Travel Analysis Process for the Carson

Travel Analysis Process

United States Department of for the Agriculture

Forest Service Carson

February 2011 Ranger District

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

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). 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). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Resource Report Engineering

Travel Analysis Process

September 2010

Location: Alpine County, California Sierra County, California Carson City County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Washoe County, Nevada

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

This travel analysis process (TAP) report provides information related to travel analysis in conjunction with the identification and management of the minimum road system on the Carson Ranger District. This TAP includes recommendations that the district can use to identify where both NFS roads and unauthorized routes could be decommissioned, or added to the Forest Transportation System (FTS) to improve recreation access, administration, and protection of the National Forest System lands on the district. This TAP also includes preliminary analysis of the effects of the FTS on biophysical and human resources. Any physical closures, additions, or changes to the FTS pursued by the district based on the recommendations in this TAP would have to be analyzed with the appropriate level of NEPA.

This TAP was drafted by an interdisciplinary team from the Carson Ranger District and the Forest Supervisor’s Office of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ...... 1

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ...... 1 PROCESS ...... 1 PRODUCTS ...... 2 TRAVEL ANALYSIS REPORT ...... 2 PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2 MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION ...... 3 MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM ...... 4 ROAD MAINTENANCE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS ...... 5 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION ...... 7

EXISTING ROAD AND TRAIL SYSTEM AND HISTORIC USE ...... 7 CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES ...... 9

KEY ISSUES ...... 9 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS ...... 11

ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES (EF) ...... 11 AQUATIC, RIPARIAN ZONE, AND WATER QUALITY ...... 13 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE ...... 21 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 25 FOREST PRODUCTS ...... 27 SPECIAL‐USE PERMITS ...... 28 GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ...... 28 ADMINISTRATIVE USES ...... 28 UNROADED RECREATION ...... 30 ROAD‐RELATED RECREATION ...... 32 SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 33 ECONOMIC ISSUES ...... 34 CHAPTERS 5 /6: DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 36

THE MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM ...... 36 ACTIONS THAT RESPOND TO THE ISSUES ...... 39 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ...... 42 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES ...... 43 APPENDIX D: FOREST PLAN DIRECTION ...... 83

i Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ii Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

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 (FR 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 (OHV) on National Forest System (NFS) lands. One of the purposes of these policies and rules is to ensure travel analysis is carried out for NFS roads and NFS trails. Travel analysis provides the information needed to ensure the forest transportation system (FTS) will:

• Provide safe access and meet the needs of communities and forest users.

• Facilitate the implementation of the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended.

• 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 travel management regulation combine the analysis of trails and roads under the travel analysis process (TAP). The Travel Management Rule requires each administrative unit (national forest, national grassland, etc.) or ranger district to designate those 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 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 the 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:

1 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

• 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 This report is provided to decision makers and the public and documents the information and analyses to be used to identify opportunities and set priorities for the future FTS. Included in the report is a set of maps displaying the known road and trail systems for the project area. A spreadsheet also accompanies this document and lists all NFS roads and trails and all unauthorized routes. This spreadsheet includes a risk assessment for each route completed by the district resource staffs. The rationale used for this assessment is included in chapter 4. Travel Analysis Report This report was completed to help inform travel management decisions on the Carson Ranger District. It documents the procedure used for the Carson Ranger District travel analysis and presents findings from the initial analysis. This report is a "living" document, however, reflecting the conditions of the project 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.

• Identify areas of special sensitivity or any unique resource values.

• Provide specific information to support project-level decisions. Project Scope and Objectives The Carson Ranger District covers approximately 368,600 acres of NFS land in Carson City, Douglas, and Washoe counties in Western Nevada, and Sierra and Alpine counties in California. All existing NFS roads and trails and many unauthorized routes within the district’s boundaries were reviewed for this analysis. Photo analysis using 1999 aerial photography and satellite imagery was used as the primary tool to locate all routes. Photo Science was contracted through Geometronic Service and Technological Center (GSTC) to do this work for all districts on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in 2003. The contract was completed in 2004, and the final results were provided to the Forest.

2 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

The project area contains some state and county roads. Under the regulations, use of these roads or trails would continue to be authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by the state, county, or other local public road authority. Opportunities regarding the future use of project area roads and trails are stated in accordance with Forest objectives. The analysis encompasses the entire Carson Ranger District;

• A forest scale roads analysis of the primary transportation routes for the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest was completed in 2004; however, it did not include lower level NFS roads, unauthorized roads, or any trails as part of the 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 Carson Ranger District. The main objectives of this travel analysis are to:

• Identify the need for changes by comparing the current road and trail system, what is currently on the ground and in use, 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 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Management Area Direction The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest recognizes that certain settings are inappropriate for OHV use due to administrative or congressional designation, impacts on natural resources, or effects on other recreationists. The Forest will move toward a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for OHV use where conditions permit. Direction for these actions can be found in the laws, executive orders, regulations, and the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

Executive Order 11644 Executive Order (EO) 11644 requires that each agency develop regulations that provide for administrative designation of specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted and areas where such use is prohibited. The EO specifies that the area and trail designations shall be in accordance with the following criteria. (1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands. (2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. (3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

3 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

(4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. (b) The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section. (c) The limitations on off-road vehicle use imposed under this section shall not apply to official use.

Travel Management Rule The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) is the revised implementing regulations for EO 11644 and 11989.

Route Designation Guidebook In response to the executive orders, travel management regulations, and Forest Plan direction, the Forest developed the Route Designation Guidebook to develop modeling parameters and resource specific guidelines. These guidelines were made available to the district rangers in 2005 as they considered the transportation system on the districts and began formulating their proposed actions. The guidelines are used during the NEPA process to develop a consistent set of analysis parameters for resources of concern. The Route Designation Guidebook is included as part of the project record. Minimum Road System The district is preparing this TAP to provide background information for future actions which would move the FTS on the district toward the identified minimum road system. Currently the FTS on the Carson Ranger District includes approximately 367 miles of Maintenance level 2-5 NFS roads. These roads include both arterial routes that cross the mountain ranges and spur routes that access single canyons, ridgelines, and a variety of distinct locations such as dispersed campsites. There is an additional 239.2 miles of maintenance level 1 NFS roads on the Ranger District. These roads have either been decommissioned, are scheduled for decommissioning or are behind locked gates. Table one below lists the Maintenance level 1 roads. This analysis looks at the impacts of this current road system along with those of the user-created (unauthorized system) that has developed alongside the FTS. Few of the 268 miles of unauthorized routes provide access to recreation areas and dispersed campsites. Most are remnants of past activities on the Forest such as timber sales or range access. Others were created by recreation riders on steep slopes or in areas that impact resources. They provide few trail opportunities as most are overgrown and impassable. In this analysis the majority of these routes have been identified as not needed for safe and efficient access for administration, utilization, and protection. While included in the modeling and mapping efforts, these routes are not being proposed for future study. The remaining unauthorized routes, approximately 51 miles, are being considered in closer detail and may be added to the FTS at some time in the future. Whether they are added as NFS roads or NFS trails has not been determined. Three area specific travel management plans have been published to address travel issues on the district. These include: • Clear Creek / Kings Canyon Travel Management Plan (2005) • Peavine Mountain Travel Management Plan (2006) • Martis Area Travel Management Plan (2007)

4 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

A motor vehicle use map (MVUM) was published in 2008 based on the existing NFS road system and the changes made to that system in the above decisions. This TAP analyzes that FTS and makes recommendations regarding the conditions of NFS roads and trails and access. It also identifies locations of dispersed campsites and where routes into these sites could be added to the FTS. For the most part, the analysis does not revisit previous decisions. For example, the Peavine Mountain Travel Management Plan (2006) closed several unauthorized trails. It is the opinion of the district that these trails should not be part of the FTS and that efforts to physically close or rehabilitate these routes should continue as planned and funded. The Travel Management Rule does provide for designation of areas along routes where dispersed camping could occur. In this TAP the district has identified several dispersed camping areas where a buffer on a specific route may be a better management decision than the designation of individual routes. One of these areas is located in Hope Valley and will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis. Road Maintenance Level Descriptions1 The Forest Service assigns maintenance levels to all roads managed as part of the FTS. Each road is managed within one of five maintenance levels: these maintenance levels are briefly described below (FSH 7709.58).

Maintenance Level 1 Roads designated as level 1 are closed to vehicular traffic. 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. This designation may be 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.”

Maintenance Level 2 Maintenance level 2 is 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 Maintenance level 3 is 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.

1 (FSH 7709.58).

5 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Maintenance Level 4 Maintenance level 4 is 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 Maintenance level 5 is 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.”

6 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

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 • Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan • National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for the Carson Ranger District • Infra database • Photo Science contract (2004) information • District personnel • Public input • Easement records • Forest Transportation B Maps. • Prior global positioning system (GPS) road and trail mapping products as well as other existing electronic data • Hard copy quad topographical maps • Forest visitor maps • Aerial photographs • Field verification of roads through other protocols on the Forest such as real property and deferred maintenance. These data have been incorporated into this document and are summarized on the project area map and tables found in appendix C. In 2003 the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest completed a Forest Wide Roads Analysis Report (RAP) for maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 NFS roads. These 72 NFS roads (totaling 157 miles) were analyzed under the 2003 Forest RAP and subsequent review has not identified a need for change in the maintenance level or season of use of these routes (USDA FS 2003). Following the completion of the Forest RAP, the district began the process of designating motorized trails in the Peavine area (USDA FS 2006) and in 2007, the district completed the Martis Area Travel Management Plan (USDA FS 2007). Both plans along with the earlier Clear Creek / Kings Canyon Travel Management Plan (USDA FS 2005) designated roads and trails for motor vehicle use and prohibited cross-country travel within the project areas. With the implementation of the Travel Management Rule and based on these decisions the district published its motor vehicle use map in 2008. The project area map and appendix C of this document lists all NFS roads and NFS trails currently approved for motor vehicle use on the Carson Ranger District. Appendix c also includes a list of unauthorized routes that may be added to the FTS after the appropriate level of NEPA is completed. The public was involved during the public comment phases of the NEPA analysis projects listed above. During those projects the comments received were used to

7 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

address pubic access issues and resource management issues. Most of the comments received are still relevant today and were used during this TAP to inform its preparation. Travel management is a dynamic exercise requiring continuous maintenance and awareness. The public, who use the forest transportation system, continuously provide feedback to the Carson Ranger District regarding the condition of roads and motorized trails and the needs for access, maintenance, or impacts from the forest transportation system on resources.

Project area map 1- Carson Ranger District, the Forest Transportation System Tables 1 The NFS Roads No Longer Needed to Meet Forest Resource Management Objectives

8 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES

Key Issues In this step, the objective of this analysis is to identify key questions and issues related to management of the forest transportation system (FTS) and any proposed additions to that system. 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 on the Carson Ranger District are:

• The ability of the public to continue to access NFS lands for recreation and utilization.

• Impacts to aquatic, riparian zone, terrestrial wildlife and rare plants, historic properties, and water quality resources from the FTS.

• Impacts to natural, cultural, and scenic resources, and public safety resulting from illegal activities (dumping, drug labs, marijuana cultivation, and trespass). Motor vehicle use on the Carson Ranger District reflects current population trends in the surrounding urban interface. Many forest visitors are from the local area (Reno, Carson City, and Carson Valley), while there are also visitors from outside the area, mostly large population centers in central California. Visitors use the FTS for camping, staging for recreation, hunting, exploration, and other recreation access needs. The district contains both the developed FTS and a network of unauthorized routes. Use is moderate with heavy use on summer weekends. With an average width of 10 feet, unauthorized routes are generally less used than system routes. Many unauthorized routes are overgrown and inaccessible. Others have been closed as part of previous travel management decisions. Impacts to wildlife, aquatic habitat, and watersheds are a concern. Some routes bisect habitat for a number of species including sage grouse, mule deer, and goshawk. Generally, roads and motorized trails cause disturbance or displacement of wildlife, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, reduction of habitat productivity, and in some cases, wildlife mortality. The FTS is also are a vector in the dispersal and establishment of noxious and invasive weed species. Weeds degrade habitats for both wildlife species and native and endemic plant species. Much of the district is adjacent to the Reno and Carson City urban areas. This close proximity has both benefits and disadvantages. Residents of these areas have easy access to NFS lands including trails and developed and dispersed campsites. The local schools use portions of the Forest as outdoor classrooms to teach aspects of environmental education. Businesses and communities use the district back drop as a selling point to attract investment and employees. Urbanization of areas along the eastern side of the district has increased the amount of illegal activity occurring on the forest. Desert dumping is a common practice in some areas and often occurs in areas where target shooting takes place. Dumped articles become targets and along with discarded appliances, vehicles, household trash, construction and landscaping debris, and furniture there is a background residue of shell casings, broken glass, beverage containers, rusted nails, fire rings, and sharp metal and plastic fragments. These areas pose a serious health and safety risk to forest visitors, wildlife, and the surrounding environment. The combined effects of broken glass, poor sanitation (resulting from no on site facilities) and rotting household garbage, alcohol consumption and firearms use, and open fires has resulted in

9 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District personal injuries, wildfires, property damage, and impacts to biological, physical, and cultural resources. The current FTS provides access into these areas and has an impact on how these areas are used. Other illegal activities on NFS lands include the production of methamphetamines and cultivation of marijuana. While not directly related to the FTS, both of these activities are facilitated by roads and trails. Soils in the project area are dependent in part on parent geology. Erosive soils depend on slope, vegetative cover, texture, and other factors. Mechanical action from wheeled vehicles can increase erosion by introducing disturbance and breaking down soil structure. Stream channels can be damaged by travel routes that either pass through or are directly adjacent to these channels. As a result, roads and trails can impact water quality by increasing sediment loads which alters stream channels and degrades downstream water quantity and quality. This damage can happen even when use only occurs when the channels are dry. Heritage resources are a concern throughout the project area and are an important consideration in all management activities on the district. There has been human occupation in the project area for thousands of years. Roads, motorized trails, and areas can impact heritage sites and necessitate rerouting of a road or trail.

