Santa Rosa Ranger District United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011

Travel Analysis Report

For

Santa Rosa Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Humboldt County, NV

Santa Rosa Ranger District Travel Analysis 2007

Location: Humboldt County, Nevada

Lead agency: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4) Humboldt -Toiyabe National Forest

Responsible official: Jose Noriega, District Ranger Santa Rosa Ranger District 1200 Winnemucca Boulevard East Winnemucca, NV 89445 775-623-5025 ex 115

For further information: Kevin Wilmot, RELM Staff Officer, Forest Engineer Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor’s Office 1200 Franklin Way Sparks, NV 89431 775-352-1272

Notice:

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ...... 7 Background and Purpose ...... 7 Process ...... 8 Products ...... 8 This Report ...... …………………………………………………………7 Project Scope and Objective…………………………………………………………………………8 Management Area Direction ...... 9 Road Maintenance Level Descriptions ...... 9 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION ...... 10 Existing Road and Trail System and Historic Use ...... 10 CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES ...... 12 Key Issues ...... 12 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS ...... 13 Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF): ...... 13 Aquatic, Riparian Zone and Water Quality (AQ): ...... 18 Terrestrial Wildlife and Plants (TW): ...... 25 Economics (EC): ...... 28 Range Management (RM): ...... 28 Special-use Permits (SU): ...... 29 General Public Transportation (GT): ...... 29 Administrative Uses (AU): ...... 31 Protection (PT): ...... 31 Unroaded Recreation (UR) ...... 34 Road-related Recreation (RR): ...... 35 Passive-Use Value (PV): ...... 36 Social Issues (SI): ...... 38 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR): ...... 40 CHAPTER 5:AND CHAPTER 6 DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING………………. PRIORITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41 Ecosystem Functions and Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 47 Economics ...... 47 General Public Transportation ...... 48 Protection ...... 48 Road-related Recreation ...... 48 Unroaded Recreation ...... 49 Passive-Use Value ...... 49 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ...... 50 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES ...... 51

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 – National Forest System Authorized Santa Rosa District Roads ...... 11

Table 2 –National Forest System Authorized Santa Rosa District Trails ...... 10

Table 3 Unauthorized Non-system Routes within the Santa Rosa Analysis Area ...... 10

Table 4. Generic effects (modified from Spellerberg 1998)...... ……….…………………………..12

Table 5 Annual Rate of Spread for Selected Noxious Weeds…………………………………………………14

Table 6. Noxious and Invasive Weed Species on the Santa Rosa Ranger District…………………………14

Table 7 Proposed Routes and Water Crossings………………………………………………………………..19

Table 8 Route Information for Existing System and Undesignated Routes…………………………………21

Table 9. Wildlife habitats of the analysis area and proportion (%) within Effect Zones ……………………24

Table 10: Proposed Additions to the Forest Transportation System on the Santa Rosa Ranger………… 41

Table 11: Proposed Removals from the Forest Transportation System…………………………………….. 42

Table12: Proposed Restrictions on Motor Vehicle Use on NFS Routes…………………………………….. 43

CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS Background and Purpose

On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service published its final administrative transportation system policy in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No.9). Decisions to decommission, reconstruct, construct, and maintain roads are to be informed by a science-based roads analysis. On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service released their final travel management rule (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 262, and 295). This regulation governs the use of motor vehicles, including off-highway vehicles, on National Forest System lands. One of the purposes of these policies and rules is to ensure travel analysis is carried out for Forest roads and trails. Travel analysis provides the information needed to ensure the forest transportation system will:

 provide safe access and meets the needs of communities and forest users;  facilitate the implementation of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan);  allow for economical and efficient management within likely budget levels; meeting current and future resource management objectives;  begin to reverse adverse ecological impacts, to the extent practicable.

Travel management in the Forest Service was traditionally split between Engineering, for road management and Recreation for trails management. The recently revised regulation now combines the analysis of trails and roads under the travel analysis process (TAP). The new travel management rule requires each administrative unit (national forest, national grassland, etc.) or ranger district to designate those National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year (36 CFR 212.51). The key concept underlying the TAP approach is to focus on changes to:

 The forest transportation system; or  Restrictions and prohibitions on motor vehicle use.

The Travel Analysis requirements, will be, or are, described in FSM 7700 Travel Management; FSM 7710 (Travel Planning); FSM 7730 (Road Operations); FSM 2350 (Trails); FSH 7709.55 (Travel Analysis); FSH 7709.59 (Road Operations); FSH 2309.18 (Trail Operations).

Process Travel analysis is a six-step process. The steps are designed to be sequential, with understanding that the process may require feedback among steps over time as an analysis matures. The amount of time and effort spent on each step differs by project, based on specific situations and available information. The process provides a set of possible issues and analysis questions for which the answers can inform choices about road and trail system management. Decision makers and analysts determine the relevance of each question, incorporating public participation as deemed necessary. The steps in the process are:

 Step 1. Setting up the Analysis  Step 2. Describing the Situation  Step 3. Identifying Issues  Step 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks  Step 5. Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities  Step 6. Reporting

Products The product of this analysis is a report for decision makers and the public that documents the information and analyses to be used to identify opportunities and set priorities for future Forest system roads and trails. Included in the report is a map displaying the known road and trail systems for the analysis area, and the needs and opportunities for each road/trail, or segment of road/trail.

Travel Analysis Report This report was completed during the development of the Santa Rosa Ranger District Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA). It documents the travel analysis procedure used for the Santa Rosa District Travel Analysis and presents findings from the analysis. This report is a "living" document, however, reflecting the conditions of the analysis area at the time of writing. Thus, the document can be updated as the need arises and conditions warrant.

This report will:  Identify needed and unneeded roads and trails;  Identify road/trail associated environmental and public safety risks;  Identify site-specific priorities and opportunities for road and trail improvements and decommissioning; and  Identify areas of special sensitivity or any unique resource values.  Provide other specific information that may be needed to support project-level decisions.

Project Scope and Objectives The Santa Rosa Ranger District covers 300,000 acres of national forest system land in Humboldt County in Northern Nevada. The Santa Rosa District is one of five districts of the Humboldt National Forest, and has been as a designated a national forest since 1911.

All existing system roads and trails within the district boundaries were reviewed for this analysis. There are also many non-system trails and roads evident through out the Santa Rosa Ranger District, and as many of these trails and roads as possible were included in this analysis. Photo analysis using our 1999 aerial photography was used as the primary tool to locate all routes. Photo Science was contracted through GSTC to do this work for all of the districts on the Humboldt -Toiyabe National Forest in 2003. The contract was completed in 2004 and the final results were given to the forest. The analysis area also contains State and County roads, and road jurisdictions can be found in Table 1. Opportunities regarding the future use of analysis area roads and trails are stated in accordance with Forest objectives.

The analysis encompasses the entire Santa Rosa Ranger District; this analysis area was chosen for the following reasons:

 A forest scale roads analysis of the primary transportation routes has been completed for the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest; however, it did not include lower level Forest roads, unauthorized roads, or any trails as part of its analysis.  This travel analysis is driven by a need to analyze management alternatives at the project scale and make recommendations for the minimum transportation system needed for the Santa Rosa Ranger District Travel Analysis project The main objectives of this travel analysis are:

 Identify the need for changes by comparing the current road and trail system to the desired condition;  Balance the need for access with the need to minimize risks by examining important ecological, social, and economic issues related to roads and trails;  Furnish maps, tables, and narratives that display transportation management opportunities and strategies that address future access needs, and environmental concerns.  Make recommendations to inform travel management decisions in subsequent NEPA documents. Management Area Direction

 The Forest plan specifically states that we should:  Provide habitat for sensitive and Federally listed T & E Species.  Protect and improve key or important habitats.  Protect complexes comprised of moist habitats and adjacent security areas.  Protect key sage grouse breeding complexes; i.e. strutting grounds and associated nesting areas.  Improve or maintain the quantity and quality of terrestrial and riparian habitats.  Protect or improve riparian dependent resources.

Road Maintenance Level Descriptions

(FSH 7709.58). See Appendices for additional travel management definitions and trail construction / maintenance descriptions. Maintenance Level 1

Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are "prohibit" and "eliminate." Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized uses. Maintenance Level 2 Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. Maintenance Level 3 Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either "encourage" or "accept." "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. Maintenance Level 4 Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. Maintenance Level 5 Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage.

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION Existing Road and Trail System and Historic Use

Data for this travel analysis was collected from a variety of sources. Background documents used included:

 Humboldt-Toiyabe Roads Analysis Report  Humboldt Forest Plan  Toiyabe Forest Plan  Infra Database

 Photo Science contract 2003 information  District Personnel  Easement Records  Forest Transportation B Maps.  Electronic data sources used for the analysis included prior GPS road and trail mapping products as well as other existing electronic data.  Hard copy maps Quad maps  Forest Visitor Maps  Aerial photographs  Some random field verification of roads through other protocols on the forest such as real property and deferred maintenance.

Table 1 – National Forest System Authorized Santa Rosa District Roads All Attached

CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES Key Issues In this step, the objective of the analysis is to identify key questions and issues related to management of existing roads and trails in the analysis area. These issues are derived from known issues as well as concerns identified through public meetings related to proposed activities in the project area. The primary road and trail related issues/comments in the Santa Rosa District are:

Ecosystem Functions and Process

Aquatic, Riparian Zone and Water Quality

Terrestrial Wildlife and Plants

Administrative Uses

Protection

Recreation

Social and Environmental Issues

Discussion of these issues will follow in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS The issues described in Chapter 3 are addressed in the following assessment of benefits, problems, and risks, and will also be addressed in this Report’s Recommendations. Please also reference the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Scale Roads Analysis, Step 4.

Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF): What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by roading of currently unroaded areas? ( EF1)

There are no plans for new road construction or reconstruction on the Santa Rosa District being contemplated under this process.

Construction of new roads and trails in currently unaltered areas would affect Biodiversity Hotspots and habitats for endemic, sensitive, and native species (Table 4 for general descriptions of effects). Users created roads (unauthorized roads developed through use by visitors) have similar impacts. The effects detailed in Table 4 have already been exhibited in the study area.

Table 2. Generic effects (modified from Spellerberg 1998) Effects during construction

 Direct loss of habitat and biota

 Effects resulting from infrastructure and supporting activities for construction

 Impacts which may occur beyond the immediate vicinity of the road/trail (e.g., altered runoff patterns and hydrology)

Short term effects (of a new road)

 The new linear surface creates a new microclimate and a change in other physical conditions extending from the road edge at varying distances.

 The newly created edge creates habitat for edge species

 Plant mortality increases along the road edge

 Some fauna will move from the area of the road as a result of habitat loss and physical disturbance

Long term effects

 Animals killed by traffic

 Road kills have secondary effect as carrion

 The loss of habitat and change in habitat extends beyond the edge of the road

 Changes in the biological communities may extend for varying distances from the road edge

 There is fragmentation of habitat and this in turn has implications for habitat damage and loss, for dispersal and vagility of organisms, and for isolations of populations

To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads/trails increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area? (EF 2)

All movement of vehicles and some of the goods carried on those vehicles contribute to some measure to increase the introduction of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites. For example, automobiles and other vehicles can carry exotic plant seeds, depositing them along travel routes. In addition, some insects can be transported by carrying unprocessed wood or outdoors items, such as lawn chairs, that may have egg cases or other life forms attached. Some diseases can also be spread through transportation of contaminated soil, such as Phytopthora lateralis spread among Port-Orford cedar.

