive inches for OSV use in open riparian areas, for areas, regardless of underlying example wet meadows, surface would provide a protective 1) Minimize damage to bogs, fens, etc.? layer for sensitive riparian areas soil and water quality. resulting negligible ground disturbance and minimal to no disturbance to vegetation.
C) Would the trail or Yes No – The South Fork of the N/A area drain into a 303(d)- American River below Slab listed waterbody? Creek Reservoir does not meet State Water Quality Standards for mercury due to past mining activity. OSV use would not alter the level Eldorado National Forest B-23
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? of mercury within this watershed. In addition, the North Fork Consumnes River, which does not meet State Water Quality Standards for Invasive Species. Winter OSV use is unlikely to contribute to the presence or extent of invasive species within watershed. No adverse effects are anticipated.
D) Would the trail or Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 area contain sensitive inches for OSV use in open soils (including wet areas, regardless of underlying meadows, areas with surface would result in minimal to potential low stability, no impact on soil resources and and areas with potential minimize the potential for erosion erosion hazards)? on these sites.
A) Are TES plants Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 12 known to occur in or inches for OSV use in open around the trail or area? areas, regardless of the 2) Minimize damage to underlying surface will prevent or vegetation and other minimize direct or indirect effects. forest resources.
B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Pyramid Creek A minimum snow depth of 12 area include Special Geological Area SIA inches for OSV use in open Interest Areas (SIA) or areas, regardless of the Yes – Station Creek RNA underlying surface would result in Eldorado National Forest B-24
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? Research Natural Areas no impact to the special interest (RNA)? area features.
OSV use would not be designated as open in the Station Creek RNA.
C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within a NAAQS Class I area (air quality)?
D) Are cultural resource Yes No – OSV use is not likely N/A sites known to be to cause direct or indirect located in or around the effects to cultural resources. trail or area?
(b)(2) Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. A) Is the trail or area Yes Yes – northern goshawk If OSV use increases or patterns located within or and California spotted owl of use change, monitoring of adjacent to TES activity centers. Generally, California spotted owl and breeding bird sites AND goshawks and spotted owls northern goshawk activity centers also used during the initiate breeding in February within high use areas may occur 1) Minimize breeding period of the or March, respectively. OSV to determine if disturbance is harassment of wildlife. species? use during the breeding occurring and if changes in season has the potential to management are necessary. disturb nesting owls and goshawks and could potentially disrupt breeding activities.
Eldorado National Forest B-25
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? B) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to TES forest carnivore (i.e. fisher, marten, or wolverine) den sites AND used during the denning period for these species? C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to occupied habitat for TES aquatic species? A) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Suitable and critical A minimum snow depth of 12 area contain TES habitat for Sierra Nevada inches for OSV use, regardless of aquatic habitat and/or yellow-legged frog. the underlying surface, would designated critical prevent changes to soils, habitat? vegetation, or hydrology of aquatic habitats.
2) Minimize significant B) Would the trail or Yes No – OSV use would not N/A disruption of wildlife area contain habitat for affect habitat, habitat habitats. TES terrestrial wildlife connectivity, or result in species? habitat fragmentation. The no to low amount of OSV use is not anticipated to significantly disrupt movements of TES wildlife species that could occur in the area.
Eldorado National Forest B-26
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? (b)(3) Minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.
A) Would OSV use of Yes Yes – 1 plowed trailhead Encourage public awareness and this trail or area cause (Sno-Park) – Echo Lakes – education regarding locations of conflicts with non- provides access to non- non-motorized areas where OSV motorized visitors’ desire motorized users. use is prohibited; implement for solitude and quiet additional signage to minimize recreation (for example, OSV encroachment. near popular quiet areas or high value areas for backcountry skiing?)
B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Caples Creek OSV use would not be designated area be within or Recommended Wilderness, as open in the Caples Creek 1) Minimize conflicts adjacent to a location Semi-primitive area (Bryan Recommended Wilderness, Semi- between motor vehicle valued for non- Meadow) is managed for Primitive area, Sierra-At-Tahoe use and existing or motorized use, such as, non-motorized use, Resort, Adventure Mountain proposed recreational wilderness, P C T, primitive and unconfined Resort, and Echo Summit Nordic uses of NFS lands recommended recreation, solitude. Area. wilderness, and ski Encourage public awareness and areas. education regarding locations of non-motorized areas where OSV Yes – Sierra-At-Tahoe Resort, Adventure Mountain use is prohibited; implement Resort, and Echo Summit additional signage to minimize
Nordic Area are managed OSV encroachment. for non-motorized public
use. Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement
funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-27
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? A minimum snow depth of 12 inches for OSV use in open areas, regardless of the underlying surface, would protect the semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation.