10 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS

The road system in use today, including both NFS roads and trails and unauthorized routes are the product of approximately 100 years of road development. The transportation network was minimal in the early 1900s when lands were being set aside as Forest Reserves in the Eastern Sierras. Most access was by horseback, wagon, stage along trails, or crude wagon roads. With the introduction of the automobile into Nevada in the early 1900s and the increased settlement and economic development in the area, the transportation network expanded rapidly. During this time period (roughly 1900 through 1920), the majority of roads on NFS lands were built and used primarily for removal of timber, mineral development, commerce interests, Forest Service administrative purposes, and settlement. By the mid 1900s the backbone of the present system was in place and use was still primarily based upon resource extraction along with increased use by recreationists and Forest Service administrative use. Today, roads in the project area provide numerous benefits for a wide variety of users. 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 (page 39. This assessment is based on several common assumptions. These include:

• The FTS and proposed routes provide for current use and use patterns which most likely will not significantly change over time. • Dispersed camping can occur across the landscape but is concentrated along roads and motorized trails. • Road maintenance will vary depending on maintenance level. Level 3 to 5 roads will receive more use and maintenance than level 2 roads. Maintenance level 1 roads typically will not receive any maintenance. The exception would occur when there were identified drainage issues. • NFS roads that are to be decommissioned or unauthorized routes not designated will be reclaimed as needed. Any reclamation work would require NEPA. • Off-road vehicular traffic would be allowed only under permit (i.e., mineral plans of operations, livestock management, other special use or exemptions under the travel management rule.). 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? Unique ecological attributes include but are not limited to large expanses of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitat, aspen forests, bristle-cone and limber pine forests, relic ponderosa pine stands, cave and cliff environments, sage grouse habitat, and riparian areas. This project does not include plans for new road construction or reconstruction of roads on the Carson Ranger District. All routes under consideration already exist on the landscape. Approximately 787 miles of routes are included on the current FTS for the Carson Ranger District. This mileage

11 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District includes all NFS roads (maintenance level 1-5) and all motorized trails within the boundaries of the Carson Ranger District. Within the project area, riparian areas and riparian habitats are the most ecologically diverse areas. These areas typically have a variety of uses associated with them including access roads, recreation, and livestock use. Northern goshawk, migratory birds, native fish, and amphibians are also found in these areas. Among these are native species, Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout (both species are listed under the Endangered Species Act) and the Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog and Yosemite Toad (classified as a Forest Service sensitive species and a candidate species for federal listing). To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? Roads facilitate biological invasion in that disturbed roadside habitats are invaded by exotic (non-native) plants dispersed by wind, water, vehicles, and other human activities (USDA FS 2001). Roads are corridors that can connect ecosystems. Because roads provide a somewhat homogeneous condition through the length of the corridor, they provide opportunity for organisms and materials to move along the corridor, thereby increasing the connectivity (Merriam 1984) among those ecosystems interfacing with the road. Roads may be the first points of entry for exotic species into a new landscape, and the road can serve as a corridor for plants and animals moving farther into the landscape. The degree of connectivity between roads and streams (that is, the number of stream crossings and areas where roads and streams are near enough to strongly interact) is recognized as a good general indicator of the interactions between the two and of potential effects roads can exert (Wemple 1994). What are the potential effects of noxious weed introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area? Noxious weeds and invasive species can cause substantial resource damage by disrupting plant communities and replacing valuable wildlife forage. Transportation routes are the most significant corridors for the spread of weeds. National Forest System and unauthorized routes have the potential to spread weeds into adjacent areas. Federal and state law directs the Forest to minimize the potential for spreading noxious weeds when planning projects (Federal Noxious Weed Act 1974, National Strategy and Implementation Plan of Invasive Species Management 1998, Executive Order on Invasive Species 1999, Forest Service Manual 2080, Nevada Revised Statues Section 555, Nevada Administrative Code Section 555). Currently the Forest employs an Integrated Weed Management Strategy to treat weed infestations where they are identified. The weed management strategy includes conducting a noxious weed risk assessment when any ground disturbing action or activity is proposed to determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the proposed action. For projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the decision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation. The following criteria have been identified as important indicators of risk associated with the spread of weeds by vehicles:

• Where trail/route passes through or near known weed infestations, the Forest will use weed information from TERRA to map known locations of weeds on the

12 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Forest. A buffer of approximately 25 percent of the infestation area will be added around the edge to account for the spread of infestation sites and the tendency for people to park off the main track of a road. These areas are considered as “high risk” areas. The differential buffer size is used because bigger infestations tend to spread faster than small ones, up to a limit.

• Where the route will facilitate the spread of weeds onto or within the Forest, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) will use the state weed point layer maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to map known infestations throughout the state. A buffer of 5 miles will be mapped around each weed point to identify areas at “medium risk” for spread of weeds.

Risk Assessment Definitions for Noxious Weeds Three different risk criteria were applied to roads and weed infestations on the Carson Ranger District: High Risk: Road is within or adjacent to weed infested areas with a 25 percent buffer. Moderate Risk: Road is within 5 miles of weed infested areas not designated as high risk. Low Risk: Road is greater than 5 miles from weed infested areas not designated as high or moderate risk. Approximately 16 miles of NFS roads are located in high risk weed areas and 740 miles of NFS roads and trails are in moderate risk areas. Approximately 1,900 acres of NFS lands are infested by noxious weeds on the Carson Ranger District, including areas interior from roads. While this is considered a significant number of infested acres, compared to other national forests, the Carson Ranger District is well positioned to manage and control current infestations as well as minimize the spread of future invasions of noxious weeds. As part of the forest-wide noxious weed management program, the Carson Ranger District annually maps and treats noxious weeds along roadways as well as interior sites using herbicides, hand pulling, grazing, and other methods. How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area? Disturbance regimes on the Carson Ranger District include fire, flooding, insects, and mass wasting. Depending on the type of event or location, roads may either contribute to the spread or severity of the event or buffer the extent of disturbance. Roads also facilitate the spread of non-native invasive species, which in turn can alter fire regimes. Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? Roads can have direct effects on surface and subsurface hydrology by increasing sediment input; reducing associated riparian cover; intercepting, capturing, and rerouting flow; and reducing infiltration. All these factors can lead to changes in peak flow both in the volume of water and the timing that the storm waters reach the stream. Roads can also influence channel morphology by destabilizing stream banks and widening the stream at road crossings. Impacts to meadows can include compaction, draining, and channelizing flow. These potential impacts

13 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District can in turn lead to negative effects to fish and other aquatic species occupying streams and seeps within proximity of the road. Generally, the further away the road is from the stream channel, the fewer impacts it has on the aquatic and riparian habitats. 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 watersheds with their natural cover of vegetation intact (Elliot and Hall 1997). The effect on water quality and the potential for increased sediment concentrations depends greatly on the location and position of routes within a watershed. Routes located within riparian areas and adjacent to streams are more likely to transport sediment into the water column than those located further away. These impacts are highly dependent on slope, soil type and vegetation cover in the area between the route and stream or riparian area. There are approximately 241 miles of routes within 300 feet of a perennial stream on the district and 130 miles of routes within 150 feet of an intermittent channel. In addition, there are approximately 388 road/stream crossings on perennial streams and 678 road/stream crossings on intermittent channels.

Risk Assessment Definitions for Aquatic Features High Risk: Where routes cross or are within 300-feet of an aquatic feature (stream, pond, etc.) occupied by a population of cutthroat trout species, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, or Yosemite toad, there is a "high risk" to aquatic resources. • A feature is considered occupied by fish if surveys have documented presence, or if the locale is downstream of a known presence (i.e., a stream below a lake). In the case of Lahontan cutthroat trout, if a stream has been identified as critical to recovery within the species' recovery plan, it is considered occupied whether fish are present or not. • A feature is considered occupied by Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog or Yosemite toad if the location is within a mile up or downstream from a site with known presence. This frog is generally associated with specific ponds. However, Columbia spotted frog will migrate between habitat use areas (i.e., breeding, foraging, hibernaculum) and individuals will disperse to new habitat. While some frogs have been observed to move further than a mile, that distance is considered adequate to encompass the movement of most individuals from an occupied site (Pilliod et al. 2002; Bull 2005; Funk et al. 2005). According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), three hundred feet is considered an appropriate riparian buffer, with studies showing filter strips of 200 to 300 feet are generally effective at protecting streams from overland movement of sediment (Trimble and Sartz 1957; Packer 1967; Swift 1986; USFS 1995). Crossings are an especially critical interface because this is where most road sediment enters an aquatic system (Brown 1994; Wemple et al. 2003; Carroll 2008). Moderate Risk: Where routes cross or are within 150 feet of an aquatic feature which is connected, or tributary, to an occupied area, but is not occupied itself, there is "moderate risk" to aquatic resources. These tributary features must be upstream of and within one (stream) mile of the occupied locale; and tributary discharge may be perennial or intermittent in character. The 150 foot buffer is again consistent with SNFPA considerations. The distance of one mile from occupied locales is conservative because no studies have been conducted specifically examining movement distance of sediment due to a lack of pre- and post-treatment data. An

14 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District exception is an incidental observation made by Kreutzweiser and Capell (2001) of sediment originating from a road crossing an ephemeral stream. The authors were collecting sediment in conjunction with a timber harvest study and road had been built to access the harvest area. Following a period of heavy run-off, fine sediment at a collection site about 300 meters (≈985 feet or 0.2 mile) downstream the road registered a significant increase above the baseline. The authors were able to conclude that the road had been the source of the increase, not the timber harvest. Thus, because of the presence of pre-treatment sediment data, it can be concluded that a significant pulse of sediment was able to move at least 0.2 mile from its road source. Low Risk: Routes considered to be of "low risk" are described similar to moderate risk, except tributary features are greater than one (stream) mile from occupied areas. Direct and indirect impact to the occupied system may be unlikely to occur due individual routes, but the cumulative impact of many similar routes in a drainage may have an effect to downstream aquatic resources. How and where does the road system generate surface erosion? In a synthesis of published literature on the effects of roads on water quality, Elliot (2000) noted that “on most forested watersheds, sediment is the most troublesome pollutant and roads are a major source of that sediment.” Sediment rates from watersheds with roads and other soil disturbances tend to be significantly higher than watersheds with their natural cover of vegetation intact (Elliot and Hall 1997). Because all the analysis roads contain disturbed soil, they all represent some level of risk to the watershed for erosion and sediment runoff into streams. The level of risk, however, will vary due to things such as a road’s location in the watershed, steepness, and the erodibility of the soil composing its surface. A road may have many other attributes that add risk. However, to make the task of analyzing each road manageable, only attributes that were judged to most influence risk were used as indicators of risk. Roads near streams tend to affect stream habitat more than those in the uplands (McGurk and Fong 1995). Most sediment from roads enters streams where roads cross streams, or where roads are close to streams (Elliot 2000). Table 1 shows the total miles of road located near streams and the total number of stream crossings. In this risk analysis, multiple crossings of perennial streams were considered to be an indicator of risk. Also, a significant length of road (0.5 mile or more) within a designated riparian buffer along a perennial stream was considered to be an indicator of risk. Table 1: Miles of Route in Close Proximity to Riparian Areas, Perennial Streams, Intermittent Streams and Number of Road Crossings Number of Number of Perennial Intermittent Road Road Riparian Streams Streams Crossings Crossings Areas (miles) (miles) (miles) (perennial (intermittent streams) streams) All Routes 213 241 130 388 678 Current NFS Roads 176 199 108 138 261 According to Copstead and others (1988), “If all else is equal, steeper road grades exhibit greater surface flows and erosion than milder grades.” To prevent excessive erosion on low- volume roads of the type in the project area, best management practices advocate the installation of cross drains to divert water off steep road surfaces (Copstead and others 1988, Keller and Sherar 2003). It is very unlikely that unauthorized roads in the project area have

15 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District cross drains. Many of the system roads may not have functioning cross drains. In this risk analysis, a length of very steep slope (greater than 30 percent) is an indicator of increased risk. Keller and Sherar (2003) recommend 10-15 meters spacing of water bars on slopes greater than 30 percent. If the soil is highly erodible, not only is there a greater chance of sediment runoff, but there may also be catastrophic failure of the road due to mass wasting (USDA FS 2001). The West Carson River, from its headwaters to the state line, is included on California’s 303(d) list of water quality limited segments (LRWQCB). Much of this reach, along with many tributaries, is on NFS lands. Pollutants of concern include nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, and pathogens. Numerous potential sources are listed, including recreational activities and channel and streambank erosion. There are approximately 138 miles of NFS and unauthorized roads within the West Carson River subwatersheds. How and where does the road system affect mass wasting? Mass wasting has the potential to contribute large quantities of sediment to streams (USDA FS 2001, US EPA 2005). Slope stability is a concern when roads are located on steep cross slopes. Improperly constructed roads tend to be unstable and prone to mass wasting when they cut slope supports, fill slopes are exposed to too much weight, there is ground water saturation of the road prism, or bank scoring destabilizes the road at a stream crossing or where the road is located too near a stream. In the extreme case, the entire road prism may fail, causing a landslide with material being deposited directly into the channel and the loss of the route. Roads constructed using best management practices tend to have less risk of mass wasting (US EPA 2005). The Forest Plan requires the use of best management practices when constructing roads. Since all or most of the unauthorized roads were not constructed using best management practices, they may be at the greatest risk for mast wasting. Within the project area, mass wasting has the greatest risk of occurring where roads are located on very steep slopes. To determine which roads were at risk, GIS modeling was used to map and measure the length of roads on 30 percent or greater slopes. These locations are relatively rare on the Carson Ranger District. Approximately 272 miles of NFS roads and unauthorized routes have been mapped on slopes greater than 30 percent. Current NFS roads and trails open to the public account for about 75 miles of road on slopes greater than 30 percent. Mass wasting resulting from the road system is a rare event within the project area due to the small amount of water within the surface soils. The East Fork Carson River watershed tends to be more prone to mass wasting. On the East Fork, just downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence, a massive landslide is evident that dates back to at least the 1960s. This landslide is currently active, with additional movement occurring during high magnitude events. The most recent movement occurred in 1997 where the landslide appears to have blocked the entire channel, resulting in channel aggradation upstream and incision of the landslide mass (MACTEC et al.). The Wolf Creek Road (31032), located on the slope above this reach of the East Carson River, has been repeatedly damaged by slide activity. How and where do the road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? There are currently about 678 intermittent stream crossings and 388 perennial stream crossings on NFS and unauthorized routes on the district. National Forest System roads and trails open to the public account for less than half of all crossings with 261 intermittent and 138 perennial crossing. The vast majority of these road-stream crossings are fords. Culverts and bridges are

16 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District less frequent and are for the most part limited to current NFS roads. Road-stream crossings are a concern for water quality because they are an entry point for sediment and other pollutants that run off road surfaces (Elliot 2000). Fords can cause the channel to widen and become shallower, which hinders fish passage (US EPA 2005). Culverts are a concern if they are undersized or are the inappropriate type for the channel (Keller and Sherar 2003). Undersized culverts can become plugged and over top during high flows, causing channel erosion and sediment input. How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides to enter surface waters? Any point on the road system where water flow is concentrated and then discharged into the stream channel or where rilling and gullies mark an obvious flow path to a channel has the potential to concentrate pollutants. Pollutants are most likely to enter surface waters where there are surface water crossings and where roads are near streams. The FTS has 261 intermittent drainage crossings and 138 crossings on perennial drainages on NFS roads and trails open for public use. Approximately 108 miles of NFS roads and trails are located within 150 feet of intermittent drainages and 199 miles within 300 feet of perennial drainages. These buffers are designated by riparian conservation areas (150 foot buffer for intermittent drainages and 300 foot buffer for perennial drainages) in the SNFPA. Pollution from chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides is unlikely to occur on the majority of the road system because they are unlikely to be transported through most of the project area. The most likely scenario would be some type of spill or deicing salts to originate from a major highway, individual isolated instances, or in association with a mineral exploration project. Mineral exploration projects have spill recovery plans incorporated into the plan of operations. Spill recovery plans require that response equipment be readily available during transport. The major highways within the project area are Interstate 80, US Highways 50 and 395, and California State Highways 4, 88, and 89. Any spill along these routes, if not contained, could result in the possibility of pollutants getting into surface and ground water systems. How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment? Stream channels migrate within their historic floodplain, eroding the channel bed in one place while building new streambanks in another. Streams transport sediment and aid in floodplain development. Streams also transport wood and fine organics which provide physical structure and habitat for fish and aquatic organisms. When roads are constructed within floodplains and in close proximity to streams they can restrict natural channel migration and alter the natural transport process. Currently, 108 miles of NFS roads are near intermittent drainages and 199 miles near perennial drainages as designated by buffers of riparian habitat bordering drainages (150 foot buffer for intermittent drainages and 300 foot buffer for perennial drainages). Given their proximity to the streams, many of these roads have the potential to affect natural channel dynamics and transport processes.