Similarly, the development, use, and maintenance of roads also increase the risk of the introduction and/or spread of non-native plants and noxious weeds. Weeds are commonly associated with the displacement of native species and an increase in fire risk, loss of habitat quality for wildlife, increases in erosion, and can negatively impact occurrences of rare or endemic plants by pushing them out of the ecosystem and potentially increase their rarity listing.

Roads that are used for recreation activities pose the highest risk of introduction of weeds. These roads include ones used for camping, equestrian activities, and off road vehicle use on designated and unauthorized roads. Recreational vehicles have often been used in other areas and operated off highway and thereby have a greater opportunity to encounter weeds or plants that are not native to this district. They can become unwitting carriers of weeds which are then introduced into the district.

Roads can also facilitate the introduction of exotic species through alteration of roadside habitat types. The composition of species in roadside areas is generally skewed towards a higher proportion of generalists and pioneers (e.g., cheatgrass) that can cope with the disturbances deriving from the road and its traffic (Forman et al. 1984, Mader 1984, Blair 1996, Forman et al. 2003).

Noxious weeds are highly invasive plants that generally possess poisonous, toxic, parasitic, invasive, and aggressive characteristics. The presence of noxious weeds signifies an area that is at risk in terms of health and sustainability, whether the landscape is disturbed or pristine (USFS 2003). The District has several known locations of noxious plant species on the Nevada State Noxious Weeds list and invasive species such as cheatgrass.

Noxious weed seed is easily transported and dispersed by wind, livestock, wildlife, recreation, and motor vehicles. Once established, the plants spread quickly after major disturbances, such as fire and overgrazing. Noxious weeds can produce seeds that can persist in the soil for several decades.

Duncan and Clark (2005) estimated the rate of spread for noxious weeds if they are left untreated. The rate of spread depends upon their reproduction mechanism or the amount of disturbance to a site. Table 5 How's the estimates of the potential rate of spread for each species.

Table 5 Annual Rate of Spread for Selected Noxious Weeds Common came Scientific name Max. annual rate of spread

Scotch thistle Onorpordum acanthium 12–20% Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 10–12% Hoary crest/Whitetop Cardaria draba Not known Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 12–16% Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae 12% Musk thistle Carduus nutans 12–22% Russian knapweed Acroptilon repen 8–14%

Table 6 Lists the eight different weed species that are known to occur on the District. The Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management program that includes inventory and mapping of weed locations. If weeds are found, treatment may include mechanical, biological, and or herbicide applications. The majority of weeds on the district have been treated with herbicides. Some experimental treatment using goats was tested in the Flat Creek area in 2003.

Areas which present a high risk for the spread of noxious and invasive weed species occur along the current NFS routes. Weeds occur along 6.7 miles of NFS routes. All of these occurrences are mapped and included in the Forest Integrated Weed Management Plan for treatment to reduce the spread of weeds. The weeds that occur on the forest, the extent of their occurrence, and their locations are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species on the Santa Rosa Ranger District

Species Location (nearest road)

Russian knapweed Buttermilk Meadow (50471), Granite Peak (50057) Also located on private (Acroptilon repen)

Canada thistle East Fork Quinn River (50083), South Fork Quinn River Road (50807), Eight Mile Canyon (50524, u50694), Hinkey Summit (Cirsium arvense) (50084) Provo Canyon Road (50106)

Scotch thistle Willow Creek, South Fork Willow Creek Road (50528). South and East Fork Quinn River (50807c), McConnel Peak (Onorpordum acanthium) (50695b), Indian Creek (50084), Dog Creek (50538), Flat Creek and South Fork Flat Creek (50086b), Three Mile Creek (50085), Falls Canyon (50539), Martin Creek Guard Station (50084), South Fork Indiaan Creek (50681), Abel Creek

Species Location (nearest road)

(50093a), (50802b), (50696a).

Musk thistle Abel Creek (50093a)

(Carduus nutans)

Hoary crest/Whitetop Hinkey Summit (50084, 50792)

(Cardaria draba)

Tall whitetop Three Mile Creek (50085)

(Lepidium latifolium)

Leafy spurge Dry Creek Road (50056), Hinkey Summit (50084, 50084c) Also located on BLM and private land west of Granite peak. (Euphorbia esula)

Medusahead Forest boundary west of Granite Peak (Taeniatherum caput- medusae)

The District also has extensive patches of cheatgrass in its lower elevation areas. Cheatgrass can be spread by animals and vehicles moving through the grass and picking up seeds. Roads entering the district from low elevation areas have risk of spreading cheatgrass seeds onto the district along these roads.

In the 2002, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Roads Analysis Report the Santa Rosa Ranger District confirmed that weed problems were associated with roads. Russian Knapweed was demonstrated to be following the Hinkey Summit Road.

In addition to disturbances created by roads, other occurrences also create opportunities for the spread of weeds. In 2001 the Willow Creek fire burned an area that had a Scotch thistle problem. The Scotch thistle had been confined to the area near the roadway, now the District is finding young Scotch thistle rosettes throughout the burn area. The fire created the opportunity for the Scotch thistle to spread beyond the roadway. How does the road/trail system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area? (EF 4)

The major natural ecological disturbance regime in the area is wildfire. The road system provides fuel breaks that limit or inhibit fire spread, provides access and locations for wildfire control activities, and provides access and control locations for the introduction of prescribed natural fire.

A strong correlation exists between roads and fires both nationally (Johnson 1963 Morrisson, et al. 2000. Wilson 1979, Yang et al., 2007) and in the analysis area (figure 1). This correlation is demonstrated by the relatively high frequency of anthropogenic fire relative to fire caused by lightning, the difficulty in controlling risk factors in roaded areas, and the tendency for fires to start near roads

(Johnson 1963, McKelvey 1996). Statistics show that the occurrence of wildfires greater than 100 acres has doubled since the 1960's (Dahms and Geils 1997).

An indirect cause of increased fire risk that is associated with roads is the spread of weeds. It is well documented that weedy species are abundant in disturbed areas such as roadsides (Milburg ad Lamont, 1994; Kopecky, 1988). Increased runoff, frequent soil disturbance on and around roads, seed dispersal by cars and animals using roads as corridors, and open conditions in the cleared areas around roads account for the preponderance of weeds along roadsides. This increased richness in weedy species, combined with disrupted drainage patterns and altered microclimates in the immediate vicinity of most roads, creates a corridor of fire-susceptible vegetation along roads. According to DøAntonio & Vitousek (1992), the presence of grass weeds tends to increase the frequency and intensity of fire. This implies an increased susceptibility of vegetation to both anthropogenic and lightning-caused fires along roadsides. For instance, it is well documented that cheatgrass will increase fire frequency, out-compete native plants, and change the entire biological plant and animal community. The presence of a fine fuel type, such as cheatgrass, increases the opportunities for ignition from human-caused sources. In addition, road maintenance and construction are also associated with disruption and damage to soils and organic matter, which can reduce soil moisture retention, thereby creating more arid conditions in these areas during fire seasons (Everett et al 1994).

Because human-caused fires occur at any time of year, including dry seasons, they are often larger and more intense than naturally-ignited fires such as lightning-caused. Human-caused fires tend to occur during periods of the year when natural ignitions do not occur. Naturally-occurring fires are frequently associated with increased humidity and/or precipitation, which reduces fire's rate of spread and intensity. Many plant and wildlife species have evolved over time in the presence of fire.

Existing roads may also influence surface runoff, which can cause erosion and alter the banks (e.g., gullying) of perennial and ephemeral streams/washes in the analysis area. Seasonal rains and spring runoff, which result in high water events, are necessary for the establishment of some riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods and willows). Altered banks and increased sedimentation from roads and trails may interfere with the establishment and maintenance of riparian vegetation (Webb 1983). What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads/trails? (EF 5) Road noise can have a profound effect on the recreation user’s experience. If one is looking for solitude or tranquility, they will be displeased. The recreation Opportunities Spectrum “is defined by the absence or presence of human sights and sounds. (ROS Users Guide, US Forest Service). Most of the Forest is identified in the Recreation Opportunities Spectrum as Roaded, Natural, Semi- Primitive Motorized, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized or Primitive.

Noise caused by roads can have several adverse effects on wildlife. It can deter wildlife from approaching roads and this may shrink and /or fragment wildlife habit. Noise may also reduce the ability for species to communicate using sound in areas where noise from roads is excessive which may cause avoidance of otherwise suitable habit.

Most kinds of traffic using roads, including vehicular traffic, heavy equipment, small machinery, bicycles, and hikers, can result in higher than usual noise levels. Higher noise levels may locally displace animals that regularly forage, den, or nest in the area. Wildlife, including birds, reptiles, and large ungulates, respond to this disturbance with accelerated heart rate and metabolic function, and increased levels of stress (Havlick 2002). These factors can lead to displacement, mortality, and reproductive failure. As a result wildlife will tend to avoid areas with high disturbance levels. The

magnitudes and frequencies of sounds generated by highway and OHV traffic can have direct impacts on wildlife populations of arid regions (Brattstrom and Bondello 1983).

Noise effects of roads and trails can extend outward greater than 100 meters depending on the traffic type (e.g., ATV, highway vehicle, bicycle, hiker), speed, and traffic volume (i.e., frequency of traffic); the topography (e.g., hills or berms can act as a barrier to sound waves); and the sensitivity of the species occupying the area (Forman and Deblinger 1998, Forman 2000, Miller, et al., 2001, Taylor and Knight 2003, Bautista, et al., 2004).

Behavioral disturbance impacts on wildlife species have been fairly well-documented for a number of species including deer, small mammals, reptiles, and nesting and perching birds (Miller et. al., 2001; Taylor and Knight 2003). Most species exhibit a "flight" response to disturbance resulting in temporary, or if disturbance is constant, permanent displacement. Flight responses from disturbances can negatively affect animal health by requiring increased energy expenditures (Miller et al. 2001; Taylor and Knight 2003). These effects include: alteration of habitat use (avoidance or abandonment of an area – either temporarily or permanently), interruption of reproductive activities (courtship, mating, prenatal care, nesting, etc.); and increased predation (especially of abandoned nests) (Forman and Deblinger 1998, Forman 2000, Miller, et al., 2001, Taylor and Knight 2003, Bautista, et al., 2004).

The Santa Rosa Ranger District has minimal concern in this area as the roads have established traffic patterns to which local species have become adapted to. Aquatic, Riparian Zone and Water Quality (AQ):

How and where does the road/trail system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? (AQ 1)

Proposed travel routes. These nineteen are part of either the Quinn River or Little Humboldt River watersheds.

In a synthesis of published literature, Elliot (2000) noted that, “on most forested watersheds, sediment is the most troublesome pollutant and roads are a major source of that sediment.” Sediment runoff rates from watersheds with roads and other soil disturbances tend to be significantly higher than those from watersheds with intact natural cover of vegetation (Elliot and Hall 1997).

The effect on water quality depends greatly on the location of roads within a watershed. Most sediment from roads enters streams where roads cross streams, or where roads are close to streams (Elliot 2000). Within the project area system and user-created routes together currently have 251 crossings on intermittent drainages and 107 crossings on perennial drainages. Currently, 44.6 miles of system and user-created routes are near intermittent drainages and 82.5 miles near perennial drainages as designated by buffers of riparian habitat bordering drainages (150-foot buffers for intermittent drainages and 300-foot buffers for perennial drainages). There are 58.4 miles of routes located on steep (>30%) Drainage on the Santa Rosa Ranger District is controlled by the north-south trending Santa Rosa Mountain Range, which rises from 5,000 to 9,700 feet in elevation. The west side of the district flows into the Quinn River watershed. The Quinn River flows southwest from the Forest and terminates in the Black Rock Desert. Most of the District’s east side flows east into the Little Humboldt River watershed. The Little Humboldt River then redirects the flow to the southwest, and joins into the Humboldt River, which then terminates at the Humboldt Sink in the Humboldt

Wildlife Management Area. A small portion of three sub-watersheds on the northeast corner of the District flow north into the Snake River Basin.