A) Would the trail or No No N/A 2) Conflicts between area abut a wilderness motor vehicle use and area or National Park existing or proposed managed by other recreational uses of agencies? neighboring Federal B) Would the trail or No No N/A lands area abut a developed recreation site?
Eldorado National Forest B-28
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? (b)(4) Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. A) Would this trail or No No N/A area allow wheeled motor vehicle use over snow? If so, does this affect safety and winter management of this area? 1) Minimize conflicts among different B) Would this trail or Yes No – Use of tracked OSVs N/A classes of motor area allow wheeled is expected to be low to no vehicle uses of NFS motor vehicle use over use. lands or neighboring snow? If so, does this federal lands. affect safety and winter
management of this area? C) Would this trail or No No N/A area conflict with plowed roads allowing vehicle use? Are road crossings allowed by OSVs? (b)(5) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
1) Consider A) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Grizzly Flats, Sly Encourage public awareness and compatibility of motor area be adjacent to year Park, Kyburz, Strawberry education regarding locations of vehicle use with around neighborhoods non-motorized areas where OSV existing conditions in and communities? use is prohibited; implement populated areas, taking
Eldorado National Forest B-29
Appendices
CRITERIA POTENTIAL EFFECT Yes / No Would OSV use of the If the trail or area is designated, INDICATORS trail or area have the what measures will be taken to potential to cause minimize these effects? effects? into account sound, It is expected the areas additional signage to minimize emissions, and other near these communities OSV encroachment. factors. would have low use. Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State) B) Would the trail or Yes Yes – Large areas owned Encourage public awareness and area be located adjacent by Sierra Pacific Industries education regarding locations of private land? but otherwise small private non-motorized areas where OSV inholdings use is prohibited; implement additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment.
Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-30
Appendices
Silver Bear Groomed Trail System Specific Criteria for OSV Designated Trails and Areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas:
(b)(1) Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.
A) Would the trail or area No N/A N/A be located in a watershed that is of concern?
B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 6 contain sensitive riparian inches to ride on groomed trails areas, for example wet and 12 inches for grooming, meadows, bogs, fens, regardless of underlying etc.? surface would provide a protective layer for sensitive riparian areas resulting 1) Minimize damage to negligible ground disturbance soil and water quality. and minimal to no disturbance to vegetation.
C) Would the trail or area Yes No - The North Fork Consumnes River, N/A drain into a 303(d)-listed which does not meet State Water waterbody? Quality Standards for Invasive Species. Winter OSV use is unlikely to contribute to the presence or extent of invasive species within watershed. No adverse effects are anticipated.
Eldorado National Forest B-31
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects?
D) Would the trail or area Yes Yes A minimum snow depth of 6 contain sensitive soils inches to ride on groomed trails (including wet meadows, and 12 inches for grooming, areas with potential low regardless of underlying stability, and areas with surface would result in minimal potential erosion to no impact on soil resources hazards)? and mitigate the potential for erosion on these sites.
A) Are TES plants known Yes No - Threatened or Endangered plant N/A to occur in or around the species. trail or area? No – Two Forest Service sensitive plants are known to occur within 100 ft. of the trail: Botrychium crenulatum and Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Kelloggii, however both are small perennials that do not overwinter above ground. In addition, 2) Minimize damage to most of the Silver Bear Trail System vegetation and other overlaps with the road system. forest resources. B) Would the trail or area No N/A N/A include Special Interest Areas (SIA) or Research Natural Area (RNA)?
C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within a NAAQS Class I area (air quality)?
Eldorado National Forest B-32
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects?
D) Are cultural resource Yes No – OSV use is not likely to cause N/A sites known to be located direct or indirect effects to cultural in or around the trail or resources. area?
(b)(2) Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. A) Is the trail or area Yes Yes – California spotted owl and If OSV use increases or located within or adjacent northern goshawk activity centers occur patterns of use change, to TES breeding bird sites within ¼ mile of the Silver Bear Trail monitoring of California spotted AND also used during System. owl and northern goshawk breeding period of these activity centers within high use species? Generally, goshawks and spotted owls areas may occur to determine if initiate breeding in February or March, disturbance is occurring and if respectively. OSV use and grooming changes in management are during the breeding season has the necessary. potential to disturb nesting owls and goshawks and could potentially disrupt breeding activities. 1) Minimize harassment of wildlife.
C) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent to TES forest carnivore (i.e. fisher, marten, or wolverine) den sites AND used during the denning period for these species? D) Is the trail or area No No N/A located within or adjacent
Eldorado National Forest B-33
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? to occupied habitat for TES aquatic species? A) Would the trail contain Yes Yes – Suitable and critical habitat for A minimum snow depth of 6 TES aquatic habitat Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog inches to ride on groomed trails and/or designated critical overlaps with the Silver Bear Trail and 12 inches for grooming, habitat? System. regardless of the underlying 2) Minimize significant surface, would prevent disruption of wildlife Most of the Silver Bear Trail System changes to soils, vegetation, or habitats. overlaps with existing roads. hydrology of aquatic habitats. B) Would the trail or area Yes No – OSV use and grooming would not N/A contain habitat for TES affect habitat, habitat connectivity, or terrestrial wildlife result in habitat fragmentation. species? (b)(3) Minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.
A) Would OSV use of this Yes Yes – OSV use of the groomed Silver Timing of OSV trail grooming trail or area cause Bear Trail near Mormon Emigrant Trail, (between 4 pm and 6 am, with conflicts with non- Iron Mountain Sno-Park, and Anderson a maximum daily hours of 12 motorized visitors’ desire Ridge can conflict with non-motorized and annual hours of 120 hours, 1) Minimize conflicts for solitude and quiet users accessing cross-country ski trails. seasonally between December between motor vehicle recreation (for example, and March) will minimize use and existing or near popular quiet areas Yes – 3 plowed trailheads (Sno-Parks) impact on quiet recreation. proposed recreational or high value areas for – Iron Mountain, Meiss, and Carson uses of NFS lands backcountry skiing?) Pass provide access to both non- Encourage public awareness motorized and motorized users. and education regarding locations of non-motorized areas where OSV use is prohibited; implement
Eldorado National Forest B-34
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment.
The groomed Silver Bear Trail is adequate to meet existing demand, as trailheads rarely have overflow capacity issues.
B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes – Two miles of the Silver Bear Encourage public awareness be within or adjacent to a groomed OSV trail is within ½ mile of and education regarding location valued for non- the Mokelumne Wilderness (near Bear locations of non-motorized motorized use, such as, River Reservoir); frequency of trespass areas where OSV use is wilderness, PCT, into Wilderness is low. prohibited; implement recommended additional signage to minimize wilderness, and ski areas. Yes - Two miles of the Silver Bear OSV encroachment. groomed OSV trail is within ½ mile of the Caples Creek Recommended Continue current enforcement Wilderness; frequency of trespass into efforts through law enforcement the recommended wilderness is low. funding (Federal, State)
Yes - Silver Bear groomed OSV trail is A minimum snow depth of 6 within the Tragedy-Elephants Back IRA inches for riding on groomed and near Caples Creek IRA where OSV trails and 12 inches for use is anticipated to be high to grooming, regardless of the moderate, supporting semi-primitive underlying surface, would motorized classes of dispersed protect the semi-primitive recreation. motorized classes of dispersed recreation and the recreational Yes – Middle Fork Cosumnes River character of eligible river (Recreation) and Cole Creek corridors. (Recreation) are eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers located near the groomed Silver
Eldorado National Forest B-35
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? Bear Trail where OSV use is anticipated to be high to moderate.
A) Would the trail or area No No N/A 2) Conflicts between abut a wilderness area or motor vehicle use and National Park managed existing or proposed by other agencies? recreational uses of B) Would the trail or area No No N/A neighboring Federal lands abut a developed recreation site? (b)(4) Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. 1) Minimize conflicts A) Would the trail or area Yes No - OSV groomed Silver Bear trail N/A among different classes of allow wheeled motor would be closed to wheeled vehicle use motor vehicle uses of NFS vehicle use over snow? If from December through March lands or neighboring so, does this affect safety federal lands. and winter management of this area?
Eldorado National Forest B-36
Appendices
Would OSV use of the trail or area If the trail or area is POTENTIAL EFFECT have the potential to cause effects? designated, what measures CRITERIA Yes / No INDICATORS will be taken to minimize potential effects? B) Would the trail or area Yes No - Grooming operations are allow tracked motor conducted by snow cat, wide enough to vehicle use over snow? If accommodate larger tracked OSVs in so, does this affect safety addition to snowmobiles. Use of larger and winter management tracked OSVs is very low. of the area? C) Would this trail or area No No N/A conflict with plowed roads allowing vehicle use? Are road crossings allowed by OSVs? (b)(5) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
A) Would the trail or area No No N/A be adjacent to year around neighborhoods and communities? 1) Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with B) Would the trail or area Yes Yes – Small private inholdings Encourage public awareness existing conditions in be located adjacent to and education regarding populated areas, taking private land? locations of non-motorized into account sound, areas where OSV use is emissions, and other prohibited; implement factors. additional signage to minimize OSV encroachment. Continue current enforcement efforts through law enforcement funding (Federal, State)
Eldorado National Forest B-37
Appendices
Appendix C – OSV Use Assumption Maps
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest C-1
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest C-2
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest C-3
Appendices
Eldorado National Forest C-4