17 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what extent? The current FTS includes approximately 138 perennial stream road crossings and 261 intermittent crossings on the district located on NFS roads and NFS trails open to the public. The perennial crossings can affect migration if they have increased width to depth ratios beyond the requirement for aquatic species. Improperly installed culverts can also prevent fish passage during spawning. On the Carson Ranger District, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, Yosemite toad, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic species may be present. Lahontan cutthroat trout populations within Carson River watershed occur within Red Lake, Heenan Lake, and Heenan Creek; Poison, Murray Canyon, and Golden Canyon creeks; and the East Fork Carson River. The occupied habitats within Red Lake, Heenan Lake, and Heenan Creek occur on state lands administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. The occupied habitats within Poison Creek, Murray Canyon Creek, Golden Canyon Creek, and the East Fork Carson River occur in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness where no roads are present. The current road system is not restricting the migration or movement of Lahontan cutthroat trout within the project area. Paiute cutthroat trout populations within the Carson River watershed occur within Silver King Creek and associated tributaries within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness where no roads are present. The current road system is not restricting the migration or movement of Paiute cutthroat trout within the project area. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are present on the district within the Ebbetts Pass area in small ponds located south of the Pacific Crest Trail as well near Sunset Lakes within the Blue Lakes recreation area. Sierra Nevada yellow legged frogs also occur within the Carson Iceberg Wilderness. The road system in these areas is not known to restrict the migration and movement of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs. Yosemite toads are present on the district within the Ebbetts Pass area near Upper and Lower Kinney Lakes. A population also occurs in the Blue Lakes area but is believed to be hybridized with western toads (Stebbins 1966). The road system in these areas is not known to restrict the migration and movement of Yosemite toads. No motorized routes occur within the Silver King Creek Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) on the Carson Ranger District. Paiute cutthroat trout, Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and macroinvertebrates are known to occur within the CAR. As a result of no motorized routes occurring within the CAR, the road system does not restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms. Macroinvertebrates likely inhabit all of the perennial streams within the project area; they may also seasonally inhabit the intermittent streams within the project area. Low water crossings are unlikely to inhibit passage of macroinvertebrates; however culverts may act like a one-way valve (downstream) for insect nymphs and larvae. However, if upstream movement is blocked by a culvert, upstream reaches will likely be colonized by aerially dispersing adults (Vaughan 2002).

What are the effects of the road system on sensitive plant species? Motorized vehicle use on roads and trails has the ability to negatively impact rare plants by reducing the quality and/or the amount of habitats that support them. Depending on their

18 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District proximity to rare plant populations, roads and motorized trails can alter the physical and chemical environment including increased dust, increased light, increased soil compaction, changes in the pattern of run-off and sedimentation, and changes in the soil nutrients (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Roads and motorized trails may lead also to the loss and fragmentation of occupied habitat (Wilcove et al. 1998; Kwak et al. 1998), alteration of the vegetation community, change in pollinators and seed set, as well as disruption of the seed bank (Kwak et al. 1998) which could then lead to a decrease in plant vigor and an increased loss of individual plants. The presence of roads can also increase the potential for noxious weed infestations that may ultimately limit the amount and distribution of native plants (Wilcove et al. 1998). Travel routes are often invasion corridors for the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive species as seeds are dispersed into disturbed sites from vehicles (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Forman and Alexander 1998). Dispersed camping adjacent to designated routes and associated disturbance can impact rare plants through inadvertent trampling and/or soil compaction.

• Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/FSH 2670) • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended (Forest Plan) • Sierra National Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) • Intermountain Region (R4) Sensitive Species List (USDA FS, updated 2003) • Governor’s Sage Grouse Plan

Parameters for Establishing Risk Assessment Codes All of the possible effects listed above in conjunction with proximity of each route to known points of occurrence, the buffer zones established for those known occurrences, and areas of potential habitat were taken into consideration for establishing the parameters for the following risk assessment codes. Buffer zone distances and proximity of routes to known locations were established from geographic information system (GIS) layers created from information obtained from the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) and GPS data collected by Forest Service personnel and contractors.

19 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

While the afore mentioned possible effects have been well documented, no precedence exists for how the distance of a route from individual plants or their potential habitat may affect population trends for sensitive species. Individual rare plants have varying levels of potential for distribution and expansion based on habitat potential and reproduction strategies. Therefore, the distance of 30 meters from the edge and on either side of all routes has been arbitrarily established by the Carson Ranger District botanist as a buffer zone to try and capture an average potential distribution distance. This buffer zone would also represent a reasonable distance that would allow for 1) incidental off-road travel experienced when a vehicle may, for various reasons, accidentally leave the road; 2) roadside parking during recreational use; and 3) dispersed camping.

Risk Assessment Definitions for R4 Sensitive Plant Species Very Low Risk (0): The road or its buffer does not overlap potential habitat.

Low Risk (1): The road or its buffer overlaps potential habitat but does not overlap the buffer of occupied habitat.

Moderate Risk (2): The road or its buffer overlaps the buffer of occupied habitat but not a point of known occurrence.

High Risk (3): The road or its buffer overlaps a point of known occurrence.

Table 2. Rare plants with potential to occur on the Carson Ranger District (federally listed Threatened (T) Endangered (E), Candidate (C); Regional Forest Service Sensitive (RFSS), Watch List species (WL)).

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Boechera (=Arabis) rectissima var. Washoe tall rockcress RFSS simulans Tiehm’s rockcress Boechera (=Arabis) tiehmii RFSS

Ophir’s rockcress Boechera (=Arabis) ophira RFSS Boechera (=Arabis) rigidissima var. Galena Creek rockcress RFSS demota Lavins eggvetch Astragalus oophorus var. lavinii RFSS

Upswept moonwort Botrychium ascendens RFSS

Dainty moonwort Botrychium crenulatum RFSS

Slender moonwort Botrychium lineare RFSS

Moosewort Botrychium tunux RFSS

Tioga pass sedge Carex tiogana RFSS

Tahoe draba Draba asterophora var. asterophora RFSS

Altered andesite buckwheat Erigonum robustum RFSS

20 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Sierra Valley ivesia Ivesia aperta var. aperta RFSS

Dog Valley ivesia Ivesia aperta var. canina RFSS

Plumas ivesia Ivesia sericoleuca RFSS

Webber ivesia Ivesia webberi C,RFSS

Three-ranked hump moss Meesia triquetra RFSS

Carson Valley monkey flower Mimulus ignotus (ined.) WL

Slide Mountain buckwheat Mimulus ovatus WL

Spjut’s brittle-moss Orthotrichum spjutii RFSS

Wassuk beardtongue Penstemon rubicundus RFSS

Altered andesite popcorn flower Plagiobothrys glomeratus RFSS

William’s combleaf Polyctenium williamsii RFSS

Alpine goldenweed Tonetus alpinus RFSS

According to the risk assessment, there are several roads on the Carson Ranger District which are within close proximity to known occurrences of rare plants and are therefore considered “high risk” areas. Many of these roads occur on Peavine Mountain, some of which are currently bisecting rare plant populations. These areas include NFS roads near Bull Ranch Creek, Red Metal Mine, and Raleigh Heights/Hoge Road, and are impacting populations of Webber ivesia, altered andesite popcorn flower, and altered andesite buckwheat. Roads located within the Martis area and near Big Meadow also occur within close proximity to Galena Creek rockress and are considered “high” to “moderate” risk to rare plants. Terrestrial Wildlife What are the direct and indirect effects of the road system on terrestrial species? Direct effects to wildlife from roads include those that immediately impact wildlife as a result of the road. For example, increasing or maintaining access makes human-wildlife encounters a more likely occurrence. These encounters can lead to direct mortality via hunting or by vehicle collisions. While some species use roads as foraging corridors, they also increase the risk of road-related mortality. Other species may be captured (collected) and removed from the Forest or be disturbed to the point of nest/burrow abandonment. Vehicles may also cause displacement of wildlife from noise disturbance and physical presence of vehicles. For example, Havlick (2002) documented numerous studies that show wildlife, including birds, reptiles, and deer and elk, respond to

21 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

disturbance with accelerated heart rates and metabolic function, and suffer from increased levels of stress. Immediate behavioral responses include head raising, body shifting, short distance movements, flapping of wings (birds), and flight or escape behavior. These responses can lead to bodily injury, energy loss, and decreased food intake. Longer term responses include changes or shifts in home ranges, changes in movement patterns, and habitat avoidance and abandonment (Kasworm and Manley 1990, Jalkotzy et al. 1997). These responses can ultimately lead to vulnerability to predators, starvation, and reproductive failure. Indirect effects from roads include those that, over time, impact wildlife by altering important foraging, breeding, and migration habitats. Significant alterations to habitat can lead to decreased productivity and survival for many wildlife species. For example, roads can fragment habitat and become barriers to traditional migration corridors or foraging corridors to wildlife. Roads and/or trails can also create “edge” habitats which allow more generalist species like ravens or coyotes to encroach into “interior” forest dwelling species, such as many songbirds and marten. This can lead to increased predation and lower survival rates. Roads and trails can fragment or disrupt habitat by introducing exotic or noxious weeds which replace native vegetation essential for food and cover. Roads also increase pollutants like dust and vehicle emissions that contaminate roadside vegetation upon which wildlife feed. Breeding and nesting habitat is often the most sensitive for wildlife species. One exception could be when winter foraging habitat is more of a limiting factor for a species rather than breeding habitat (e.g. deer). Sensitive areas vary in size and seasonal timing by species. The table below contains a list of special status wildlife species: federally listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E) species, Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), Management Indicator Species (MIS), and other species of concern that are found or have the potential to be found (known distribution) on the Carson Ranger District. Table 3. Special Status Wildlife Species (Federally listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), Management Indicator Species (MIS), and other species of concern found or that have the potential to be found on the Carson Ranger District.

Common Name Scientific Name Status*

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi T, MIS Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris T, MIS Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Rane sierrae FC, RFSS Yosemite toad Anaxyrus canorus FC, RFSS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus RFSS, Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus RFSS, Great gray owl Strix nebulosa RFSS, California spotted owl Strix occidentalis RFSS Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus FC,RFSS,MIS, Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus RFSS, White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus RFSS Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis RFSS,MIS, Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum RFSS, Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis RFSS, Fisher Martes pennanti FC,RFSS Wolverine Gulo gulo luteus RFSS Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator RFSS

22 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Table 3. Special Status Wildlife Species (Federally listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), Management Indicator Species (MIS), and other species of concern found or that have the potential to be found on the Carson Ranger District.

Common Name Scientific Name Status*

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum RFSS, Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens RFSS, Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus MIS, American marten Martes americana MIS Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus MIS Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius MIS Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia MIS Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata MIS Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii SAR Macroinvertebrates MIS Mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa Nevada State protected as ‘Sensitive”

Direction The Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction is to manage NFS habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary (FSM 2670.21). In addition, the Intermountain Region has identified sensitive species (FSM 2670.22) to ensure that protection is provided to these species to ensure they do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species are maintained in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on NFS lands. It is currently not known how existing roads are or are not impacting wildlife species on the Carson Ranger District. However, incidental observations near specific routes indicate some impacts to special status species may be occurring. For example, a NFS route in the Dog Valley area, which is frequently used by woodcutters and recreationist, is within 200 meters of an historic goshawk nest site. Shortly after this nest was found active in 2004, it was determined that recent woodcutting had occurred in the immediate vicinity of the nest. Additionally, large piles of paint balls were also discovered directly under the nest tree. While the nest produced three fledglings, the adults were never observed in the area and the site has not been active again since 2004. It is likely that human disturbance has deterred returned nesting in this area. Trails and roads in the Thomas Creek area occur within close proximity to nesting flammulated owls. While flammulated owls are generally tolerant of some human disturbance, high levels of continued disturbance would likely have some impacts on foraging and nesting success. A large mountain beaver colony has also recently been discovered in the Thomas Creek area. Mountain beavers are considered to be very rare in the Sierra Nevada and are the only remaining living member of the Aplodontia family which is over 40 million years old. Mountain beavers are very shy and elusive animals that do not tolerate disturbance well. The proximity of the colony to NFS routes makes it highly vulnerable to disturbance, particularly from dogs which could potentially chase the beavers and/or dig up burrows.

23 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Approximately 240 miles of roads occur within critical winter range for mule deer on the Carson Ranger District. However, most of these routes are seasonally closed to motorized use in the winter. For example, Mitchell Canyon wildlife area on the north end of the district is seasonally closed from November through April. A seasonal closure also occurs in the Jacks Valley Wildlife Management area near Carson City and on the south end of the district on Monitor pass. Protecting deer from disturbance in the winter is important as the effects of disturbance may be greater during the winter months when deer are often relying on energy reserves for survival. Local deer herds have been rapidly declining over the last decade due primarily to loss of habitat from urban development, wildfires, and other disturbances. Many of the 340 miles of roads that occur in summer habitat for mule deer overlap with roads that also occur in critical winter range for mule deer. Currently these routes are open to motorized use in the summer when deer may possibly be foraging and/or fawning. The effects of these roads on summering deer are unknown. Particular areas of concern include roads in the Martis area as fawning and common summer use by mule deer is known to occur here. Roads in the Monitor Pass area are adjacent to fawning and summer use sites. Roads may affect deer by disrupting migratory patterns and fragmenting unique foraging areas. Travel on these roads (and presumably off the roads) may cause deer to move more frequently urgently reducing energy reserves and possibly decreasing reproductive capability. How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect wildlife? Roads facilitate activities such as firewood gathering, fishing, hunting, OHV use, and collection of various forest products (e.g., seeds, pinyon nuts, mushrooms), all of which affect wildlife and their habitat. Roads increase the amount and frequency of visitation to areas within the Forest. Merely driving on the road can affect wildlife (e.g., road-related mortalities). Direct impacts could include loss of nest/roost trees because of firewood harvest activities and nest/burrow abandonment due to continued disturbance. However, it is important to consider that many of the routes allow for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitats, in addition to research, inventory, and monitoring. Roads sometimes allow access into remote or “protected” habitats via all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and four-wheel drive vehicles. Providing access to remote areas can facilitate illegal activities such as poaching, timber/firewood theft, illegal harvest of forest products, illegal “take” of wildlife species (raptors in particular), and refuse dumping. Providing road access can also result in unauthorized fish stocking. Legal activities that occur in these remote areas include hunting, trapping, fishing, bird watching, berry picking, etc. Roads may lead to an increase in unauthorized roads which can fragment and alter habitat and increase the likelihood of disturbing nesting or denning wildlife. Another consequence from roads includes the threat of wildfire. Studies have shown that 78 percent of all human caused wildfires were within 265 feet of a road. Although wildfire is a natural process benefiting many ecosystems, human caused fires can occur in areas with a limited natural fire-regime, thereby altering the habitat significantly and differently than a naturally caused fire. Roads may also encourage over collecting of rare plants and illegal hunting in non-designated hunting zones. Easy access from roads may also increase legal hunting activities in areas that were previously little used. This increased concentration of hunting could apply significant pressure to big game populations.