Because travel management affects the entire District, the analysis area includes all 37 sub- watersheds (6th order hydrologic unit codes [HUCs]) originating on the District. Nineteen of these 37 sub-watersheds contain slopes.

The rate of surface erosion is not constant throughout the life of a travel route. As vegetation regrows, disturbed soils stabilize and surface erosion decreases. Most surface erosion occurs within the first two years of construction, and tends to drop off significantly when a route is closed (Elliot 2000). However, routes with high traffic and maintenance that prevent re-vegetation will continue to be a source of sediment (Elliot and others 1996; Swift 1984). All of the system routes and most of the 71 miles of current user-created routes have been in place for much longer than two years. The proposed user-created travel routes have likely been in existence for more than 10 years. None of the user-created routes are currently maintained. The maintenance frequency of system routes varies, depending on their maintenance level designation. The primary travel corridors, the Hinkey Summit road, the North Fork of the Humboldt River road, and the Quinn Canyon road tend to get the most use and maintenance. The more rugged routes into the remote areas of the District tend to have much lower use, and consequently much less maintenance. Given their age, low use, and lack of maintenance, soils underlying most routes and all the user-created routes proposed for designation have likely achieved an adequate level of stability. However, there are likely exceptions. New routes created by users in recent years may not have had enough time to achieve stabilization. How and where does the road/trail system generate surface erosion? (AQ 2) The amount of sediment runoff from a road depends greatly on the erodibility of the soils that make up the road surface. In general, silty soils on steep slopes tend to be more erodible than the gravely and cobbly soils. Most of the routes proposed under the Proposed Action Alternative are on loams with significant amounts of gravel and cobbles. Even though some sections of the proposed routes either have or cross steep grades (>30% slope), the underlying soils tend to be erosion resistant. Four of the 28 analysis routes (U50535A, U50654, S012, and S013) are located partly or entirely on loams with a high silt component. Because these soils are not located on steep sections of the analysis routes they are not likely to be an erosion concern.

Table 7 lists the number of channel crossings by drainage type for each user-created route to be added to the system as well as the number of miles within a designated buffer of riparian vegetation bordering the drainage.

Only six of the 28 proposed routes cross drainages, and most of those have only one or two crossings. The exception is U50694, which has seven crossings. However, the crossings on U50694 are high in the watershed on intermittent streams. Site conditions (see Table 7) for the six routes with crossings suggest that none of the crossings are susceptible to significant sediment runoff. Most proposed routes have little (less than 0.5 miles), if any, of their length within the riparian buffers, which reduces the risk of sediment runoff into surface waters. Only two proposed action routes (U50677A, and U50694) contain more than one half mile in a riparian buffer, but in these areas they overlie rocky soils that are resistant to surface erosion.

The addition of the proposed routes to the current system is not likely to present a high risk of sediment runoff. The analysis (described above) of soil type and road gradient has determined that none of the proposed routes are likely to be highly erodible. Most soil surfaces on the proposed routes have achieved an adequate level of stabilization, and are likely to generate much less

sediment runoff than a newly-constructed engineered road or a new user-created route. Also, the few drainage crossings on the analysis routes occur under conditions that are not likely to generate much sediment runoff, and only short segments of most analysis routes are located within riparian buffers. Furthermore, because the Proposed Action Alternative would limit motorized travel off designated routes, the risk would be reduced for new route related erosion-causing disturbance in these areas.

Table 7 Proposed Routes and Water Crossings

Total No. of No. of Route Miles in Miles in Crossing length perennial intermittent number perennial intermittent conditions (miles) crossings crossings

s018 0.48 0.00 0.00 soil erodibility low, s019 0.52 0.23 0.00 1 limited use s034 0.39 0.08 0.00 soil erodibility low, s036 0.38 0.17 0.00 1 limited use s041 0.10 0.10 0.00 s043 0.18 0.18 0.00 s045 0.66 0.05 0.00 s057 0.40 0.00 0.00 s059 0.79 0.00 0.00 s060 0.18 0.00 0.00 s085 0.21 0.11 0.00 U50043B 0.83 0.08 0.00 soil erodibility low, U50090 1.45 0.08 0.15 2 limited use U50106A 0.18 0.18 0.00 U50535B 0.09 0.05 0.00 U50654 2.18 0.27 0.13 very short route with gentle slope (not s012 0.20 0.04 0.00 much surface runoff), limited use very short route with gentle slope (not s013 0.15 0.10 0.00 2 much surface runoff), limited use very short route with gentle slope (not s028 0.23 0.18 0.00 2 much surface runoff), limited use U50095C 1.07 0.07 0.09 U50095E 0.67 0.26 0.00

Total No. of No. of Route Miles in Miles in Crossing length perennial intermittent number perennial intermittent conditions (miles) crossings crossings

soil erodibility low, limited use, not much U50694 3.51 0.80 0.99 7 surface runoff (intermittent channel high in drainage)

How and where does the road/trail system affect mass wasting? (AQ 3) Based on the ERA model, combined levels of soil disturbance for both authorized and user-created routes do not exceed 0.3% of the total area or 1% of the riparian areas in each sub-watershed. The soil disturbance from the proposed travel routes amounts to no more than 0.03% in each sub- watershed of the entire area. For areas identified as riparian with each watershed, soil disturbance from the proposed travel routes amounts to less than 0.1%.

Cumulatively, the total for all types of disturbance is less than 2% for either riparian areas or entire sub-watersheds. In general, the cumulative soil disturbance is not likely to be a concern on the district until it is much higher—about 5% for riparian areas (McGurk and Fong 1995) and 10–12% for the entire watershed (Menning and others 1996). How and where do road/trail-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? (AQ 4) Within the District, watershed integrity can be jeopardized by disturbances, such as roads, off-road travel, fire, livestock grazing, and mineral exploration. Watershed disturbances that create large areas of bare ground intercept and concentrate precipitation runoff that would otherwise pass at a slower rate through vegetated surfaces. When these disturbances occur together in a watershed, they can have the cumulative effect of increasing sedimentation in surface waters (Menning and others 1996; McGurk and Fong 1995).

To analyze the cumulative watershed effects for this project, a model called Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) was used to quantify watershed disturbance in each sub-watershed (6th order HUC). Because all disturbances in a sub-watershed can potentially act cumulatively, the cumulative effects area included all land within the sub-watershed regardless of ownership. The methodology for calculating ERA has been described in detail by Berg and others (1996), McGurk and Fong (1995), Menning and others (1996), and the U.S. Forest Service (1988). The ERA model is typically used by the U.S. Forest Service in Region 5; the State of California has established it as a valid method for analyzing the cumulative effects of watershed disturbances. Although the ERA model was developed in California, the method can be modified for use in other regions (McGurk and Fong 1995). A watershed specialist's report in the project record contains a complete description of the modified version of the ERA model used in this analysis as well as generated data. How and where does the road/trail system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides to enter surface waters? (AQ 5) Any point on the road system where flow concentrated on the running surface and discharged directly into the channel or where rilling and gullys obviously mark a flow path to a channel has potential to

carry pollutants and mix with natural surface flow. These criteria would be satisfied by virtually any of the system and non-system roads and trails How and where is the road/trail system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as delivery of sediments, thermal increases, elevated peak flows)? (AQ 6) Hydrologic connection of the running surfaces is described in AQ5 above. Water quantity is not significantly affected (see discussion in AQ 1). Potential for water quality effects, of pollutants other than sediment, is described in AQ5. Possible road surfaces include the entire system and non system roads and trails network. What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road/trail-derived pollutants? (AQ 7) There are also no jurisdictional wetlands within the analysis area.

None of the analysis area streams or greater watersheds of which they are tributary is listed as impaired, or as needing further study for possible listing by the State of Nevada (2005), as required by the Clean Water Act section 303(d) (1972). No beneficial uses of any surface waters are listed, probably due to the ephemeral nature of flow in the channels. How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what extent? (AQ10) There are 335.9 total miles of routes within the boundaries of the District. Approximately 49.5 miles of these routes are within riparian habitat types, 116.2 miles are within 300 feet of perennial streams and another 52.1 miles are within 150 feet of intermittent channels. In all there are 118 perennial stream crossings and 254 intermittent stream crossings on the District. Included in the above totals, are 6.8 miles of user-created routes within the riparian habitats, 5.8 miles user-created routes within 300 feet of perennial streams, 8.1 miles of user-created routes within 150 feet of intermittent channels, and 11 perennial crossings and 44 intermittent crossings made by user-created routes (see Table 8).

Table 8: Route Information for Existing System and Undesignated Routes

Route No. Total Miles in Miles within Miles within No. of No. of route riparian 300 feet of 150 feet of perennial intermittent miles habitat type perennial intermittent stream drainage on District stream drainage crossing crossings s System 335.9 40.9 74.9 36.4 96 207 routes Unauthorized 70.4 6.8 5.8 7.3 11 44 Total 406.2 49.5 116.2 52.1 118 254

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Geographically, drainages that provide the most connectivity within the project area are: the upper East Fork Quinn River and tributaries within the Northwestern Lahontan Basin DPS, and the North Fork Little Humboldt River and tributaries and Martin Creek and tributaries within the Humboldt River Basin DPS. Most are occupied by non-native or hybridized cutthroat trout. Three Mile Creek was not

included in the 1995 LCT Recovery Plan. The project area supports the federally-listed Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi), an inland subspecies of cutthroat trout endemic to the Lahontan basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon. Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) were listed by the USFWS as endangered in 1970 (Federal Register, Vol. 35, p. 13520) and then reclassified as threatened in 1975 to facilitate management and allow angling (Federal Register, Vol. 40, p. 29864).

Principal threats to LCT include: habitat loss associated with land management practices; reduction and alteration of stream discharge; alteration of stream channels and morphology; degradation of water quality; and hybridization or competition with non-native fish species (USFWS1995).

The project area falls within the range of the LCT Northwestern Lahontan Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and the Humboldt River Basin DPS as defined by the USFWS. Most perennial waters within the project area were likely historically occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout. Interagency teams have been developed for both DPSs to implement actions and conduct research necessary for LCT recovery. Since the release of the 1995 LCT recovery plan, emphasis has shifted from recovering LCT in small isolated streams to recovery efforts aimed at establishing interconnected stream systems or areas for metapopulations. The Northwestern DPS Team has not defined specific metapopulation areas for the purposes of LCT recovery at this time within the two DPSs on the District.

The creek is now considered occupied by a pure population of LCT. How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species? (AQ12) 17.0 miles of user-created roads would remain open to motorized use. Cross-country travel off of those roads and off system roads would be prohibited.

Lahontan cutthroat trout There are two open routes associated with LCT streams. Routes S028 and U50694 There are seven routes (0.78 miles) in areas associated with streams that are identified in the 1995 LCT Recovery Plan to be added to the system under the proposed action. The addition of these routes to the system would not preclude any future recovery efforts because they are currently maintaining suitable habitat for LCT. They are all currently occupied by non-native trout species.