24 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Heritage Resources Routes that pass through eligible or unevaluated sites can have adverse impacts on the site. These impacts can be in the form of direct impacts from routes that are downcutting into buried deposits and erosion from rutting in the road bed or road maintenance activities off site. Additionally people driving off road or around hazardous areas can also impact heritage sites. Indirect impacts can come from routes accessing sites that may potentially be impacted from unauthorized collection or vandalism. Numerous historic and prehistoric heritage sites can be found across the project area. Many of these sites have roads passing through or along side of them. Sites should either be monitored or mitigated if the roads are found to be adversely affecting the sites. Closing roads that impacts sites is another option to consider. Risk Assessment Definitions for Heritage Resources High Risk: To help avoid effects to significant or unevaluated properties, the districts should consider the following criteria when deciding to include an unauthorized route in the proposed action. The district archaeologist should first identify the historic properties located on the district which are especially susceptible to vandalism or disturbance resulting from motorized access. In most cases these sites have previously been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and may include but are not limited to historic town sites, large multi-component sites with a high degree of integrity in both the distribution and diversity of the artifact assemblage, and hunting complex sites. A list of these sites in northern Nevada and Northeastern California could include historic Silver Mountain City, railroad grades in Dog Valley, prehistoric site complexes, and a variety of other sites with research potential. Unauthorized routes that access or pass through sites, where dispersed camping is taking place, and that fall into one or more of these categories should be considered as a “high risk” route and regardless of other resource criteria should not be included in the proposed action for the district. Eligible sites with roads traversing them are susceptible to unauthorized collection, vandalism, erosion, downcutting of the road bed into the site, and features being dismantled for recreational or firewood purposes. Recommendations vary from closing the road to monitoring the site with possible mitigation requirements if it is noted that the site is being adversely impacted from increased usage along the road due to its designation. Medium Risk: There are many sites on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest which have been determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places but remain unevaluated pending further research. Since the rules and regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4C1) require all sites within the area of potential effect to be evaluated, unevaluated sites require the same protection as eligible sites until the sites can be evaluated for their significance. Although the unevaluated sites may not trigger the same level of significance as the eligible sites, it is the Forest’s responsibility to protect these resources from adverse effects resulting from Forest Service actions. Site types that fall into this category vary from Native American to historic sites and multi-component (both Native American and historic) sites that range in size and complexity. Where potentially eligible or unevaluated sites occur within 100 feet of an unauthorized route or where the route dead-ends at the site, or when the site is visible from the road, the districts should assign a “medium risk” to the road and consider that risk along with those of other resource concerns before determining whether or not to designate the route open to motorized vehicles. Recommendations for these sites include road closures, monitoring of sites, or evaluating and mitigating if necessary.

25 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Low Risk: In still other cases, the Forest has limited information regarding the location of sites and the effects of routes across them. In such cases, the district should apply a model to help identify areas which are considered to have a “high” probability of site occurrence as determined by a statistical or intuitive model and/or use historic maps and documents to determine where the probability of sites may be. Additionally the roads that have not been previously surveyed and are proposed for addition to the FTS will be surveyed, according to a survey protocol accepted by the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, by qualified archaeologists to determine if sites are located along the road and whether that road’s designation will have an adverse impact on the site. If no sites are visible along the road and pre-field research indicates there is little likelihood of significant resources along the road, the road should be assigned a “low risk” and considered along with the other resources when determining if the road should be designated as a motorized route. These site types can range from Native American campsites to historic mining sites and historic ranches with associated features. Finally historic transportation routes which occur on the district should be considered. The overland stage routes, Pony Express, and historic roads into the Forest for access to mining districts, ranching activities, and woodcutting can all be affected by continued use of unauthorized routes. In these cases designation of a route and the assignment of risk should be on a case by case basis and the historic context of the route and potential effects of designation should be considered. In some cases not designating a historic route could result in adverse effects to the route as it falls into disuse. In other cases designating the route open may result in maintenance or user modifications that alter the historic route’s integrity. How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area? Unique communities or special features in the area include Sierran Plant communities located on the Peavine Mountain area. Altered andesite buckwheat, altered andesite popcorn flower, and Webber ivesia are plants endemic to Northern Nevada and are listed as sensitive in Region Four. These species belong to a unique plant community which are restricted to altered asdesitic soils and occur in an “island” distribution along the southern and eastern slopes of Peavine Mountain. Habitat for these plants includes barren sections of ridges and hill tops commonly associated with stunted, relic patches of Jeffrey pine. Plant composition and cover of these altered volcanics is low in comparison to the surrounding vegetation, yet conspicuously unique. On Peavine Mountain, the main threat of these plants is from off-road motorized recreation and fire and fire suppression activities. Routes can also fragment these unique communities and act as vectors for the spread of invasive species. How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, salable, and recreational minerals? Many of the existing roads provide access for mineral activities. The great majority of this work is for mining activity carried out under the authority of the 1872 Mining Law. Road access into the various mining districts on the district facilitates activities needed for exploration and development of the mineral resources. In the exploration phase roads are used for sampling, mapping, geophysical studies, claim staking, and drilling activities. Upon the discovery of an economic resource, many roads would continue to be used by operators for additional drilling, sampling, monitoring, field studies, and other activities needed to bring a mine into production. The mining related road use in any given area is closely related to the mineral potential for that area. Today, mining related road use is very minimal on the district with the exception of the Leviathan Mine

26 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Locatable Minerals Activities: At the present time there are a few locatable mining and exploration activities on the district; the FTS provides adequate access to conduct most of these activities. Existing and future plans of operation may require construction of additional roads, reopening of closed roads or cross-country travel to implement plans of operation for mining and exploration. The 1872 Mining Law grants the right to reasonable access to public land to enter, explore, occupy, and use NFS lands that are open to entry in the search for and claiming of valuable mineral deposits. The Forest Service has the authority to reasonably regulate this access to provide for protection of surface resources and require the proponent to reclaim the roads when mining/exploration activities are complete or there is no longer a need for the route. Travel management planning should retain routes to known active and/or historic exploration and mining areas to provide continued access for minerals exploration and mining. Leasable Mineral Activities (including but limited to the following commodities: oil, gas, and geothermal): Currently there are no active leasable mineral projects on the district; however, there are known areas of geologic interest. The FTS provides adequate access to conduct most of these activities. Construction of additional roads for motor vehicle use that is necessary for the development and production of a federal lease would be authorized in project specific surface use plans of operation approved by the appropriate authorized agency. Motor vehicle use that is necessary for off-lease or other activities not conducted on or for the benefit of an existing lease would be subject to review and approval under Forest Service special use authorities or other appropriate approval instruments. In accordance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, motor vehicle use associated with surveying or preliminary route-marking for oil and gas lease activities is considered “casual use” unless it is likely to cause more than negligible disturbance or damage. Order No. 1 encourages operators to contact the Forest Service in advance of anticipated lease activities to discuss the proposal and any unusual conditions for the area. For “casual use” activities, the FTS provides adequate access, and the lease document will serve as the written authorization required by the Travel Management Rule.

Salable Minerals Activities (including but not limited to the following commodities: sand, gravel, and building stone): Currently, there are no active salable minerals projects on the district. The FTS provides adequate access. In the future, if additional routes are required for the development and production of mineral deposits, they will generally be authorized in the contract, permit, or prospecting permit approved by the appropriate authorized agency.

Recreational Rock, Mineral, Invertebrate Fossil Collecting, and Gold Panning: These activities are numerous on the district, and the FTS provides adequate vehicular access. Travel by foot, horse, mountain bike or other non-motorized means are additional options under the FTS. Forest Products How does the road system affect access for cutting and removing forest products? Firewood cutting, Christmas trees, and forest products such as manzanita, pine cones, and seed are the primary forest product removal activities conducted across the district. A permit is required to cut, gather, or remove forest products. The current FTS facilitates these activities by providing access into areas where these resources are available. The FTS enables individuals and groups to cut, remove, and utilize forest resources for personal use. This is especially important in areas around Markleeville, Woodfords, Carson City,

27 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Minden/Gardnerville, and the Reno/Sparks area where access for fuelwood cutting is critical for some people dependent on wood heat. Special-Use Permits How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communications sites, utility corridors, and so on)? There are a number of special uses on the district including communication sites, utility corridors, and outfitter/guide permits. Motorized access may be permitted by a special use permit or needed routes may be open to the public. The FTS provides adequate access to these permitted uses. Routes to the communication sites and main routes along utility corridors should be kept open to allow ease of access for permittees. Spurs or specific routes pertaining only to the permit can be managed under the special use permit process. Camping areas and routes used by outfitter/guides should be kept open to allow them to continue to operate as long as other resources are not negatively impacted. General Public Transportation How does the road system address the safety of road users? Routes addressed in this TAP are primarily low volume roads. Because of their location and condition, speeds are slow. Because of the slow speeds and rough conditions, accidents involving multiple vehicles are rare. Single vehicle accidents may occur, but the district is rarely informed when they do occur. Administrative Uses How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring? The existing FTS allows Forest Service personnel the ability to administer and manage its many programs and respond to emergencies. Administrative uses include, but are not limited to, monitoring and inspecting range allotments, inspecting mining operations, maintaining campgrounds, conducting field studies and surveys, and inspecting special use permits. This administrative use occurs across the district. The current FTS within the project area generally provides good access and provides the Forest with flexibility for access. How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities? The current FTS facilitates law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency response, and search and rescue activities that are carried out by the Forest Service and other federal, state, and local agencies. Firefighting is the predominant emergency. Urbanization of areas along the eastern side of the district has increased the amount of illegal activity occurring on the forest. The presence of the road system has both positive and detrimental effects by allowing both good access for fire suppression and law enforcement investigative activities to allowing easily accessible areas for illegal activities.

28 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

How does the road system affect the ability of firefighters to access fires during initial attack? Historically, the NFS lands managed by the Carson Ranger District have a high fire occurrence compared to the rest of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Fires range in size from isolated small single tree fires at higher elevations to fast moving large acreage fires in the valley shrub lands. There are several fire scars ranging from 1,000 to 10, 000 acres that demonstrate the role of fire in this ecosystem. Fire at the lower elevations (<5000’) generally comes from county and/or private lands. Fire scars exhibit little to no mosaic patterns in the lower elevation grass and brush fuel types, but begin to exhibit some varied mosaic in the higher elevations. The district has averaged between 1 to 2 large acreage fires at the Type 2 incident management levels every couple of years, and multiple 3, 4 and 5 incident management fires yearly. The presence of the FTS has both positive and detrimental effects on firefighters during initial attack. The increased occurrence of human-caused fires because of the ease of access is always present. This access caused by the road system increases the risk of fire in the wildland. With the increased risk of human-caused wildfire, an increase in the response speed and access of initial attack is also present. Additionally, with the presence of roads, initial attack resources have the potential use of the road to “anchor” fire suppression operations. Because of the closeness of residents within a high frequency of the wildland urban interface, all wildland fire incidents are initially supported with an assault from both the air and the ground upon dispatch on days of moderate fire danger or higher. Resources such as smoke jumpers and heavy air tankers are used as available. Dependant on location, fire behavior, time of year, and availability, the amount of resources are varied. Assigned initial attack resources will create the best and safest means of attack. Crews focus on establishing an anchor point and flanking the wildfire until the fire is surrounded. Frequently initial attack resources are called on to park and hike into incidents and suppress the fire utilizing a direct attack and simple hand tools. This practice is frequent especially in designated wilderness areas and demonstrates why fire suppression has such rigorous physical standards. It also demonstrated the focus and use of natural barriers in wildland fire suppression and the lack of dependency on road systems to suppress wildland fires. Fire suppression actions occurring within designated wilderness must receive special approvals for use of mechanized equipment per federal law meaning the suppression method utilizing hand tools is the most effective option.

29 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

How does the road system affect fuels management? The FTS within the project area generally provides good access for achieving fuels management objectives and provides flexibility of the type of treatments. Different types of fuels treatments include burning, and/or mechanical manipulation of the vegetation. The option of constructing temporary roads for a project is available. In addition, roads can indirectly increase fire frequency as they help spread non-native invasive species such as cheatgrass. How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? The FTS provides beneficial service to provide access for firefighting resources. A combination of aerial and ground fire management resources are used to manage wildfires. The road density of the FTS within the project area allows for improved strategic and tactical decision making by fire management personnel dependent on the location of the wildfire, land management concerns in the area, and exhibited fire behavior. Inversely, the FTS provides human access into remote wildland areas receptive to wildfire. This access serves to increase fire occurrence as well. How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety? The state highways and NFS roads (paved or unpaved) provide the best egress and ingress for firefighters and the public. Some of the NFS maintenance level 2 roads and the unauthorized roads are narrow which can restrict the size of fire equipment trying to access the area. Road systems that are not surfaced or regularly maintained can cause a slower response time for fire personnel, allowing the fires to increase in size, resulting in an increased risk to firefighters or Forest users trying to evacuate the area. Additionally, dependent on vegetation continuity (fuel loading) and exhibited fire behavior, the road system may not safely hold the fire to the desired location even with suppression resources support. The FTS is expected to have a limited effect on firefighters and public safety. How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human health concerns? Air quality impacts within the project 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 type of vehicle and speed. Motorized recreation occurs year-round within most of the project area, and off road vehicle use is prevalent and increasing. The project area covers four air quality districts within two states. The use of the roadways will have little impact on the air quality standards in each air district. Unroaded Recreation The forest provides a variety of year round recreational activities. These activities include recreational driving, hunting, camping, hiking, fishing, rock hounding, back country skiing and snowmobiling to name a few. The existing FTS provides access for all of these activities. The majority of recreational use occurs during the spring, summer, and fall months. In the summer the Alpine County and Tahoe Meadows, Mt. Rose areas are heavily visited. In Alpine County, dispersed camping activity is high, with campers participating in a variety of recreation

30 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District activities including fishing, horseback riding, hiking, and biking. Hikers and equestrians take advantage of the large trail systems in the Mokelmne Wilderness and Carson Iceberg Wilderness. The busy trails in the Mt. Rose Wilderness and near Reno, Carson City, and Carson Valley are used primarily by hikers with some equestrian use. Heavy oversnow use occurs during the winter months in the Alpine County and the Tahoe Meadows, Mt. Rose areas. Snowmobiling and back country skiing are popular in these areas. Mountain biking opportunities are limited considering the demand. There is a small system of mountain bike trails on Peavine Mountain. Mountain bikes are allowed on other non- wilderness trails, though these are generally more suitable for hiking. The 2007 National Visitor Use Report for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest provides an overview of the recreational uses that occur on the Forest. While this report is at the Forest scale, it is fairly representative of the uses that occur across the district as a whole. Many of the uses identified are motorized uses such as driving for pleasure, camping, OHV use, and scenery viewing. These activities and others such as hunting and dispersed camping are highly dependent on the current road system. Participants in traditional non-motorized activities such as backpacking and hiking also rely on the current road system to access the national forest. For example, a visitor to the Mt. Rose Wilderness will normally drive to one of the trailheads, park a vehicle, and then proceed into the wilderness on foot. Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities? Unroaded recreation demands on the district include horseback riding, hiking, hunting, biking, camping, and off road motorized recreation, as well as winter recreation including skiing and snowmobiling. There are many primitive recreation opportunities in the district’s three wilderness areas and many other unroaded areas. Currently roads access trailheads in these areas, providing primitive and semi primitive unroaded recreation opportunities. Route designation should find a balance between motorized and non-motorized recreation, retaining non-motorized trails, but also providing some trail experiences for motorized recreation including full size vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles, and bicycles. There is currently, and expected to continue, a demand that far outweighs the opportunities provided on the district for unroaded recreation. Varied user groups desire trails that are suitable for that particular type of recreation. Demand for mountain biking and motorized trail opportunities is high with these opportunities limited. Also, demand for winter recreation which is currently limited to popular areas with adequate snow coverage and access on mountain passes and the Alpine County area is high.

31 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities? The quantity and quality of unroaded recreation opportunities have the potential to be impacted by the continued expansion of unauthorized routes. Use of motor vehicles off designated routes creates new routes that others follow. These routes can extend further and further into inventoried roadless areas impacting the roadless qualities and into \previously unroaded areas impacting solitude and opportunities for quiet recreationists. Quiet recreation activities include animal viewing, bird watching, hiking, and other similar activities. Developing new roads or designating existing routes could impact quiet recreation opportunities. However, most areas where quiet recreation occurs on the district are currently unroaded and only a few routes may be designated into the periphery of the areas. 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? There is little impact to unroaded recreation opportunities from maintenance. Sights and sounds of motorized vehicles on roads impact unroaded recreation in the immediate area of the road. Core areas of roadless usually contain acreage mapped as semi-primitive to primitive recreation experience in the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) inventory. These ROS settings promote the perception of being isolated from the evidence of man, to feel a part of nature, and a personal sense of distance from the sights and sounds of civilization. It is important that the route designation process close redundant routes and provide unroaded opportunities where these areas away from the sights and sounds can be preserved. .

Risk Assessment: Low Risk: Routes that are located adjacent to or on the edges of roadless areas, but do not enter roadless areas, are consideredlow risk to wilderness attributes or roadless area characteristics. These routes would have little effect on the opportunities for primitive recreation, solitude, and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences. Moderate Risk: Routes located within cherry-stemmed corridors of roadless areas, are considered to have moderate risk to the wilderness attributes or roadless area characteristics. This corridor into roadless areas would effect opportunities for primitive recreation, solitude, and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences. High Risk: Unauthorized routes located within roadless areas, are considered high risk to wilderness attributes or roadless area characteristics. This route intrusion would effect opportunities for primitive recreation, solitude, and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences. Road-related Recreation Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities? Roaded recreation on the district includes recreational driving of full size vehicles and ATVs, hunting, camping, and dispersed camping. The road system provides adequate access to most

32 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District areas on the district, and this is not expected to change in the future. The travel planning process should attempt to identify dispersed camping areas in Alpine County, Dog Valley, and other areas where dispersed camping occurs. Some routes should have corridors identified where parking for dispersed camping is allowed as long as other resources are not impacted. Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning existing roads, or changing maintenance of existing roads causing significant changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? Decommissioning of existing routes continues to occur on the district based on previous decisions. On Peavine Mountain many routes have been decommissioned and physically closed. The remaining transportation system includes NFS roads and motorized trails that provide a varied motorized recreation opportunity in that area. As the travel management decision is implemented it should improve the quality of roaded recreation, providing signed routes and improving the apparent naturalness of the area. The routes being decommissioned are mostly redundant and unsustainable routes that did not provide any benefit to roaded recreation. Redundant routes should be closed to prevent degradation of this opportunity and to prevent confusion to the public. What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by constructing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? Excessive traffic on routes is not currently an issue on the district. Though NFS roads on the district are heavily utilized on summer weekends, vehicles are generally dispersed enough that there are few issues with noise caused by the road system. The Dog Valley Road (31002) is used as a short cut between I-80 and US 395 and at times receives heavy traffic. Areas where dispersed camping is popular including Dog Valley and Hope Valley / Charity Valley (31081) often receive heavy weekend traffic. Roaded recreation is generally spread out enough that sights and sounds associated with traffic do not negatively impact other roaded recreationists. Redundant routes should not be designated and road densities should be considered when designating routes. How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation? The NFS roads on the district do not negatively impact wilderness attributes. Many unauthorized routes have intruded close to wilderness boundaries and into roadless areas and may adversely impact wilderness characteristics. Some of these unauthorized routes may be good access points or potential trailheads, but many may lead to more route proliferation, degrading wilderness characteristics. Motorized routes in roadless areas should be limited to those that are absolutely necessary to the FTS or small spurs to provide dispersed camping opportunities. Social Issues Why do people value their specific access to national forest - what opportunities does access provide?

33 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

The FTS provides a variety of opportunities for Forest visitors including sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and recreational driving opportunities. The system also provides access to jumping off points where users can park their vehicle and enjoy non-motorized recreational experiences such as hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking away from the road system. The system provides access into the Forest for permitted economic or commercial purposes. While the FTS is extensive, the unauthorized routes provide additional access not all of which is desirable. The unauthorized routes extend this system beyond what would be available with the FTS. The unauthorized routes provide access to dispersed campsites, hunting areas, and recreational areas. The unauthorized routes allow Forest visitors to get a little further from the traveled routes. They allows greater access to more remote country. At the same time, the expansion of these unauthorized routes affects the ability for some to escape into a more remote area. Once a route is established, the remote nature of an area is gone. How does the road system and road management contribute to or affect people’s sense of place? Residents develop a sense of place over time by attaching significance to a location or landscape that has meaning to them individually or as a group. These attachments represent strong emotional bonds with the places where they grew-up, worked, hiked, hunted, or heard stories about. In some cases these places are connected to strongly felt values, valued individuals, cultural qualities, and personal and cultural identities based on occupations such as logging, mining and ranching, and awareness of the cultural and historical meanings of a place. Many people feel strongly about their national forests and the multiple use opportunities they provide. For many, the FTS, unauthorized routes, and access to the land contribute positively to the individual’s sense of place. This road system allows them to experience these lands in a manner that is important to them. There are also other individuals who believe the number and miles of routes detract from their sense of place because the road network intrudes on the natural environment and the unroaded and remote characteristics they value. Economic Issues How does the road system support economic sustainability in the surrounding area? The current road network of both NFS and unauthorized roads provides access for many businesses operating in the five local area counties. The system also allows for uses that support local businesses. The largest contributions are made in the recreation and livestock sectors. Most notable is the recreation opportunities that the district provides during the summer and winter months. The use of the FTS for recreational pursuits such as hiking, fishing, camping, hunting, and four-wheel driving is a large contributor to economies of the local area. During winter months alpine skiing and snow sports also provide an economic boost to the communities. Recreationists purchase numerous goods and services while recreating on NFS lands. Theses goods and services include meals and lodging, sporting equipment, and fuel for vehicles. Many outfitters and guides use the FTS for their operations as well. The FTS allows for access to all of the allotments on the district. The amount of road access to and within each allotment varies from heavily roaded to minimally roaded. Given that today’s ranchers rely heavily upon vehicles to manage livestock on NFS lands, the FTS is necessary to support the economic viability of the permittees.

34 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

The construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the FTS directly and indirectly support many local businesses related to construction. Construction projects such as building a bridge provide a one-time benefit to the local economy while annual maintenance provides a continual input to the local economy.

35 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

CHAPTERS 5 /6: DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES, RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this step is to list:

• Actions that would implement the minimum road system. • Actions that respond to the issues. The 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.” Over the last decade the Carson Ranger District has been taking a number of steps to reduce the impact of the FTS and unauthorized routes on the environment and still provide a FTS that meets the needs of the unit’s administrative responsibilities and recreation uses. As a result of the actions the district has taken, motor vehicle use has been prohibited off designated routes. 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) will include the 367 miles of current ML 2-5 roads. There are several unauthorized routes being recommended for addition to the FTS. These routes provide access into dispersed camping areas and provide some recreation opportunities. At the lowest level the MRS for the Carson District could include as few as 367 miles of NFS roads open to motor vehicle use. This does not included approximately 239 miles of maintenance level 1 roads that are currently closed and could be decommissioned. Not included in the MRS are 268 miles of unauthorized routes that should be 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.

36 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Table 4. Summary of Appendix B Miles NFS Roads open to all vehicle types 367 NFS Roads open to administrative use or by written authorization 239 Unauthorized routes closed to all vehicle types (unauthorized roads) 268 NFS Trails open to all vehicles, or vehicles <50" in width 75 Unauthorized routes that may be added to the FTS in the future 22 There are recommendations to have roads for access to private lands be under written authorization. The Forest is not requiring or taking action on permitting under travel management; further consideration of these recommendations would happen under a different future assessment. The recommendations reflect maintaining access, and reducing potential conflicts and roads that may not be needed for general Forest management. These roads and those for other permitted uses are part of the minimum road system since they are needed by management for activities on NFS lands. A final consideration in developing the minimum road system is road maintenance. Based on funding levels over the previous 9 years, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest can only afford to maintain about 10-15 percent of the FTS. Designating a road system that matches available funding levels by closing roads will not meet the access needs for public and administrative purposes. It is recognized that having a viable designated road system that matches current budget is not attainable. The Forest will continue to look for opportunities to maintain and reduce costs of the road system. Other opportunities to be explored are seeking road maintenance partners, placing roads under permit, decommissioning roads, or conversion of roads to other uses. Road managers consider a number of factors in deciding when, where, and on what to spend annual maintenance funds. Every road does not need or receive maintenance every year, nor is every type of maintenance task completed when a road is maintained. There is no expectation, either by Forest managers or the public that every mile of every Forest road will be passable every year. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest road maintenance mission continues to be the effective utilization, management, and distribution of road maintenance services forest-wide. Traditionally, emphasis each year has been a blend of emergency repairs, periodic or annual maintenance, and funded project work. The district would assist in the planning and scheduling of road maintenance activities for the coming field season, and provide the forest road maintenance team with a prioritized list of district road maintenance needs. Emphasis is given to safety issues and resource protection. This list is used to develop the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest construction and maintenance program of work each year. Projects identified, such as road decommissioning, trailhead construction, or new road construction require sufficient NEPA analysis, where applicable, prior to the start of any maintenance or reconstruction activities. With the many varieties of mixed-use occurring on NFS roads, the forest looks at unnecessary cattleguards as safety issues. Any known maintenance deficiencies such as missing signs, plugged culverts, damaged cattleguards, and heavy brushing needs are identified and considered in priority setting. Typically, Forest road maintenance priorities address emergencies and safety issues before routine annual maintenance and funded project work. Table 5. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Road Maintenance 2000-2008. Road Maintenance and 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

37 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Decommissioning Decommissioning System Roads 0 0 0 0 1.5 6.1 8.9 5.1 6.7 Decommissioning Unauthorized Roads 26 25 30.3 25 4.2 8.9 4 3.9 4 Maintenance Level 1 Receiving Maintenance 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Level 2 Receiving Maintenance 0 0 40 134 92 44 55 55.4 114 Maintenance Level 3 Receiving Maintenance 248 304 766 444 296 322 230 440.3 463 Maintenance Level 4 Receiving Maintenance 0 0 17 49 198 92 95 34.8 48 Maintenance Level 5 Receiving Maintenance 0 0 4 12 12 15 16 14 13 Total Receiving Maintenance 248 304 897 639 598 473 396 544.5 638 Total Existing 6,238 7,147 7,142 6,114 6,129 6,097 6,053 6,118 5,846 Percentage Maintained 3.98% 4.25% 12.56% 10.45% 9.76% 7.76% 6.54% 8.90% 10.91% A description of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest transportation system by maintenance level follows. Maintenance Level 5: These roads are paved, require care every year, and significant mission and safety related maintenance every 8 to 10 years. It is important to note these roads make up less than 1 percent of the FTS. Maintenance Level 4: These are mostly chip sealed roads with some asphalt sections that also require annual care and significant mission and safety related maintenance every 8 to 10 years. These roads make up 1 percent of the FTS. They generally service parking areas, campgrounds, major trailheads, and administrative sites. These roads receive low traffic volumes and most are not driven in winter due to seasonal closures and snow cover. The vast majority of these roads have received the critical maintenance necessary to preserve the surfacing. Drainage is fully maintained and sediment run-off is negligible. Maintenance Level 3: These roads make up 11 percent of the FTS. The maintenance objectives have shifted to drainage structure cleaning, debris removal, hazard tree removal, and spot roadside brushing for safety. The road surfaces are generally hard, stable, and bumpy, but are passable by most passenger cars having reasonable ground clearance. The majority of traffic on these roads is pickup trucks or sport utility vehicles, which offer even better ground clearance. These roads are graded only as necessary for proper drainage or for safety concerns such as severe washboarding. This not only saves maintenance funds, but reduces fresh ground disturbance and reduces surface disturbance and the potential for sediment generation. Aggregate surfacing will only be replaced where needed for resource protection. The following summarizes the maintenance level 3 strategy and cost savings: Aggregate Surfacing – Applied only as needed for resource protection adjacent to major streams or in soft soils or for driver safety. Approximately 200 miles of road could be enhanced through the replenishment of aggregate surfacing, but since there are no associated resource problems, the decision has been made to forgo surfacing at this time. Grading/Ditch Cleaning – Conducted as needed to restore surface drainage or abate safety hazards. In many areas where the surface is hard and stable, the roadbed would need to be ripped in order to loosen enough soil to grade a smooth running surface. This ground disturbance could lead to an increase in sediment run-off until the road surface stabilizes, so roads with stable surfaces are generally not graded.