Non-Native Salmonids Use will be allowed on 76.7 miles of route within 300 feet of perennial streams and have 101 perennial stream crossings. Most perennial streams are occupied by non-native trout. Some bank instability would continue at stream crossings and would contribute to some sediment into the stream. Roads adjacent to the streams will continue to result in less riparian vegetation and cover than if no road were present. The ongoing impacts are not expected to have a significant effect on non-native trout populations in the project area because these populations are currently self-reproducing and maintaining healthy populations with current route use.

How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non- native aquatic species? (AQ13)

Non-Native Salmonids Non-native trout, introduced for recreational fishing include: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). As a result of the introduction of rainbow trout, hybrid trout (rainbow/LCT cross) are present in areas historically occupied by LCT.

In the Martin Creek drainage, trout have been stocked since 1911 including brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout (NDOW 2007). Annual spring plantings are usually 1,500 rainbow trout, although up to 1,000 brown trout and 1,200 brook trout are stocked at times. For the North Fork Little Humboldt River, average annual stocking consists of rainbow trout and brown trout plants of 2,500 to 5,000 fish. Terrestrial Wildlife and Plants (TW): The District has a diversity of upland mountain brush species, expansive stands of aspen, and perennial and intermittent streams that are lined with willows and other riparian species. Wet and dry meadows occur in most of the valley bottoms and although they are limited in size they are very important for wildlife and livestock forage. Elevations on the district range from 5,200 feet at the forest boundary to 9,701 feet at the mountain tops. Vegetation varies across the District by elevation.

In 2003, vegetation types were mapped from satellite imagery and ground verified through a series of plots to assess the accuracy of the map. This information has been used to define the vegetation and wildlife habitat in this analysis. The vegetation data is about 80% accurate.

Dominant vegetative types include aspen, (Populous tremuloides), mountain sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata spp vaseyana), Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis), low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), mountain brush community (species include antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), wax currant (Ribes cereum), gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum), snowbrush, chokecherry, wild rose), cottonwood (Populus spp.), and wet and dry meadows.

Specific elements of Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive (TES) species were addressed in a separate Biological Assessment/Evaluation and are on file in the project record. The Biological Assessment/Evaluation did not identify any significant effects to TES species. The species addressed included: flammulated owl, mountain quail, great gray owl, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, sage grouse, Townsend’s big-eared and spotted bats, and pygmy rabbit. . What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road/trail-derived pollutants? (AQ 7) Presently, there are no domestic or municipal uses of surface water within the analysis area. There are also no jurisdictional wetlands within the analysis area.

Terrestrial Wildlife and Plants (TW): What are the direct effects of the road/trail system on terrestrial species habitat? (TW1) For species such as Cryptantha sp. and annual plant species which are disturbance tolerant, soil movement might increase available habitat in the washes. In general, however, disturbance for many of the endemic species would not be beneficial in improving habitat and could eliminate (permanently in some cases) available habitat.

Roads and trails also result in habitat loss and altered habitat quality for wildlife species (Forman, et al., 2003, Marshal et al., 2006). Not only is wildlife habitat directly replaced within the road/trail-bed (Forman 2000, Forman, et al., 2003), but as described above (see EF 5 and Figure 2), the road system can also have effects beyond the actual road bed (i.e., the road-effect zone). The area of wildlife habitats affected by the road system within the analysis area is substantial (Table 9)

Table 9 Wildlife habitats of the analysis area and proportion (%) within Effect Zones.

Effect Zone Project Road/Trail- Area bed 100m 100-200m Total Vegetation Series acres acres % acres % acres % acres % Big Sagebrush 71 7 10 59 83 5 7 71 100 Blackbrush - Utah juniper 1,183 65 5 889 75 167 14 1121 95 Creosote bush 4 0 0 3 75 1 25 4 100 Desert or Montana mass wasted slope habitat, Dwarf mountain mahogany 27 3 11 24 89 0 0 27 100 Limber Pine - White Fir 116 1 1 54 47 41 35 96 83 Pinyon Pine - Big Sagebrush 2,443 94 4 1,189 49 474 19 1757 72 Point Leaf Manzanita 414 17 4 205 50 98 24 320 77 White Fir - Ponderosa Pine - Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 8 0 0 8 100 8 100 16 200 Wood Wild Rose Habitat 4 0 0 0 1 25 1 25 Total 4,270 187 4 2431 57 795 19 3413 80

Roads and trails result in disjunctive habitat patches (i.e., fragmentation: the breaking up of large habitat or land areas into smaller parcels). Many species of wildlife cannot maintain viable populations in small habitat patches, which lead to extinction and loss of biodiversity (Forman 1998). The analysis area is highly fragmented as a result of the roads and trails which are present (Figure 3).

Roads and trails can function as barriers to movement by wildlife within the analysis area (e.g., reptiles and small mammals). For most non-flying terrestrial animals, infrastructure implies movement barriers that restrict the animals’ range, make habitats inaccessible and can finally lead to an isolation of populations. The barrier effect is the most prominent factor in the overall fragmentation caused by roads and trails (Forman 1998).

Patch Size Distribution

1,000

900

800

700

600

500 ACRES Acres

400

300

200

100

Figure 1. Patch size distribution and fragmentation metrics.

Analysis Average Minimum Maximum Standard Numbers of Area patch size patch size patch size deviation patches (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 4,262 106.0 35.0 0.1 883.7 116.0

How does the road/trail system facilitate human activities that affect habitat? (TW 2) There are 5 prominent Forest roads that are well –established fixtures and the main arties across the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Other disturbance features include one developed campsite, two trailheads and two wildlife –viewing areas. Arid regions can be severely affected and damaged by OHV and heavy foot traffic through disruption and compaction. Soil stabilizers include macrofloral elements (plants), microfloral elements (lichen, fungal, and algal crusts) and inorganic elements (soil crusts) (Wilshire, 1983). These natural soil protective elements in the desert are highly vulnerable to vehicle use. The force of rolling wheels on soil can cause compaction and have a serious long lasting negative effect (Webb, 1983). Soil compaction can decrease water infiltration, increase runoff, and cause severe erosion problems. Webb (1983) reported that soils most susceptible to compaction are loamy sands and gravelly soils with a wide range of particle sizes. These soil types are very similar to many areas in the analysis area.

Wildlife depends upon soils, plants, air, and water to survive for their sustenance and shelter. When any of these natural requirements are altered, dependent wildlife will be affected (Havlick, 2002) as is likely the case within the analysis area. How does the road/trail system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the effects on wildlife species? (TW 3) Direct effects of roads and trails include increased mortality by accidental collisions with wildlife species while crossing roads and trails. Roads and trails facilitate illegal off-road vehicle use (Matchett et al., 2004). Off-road/trail travel can cause direct mortality of wildlife by crushing individuals which may be resting or loafing under rocks or brush in the heat of the day (Havlick, 2002).

Although data is lacking for the analysis area, roads and highways increase human access for hunting and poaching. The detection of wildlife crimes appears to represent only a fraction of real impacts. In some, and perhaps many cases it has not been possible to draw statistically meaningful confidence intervals to approximate impacts on large mammal (e.g., big game) populations because so few violators are apprehended when poaching (Berger and Daneke 1988).

The existing road and trail system facilitates illegal off-road/trail vehicle travel in relatively open habitats and dry washes/streambeds of the analysis area. In a California desert area Sheridan (1978) documented a 50-90% decreases in plant life and a 60 -75% decrease in animal life in areas that were heavily used by OHVs. As discussed above, wildlife is negatively impacted by the presence and noise of OHVs, although some mammals may become, over time, habituated to these vehicles. How does the road/trail system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area? (TW 4) Within the District, there are three distinct groups of bighorn sheep. NDOW is trying to establish a fourth herd through recent translocation of bighorn. These herds are located on Santa Rosas Peak; Buckskin Mountain/Eight Mile Creek; Hinkey Summit; and recent introductions at the Martin Creek gorge. NDOW completes annual bighorn census on the District; this information shows that the herd at Buckskin Mountain may have decreased or they have changed their movement patterns, which could be a result of human activity in the Buckskin Mountain Area.

The populations of bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosas Peak and adjacent Sawtooth Mountain showed a significant decline in 2005 (NDOW 2005). This decrease in population may have been caused by contact with unauthorized domestic sheep. These domestic sheep were removed. Nevada Department of Agriculture collected tissue samples from the bighorn sheep to try and isolate the cause of death.

Existing routes that traverse through bighorn habitat are in the Buckskin/Eight Mile area, Hinkey Summit Road 50084 and Sawtooth Mountain. Proposed routes that access bighorn sheep habitat are U50694 ,, S057; Sawtooth Mountain, routes U50095C and D , U50535A, S019.

Economics (EC):

How does the road/trail system affect priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis used to assess net benefits to society? (EC 2) Economic efficiency measures aggregate net benefits to society and can include non-market and external costs and benefits. Examples of benefits include the value of recreational experience and passive use values, while examples of costs include decreased water quality and fragmentation of habitat. The scale is dictated by measurable consequences identified by the issues.

The objectives of this travel analysis include the desire to meet the need for access while minimizing the risk of adverse effects. Details about the project that are relevant to economic and social issues include:

Factors and activities that could contribute to net social benefits from improved road and trail systems, but may be difficult to quantify or monetize include:

 Increased visitor use days and quality of visitor use days as determined by scenic quality and other attributes,  Mitigation of adverse environmental effects to water quality, riparian habitat, and other natural resource attributes,  Mitigation of impacts to cultural sites and resources,  Increased capacity to prevent and suppress wildfire (in the wildland urban interface),  Increased capacity for emergency and medical response, and  Mitigation of noise, dust, and other short-term impacts to visitors and local communities during construction and maintenance.

Range Management (RM): How does the road system affect access to range allotments? (RM 1)

Reconstruction of water developments and fences occurs over time. Some of these developments are occasionally relocated to improve or protect resources. Currently the following projects are in the planning phases or being developed and would involve the construction of new fences or water developments. The Cabin Creek Watershed Project on the Martin Basin and Bradshaw Allotments will involve the reconstruction of approximately 3 miles of fence, the construction and/or relocation of approximately 8 miles of fence and the ultimate removal of approximately 9.5 miles of fence. At the completion of the project there will be a reduction of approximately 1.5 miles of fence.

The Quinn River Riparian Pasture on the Quinn River Allotment involves the construction of an additional 1.5 miles of fence to improve riparian conditions.

Additional water developments and fences may be required on Allotments within the Cumulative Effects Area to ensure appropriate management of livestock. The current needs or locations of additional developments are not known at this time.

How does the road/trail system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals? (MM 1) This issue is not of concern, as there are no known mineral resources in the analysis area.

There are currently no active mines on the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Active exploration is either planned or ongoing near Buckskin Mountain on the Martin Basin Allotment and on public and private lands near the National Mining District on the West-Side Flat Creek Allotment. During 2006, exploration activities on Buckskin Mountain resulted in an unauthorized release of drilling fluids into the North Fork of the Little Humboldt River. Cleanup activities were initiated by the responsible parties almost immediately and have been ongoing. Cleanup activities are proceeding under the direction of the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection in cooperation with the Forest Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and others. There have been no other exploration proposals submitted to date.

Special-use Permits (SU): How does the road/trail system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communications sites, utility corridors, and so on)? (SU 1)

Historically the Santa Rosa Ranger District has had minimal Special Uses activities. Currently special uses include:  Outfitting and Guiding permits.  Three recreational residences along Road Canyon Creek.  Three isolated cabins  Communications site permits on Hinkey Summit and Buckskin Mountain.  An organizational 4-H Camp on Hinkey Summit.