38 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Culverts – Check and clean as needed, with scheduled replacement of those that are deteriorated or of inadequate size. National standard for replacement life is 20 years; however, inspections indicate that most culverts on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are 30 to 40 years old and still in good condition. Changing culvert lifespan directly affects calculated deferred maintenance costs. Debris Removal – Accomplished as required on all maintenance level 4 – 5 and most maintenance level 3 roads, but generally only as needed for specific projects on maintenance level 2 roads. As an example, in fiscal year 2008, only 114 miles of maintenance level 2 roads received maintenance. Roadside Brushing – Brushing needs depend on vegetation types and precipitation which decreases substantially from west to east across the Forest. The western-most roads on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest with lower growing vegetation generally have higher brushing costs. Brushing is focused on areas with safety concerns (generally sight distance around curves). Force account crews assist with spot brushing, which is less expensive and more flexible than using contract crews. Maintenance Level 2: These roads make up 78 percent of the FTS. The majority of these roads are only maintained as needed to support Forest projects or provide access for mineral exploration, range, dispersed recreation, and hunting; therefore, many may not see any maintenance for several years. In some cases, roads may become impassable due to rocks or down trees. When needed, maintenance activities typically consist of debris removal and roadside brushing. The amount of brushing required can be substantial, depending on location and the last time it was done. Spot aggregate surfacing is only used to stabilize soft areas. By designing a maintenance scheme focused on roads needed specifically for project or recreation access, the Forest maintenance budget can effectively be used on the highest-priority needs. Maintenance Level 1: These roads make up 10 percent of the FTS. The normal practice is to place these roads into self-maintaining hydrologic storage using a combination of water bars, rolling dips, and pulling culverts. No maintenance is typically performed except to check the closure device. A closure device is either a gate or berm. Actions that Respond to the Issues As the interdisciplinary team completed the assessments above, it began considering how to address some of the issues identified in chapter 3. The TAP provided background information regarding public access for recreation and effects from unauthorized routes on cultural resources, aquatic species, riparian resources, water quality, wildlife, and rare plants. The key issues identified in chapter 3 include:

• The ability of the public to continue to access NFS lands for recreation and utilization.

• Impacts to aquatic, riparian zone, and water quality resources from the FTS.

• Impacts to terrestrial wildlife and plants from the FTS.

• Impacts to historic properties from the FTS and proposed additions to that system.

 Impacts to natural, cultural, and scenic resources, and public safety resulting from illegal activities (dumping, drug labs, marijuana cultivation, and trespass. This section includes a list of issues and action items derived from discussions related to the conclusions above.

39 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

The district may choose to employ the following strategies in projects and situations where the issues occur. The scale at which these actions may be implemented is dependent on the site and the compatibility of the action with the overall management focus of the surrounding area. The list below is intended to provide options that project leaders and decision-makers may consider when implementing changes to the road system. Proposed action items were not prioritized. Before implementing any proposed actions, the Forest will complete the NEPA process. Issue 1: The ability of the public to continue to access NFS lands for recreation and utilization. Action: Provide public access to traditionally enjoyed dispersed camping areas by designating unauthorized routes into these areas if necessary, or by designating areas where dispersed camping could continue. Action: Continue to maintain the current transportation system, as depicted on the 2010 motor vehicle use map. Action: Provide information and education about motor vehicle regulations and responsible use of motorized vehicles on the national forest. Install information boards at area trailheads, recreation sites, and parking areas. Action: Install route numbers on all designated routes to assist users with compliance of motor vehicle use regulations. Action: Educate the public to create an understanding of the problems created by off road driving. Implement an ongoing effort to educate Forest users of the motorized travel policy. Action: Use enforcement to curtail off-road driving. Implement patrols and field presence at appropriate times of year (such as hunting season, holidays, weekends, etc.) in identified areas. This effort is also used to educate users of the travel policy. Action: Rehabilitate areas damaged by off-route driving. Use legacy roads money, watershed rehabilitation funds, or other sources to identify and restore meadows and streams impacted by motor vehicle use. Action: Leverage funds/efforts to increase maintenance capabilities. Continue to seek opportunities within the Forest, with other national forests, with counties, user groups, and private individuals to increase the amount of maintenance accomplished. For motorized trails, there are opportunities to work with volunteers to maintain them. Action: Prioritize roads that are good candidates for transfer of jurisdiction to counties, which facilitate a reduction in the number of road miles requiring maintenance with NFS funds. National Forest System roads that provide access to communities would be good candidates to transfer to county jurisdiction Action: Emphasize right-of-way acquisition with out-year program planning and current year project planning. Adjust funding to areas directed at accomplishing right-of-way acquisition. Action: Negotiate with land owners to obtain formal right-of-way access to routes needed. Action: Maximize cooperation from adjacent landowners by proposing to issue a reciprocal easement. Action: Leverage funds/efforts to increase maintenance capabilities. Continue to seek opportunities within the Forest, with other national forests, with counties, user groups, and private individuals to increase the amount of maintenance accomplished. For motorized trails, there are opportunities to work with volunteers to maintain them. Action: Prioritize roads that are good candidates for transfer of jurisdiction to counties, which facilitate a reduction in the number of road miles requiring maintenance with NFS funds.

40 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

National Forest System roads that provide access to communities would be good candidates to transfer to county jurisdiction Issue 2: Impacts to aquatic, terrestrial wildlife and water, soil and cultural resources. Action: Decommission unneeded level 1 and unauthorized roads to decrease impacts on biophysical resources and on cultural resources. Action: Identify and prioritize routes to be decommissioned. Action: Complete NEPA analysis on unauthorized routes causing resource damage to physically reclaim the route. Action: Monitor decommissioned and unauthorized roads after the implementation of barriers and other mitigation measures. Keep records of successful and unsuccessful strategies for discouraging travel to improve future rehabilitation projects. Action: Reduce the number of road and trail miles (reduce road density) that go through occupied threatened and endangered species habitat. Action: Reduce the number of high-use routes that go through nesting sites. Loop trails and trails near camping areas with high day use can be outside of known nesting areas. Action: Place seasonal restrictions on motorized trails and roads going through key wildlife habitats. Action: Reduce the road width and maintenance level to minimum needed for safe vehicle passage and to meet the intended need in sensitive wildlife areas Action: Develop and promote trail uses that are outside of known threatened, endangered, or sensitive occupied habitats. Action: Where feasible, reroute existing roads that impact important heritage sites. Perimeter barriers may be necessary if unauthorized use is occurring within the site Action: Implement best management practices for mitigating road risks to reduce soil and drainage impacts from roads. Issue 3: Impacts to natural, cultural, and scenic resources, and public safety resulting from illegal activities (dumping, drug labs, marijuana cultivation, and trespass). Action: Employ devices such as signs and physical barriers which discourage continued travel. Natural devices (downed trees, boulders, fences, etc.) are preferred in most cases, but in situations where previous decommissioning efforts have been unsuccessful, more aggressive means may be employed. Action: Modify route designations to reduce user conflict. Action: Restrict motorized vehicle use on the district to a designated road system through travel management. Action: Rehabilitate areas and sign to reduce use. Action: Educate public regarding dumping on NFS lands. Action: Educate public regarding the use on NFS lands for illegal purposes and associated dangers.

41 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

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.

42 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES

Brown, K.J. 1994. River-bed sedimentation caused by off-road vehicles at river fords in the Victorian highlands, Australia. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 239-249. Bull, E.L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-640. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 45 pp. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan (LRWQCB). 2006. CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. California. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/ Carroll, M.B. 2008. The effects of stream crossings and associated road approaches on water quality in the Virginia Piedmont. Masters thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 144 p. Copstead, R.L.; Johansen, D.K.; and Moll, J. 1988. Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains. Report 9877 1806-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. Elliot, J. W. 2000. Roads and Corridors. In: Dissmeyer, G.E. (Editor). 2000. Forest and Grasslands: A Synthesis of Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. Ashville, North Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Elliot, J.W. and Hall, D.E. August 1997. Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Forest Applications. General Technical Report INT-365. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Forman, R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29: 207-231. Funk, W.C., A.E. Greene, P.S. Corn, and F.W. Allendorf. 2005. High dispersal in a frog species suggests that it is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Biological Letters 1: 13-16. Havlick, D.G. 2002. No Place Distance: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 297 pp. Kasworm , W.F., and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:79-84. Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services, Ltd., Calgary. 115 pp. Keller, G. and Sherar, J. July 2003. Low-Volume Roads Engineering, Best Management Practices Field Guide. USDA Forest Service/USAID. Kreutzweiser, D.P., and S. S. Capell. 2001. Fine sediment deposition in streams after selective forest harvesting without riparian buffers. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 31: 2134- 2142. Kwak, M.J., O. Velterop, J. van Andel. 1998. Pollen and gene flow in fragmented habitats. Applied Vegetation Science, Vol. 1, No. 1 (May, 1998), pp. 37-54. Blackwell Publishing, URL: http:/www.jstor.org/stable/1479084.

43 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology, River Run Consulting and C.G. Celio & Sons. 2004. Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment. McGurk, B.J. and Fong, D.R. 1995. Equivalent Roaded Area as a Measure of Cumulative Effect of Logging. Environmental Management, 19(4), 609-621. Merriam, G., 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt, J.; Agger, P. eds. Proceedings of the 1st international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning; 1984 October 15-19; Roskilde, Denmark. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University Center: 5-15. National Historic Preservation Act. 36 CFR 800.4 C1. Packer, P.E. 1967. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control sediment. Forest Science 13: 2-18. Pilliod, D.S., Peterson, C.R., and P.I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80: 1849-1862. Swift, L.W. 1986. Filter strip widths for forest roads in Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal Applied Forestry 10: 27-34. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. November 9, 2005. 36 CFR 212, 251, 261, and 295. Trimble, G.R., and R.S. Sartz. 1957. How far from a stream should a logging road be located? Journal of Forestry 339-341. 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Washington DC. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. U.S. Forest Service (Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions). USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land Resource Management Plan. Toiyabe National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region. Carson City, NV USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Edited by Hermann Gucinski; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northwest Research Station. 103p USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest Roads Analysis. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Sparks, NV. January 10, 2003. Walton, K. 2009. Travel Management Wildlife Risk Assessment Matrix, Methodology, and Literature. Unpublished. Wemple, B.C., 1994. Hydrological integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 88 pages, M.S. thesis.

44 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Wemple, B.C., and J.A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain catchment. Water Resources Research 39: 1-17. Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Aug., 1998), pp. 607-615. American Institute of Biological Sciences. URL: http:/www.jstor.org/stable/1313420.

45 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Table 1. National forest System Roads identified as Maintenance level 1 roads. These roads are closed, behind locked private property gates, or available for decommissioning.

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31002A DOG SPUR A 0.37 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY ED, GIS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND INFRA MATCH, LOCKED CARE (CLOSED) CARE GATE PVT (CLOSED)

31002B BENCH MARK 0.83 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY ED, GIS SPUR ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND INFRA MATCH, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE SUMMIT #1 ADMIN (CLOSED)

31002C BENCH SPUR C 0.24 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY ED, GIS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND INFRA MATCH, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE ADMIN (CLOSED)

31002D N BRANCH DOG 0.55 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOTED AS CLOSED IN CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SURVEY BY ED, GIS AND CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA MATCH (CLOSED)

31002E SUNRISE BASIN 0.45 1 - BASIC D - 6/00, LOCKED GATE, CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSI VERIFIED BY KB, ROAD CARE (CLOSED) ON CREW DECOM 2001 8.1 TIMBER ROAD INSTALLED 8 WATER DEFECTORS AND REPLACED DECKING

31002G BORDER MINE 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY ED, INFRA ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND GIS MATCH, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE BERMED (CLOSED)

46 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31003 EVANS CYN- 1.9 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, GPS FROM 002 TO 1.932 LONG VALLEY RD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MILES TO LOCKED GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE WITH ROAD CLOSED SIGN (CLOSED) FOREST SERVICE LOCK, BUT FALLEN TREES BEHIND GATE BLOCK ROAD, FROM 2000, ROAD CREW MTEC=1.9

31003A EIGHTY ACRE 0.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND ON QUAD, NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS, ACCESS RIGHTS A (CLOSED) SWAG HP

31003B EVANS CANYON 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND ON QUAD, INFRA CARE (CLOSED) CARE MATCHES GIS, NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

31003C EVANS ROAD 2.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND ON QUAD, INFRA CARE (CLOSED) CARE MATCHES GIS, CLOSED NO (CLOSED) ACCESS

31003D EVANS SPUR D 0.8 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND ON QUAD, INFRA CARE (CLOSED) CARE MATCHES GIS, CLOSED NO (CLOSED) ACCESS

31005 DOG CREEK 3.8 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC OVERGROWN PER DISTRICT ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ENDS AT PVT PER CASEY CARE (CLOSED) CARE ARRA BOULDERS (CLOSED)

47 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31005A MINE ROAD SPUR 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, GIS MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA, SC, NO ACCESS DUE (CLOSED) TO OVERGROWN

31005B CREEK SPUR B 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00. VERIFIED BY ED, GIS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MATCHES INFRA, PVT NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS (CLOSED)

31010C SHORTCUT ROAD 1.77 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, OVERGROWN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31013C CREEKSIDE 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY KB , SPUR C CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, CLOSED, CARE (CLOSED) CARE ROCK BARRIER (CLOSED)

31014 BAGLEY VALLEY 6.9 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 7/00, VERIFIED BY GB, BMP- ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE EMP EASEMENT A SWAG HP CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES LOCKED GATE, CLOSED, ADMIN

31014A SHED SPUR 0.1 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE LOCKED GATE, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES ADMIN

31014B BAGLEY BYPASS 0.8 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 7/00, VERIFIED BY ED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE FOUND ON QUAD, LOCKED CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES GATE CLOSED ADMIN

48 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31014C VAQUERO COW 0.7 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 7/00 VERIFIED, BY ED, GIS CAMP ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE MATCHES INFRA, LOCKED CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES GATE CLOSED ADMIN

31019A HAWKINS PEAK 3.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/20, DRIVEN BY KB, ADMIN COMM ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ROAD PERMIT HAWKINS CARE (CLOSED) CARE PEAK COM, LOCKED GATE (CLOSED)

31019D MEADOWOOD 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00, VERIFIED BY SH, ON ROAD LOOP CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FILE, , 8/23/04 ROAD FOUND ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE TO BE COMPLETLY FENCED (CLOSED) IN BY PRIVATE LAND OWNERS FENCE

31024 SNOWSHOE 0.171 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 9/99, MILEAGE UPDATED, SPRINGS CG CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL NOT IN GIS, GPS ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31025 HORSETHIEF 8.018 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/00ON FILE, GIS,GPS ON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FILE, ACESS RIGHTS A CARE (CLOSED) CARE SWAG HP; STATE (WILDLIFE (CLOSED) PROTECT AREA) GATED NON-MOTORIZED

31030 BRONCO CREEK 0.63 1 - BASIC DECOMMISSI 7/00, VERIFIED BY GB. ROAD CUSTODIAL ON SHORTEN ROAD BECAUSE CARE (CLOSED) 462 WAS REROUTED MARTIS DECOMM

31039 FREDERICKSBUR 4.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC LOCKED PVT LOCKED GATE G CANYON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL WASHED OUT AT CREEK CARE (CLOSED) CARE NOW OVER GROWN ROAD NOT FOUND AT ALL IN

49 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

(CLOSED) CREEK BOTTOM.