No additional special use activities beyond those identified above are expected to be permitted in the foreseeable future on the Santa Rosa Ranger District.

General Public Transportation (GT): How does the road/trail system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities? (GT 1) Forest roads connect with numerous public roads that are under the jurisdiction of other federal, state, county or local governments. Many small rural communities across Nevada and California depend upon Forest roads for primary access to communities.

County roads located adjacent to Forest lands that traverse into or across the Forest, or connect with Forest system roads, are also important to neighboring communities. Ranching, mining and tourism are important economic activities for people in small communities and ranches; these people depend upon access into or across Forest lands for their livelihood and for recreation. How does the road/trail system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)? (GT 2)

Private land parcels are located throughout the cumulative effects area for this project. Very little development and management has occurred on most of these lands. The following is a summary of past and present management and development on private lands within the area:

 Historical mining activity and associated development has occurred on private lands near Spring City, National Mining District and near Rebel Creek. There are no active mines at any of these sites.  There is a total of one home and five cabins located on private lands within the cumulative effects area.

There are no additional private land developments within the cumulative effects area.

There are currently two proposals that have been approved for funding under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act within the cumulative effects area. Under these proposals up to 14,500 acres of private land may be purchased by the Forest Service. The future of these proposals is currently unknown at this time.

The risk of development on private lands within the cumulative effects area is currently low. There are no known plans to develop or change management on any of these lands, however, future development of some of these private parcels for recreational home sites is of concern and could occur in the future. How does the road/trail system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (GT 3) In 1975, the Forest Service developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Highway Administration that required the Forest Service to apply the requirements of the National Highway Safety Program, established by the Highway Safety Act, to all roads that are open to public travel. In 1982, this agreement was modified to define “open to public travel” as “those roads passable by four-wheeled standard passenger cars and open to general public use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs…” All roads maintained at level 3, 4 and 5 meet this definition.

Design, maintenance and traffic control on these roads emphasizes user safety, comfort and economic efficiency. How does the road/trail system address the safety of road users? (GT 4) Safe travel for all users on routes that cross the District is a concern that the District addressed when developing the proposed action. Consideration was given to the types of routes being proposed, the types of vehicles traveling on the routes, the speeds at which vehicles can safely travel and the times of year the routes would be open. At present all routes on the Santa Rosa Ranger District are open to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. Route conditions off the main routes is generally rough and require slow speeds <10 MPH) in high- clearance vehicles. Posted speeds on the main routes across the district are 25 MPH. To date there have been no reported accidents on these routes. Because of the amount of use and travel speeds on most of the roads and trails and with the addition of signing to warn users of the potential for meeting vehicles of different types on the roads there will be no increased risk of accident under any of the alternatives. The inherent risk of traveling on Forest system routes would not increase. Prohibiting cross-country travel will reduce the risk of accidents associated with traveling across steep terrain and uneven ground.

Administrative Uses (AU): How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring? (AU 1) The ease and accessibility of road travel in the analysis area would impact the Forest Service’s ability to perform research, inventorying, and field monitoring activities in the analysis area. Research in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, however, takes place primarily in Research Natural Areas (RNAs). As there are no RNAs in the analysis area, there are thus no significant impacts of the existing transportation system on research needs. The existing inventorying and monitoring activities in the analysis area, such as air quality monitoring activities, are currently well-served by the existing network of improved roads in the analysis area. How does the road/trail system affect investigative or enforcement activities? (AU 2) The Santa Rosa Ranger District fasces a growing recreation user base, due in part to population growth in the Winnemucca area. This increase in recreation pressure can translate into an increased investigative and enforcement burden for the Forest Service. More people in the area can lead to an increase in such enforcement issues as garbage dumping, or it may involve unauthorized use of roads and trails in the area.

In the Santa Rosa District analysis area the best estimate of unauthorized miles of routes is 75.9462 miles See Table 2. The uses associated with these routes are typically off-road vehicles, dispersed camping, and seasonal hunting. Data regarding the extent of this use and the exact amount of unauthorized motorized use is currently not available. Protection (PT):

Historically, very few wildfires start within the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Ranger District. In general between 1 and 4 new fires start within the District boundaries each year. The District has been historically affected by large, fast moving wildfires that start on lower elevation BLM and private lands. Lower elevation lands below 6,000 feet on the northern, western, and southern district boundaries are infested with cheatgrass. Wildfires start in these lower elevations and move upslope, driven by winds onto the Santa Rosa Ranger District. These wildfires are often very large and generally have little to no mosaic pattern to the burn. The higher elevations above 6,000 feet typically recover to native grasslands and eventually sagebrush and other browse species return to the site. Lower elevations below 6,000 feet are often dominated by cheatgrass and are at risk for a short fire return interval. The enclosed map and excel document shows the location and size of historical fires within and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Within the excel document the fires in bold are on the District while the others are located immediately adjacent to the District Boundary.

Rehabilitation actions have generally been limited following wildfires on the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Following the 2001 Upper Willow Fire a number of roads were rehabilitated to prevent erosion. Fences were repaired, noxious weeds were treated, and approximately 7,000 acres of low elevation lands were aerial seeded. The Seed mix included a variety of native grass, forb and shrub species to stabilize slopes and give native species a jumpstart to compete with cheatgrass. The Nevada Department of Wildlife also provided Forage Kochia seed for the mix to compete with the cheatgrass and to provide forage for wildlife species in the area.

Following the 2005 North Road Fire rehabilitation activities included seeding native species along the lower elevation Forest Boundary and along riparian areas which burned at higher intensities. A number of fences were repaired and noxious weeds were aggressively treated to minimize infestations. Burn areas have been rested for a minimum of 2 years after the wildfire. 31

Some areas within the Upper Willow Burn area were rested for 3 years to provide additional recovery time.

Currently the western and northern portions of the Santa Rosa Ranger District are generally at greatest risk from wildfires based on historical patterns. Based on historical patterns and current conditions the following Allotments are at highest risk related to large scale wildfires:  Indian Allotment  Quinn River Allotment  West Side Flat Creek Allotment  Granite Peak Allotment  Rebel Creek Allotment  Buffalo Allotment

The following allotments are at low to moderate risk for large scale wildfires:  Martin Basin Allotment  North Fork Allotment  Wild Bill Allottment  Buttermilk Allotment  Lamance Allotment  Paradise Allotment

Wildfires will likely continue to impact resources within the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Ranger District. The locations and timing of potential wildfires in the future cannot be predicted and are therefore not foreseeable.

How does the road/trail system affect fuels management? (PT 1)

Prior to 2005, vegetation treatments including prescribed fires, mechanical treatments and seedings were limited on the Santa Rosa Ranger District. During the mid 1900’s sagebrush communities were mechanically treated and seeded with various non-native seed mixtures at various locations around the District. Today these areas are primary dominated by sagebrush communities; however, non-native grass species are still present on the sites.

Small prescribed burns were also conducted within the District boundary. These treatments were typically less than 500 acres and all have generally returned to sagebrush communities. No prescribed fire projects are known to have occurred within the Cumulative Effects Area between 1985 and 2005.

In 2005 the Santa Rosa Ranger District approved the Buttermilk Prescribed Burn Project on the Martin Basin, Buttermilk and Bradshaw Allotments. This project approved up to 4500 acres of treatments within mountain big sagebrush communities. In 2005 approximately 500 acres were treated with prescribed fire within Unit 1 of the project area. In 2006 approximately 1600 acres were treated with prescribed fire within Units 4 and 8 of the project area. Monitoring of the treated areas has shown excellent recovery of native grass and forb species. Monitoring has also shown little to no occurrence of cheatgrass and no occurrences of noxious weeds within the treated areas. The treatments are considered complete successes.

In 2006 the Santa Rosa Ranger District approved the Buttermilk Mechanical Treatment Project. This decision approved the mechanical treatment and seeding of approximately 1000 acres of sagebrush communities to improve vegetation conditions in Units 5 and 6 of the Project Area. In October of 2006 the District treated approximately 600 acres within the Martin Basin Allotment using a Dixie Harrow pulled by a large tractor. The area was also seeded with a native seed mix and will be rested from grazing for a minimum of 2 years.

Under the Buttermilk Prescribed Burn Decision an additional 2400 acres could be treated with prescribed fire, however, there are no current plans at this time to conduct additional treatments. Monitoring the existing treatments is being emphasized. Prescribed Fire is a treatment method that could be used in the future within the Cumulative Effects Area to treat vegetation; however, there are no plans for additional projects at this time.

An additional 400 acres may be treated with mechanical methods within unit 5 in the Martin Basin Allotment. Those treatments are not currently planned, however, would be likely within the foreseeable future. Other Mechanical Treatment projects are not currently being planned; however, these treatments could be used in the foreseeable future.

The current road system within the proposed analysis area generally provides good access for achieving fuels management objectives. Fuel treatment activities within the analysis area would primarily focus along all system roads, to reduce the fire hazard by breaking up vegetative continuity and ladder fuels. Treatment emphasize along these roads would include handpile and burning or mechanical manipulation of the vegetation. The Forest Land Management Plan says that a network of shaded fuelbreaks are in place to interrupt continuous stands of fuel, and designed to utilize natural barriers and existing road corridors (USDA 1996 p. 16)

Existing or proposed trail systems within the analysis area are not expected to have much impact on fuels management within the analysis area. How does the road/trail system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? (PT 2) The network of roads will benefit the transporting of fire suppression personnel and resources into the project and surrounding forest. Numerous road accesses within the analysis area can increase response times that could reduce the spread of wildfire. The longer it takes firefighters to respond to a reported fire, the greater the chances a fire could become larger and more difficult to suppress. The increase in road density within the analysis area allows for improved strategic and tactical decision making by fire management personnel.

From a negative perspective, many of these roads and trails afford the opportunity to access the forest and dispersed camping sites where human activities are prevalent and where human caused fire starts are likely to occur. Ignition history for the area shows numerous lightning strikes and other ignitions. How does the road/trail system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety? (PT 3) The State Highways and National Forest System Improved Roads (paved or unpaved) provide the best access and exit routes for firefighters and the public. Some of the Forest System Unimproved and the Non-National Forest Roads are narrow which can restrict the size of fire fighting equipment trying to access the area. Road systems that are not surfaced or regularly maintained can cause a slower fire suppression response, allowing fires to increase in intensity, resulting in an increased risk to firefighters or forest users trying to evacuate the area.

Existing trail systems are expected to have a limited effect on firefighters and public safety. How does the road/trail system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human health concerns? (PT 4) Air quality impacts within the analysis area are associated with vehicle emissions and dust from traffic along roads and trails. The extent of these effects depends on the amount of traffic. Dust from unpaved roads also increases with dryness, as well as with vehicle weight. Motorized

recreation occurs year-round within the analysis area, and off road vehicle use is prevalent and increasing within the analysis area. When these vehicles travel on unpaved surfaces, they can stir up dust.

The District’s climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and moderately cold, dry winters. Sunshine is abundant and evaporation is typically high. Temperature data compiled at the Paradise Valley Ranch Weather Station on the southeast side of the project area indicate that minimum temperatures range from 16 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and maximum temperatures around 90 degrees F at approximately 4,650 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The average precipitation is 10 inches at the 4,650 amsl, the majority of which falls as snow. This weather station is in a valley location on the east side of the Santa Rosa Range. Weather conditions in the Santa Rosa Range can be expected to be more extreme, with lower average temperatures and higher levels of precipitation. Prevailing winds over the project area are predominately from the west; however, the significant local topography and heating and cooling cycles could be expected to have noticeable effects on wind direction and speed.