31039A FREDERICKSBUR 0.6 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC UNABLE TO ACCESS SPUR G SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DUE TO LOCKED PVT GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE AND WASHED OUT ROAD, (CLOSED)

31039B FREDERICKSBUR 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC UNABLE TO ACCESS SPUR G SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DUE TO LOCKED PVT GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE AND WASHED OUT ROAD (CLOSED)

31039C FREDERICKSBUR 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC UNABLE TO ACCESS SPUR G SPUR C CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DUE TO LOCKED PVT GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE AND WASHED OUT ROAD (CLOSED)

31039D FREDERICKSBUR 0.17 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC ROAD WAS NOT G SPUR D CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ACCESSIBILE THE MAIN CARE (CLOSED) CARE ROAD HAS BEEN WASH OUT (CLOSED) SINCE 1997 TREES AND BRUSH NOW COVER THE MAIN ROAD ROAD IS LOCKED WITH A PRIVATE LOCK NEED OWERS PERMISSION TO ACCESS THE ROAD. NOT INTERESTED IN GIVING AN RIGHT OF WAY.

31039E FREDERICKSBUR 0.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC UNABLE TO ACCESS SPUR G SPUR E CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DUE TO LOCKED PVT GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE AND WASHED OUT ROAD (CLOSED)

50 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31040B INDIAN CREEK 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC GATEDROADS ENDS AT MP SPUR ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL 0.317-OLD LOGGING HAS CARE (CLOSED) CARE OBLITERATED THE (CLOSED) REMAINDER OF ROAD

31045 COUNTY LINE 4.65 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC NO AECCCES, CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31045A COUNTY SPUR A 0.45 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/20/00, DRIVEN BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, FOUND ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD CLOSED NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

31045B COUNTY SPUR B 0.67 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/20/00, DRIVEN BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, FOUND ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD, CLOSED , NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

31045C COUNTY SPUR C 0.39 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/20/00, DRIVEN BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, FOUND ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD CLOSED, NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

31046 DOG VALLEY GS 0.38 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC LOCKED FS, GATE ADMIN, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FIX RMO CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31050C UPPER 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/6/2000, CLOSED , 94 LEVATHAN SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL C CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

51 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31051F WILLOW CREEK 3.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 9/2002, ROAD IS CLOSED AT LOOP ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MP=0.66 BY STATE FISH AND CARE (CLOSED) CARE WILDLIFE GATE (FOOT (CLOSED) TRAFFIC ONLY);

31052A LEVIATHAN SPUR 0.25 1 - BASIC D - 07/2001. ON FILE, ON QUAD, , A CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSI CHANGED LEVEL TO 1, LIST CARE (CLOSED) ON DECOM

31074B VERDI RANGE 1.89 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC PVT PROP ENDS AT FENCE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LINE/ TANK TRAP IN ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE ADMIN ONLY (CLOSED)

31080 LOWER KINNEY 1.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC ROAD USE TO BUILD RES LAKES ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31080A UPPER KINNEY 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED LAKES RES ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31081A BREWER MINE 0.8 1 - BASIC D - 6/19/00, DRIVEN BY JE, ROAD CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSI CHECKED AS OK,, MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) ON GIS ROAD DECOMMISSIONED ROAD CREW 2004

31083A BIG SPRING 0.41 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/2000,FOUND ON, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SC,PROPOSED CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

52 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31083B QUAD EDGE 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/6/2000, FOUND ON QUAD, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SC, PROPOSED CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31083C MOUNTAINEER 0.29 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/2000, # NOT PRINTED ON CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, SC, PROPOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED 94 (CLOSED)

31085B DOME 2 SPUR B 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/2000, FOUND ON CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD,SC, CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31085C VON SCHMIDT 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/2000, NOT FOUND ON SPUR C CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, SC, PROPOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED 94 (CLOSED)

31088 PAYNESVILLE 1.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC NO ACCESS CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31097B CONNECTOR 0.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00 ON FILE, CLOSED, ROAD SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL TREES ARE 4 TO 5 FEET CARE (CLOSED) CARE HIGH, OLD CULVERT NEEDS (CLOSED) REMOVING, NO WORK ITEMS

31098A SPUR ROAD A 0.19 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL OK,PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

53 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31112A PENNSYLVANIA 1.48 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6//00. ON FILE GPS, MILEAGE CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL UPDATED, GATE, ADMIN CARE (CLOSED) CARE ONLY (CLOSED)

31133 DRAINAGE ROAD 0.96 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, NO ACCESS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL THROUGH PVT CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31146 FORESTDALE 2.87 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/00, CHECKED OK CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL 06/01/2003, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31147A RED LAKE ROAD 1.37 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/00, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31158 CARSON 0.74 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 9/2002, ABANOND HIGHWAY CANYON WAY CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL 88// PERMIT ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31159 CARSON 0.21 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, BARRICADED ROAD CANYON CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31182 ROBERTS 4.39 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, CANYON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

54 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31182A ROBERTS SPUR 0.32 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31185 STAVERVILLE 0.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC ROAD IS OUT OF LOYALTON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL TAHOE NF, ROAD#031, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED, NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

31186 BURMA SUMMIT 4.78 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC TREES BLOCKING CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31186A CAT CANYON 0.9 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/19/00, CLOSED NO ACCESS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FROM 31003 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31188 NORTH BRANCH 1.59 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC OVERGROWN CUTOFF ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31189 BRANCH ROAD 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/7/2000, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED NO ACCESS PVT CARE (CLOSED) CARE PROP (CLOSED)

31190A UPPER GOSKEY 0.39 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, HAND WROTE ON CANYON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL QUAD, CHECKED OK, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED 94 (CLOSED)

55 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31190D TUNNEL SPUR 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED BY GATE, SC CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31190E TUNNEL SPUR E 0.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31190F SHAFT SPUR 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 8/23/2004, GATE AT BEG OF ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ROAD WITH FS LOCK, ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE BLOCKED BY MANY (CLOSED) BOULDERS, WALKED IN TO THE END OF ROAD, NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK,

31192 NV STATE LINE 1.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31193 UPPER BRYANT 2.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31194 SMITHS CREEK 0.19 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 9/02, ON FILE, LOCKED GATE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL , PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

56 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31209 DITCH ROAD 2.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL GATE NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31300 MORNINGSTAR 0.97 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, FOUND, NOT BYPASS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PRINTED ON QUAD CLOSED, CARE (CLOSED) CARE 94 (CLOSED)

31300A MORNINGSTAR 0.06 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, FOUND,CLOSED, 94 SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31300B MORNINGSTAR 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000. CLOSED, 94 SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31301 MORNINGSTAR 0.43 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/2000, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31307 CONNECTOR 0.83 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, CLOSED, 94 ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31311A CIRCLE SPUR A 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED, 94 CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

57 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31315 CONNECTOR 0.79 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, FOUND ON QUAD, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PROPOSED CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31318 CREEKSIDE 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31319 BARNEY SPUR 0.55 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, NOT ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PRINTED ON QUAD, CARE (CLOSED) CARE PROPOSED CLOSED 94 (CLOSED)

31319A RILEY SPUR 0.16 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31319B RILEY SPUR B 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31321 SPRING 0.33 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, ON FILE, GPS, MILEAGE CONNECTOR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL UPDATED, JF RECOMMENDS ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE REMOVAL OF ROAD FROM (CLOSED) INVENTORY

31323 MORNINGSTAR 1.04 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, MINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

58 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31323A MINE SPUR ROAD 0.13 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31324 CURTZ SPUR 0.69 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31325 GOSKEY CANYON 0.57 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, SPUR ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31326A EAGLE GULCH 0.82 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LOCKED GATES CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31326B SMITHS 0.86 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CREEKSIDE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LOCKED GATE ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31326C COLORADO SPUR 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, PROPOSED CLOSED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31327 LOOPE SPUR 0.59 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL OK,PROPOSED CLOSED, 94, CARE (CLOSED) CARE MAYBE?? (CLOSED)

59 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31328 SHAFT SPUR 0.458 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, ON FILE, GPS, MILEAGE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL UPDATED, PROPOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED, 94 (CLOSED)

31328A CREEK 0.22 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CROSSING ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31328B SMITHS CREEK 0.13 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 CHECKED OK, SPUR ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PROPOSED CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31329 SMITH SPUR 0.17 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31331 LEXINGTON 0.22 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 CHECKED OK, CANYON ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31332 LEXINGTON 0.27 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CLOSED, 94 SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31333 SUNSHINE MINE 0.32 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

60 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31334 HOOK SPUR 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31336 MINE SPUR 0.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31337 MINE SPUR 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL OK,CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31339 SPRING SPUR 0.32 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31340A ELBOW SPUR 0.29 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31340B CONNECTOR 0.52 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

31353B WEST 0.18 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 CHECKED OK, LEAVIATHAN CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SC,CLOSED 94 SPUR B CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

61 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

31353C SPUR ROAD 0.692 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, ON FILE, GPS, MILEAGE 31353C CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL UPDATED, SC, PROPOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED 94 (CLOSED)

31361 SPUR ROAD 0.32 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, SC, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED 94 CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41019 FULLER LAKE 1.13 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY ED, GIS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND INFRA MATCH, MARTIS, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED (CLOSED)

41019A LAKES ROAD 1.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00 ,NOT VERIFIED, , INFRA CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AND GIS MATCH, MARTIS, CARE (CLOSED) CARE ADMIN CLOSED (CLOSED)

41032 CLOSED RD 1.16 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00 CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41035 PINE BASIN ROAD 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 9/2002; ROAD BLOCKED BY CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL TEMPORARY CARE (CLOSED) CARE CONSTRUCTION FENCE SUP (CLOSED) ROAD (PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER BUILDING CABIN)

41039A MINE ROAD SPUR 2.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, KINGS CANYON A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DECSION , CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE

62 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

(CLOSED)

41042 FRANKTOWN 0.872 1 - BASIC 3 - SUITABLE SURVEY DONE ONLY ON FS CREEK ROAD CUSTODIAL FOR JURISDICTION.11/00, ON CARE (CLOSED) PASSENGER FILE, ROADS ENDS AT CARS LARGE FISHERIES DAM , ONE BAD WASHOUT OUT NEAR END LOCKED GATE

41043 COMBS CANYON 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 7/2004 UNABLE TO LOCATE, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LOCATED ON PRIVATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE PROPERTY. (CLOSED)

41045 PEDERSON ROAD 4.5 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH NEW ROAD 2006 FUELS, CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE GATE, BUILT FOR FUELS CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES

41048 SNOW VALLEY 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, PEAK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED KINGS, ADMIN? CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41048A ASH CANYON 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED DECSION CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41049 THOMAS CREEK 0.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 11/00, ON FILE, ONLY,NATIVE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ML , 3 NEED TO FIX, RMO CARE (CLOSED) CARE 06/01/2003, BRIDGE REPAIRS (CLOSED)

63 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41049A THOMAS 0.84 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 CHANGED ON QUAD , MEADOWS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED GATE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41051 MT ROSE ROAD 1.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, GATED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ADMIN ROAD SUP ALSO CARE (CLOSED) CARE TRAIL 25, NOT OPEN TO (CLOSED) PUBLIC

41067 MARTIS CLOSED 1.39 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK TO BE SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED. MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41072 MT ROSE SUMMIT 0.3 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES

41089 WATER CANYON 3.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, FOUND, GATED PVT ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LAND CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41089A WATER CANYON 0.35 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, FOUND, NO ACCESS LOOP ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL GATED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41089B CHEDIC CANYON 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6.9.00, FOUND, NOT PRINTED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE GATED (CLOSED)

64 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41102 SLIDE MOUNTAIN 1.3 1 - BASIC 3 - SUITABLE 7/2004, GATE TO BE PUT UP, ROAD CUSTODIAL FOR SPECIAL USE CARE (CLOSED) PASSENGER CARS

41112 CLEAR CREEK 6.19 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 2000, ROAD CREW MTEC= ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL INTERSECTION CARE (CLOSED) CARE IMPROVMENTS OUTSIDE (CLOSED) GATE, ROAD CLOSED WAS OLD HIGHWAY 50, THERE ARE MANY DANGEROUS WASHOUTS ON ROAD. ROAD CLOSED PER 94 DECSION/ CLEAR CREEK

41120 SPOONER 1.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, FOUND, SPOONER CUTOFF CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL DECSION, ROAD CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41184 TANKS ROAD 1.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, FOUND PRINTED ON CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MAP, NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41186 MC EWEN CREEK 2.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, NO ACCESS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41186A BIG CANYON 0.76 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC NO ACCESS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

65 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41189 YOUNGS 5.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, BMP-EMP EASEMENT CROSSING ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL A SWAG, HP 3/10/03. SC 3.7 CARE (CLOSED) CARE TP 41160, GATE (CLOSED)

41189A YOUNGS SPUR A 0.4 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED, LOCKED GATE AT CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL STATE LINE RIVER RANCH CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41192 STATE LINE 0.92 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 CHECKED OK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41211 NO ACCESS 2.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, FOUND, NOT PRINTED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, HANDWROTE# , CARE (CLOSED) CARE NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

41213A CARSON FENCED 0.05 1 - BASIC 5 - HIGH PARKING LOT PARKING CUSTODIAL DEGREE OF CARE (CLOSED) USER COMFORT

41213B CARSON 0.24 1 - BASIC 4 - 15,500SQFT/12=1291 DISTRICT CURRY CUSTODIAL MODERATE LINEARFT/5280=.24MIL NEW PARKING CARE (CLOSED) DEGREE OF FENCED AREA BUILDT2004 USER COMFORT

41256 PINE BASIN 1.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, GATE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS RIGHTS A SWAG HP

66 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

(CLOSED)

41392F WILDERNESS 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED VIEW ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL WILDERNESS BDY CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41392G DAVIS MEADOW 1.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00 MARTIS CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41419 RANCH CREEK 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,VERIFIED BY SH, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41419A WEST SLOPE 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC ,6/00,NOT VERTIFED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41419B LITTLE VALLEY 0.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, VERIFIED BY SH, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CHECKED OK, FOUND ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD, CLOSED PEAVINE (CLOSED)

41419C SHORT SPUR C 0.14 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

67 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41419D SHORT CLOSED 0.23 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND SPUR D CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD # CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41419E PROSPECT ROAD 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41419F PROSPECT SPUR 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,NOT VERIFIED , FOUND F CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, #CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE PEAVINE (CLOSED)

41436 HUNTER 6.45 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 11/00, ON FILE, GP , MARTIS , FOOTHILL ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL SHOULD BE OPEN OR ATV CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41436A HUNTER CREEK 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, MARTIS SPUR ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41436B BOUNDARY SPUR 1.98 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK , B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED ROAD, MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41436C WILDERNESS 0.26 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, BDRY ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED ROAD, MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

68 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41436D NORTH 0.86 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, WILDERNESS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED MARTIS ROAD ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41446A CREEK ROAD 0.51 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED LOCKED GATE, NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS, FISH AND WILDLIFE (CLOSED)

41449 DITCHWAY ROAD 1.76 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CHECKED OK, CLOSE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ROAD, MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41462A ENTER 0.63 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK END AT WILDERNESS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL WILDERNESS BDY, CLOSE ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE ROAD, MARTIS (CLOSED)

41462C WILDERNESS 1.73 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/8/00, CHECKED OK, CLOSE ENTRY ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL AT WILDERNESS BDY, CARE (CLOSED) CARE MARTIS (CLOSED)

41462G ONE-QUARTER 3.24 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, ON FILE, GPS, MILEAGE CORNER ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL UPDATED, MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41462H ROAD CREW 0.49 1 - BASIC D - ROAD CREW DECOM LIST DECOM CUSTODIAL DECOMMISSI CLOSED MARTIS CARE (CLOSED) ON

69 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41492 TIMBERLINE RD 7.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 11/00, LEVEL 4 .05 OF ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL JUR COUNTY PARISH CARE (CLOSED) CARE BOROUGH, DURING FIRE (CLOSED) SEASON 2001, MARTIS FIRE BLADED ROAD. BMP-EMP ACCESS RIGHTS A SWAG, HP.