The project area is not located in an Air Quality Control Region as designated by the EPA in 40 CFR part 81. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection did not identify any specific air quality requirements for this portion of the state nor do they define any ambient air quality standards in this portion of Humboldt County. Unroaded Recreation (UR) Is there now or will there be in the future, excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities? (UR1) Unroaded recreation demands on the analysis area include activities such as off-road vehicle use, dispersed camping, hunting, and hiking.

Nationally, the demand for unroaded recreation opportunities such as off-road vehicle use, has increased steadily in recent years, and has now become an issue of primary concern on public lands. The Forest Service, with the travel management rule, has stated that although off-road vehicles are a legitimate use of our public lands, they must be managed. Therefore, the demand for unroaded all-terrain vehicle use in the analysis area must be met with management planning. Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads/trails causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities? (UR 2) Instances of new road development or decommissioning have been minimal and therefore have not substantially changed the recreation experience in the analysis area. What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities? (UR 3) Some types of unroaded recreation opportunities are not necessarily adversely impacted by the presence of roads and their associated disturbances. If visitors are not looking for primitive experiences, the presence of roads would not necessarily adversely affect their experience. As the majority of the unroaded recreation demand in the analysis area involves activities that do not require solitude, such as group snowplay, or motorized vehicle use, the effect of road noise is not likely to be significant.

Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads? (UR 4) Instances of new road development or decommissioning have been minimal and therefore have not substantially changed the recreation experience in the analysis area. What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available? (UR 5) This is not perceived to be a significant issue in this analysis area. Road-related Recreation (RR):

Developed and dispersed recreational uses within the cumulative effects area are considered light when compared to other similar Forest Service Districts. Developed recreational activities are currently limited to the Lye Creek Campground within the Buttermilk Allotment. The Lye Creek Campground is a 13 site campground which receives relatively light use and covers approximately 10 acres.

Dispersed recreational uses in the Cumulative Effects Area include hiking, camping, horseback riding, ATV use, hunting, fishing, snow machine use, and other various minor uses. Dispersed recreational use is very limited in the cumulative effects area and the heaviest use periods include several of the busier weekends during the summer and during hunting seasons. Currently ATV use is low with limited impacts; however this use is increasing with the popularity of ATV’s.

There are no plans for additional developed recreational sites within the cumulative effects area. In the future dispersed recreational uses such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, ATV use, snow machine use, and other various minor uses are expected to increase slightly over current levels. Hunting and fishing use is expected to remain at stable levels into the future. Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing road/trails causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? (RR 2) Instances of new road development or decommissioning have been minimal in the on the Santa Rosa Ranger District and therefore have not substantially changed the Forest recreation experience. The development of new unauthorized, non- Forest Service System roads has been occurring in the analysis area, and could have an impact on the quality of some visitors’ roaded recreation experience. These unauthorized roads often attract motorized recreation users. Visitors driving on the area roads to view the natural features may be seeking the look of a natural setting, and increased motorized use on unauthorized roads may not be a positive change. What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of roaded recreation opportunities? (RR 3) Noise and other disturbances from road use and maintenance are not a significant concern in the analysis area, as the primary roaded recreation activities in the area are not dependent on quiet or solitude. Developed camping access, driving for pleasure, and viewing natural features are a few examples of the types of activities visitors engage in that are not likely to be significantly impacted by road noise.

Passive-Use Value (PV): Do areas planned for road entry, closure, or decommissioning have unique physical or biological characteristics, such as unique natural features and threatened or endangered species? (PV 1) The EF, AQ, and TW sections address the unique or significant features or communities, and rare and uncommon species associated with roads and trails in the analysis area.

Hinkey Summit No other roads or trails in the analysis area are considered sensitive travel routes.

Scenic attractiveness, or variety class, is a measure of the intrinsic scenic beauty of landform, water characteristics, vegetation patterns, and cultural land use and is classified into three classes: distinctive, common, or indistinctive. Although most of the analysis area has scenic attractiveness considered common to the landscape, pockets of distinctive features are also found. One such area is the slot canyon near Hinkey summit is valued for its cultural significance to the Southern Paiute Nation. The analysis area also provides the foreground to dramatic views of distinctive scenic landscapes. Does the road system affect unique cultural, traditional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance? (PV 2) There are known historic properties along the current road alignment. It is not known if they are directly affected by current maintenance activities. Future road construction, decommissioning, or reconstruction must involve design and planning from the local archaeologist. What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, symbolic, spiritual, sacred, traditional, or religious values for unroaded areas planned for road entry or road closure? (PV 3) Cultural resources on the District are richly varied and widely dispersed. The information for this analysis was derived from a literature review of the cultural resource files stored at the Elko, Nevada, and office of the Forest. The results of this search show that the analysis area includes prehistoric hunting camps, petroglyphs and pictographs, stone tool quarries, rock shelters, hunting blinds, historic military camps, historic roads and stage routes, town sites, and mining sites. No traditional Native American cultural use properties have been documented in the analysis area.

During the summer and fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007 inventories were conducted along all of the routes described in the proposed action. During these inventories, 8 sites were recorded adjacent to several of the proposed routes. One prehistoric site is considered potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of historic places. The remaining seven sites were determined to be Not Eligible.

In the spring of 2007, the Forest submitted a Heritage Resource Report to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (NSHPO) which described the proposed action, inventory process, pre-field research and the sites recorded during the inventory. The report also included the Forest’s determination of No Adverse Effect to the potentially eligible site from the designation of the route that crosses the site. On June 29, 2007 the Forest received a letter from the NSHPO concurring with the finding of No Adverse Effects to one prehistoric site located along one of the proposed routes.

At a minimum, the following groups should be consulted before roading any unroaded areas:

Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman Chemehuevi at CRIT Route 1 Box 23-B Parker, AZ 85344

Betty Cornelius Chemehuevi Cultural Coordinator Route 1, Box 23B Parker, AZ 85344

Edward Smith, Chairman Chemehuevi at Chemehuevi Reservation Chemehuevi Tribal Council P.O. Box 1976, Havasu Lake, CA 92363

Philbert Swain, Chairperson Moapa Band of Paiute P.O. Box 340 Moapa, NV 89025

Raphaella Spute, Cultural Coordinator Moapa Band of Paiute P.O. Box 340 Moapa, NV 89025

Cedar City, UT 84720 Calvin Meyers, Environmental Protection Moapa Band of Paiute P.O. Box 340 Moapa, NV 89025

Lora Tom, Chairperson Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 400 N. Paiute Drive Cedar City, UT 84720

Dorena Martineau, Cultural Coordinator Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 400 N. Paiute Drive

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1340 Financial Blvd, Suite 234 Reno, NV 89502

Nevada Department of Wildlife 4747 West Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89108

Will road construction, closure, or decommissioning significantly affect passive-use value? (PV 4) The analysis area consists of lands allocated in the Forest Plan as Retention and Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives. Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) provide categories of acceptable landscape alteration and are measured in degrees of deviation from the natural appearing landscape. The Forest Plan defines Retention VQO as a landscape where management practices are not evident to the casual observer and Partial Retention VQO as a landscape where management practices are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service 1986). Additional Forest Plan direction is to “protect the scenic viewshed of State Highway 156, 157, and 158 to maintain naturally appearing scenery” (USDA Forest Service 1996).

The current system roads and trails, although evident to the casual observer, create the platform for viewing scenery, drawing people to the area. Most of the roads found within the analysis area only slightly alter the landscape and remain visually subordinate to the valued landscape character. The visual effects of trails are usually minimal since trails and trail cuts are often screened by existing vegetation and topography. Trails in the analysis area are not evident to the casual observer from sensitive viewpoints.

Road cuts on steep slopes can result in exposed, light colored soils which may begin to dominate the valued landscape character, creating lines and color uncharacteristic of the natural form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape. Most roads in the analysis area are designed to minimize these visual effects. In contrast, a non-system road is a visible deviation from the valued landscape character, introducing a line and sharp texture and color change which are not characteristic of this landscape.

Social Issues (SI): The project area is located in Humboldt County, population 17,129. The closet towns are McDermitt (pop. 269), Oravada, and Paradise, Nevada. Winnemucca, Nevada, also located in Humboldt County, is the nearest large population center with a population of approximately 7,174 (U.S. Census 2000).

According to the State of Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation, the 2006 labor force of Humboldt County is 8,269 and the unemployment rate was 3.8 percent. The median household income in 2004 was $44,950 (US Census 2006). Services in the region surrounding the project area are limited to those motels, grocery stores, and gas stations located in McDermitt, Orvada, and Paradise. Additional services and lodging are available in Winnemucca, Nevada, approximately 30 miles south of the southern end of the District.

Environmental impacts to the socioeconomic well being of Humboldt County would be significant if the proposed action resulted in any of the following:

 Substantial growth or concentration of population;  Displacement of a large number of people;  A substantial reduction in employment;  A substantial reduction in wage and salary earnings;  A substantial net increase in County expenditures; or  A substantial demand for public services.

The proposed action would have little positive or negative effect on the local economies because it would not result in increases or decreases in population or employment. Use of the road system is not anticipated to increase or decrease significantly as a result of this alternative. To the extent that they receive maintenance at all, the routes being identified for designation would be maintained by the Forest Service. As the proposed additions to the Forest transportation system already exist and are in use, the proposal would not affect the demand for public services. What are the people’s perceived needs and values for access? How does the road/trail management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for access? (SI 2) Visitors’ needs and values for specific roads and trails in the analysis area are unknown at the time of writing. No mechanism exists to gather this information. In general, road and trail management can impact people’s valuation of the transportation system. For example, deferred maintenance which leaves a road in a condition that is uncomfortable for users may cause some visitors to value that road less in the future. Others may value the ‘primitive experience’ and be highly satisfied with existing roads. How does the road/trail system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites? (SI 3)

Decommissioning roads and limiting access to these sites may limit the cumulative affects to them (e.g., vandalism, inadvertent damage, intentional looting). However, sites that cannot be monitored easily may be more subject to damage. Limiting motor vehicle access would increase the costs of future monitoring, documentation, investigation, evaluation, and interpretation of sites.

All future road activities must include consultation with the District Archeological staff due to avoid or diminish known and anticipated affects to these sites. How does the road/trail system affect cultural and traditional uses, and American Indian treaty rights? (SI 4) No known conflicts are known between traditional use, American Indian treaty rights and the road system. The road system on the Santa Rosa District is used as a primary access to traditional gathering areas. Future actions should consider and maintain this use.

How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation? (SI 8) The roads in this analysis area do not affect wilderness attributes.

Since before 1970, the Forest Service has inventoried and studied roadless areas for their potential for wilderness designation. These inventories were updated and reevaluated during preparation of the existing land and resource management plans.

The 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule describes 12 inventoried roadless areas (IRA) on the district. These IRAs range in size from the 54,515 acre Santa Rosa IRA that surrounds the Santa Rosa Wilderness to the approximately 600 acre Forks IRA that is adjacent to a much larger area managed by the BLM on the eastern boundary of the district. Altogether, the twelve IRAs include approximately 179,630 acres.

Currently, motor vehicle use is allowed within the boundaries of inventoried roadless areas on both NFS routes and user-created routes.

In May, 2006 the Forest published An Assessment of Lands on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest That Have Potential for Consideration by Congress for Wilderness Designation (USDA 2006). This document evaluated the IRAs described in the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule across the Forest for wilderness potential based on the presence of routes and eight wilderness characteristics. For the District, the 2006 document identifies three areas with high wilderness capability; the South Fork Quinn IRA, the Santa Rosa IRA, and the Santa Rosa North IRA.

17 existing user-created routes totaling approximately 5.8 miles would be added to the Forest transportation system within IRAs. Six routes (S013, S028, S036, S041, S043, and U50095C) provide access to dispersed campsites that have been in existence for at least the last 20 years. Nine routes (S018, S019, S034, S045, SO59, S077, S085 S092, and U50090) provide motorized access into areas for recreation opportunities including hunting, non-motorized trailhead access, and camping. Two routes (S057 and U50694) provide access to private property.

Most of these routes enter only the edges of the IRAs, and none bisects an IRA or affects a significant portion of its acreage. All of these routes are well established and have been in place and in use well before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. It is estimated by the District that the dispersed campsites these routes access have a been in use by Forest visitors for over 20 years and possibly much longer. The IRAs were described in the May, 2006 Assessment of Lands on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest That Have Potential for Consideration by Congress for Wilderness Designation (USFS 2006) and determined to have high wilderness and roadless characteristic with these routes taken into consideration. Adding these routes to the Forest transportation system will not change the roadless character of the IRAs, because the routes already exist and are in use. However, to avoid any impact to the long-term availability of these IRAs for wilderness consideration, all such routes will be designated as trails.

The proposed action would also restrict motor vehicle use to NFS roads and NFS trails. The effect of this action would be to reduce the expansion of user-created routes into IRAs across the District. Areas off NFS routes, where vegetation or other physical features of the landscape have been affected by open travel, would have an opportunity to recover with time. While the travel management decision may take some time to be fully implemented, visitor education, enforcement, and distribution of the motor vehicle use map would begin immediately. As implementation proceeds, the district may sign routes or physically block routes if use continues. Physical closure of routes could require additional analysis to be required. What are the traditional uses of animal and plant species within the area of analysis? (SI 9) Recreation activities on the District include pursuits such as hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, rock hounding, gathering products such as firewood and plants, viewing scenery and wildlife, hiking, nature study, and riding ATVs, motorcycles, full-size trucks and other vehicles for pleasure. Participation in recreation activities varies by season, topography, vegetative cover, and number of people taking part. Almost all site-specific recreation attractions (for example, dispersed camping spots, fishing streams, and scenic areas) have roads or motorized trails leading to them. Hunting is the primary use of the native species within the area of analysis. Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR):

How does the road/trail system, or its management, affect certain groups of people (minority, ethnic, cultural, racial, disabled, and low- income groups)? (CR 1) Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs federal agencies to focus attention on minority communities and low-income communities, the purpose being to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health and environmental effects on these populations.

Minority Populations The African-American and Hispanic populations represent approximately 25 percent of the total population of Humboldt County. American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islanders comprise 0.9, 3.6, and 0.1 percent of the population, respectively (US Census 2000). For Nevada as a whole, African Americans and Hispanics represent 6.9 and 22.9 percent respectively, of the population. American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islanders constitute 1.3, 5.7, and 0.6 percent of the population respectively (US Census 2004).

In accordance with EPA’s Environmental Justice Guidelines (EPA 1998), these minority populations should be identified when either of the following exist:

 The minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or  The minority population of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Neither population of African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Asian or Pacific Islanders exceeds 50 percent of the population and none of the populations percentages within Humboldt County is “meaningfully greater’ than the minority population in the general population, in this case the State of Nevada. Therefore, for the purposes of screening for environmental justice concerns, the identified populations defined in EPA’s guidance (EPA 1998) do not exist within the project area.

Low-Income Population The median household income in Humboldt County, according to 2000 census data, of $47,147 (US Census 2000) was higher than that for the State of Nevada ($44,581) for the same time period. According to the 2000 census data the percentage of individuals below the poverty level in Humboldt County was 9.7 percent while the in the State of Nevada the percentage was 10.5 percent (US Census 2000). These data indicate that Humboldt County is not a low income area, as defined in the EPA’s guidance (EPA 1998) for the purpose of screening for environmental justice concerns, is not present in the project area.

CHAPTER 5 /6 DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES, RECOMMENDATIONS

This travel analysis report analyzed the extent and current condition of roads on national forest system lands within the Santa Rosa Ranger District area. The report compares the current condition to a desired future condition to help identify the opportunities and need for change. The report provides information that will help develop the Forest’s strategic intent for road management; that is, what may happen to balance the need to accommodate visitation demands in the area with the need to minimize recreational user impacts on sensitive species and habitats over the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Before implementing any proposed actions, the Forest will complete the NEPA process.

Minimum Road System The development and maintenance of a transportation system and balancing Forest resources, Forest management activities, and public needs and desires is challenging and controversial. To identify the road system to manage, 36 CFR 212.5 (b) states

“…the responsible official must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. In determining the minimum road system, the responsible official must incorporate a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale and, to the degree practicable, involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.”

In 2007 the Santa Rosa Ranger District designated roads and trail open for motor vehicle use. As a result of that action motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designation is prohibited. The need for recreation trails has been identified and a system of NFS trails has been designated to meet that need. Based on the previous analysis, actions taken, and recommendations in this analysis the minimum road system (MRS) for the Santa Rosa Ranger District consist of approximately 460 miles of NFS road as depicted on the attached map. There are currently no routes identified to be added to the MRS and approximately 26 miles maintenance level 1 roads that are, or can be, physically closed or decommissioned. Not included in the MRS are many unauthorized routes that should be physically closed and reclaimed. These routes are not considered to be part of the MRS and as funding and resource availability permits closures and reclamation efforts will be studied and implemented. Over time additional NFS roads may be identified that can be closed or converted to NFS trails open for motor vehicle use. These are not yet identified by the district.

The purpose of this step in the analysis is to compare the current transportation system with the issues set forth in step 4, and to describe the options for modifying the transportation system to more closely match the Forest’s land management goals in the analysis area.

Based on the existing and desired road and trail system conditions and issues relative to the proposed project action, the following sets of opportunities were developed:

Maintain at current level: The analysis identified opportunities to maintain at the current maintenance level all roads and trails that are currently part of the National Forest System in the analysis area.

Classify roads or trails: The analysis identified some additions of unauthorized roads or trails to the road system.

These routes were designated in the 2007 Travel management decision.

Table 11: Proposed Removals from the Forest Transportation System

Route Map Mileage Reason for adjustment number number 1 50805A 22 1.43 Created for fence repair. The fence was removed and the route is no longer needed. 2 50091A* 23 0.10 Was washed out and is no longer safe for passage. 3 50681* 19 0.17 No longer passable. 4 50689 16 1.70 Follows a ridge burned in 2002. The track is no longer visible on the ground and poses a safety hazard. 5 50130E* 15 0.15 No longer passable. 6 50531B 14 1.21 Overgrown and no longer exists. 7 50096B* 14 0.17 No longer passable. 8 50097B 13 1.30 Impassable as a result of washouts above the corral. 9 50802A 5 0.37 No longer locatable and is no longer needed. 10 50130C 20 0.38 Overgrown and no longer passable. 11 50530A 11 0.881 No longer passable and not needed. 12 50661A 24 4.372 Parallels an existing road and is overgrown. Total 7.861 miles

Road/Trail conversion: Although several roads in the analysis area serve dual purposes- as roads and as trails, this analysis found it to be beneficial to convert .5 miles from existing national system roads to existing national system trails.

Road closures:

These roads are Maintenance level 1, and may be physically closed or decommissioned in the future.

ID NAME Miles Operational Objective COMMENTS 50043A TABLE 0.427 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC USE TO CONNECT TO 50696 MOUNTAIN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL WASHED OUT SPUR A CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50083A QUINN RIVER 1.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50083B QUINN RIVER 2.6 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/15/00, NOT ON VT, BUT ON SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, CHECKED ,OK CARE CARE (CLOSED) Anderson Pipe line old road (CLOSED) not able to get across creek now. NO GIS LINE

ID NAME Miles Operational Objective COMMENTS 50083C QUINN RIVER 1.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/15/00, NOT ON VT, ON SPUR C CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, CHECKED OK 6/06 CARE CARE (CLOSED) Per district road to be (CLOSED) changed to level 1

50086C SKULL 1.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC DRIVEN BY J.P. CHECKED CREEK SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL OK 6/16/00, ON VT AND C CARE CARE (CLOSED) HANDWROTE ON (CLOSED) QUAD:UPDATED 5/14/03 BW 6/06 Per district road to be changed to level 1 .48 50087B LYE CREEK 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 16/16/00 CARE CARE (CLOSED) FOUND, OK #'S NOT (CLOSED) PRINTED ON VT/QUAD,THE FIRST PART GOES THROUGH PRIVATE LAND 50091A LAMANCE 0.211 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50096B BLACK 2.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be RIDGE SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 B CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50098 WASH O'NEIL 0.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be BASIN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 VERIFED CARE CARE (CLOSED) BY BR, CHECKED OK, (CLOSED)

50098A WASH O'NEIL 2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/16/00, PRINTED ON BASIN SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD/VT QUESTION A CARE CARE (CLOSED) LENGTH .2FS THE REST (CLOSED) BLM

50130C ROUND 0.36 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be CORRAL CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 6/19/00, ROAD SPUR CARE CARE (CLOSED) FOUND PRINTED ON VT C (CLOSED) AND QUAD, NOT DRIVEN

50130E ROUND 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, DRIVEN BY JP CORRAL CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, PRINTED ON ROAD SPUR CARE CARE (CLOSED) VT, HANDWROTE ON QUAD E (CLOSED)

50130H ROUND 1.9 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, A TRAIL DIST 2005 CORRAL CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ROAD SPUR CARE CARE (CLOSED) H (CLOSED)

ID NAME Miles Operational Objective COMMENTS 50161A EAGLE 0.96 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC MINE ROAD CREEK SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL A CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50161B EAGLE 0.9 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC OVERGROWN SHOULD CREEK SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL REMOVE VERY STEEP B CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50471D BUTTERMILK 0.52 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/15/00, ON VT, NOT ON SPUR D CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, CHECKED BY J.P. AS CARE CARE (CLOSED) OVERGROWN (CLOSED)

50471E BUTTERMILK 0.9 1 - BASIC D - 7/00, RECLAIMED MINING SPUR E CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSION ROAD DECOMMISSION CARE (CLOSED)

50472B SPRING CITY 0.8 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, NOT FOUND, NOT SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PRINTED ON VT/QUAD, CARE CARE (CLOSED) MINE ROAD (CLOSED)

50531B N. FORK 1.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be LITTLE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 HUMBOLDT CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50532C BUCKSKIN 0.38 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00,CHECKED AS OK, REPEATER CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL NOT PRINTED ON VT SITE SPUR C CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50532D BUCKSKIN 0.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/10, VERIFED BY JP, DIVIDE SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL NOTED AS RECLAIMED BUT D CARE CARE (CLOSED) IS STILL OPEN (CLOSED)

50533C HOLLOWAY 0.06 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC PARKING PULL OUT TO MEADOW CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL RIDGE NOW ONLY TRIAL SPUR C CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50661 MOREY 0.55 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be CREEK CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 6/00, # CARE CARE (CLOSED) PRINTED ON VM,# (CLOSED) HANDWROTE ON QUAD MILES.02 IN FOREST BDY, REST BLM LAND 5.7 MILES 7/02, ON FILE, ENDS MID WAY TO PEAK TO STEEP FOR IT TO CONT