41492B SOUTH BANK 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC , CLOSED, NO ACCESS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41503 SNOWCOURSE 2.23 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, GOES TO STATE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL LAND, PVT LOCKED GATE , CARE (CLOSED) CARE SC, (CLOSED)

41641 PEAVINE PEAK 0.35 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, ON FILE, GPS, FIX RMO ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41641B SHORTCUT ROAD 0.13 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41641C SOUTH POEVILLE 0.32 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED ,CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

70 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41642A DOWNHILL ROAD 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,NOT VERIFIED, FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, GIS MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA, CLOSED PEAVINE (CLOSED)

41642B CONTOUR ROAD 0.46 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED , CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41642D PATENT MINE 0.6 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41642E NE ROAD 0.22 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41642F DRAINAGE ROAD 1.13 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41643 PEAVINE NORTH 1.52 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, DRIVEN BY ED, LAST BRANCH CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PART CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41644 WATER TANK 0.95 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, NOT DRIVEN, FOUND ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, INFRA MATCHES, CARE (CLOSED) CARE SUP,ADMIN (CLOSED)

71 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41644A SOUTH ROAD 1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00,NOT DRIVEN, CLOSE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41645B STRAIGHT ROAD 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00,NOT DRIVEN , FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41646 RIDGETOP ROAD 1.05 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41646A MINOR PEAKS 1.35 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41646B SHORT PEAK 0.12 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41647 POEVILLE ROAD 0.14 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, QUAD/GIS MATCH, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED PEAVINE (CLOSED)

41648B SADDLE ROAD 0.33 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00 NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

72 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41648C SECTION LINE 0.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41648D POND ROAD 0.17 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41648E LOOP ROAD 0.27 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC NEW PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41648F CLOSED 0.36 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED ROAD PEAVINE SECTION RD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41649 PEAVINE CREEK 1.02 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6//00, GPS ON FILE, GIS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MATCH INFRA, FIXED PER CARE (CLOSED) CARE GENNY (CLOSED)

41649A PEAVINE CREEK 0.56 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6//00, NOT VERIFIED, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41649B ROAD CLOSED 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

73 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41649C PEAVINE SPUR 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41651 CREEK ROAD 0.25 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41651A CREEK SPUR A 0.27 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, NOT VERIFIED, FOUND CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ON QUAD, CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41651B SHORT SPUR B 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00,NOT VERIFIED, CLOSED CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41652A HOGE 0.9 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CONNECTOR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41653B FOUR PEAKS 1.19 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41653C KNOB ROAD 0.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

74 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41653D TRIANGLE ROAD 0.1 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41653E CONNECTOR 0.3 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41656 CONNECTOR 0.04 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41659 STRAIGHT ROAD 0.69 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC KEYSTONE DECSION CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41660 POWERLINE 1.76 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 6/28/00, ADMIN ROAD SUP/ ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES

41660A N ACCESS ROAD 0.19 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH ACCESS N. .SUP PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE ADIM CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES

41661 PHONE LINE 0.82 1 - BASIC 2 - HIGH 6/9/00,NOT VERIFIED, ADMIN ROAD CUSTODIAL CLEARANCE SUP ROAD PEAVINE ADMIN CARE (CLOSED) VEHICLES CLOSED

75 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41661A PHONE SPUR A 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00,, CLOSED PER CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL KEYSTONED CARE (CLOSED) CARE NONMOTORIZED, ADMIN (CLOSED) CLOSED

41662A BOUNDARY LINE 0.53 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00 NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41662B RIDGE ROAD 0.52 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE SPUR CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41662D CLOSED DECOM 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41663 TWIN PEAK ROAD 0.36 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00 VERIFIED BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL INFRA AND GIS MATCH, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED PEAVINE (CLOSED)

41664A SHORT ROAD 0.35 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, NOT VERIFIED, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41664B NORTHEAST 0.12 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/9/00, NOT VERIFIED, PEAK ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED PEAVINE CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

76 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41665 RALEIGH 0.2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED PEAVINE HEIGHTS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41677A LINK SPUR A 0.22 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41682 MUD LAKE 2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, SOUTH CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, NO ACCESS, CARE (CLOSED) CARE LOCKED GATE ON 41683 (CLOSED)

41682A FENCE LINE EAST 0.31 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, NOT ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL PRINTED OR HANDWRITTEN CARE (CLOSED) CARE ON QUAD, CLOSED NO (CLOSED) ACCESS LOCKED GATE 41683

41683 MUD LAKE WEST 2.66 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL HANDWROTE ON QUAD, CARE (CLOSED) CARE MATCHES GIS, LOCKED (CLOSED) GATE, NO ACCESS

41683A SPRINGS ROAD 0.77 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

77 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41684 SPRING MEYER 4.7 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00 NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED NO ACCESS, TRIED CARE (CLOSED) CARE TO ACCESS ROAD HAD (CLOSED) PERMISSION FROM LAND OWNER. STILL COULD THERE WAS POSSIBLE THREE LOCATES TO FIND THE ROAD ONE GATE NOT FS LOCK. TWO ROAD WAS BERMED WITH BARBED WIRE.

41684A HORSESHOE 0.77 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, BEND ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED NO ACCESS CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41687 RIVER END ROAD 2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, HANDWROTE ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD, CLOSED NO ACCESS (CLOSED)

41687A PROSPECT ROAD 0.88 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 2/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, NO ACCESS, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED (CLOSED)

41687B NEAR PEAK 0.07 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00 NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, CLOSED NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS (CLOSED)

41687C ELBOW SOUTH 0.95 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, CLOSED NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS (CLOSED)

78 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41687D CURVE ROAD 0.15 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, CLOSED NO CARE (CLOSED) CARE ACCESS (CLOSED)

41687E RIVER BANK 0.29 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/00, HANDWROTE ON QUAD, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, NO ACCESS, VERY CARE (CLOSED) CARE STEEP (CLOSED)

41688A RANGE ROAD 0.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, HANDWROTE ON CARE (CLOSED) CARE QUAD, CLOSED (CLOSED)

41689 CROOKED ROAD 2.77 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, NO ACCESS, CUTS CARE (CLOSED) CARE OFF PVT???? (CLOSED)

41689A FORD ROAD 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, FOUND, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL HANDPRINTED ON QUAD, CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA MATCHES GIS (CLOSED) CLOSED NO ACCESS

41710A SANDPITS 0.93 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, CLOSED, CLEAR ROADS CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CREEK CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41710B RANGE CORNER 1.78 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC ROAD CLOSED, CLEAR SPUR B CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CREEK DECSION CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

79 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41710E WYE ROAD SPUR 0.28 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, E CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, CLOSED CLEAR CARE (CLOSED) CARE CREEK (CLOSED)

41710F ROAD CREW 0.33 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC CLOSED DECOM CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41713 C HILL ROAD 0.18 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, VERIFIED BY ED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED CLEAR CREEK CARE (CLOSED) CARE DECSION (CLOSED)

41715 HWY INT BYPASS 0.44 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 11/00, ON FILE, INFRA CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL MATCHES GIS, CLOSED CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLEAR CREEK, FIX RMO (CLOSED)

41715A CLIMB ROAD 0.56 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, SPUR A CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL CLOSED, CLEAR CREEK CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41716 TONWSHIP 0.24 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CORNER ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, CLOSED CLEAR CARE (CLOSED) CARE CREEK (CLOSED)

41717A BRDY LINE 0.47 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC FS GATE, ADMIN // EXTENSION CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CARE (CLOSED) CARE FOUND (CLOSED)

80 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

41728 HOT SPRINGS 2.5 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND LOCKED GATE, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED (CLOSED)

41728A STEAM WELLS 0.24 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, GIS MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA, LOCKED GATE, (CLOSED) CLOSED

41728B LITTLE BEND 0.95 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, INFRA MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) CARE GIS, LOCKED GATE, CLOSED (CLOSED)

41728C S.H.RD 0.89 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, GIS MATCHES CARE (CLOSED) CARE INFRA, CLOSED LOCKED (CLOSED) GATE

41729 WHITES FLAT 0.73 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00, NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, OK, SUP ADMIN CARE (CLOSED) CARE (CLOSED)

41732 STEAMBOAT 2 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 11/00 ,ON FILE, LOCKED HILLS ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL GATE, ROAD IS BLOCKED BY CARE (CLOSED) CARE GATE, MINING ACTIVITY SUP (CLOSED) ROAD LEVEL 1 CHANGE TO 2 MILES

41733 STEAMBOAT 0.24 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, ROAD CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, LOCKED GATE, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED

81 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

ROAD NAME MILES OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE COMMENTS NUMBER

(CLOSED)

41733A STEAM ROAD 0.11 1 - BASIC 1 - BASIC 6/12/00,NOT VERIFIED, CUSTODIAL CUSTODIAL FOUND, LOCKED GATE, CARE (CLOSED) CARE CLOSED (CLOSED)

82 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

APPENDIX D: FOREST PLAN DIRECTION

Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as Amended Desired Condition, Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines relevant to the management of roads and trails in both the Toiyabe NF LRMP and the SNFPA

Forest Plan Direction The Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) states that: ORV use will be allowed where such is not incompatible with other resource programs. An annual travel plan will be developed for each ranger district. Generally, the Forest will be open to OHVs. Closure or restrictions will occur where there is obvious conflict with other uses and where natural resource damage results. Forest resources will not be degraded from indiscriminate OHV use. The Toiyabe Plan further directs that ORV use be managed to minimize use on resources such as deer winter range, fawning, and lambing areas, and these areas should be closed either through the year or seasonally to ORV use. Additional standards and guidelines (pages IV-47 to IV-51) are included that direct the Forest to: Riparian Area (IV-42) #2: Recognize the importance and distinctive values of riparian areas when implementing management activities. Give preferential consideration to riparian area-dependent resources over other resources in cases of unsolvable conflicts. #5: Manage riparian areas to achieve or maintain a medium or high ecological status. #7: On streams where Lahontan cutthroat and Paiute cutthroat trout are present or scheduled for introduction, the riparian areas should be maintained or improved to a “good” or “excellent” resource value rating for fisheries. #8: Maintain or improve the Biotic Condition Index (BCI) on 95 percent of the streams to a minimum standard of 85 BCI. BCI indicates as a percentage how close an aquatic ecosystem is to its own potential. #10: Strive to achieve and maintain at least 90 percent of the natural bank stability for streams supporting Lahontan or Paiute cutthroat trout, and 80 percent on all other streams. #17: Provide fish passage at all crossings of known fish habitat by meeting the requirements for fish passage and adhering to guidelines specified in “Fish Migration and Fish Passage, A Practical Guide to Solving Fish Passage Problems,” USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Sept. 1977. #18N: On side hills and near channel crossings, road drainages shall discharge where sediment can settle out before runoff reaches a stream channel, unless this is clearly unfeasible. #18P: Transport of sediment from disturbed areas shall be minimized by flocculation, ponding, vegetative barrier strips, or other means. #18R: Roadway sections parallel and contiguous to stream channels shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize concentrated surface runoff from the roadbed and slopes. Special design features, such as slope drains, in sloping, crowning, berms, or other facilities, shall be provided as appropriate.

83 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Timber (IV-33) #13: Incorporate wildlife travel corridor requirements in developing road design and construction. Wildlife and Fish (IV-47) #3 D: Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks. #4: Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery. #5: Coordinate management practices which may affect threatened and endangered animal species with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and California and Nevada state wildlife agencies. #8: Minimize disturbing activities on key mule deer habitat (fawning areas, winter range, riparian areas, holding areas, migration corridors, etc.). #9: Manage habitats of wolverine, Mount Lyell salamander, yellow warbler, and other wildlife species that may have declining populations or narrow habitat requirements, to assure viable populations and reasonable distributions. Encourage surveys and other data gathering activities for these species. #12: Manage aspen stands at a mid-succession or higher ecological status with emphasis on improving age-class structure. #15: Perform field inventories to identify habitat occupied by threatened and endangered species. Determine habitat needs and management strategies. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 1995 Recovery Plan: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems and Associated Species Goals and Desired Conditions Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species; work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. Species Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration, and reproduction. Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows.

84 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

Riparian Conservation Objective #2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. Riparian Conservation Objective #4: Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and CARs enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. Riparian Conservation Objective #5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. Riparian Conservation Objective #6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges

Riparian conservation area (RCA) widths are described below. • Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream. • Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream. • Streams in Inner Gorge: top of inner gorge. • Special Aquatic Features or Perennial Streams with Riparian Conditions extending more than 150 feet from edge of streambank or Seasonally • Flowing streams with riparian conditions extending more than 50 feet from edge of streambank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever width is greater. • Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel: RCA width and protection measures determined through project level analysis

Critical aquatic refuges (CARs) are sub watersheds that contain either: • known locations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species • highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species, or • localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species.

#92: Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and RCAs during environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian –dependent plant and animal species.

#94: As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose ground- disturbing activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more than 15 percent of a CAR. #96: Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.

85 Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District

#100: Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other species aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where necessary to restore connectivity.

#101: Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species.

#102: Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams; determine if relevant stream characteristics are within the range of natural variability. If characteristics are outside the range of natural variability, implement mitigation measures and short-term restoration actions needed to prevent further declines or cause an upward trend in conditions. Evaluate required long-term restoration actions and implement them according to their status among other restoration needs.

#103: Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does not apply to developed recreation sites; sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated off-highway vehicle routes.

#114: As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog.

#116: Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use sites during landscape analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions.

#118: Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.)