ID NAME Miles Operational Objective COMMENTS 50661A MOREY 4.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be CREEK SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 16/16/00, A CARE CARE (CLOSED) FOUND ON VT, (CLOSED) HANDWROTE ON QUAD ACCORDING TO MAPS NONE ON FS LAND ALL BLM 50681 SOUTH FORK 0.23 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC INDIAN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CREEK CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50685A BULLION 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, NOT DRIVEN, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PRINTED ON QUAD/ NOT ON CARE CARE (CLOSED) VT (CLOSED)

50686A TOM BASIN 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, FOUND PRINTED ON SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL VT, HANDWROTE ON QUAD, CARE CARE (CLOSED) NOT DRIVEN (CLOSED)

50688 DUTCH JOHN 1.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC OVERGROWN, WASHOUT CREEK CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50689 FLAT CREEK 1.8 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50693A HALCYON 0.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED ROAD, MINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL REHAB ROAD CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50696 FIVE MILE 1.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC OK 2005, 6/06 Per district CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL road to be changed to level CARE CARE (CLOSED) 1after 3.88 app (CLOSED)

50697B POTATO 0.3 1 - BASIC D - NOT THERE FIX 2005 PATCH CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSION REMOVE SPRING CARE (CLOSED)

50802A NORTH 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/06 Per district road to be QUINN RIVER CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL changed to level 1 SPUR A CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

ID NAME Miles Operational Objective COMMENTS 50803 OWYHEE 0.77 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC GPS, MILEAGE UPDATED, RESERVOIR 3 CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL OVERGROWN IMPASSABLE CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50805A MULLINIX 1.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CREEK SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL A CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

50806A ODELL 0.8 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/16 Per District level 1 MOUNTAIN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SPUR A CARE CARE (CLOSED) (CLOSED)

This table lists current NFS routes which are to remain as parts of the system for long-term future use but on which motor vehicle use is proposed to be restricted until they can be reconstructed or re-evaluated.

Road/Trail construction: The analysis did not identify any opportunities for road or trail construction on the Santa Rosa Ranger District.

Road/Trail reconstruction or maintenance: Road reconstruction or maintenance opportunities identified by this analysis are centered on the current general transportation safety concerns associated with parts of the transportation system. Safety of the current road system is of the highest of the priority and concern to address.

In further description of the road and trail system opportunities identified above, the travel analysis makes the following recommendations to address issue-related concerns.

Ecosystem Functions and Terrestrial Wildlife Close/barricade to motorized travel the user-created trails and roads. Following closure of user created trails/roads rehabilitate with local-sourced (immediate vicinity) native vegetation. Where possible prevent (i.e., through barricades, signage, etc.) off-trail/off-road travel by motorized and non-motorized users. Control invasive plant species along all roads and trails to prevent/reduce conversion of native communities to non-native

Economics Changes to existing roads or proposal for new roads/trails in the Santa Rosa Ranger District Complex analysis area should attempt to satisfy or provide a majority of the following objectives. As a general point, it will be important to weigh the short term costs of transportation investment against the long-term benefits of efficient traffic management and access provision in the

context of escalating demand/traffic. Examples of economic objectives the analysis recommends a project consider are:

The low or reduced cost of complying with standards and guidelines by avoiding roads in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas Improving access for increasing need for fire and fuels management and emergency response (i.e., access investment today may minimize expense of providing these services in the future) Increasing management’s flexibility to close roads/trails on the Santa Rosa Ranger District, thereby saving maintenance/management expenses and environmental/cultural damages.

General Public Transportation

There are safety concerns associated with the road system in the analysis area; due primarily to it being a system that must be designed to accommodate long-term growth in visitation to the analysis area. Safe travel for all users on routes that cross the District is a concern that the District addressed when developing the proposed action. Consideration was given to the types of routes being proposed, the types of vehicles traveling on the routes, the speeds at which vehicles can safely travel and the times of year the routes would be open. At present all routes on the Santa Rosa Ranger District are open to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. Route conditions off the main routes is generally rough and require slow speeds <10 MPH) in high-clearance vehicles. Posted speeds on the main routes across the district are 25 MPH. To date there have been no reported accidents on these routes.

Because of the amount of use and travel speeds on most of the roads and trails and with the addition of signing to warn users of the potential for meeting vehicles of different types on the roads there will be no increased risk of accidents under any of the alternatives.

Protection It is recommended that consideration be given to locating new roads and to re-align existing system roads on ridge lines or on flat ground rather than on slide slopes as much as possible. Roads or trails located on side slopes can increase risk to firefighters and the public because fires burn up slope with greater intensity and rate of spread (NWCG 2004 A-56). Roads and trails may also be used for tactical fire suppression purposes, and are generally more effective if located on ridgelines rather than side-slopes. Road-related Recreation Recreation Access: The proposed action has the potential to change current use patterns by restricting motorized travel to designated routes. Forest visitors would no longer be allowed to drive cross-country to hunt, retrieve game, create dispersed camp sites, or engage in other motorized off-road recreation activities. This could result in reduced use of the District and discontent among some users. On the other hand, by prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle use, the occurrence of human-caused fires and the spread of noxious and invasive weeds may be reduced.

The Forest used the following unit of measure to assess the potential impact of prohibiting motor vehicle use off designated routes: changes to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

Unroaded Recreation  It is recommended that all unauthorized roads/trails in the analysis area are closed.

 Passive-Use Value

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY Forest road or trail. A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Maintenance Levels. Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. Roads may be currently maintained at one level and planned to be maintained at a different level at some future date.

National Forest System Road. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public road authority.

Operational Maintenance Level. The operational maintenance level is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns; in other words, it defines the level to which the road is currently being maintained.

Objective Maintenance Level. The objective maintenance level is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. The objective maintenance level may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the operational maintenance level. The transition from operational maintenance level to objective maintenance level may depend on reconstruction or disinvestment.

Unauthorized road or trail. A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES Blair, R. B. (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications (6) 506-519.

Bautista, L. M., J. T. Garcia, R. G. Calmaestra, C. Palacin, C. A. Martin, M. B. Morales, R. Bonal, and J. Vinuela. 2004. Effect of weekend road traffic on the use of space by raptors. Conservation Biology. 18 (3) 726-732.

Berger, J. and D. Daneke. 1988. Effects of agricultural, industrial, and recreational expansion on frequency of wildlife law violations in the Central Rocky Mountains, USA. Conservation Biology 2 (3) 283-289.

Bernardino, F.S., Jr. and G.J. Dalrymple. 1992. Seasonal activity and road mortality of the snakes of the Pa-hay-okee wetlands of Everglades National Park, USA. Biological Conservation. 62:71-75.

Brattstrom, B.H. and M.C. Bondello. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicle noise on desert vertebrates. Pages 167-206 in: R. H. Webb and H. G. Wilshire (eds.). Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: Impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Dahms, C.W. and B.W. Geils, ed. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the southwest. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 97 pp. Available online at http://www.rms.nau.edu/publications/rm_gtr_295.index.html

DøAntonio, C.M. and Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 23: 67-87.

Everett, R.L.; M.E. Jensen; P.S. Bourgeron; W.G. Robbins; D.W. Wolf; J.K. Agee; B.A. McIntosh; C.G. Johnson. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. L. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. Jones, F. Swanson, T. Turrentine , T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. 481 pp.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14:31–35.Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. Clevenger, and H. J. Mader. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation (29) 81-96.

Forman, R.T.T. and R. D. Deblinger. 1999. The Ecological Road-Effect Zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) Suburban Highway. Conservation Biology 14 (1) 36–46.

Forman, R. T. T. 1998. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press. 632 pp.

Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. (tech. eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Gucwa, J.H. 1969. Late Cenozoic Geomorphic History of Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada. Master’s Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Geology and Geophysics.

Hall, J. A. 1980. Direct impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation. Pages 63-74 in: P.G. Rowlands (ed.). The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on off-road vehicles: a critical review. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Desert Plan Staff Special Publication. Riverside, CA.

Havlick, David G. 2002. No Place Distance: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands. Island Press. Washington D.C. 297 pp.

Hewlett, J.D. and W.L. Nutter. 1970. The varying Source Area of Streamflow from Upland Basins. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interdisciplinary Aspects of Watershed Management. America Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY, pp. 65-83

Johnson, R.F. 1963. The roadside fire problem. Fire Control Notes 24: 5-7.

Kopecky, K. 1988. Influence of roads on the synanthropization of the flora and vegetation according to observations in Czechoslovakia. Folia-Gedotanica- Phytotaxonomica 23 (2):145-171.

Manning, R.E. 2007. Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy. Island Press. Washington D.C. 313 pp.

Marshal, J. P. , V. C. Bleich, P. R. Krausman, M. L. Reed, N. G. Andrew. 2006. Factors Affecting Habitat Use and Distribution of Desert Mule Deer in an Arid Environment. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (3) 609–619.

Matchett, J. R., L. Gass, M. L. Brooks, A. M. Mathie, R. D. Vitales, M. W. Campagna, D. M. Miller, and J. F. Weigand. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Off-Highway Vehicle Use at the Dove Springs OHV Open Area, California. Unpublished report. Bureau of Land Management–California State Office, Sacramento, CA. February 11, 2004.

McKelvey, K.S. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress: Volume II. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. University of California, Davis.

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:451-460.Mendelson, J.R.I., and W.B. Jennings. 1992. Shifts in the relative abundance of snakes in a desert grassland. Journal of Herpetology 26:38–45.

Milberg, P. and B.B. Lamont. 1995. Fire enhances weed invasion of roadside vegetation in southwestern Australia. Biological Conservation 73: 45-49.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin (29) 124-132.

Morrisson, P.H., J.W. Karl, L. Swope, K. Harma, and T. Allen. 2000. Assessment of Summer 2000 Wildfires: Landscape History, Current Condition, and Ownership.

National Climate Data Center. 2006. Records of Coop station 265400, Kyle Forest Service Station.

NWCG 2004. Fireline Handbook. Great basin cache supply office. Development office. Boise ID http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/pubs.htm

Patla, D.A. and C.R. Peterson. 1994. The effects of habitat modification on a spotted frog population in Yellowstone National Park. Unpublished report to the University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center. 116 pp.

Scott, T.G. 1938. Wildlife mortality on an Iowa highway. American Midland Naturalist (20) 527–539.

Sheridan, D. 1980. Off-Road vehicles on public lands. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington D.C., 84 pp.

Spellerberg, I. F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: A literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. (7) 317-333.

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight, R.L. 2003. Behavioural responses of wildlife to human activity: terminology and methods. WildIife Society Bulletin (31) 1263-1271.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 113:404-407.

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell, C. A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology (14) 18-30.

US Census Bureau 2000. American Factfinder, Census 2000: Housing units (H1) and vacancy status, For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (H8)

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land Resource Management Plan. Toiyabe National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region. Carson City, NV

U.S. Geological Survey 2006. National Water Information System. Web Interface. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt

Webb, R.H. 1983. Compaction of desert soils by off-road vehicles. Pages 51-79. in: R. H. Webb and H. G. Wilshire (eds.). Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: Impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Wilshire, H.G. 1983. The impact of vehicles on desert soil stabilizers. Pages 31-50 in: R.H. Webb and H. G. Wilshire (eds.). Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: Impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Wilson, C.C. 1979. Roadsides- Corridors with high fire hazard and risk. Journal of Forestry, September 1979.

Yang, J., S. H. Hong, S. R. Shifley, and E. J. Gustafson. 2007. Spatial Patterns of Modern Period Human-Caused Fire Occurrence in the Missouri Ozark Highlands. Forest Science 53(1) 2007