Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives and the effects (or consequences) that would result from implementation of those alternatives. The effects disclosed in this Chapter provide the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the benefits and risks of the alternatives. The Affected Environment Section under each resource topic describes the existing, or baseline, condition against which environmental effects of the alternatives were evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives through compliance with standards set forth in the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as the Forest Plan or LRMP), as amended, and monitoring required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and National Forest Management Act of 1976. The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives, including recommended mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. These terms are defined as follows: • Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action. • Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. • Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. • Unavoidable adverse effects are those that cannot be avoided due to other constraints (Section 3.1.3). • Irreversible effects are permanent or essentially permanent resource use or losses. They cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long-term. Irretrievable effects are losses of use or productivity for a period of time. Irreversible and irretrievable effects are disclosed in the direct and indirect effects analyses for relevant resources, and summarized in Section 3.1.4.

For the purposes of this analysis, the terms ‘effects’, ‘impacts’ , and ‘consequences’ are used interchangeably.

3.1.1 Analysis Process The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions proposed under each alternative for the Inyo National Forest. This effects analysis was done at the forest scale. However, the effects findings in this chapter are based on site-specific analyses of the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system) as well as the existing system roads proposed for reclassification as motorized trails. Unauthorized routes proposed in the alternatives have been reviewed by appropriate resource

Introduction – 49 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

specialists and their findings documented in the project record. Additional information concerning the existing condition or environmental effects associated with a specific road, trail or area is available upon request. In the existing condition (i.e., Alternative 1), there are a total of 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes on the Forest. Of those, 1,668 miles are currently available for motorized use and are considered for addition to the NFTS in the action alternatives. The remaining 27 miles of unauthorized routes are within the boundaries of the 313,000 acres of new wilderness designated in March 2009. These routes are closed to motorized use in all alternatives, as motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness are prohibited by law. As described in Chapter 2, all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 – 6) include the following components or actions: • Adding unauthorized routes to the forest transportation system for public motorized use. Routes may be added as either roads or motorized trails. • Prohibition on travel off of forest transportation system roads and trails. • Changes to the existing NFTS, such as reclassifying and NFTS road as a motorized trail.

For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described separately for each of the actions proposed for each alternative. The combined direct and indirect effects of these actions are then added to the effects of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions (or PFFA) in the cumulative effects analysis for each affected resource. Throughout the effects analyses, the term “routes available for motorized use” is used to compare the effects of the alternatives. For the No Action alternative (Alternative 1), this term includes all existing unauthorized routes, even though those routes will not be added to the NFTS. For the action alternatives, it includes only those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in that alternative.

3.1.1.1 Analysis of Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis area is described for each resource, but in most cases includes the entire Inyo National Forest including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest boundary. Cumulative effects are projected for a 20-year timeframe. This time period is expected to capture the time needed for the effects of the majority of known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects to recover to the point where they are no longer measurable. In addition, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, and resource responses to climate change make assumptions about anticipated effects beyond this period speculative. For all resources, past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the “Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under each resource. Relevant present and reasonably foreseeable future activities are identified and analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for each resource. An inventory of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects is available in Appendix D.

Introduction – 50 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Each resource area identifies the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to the discussion of cumulative effects for that resource. Relevant actions are those expected to generate effects on a resource that will occur at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action or alternatives. Appendix D includes additional detail (e.g., location, type of effect, etc.) about the activities considered in the cumulative effects analyses. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions. The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding

Introduction – 51

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)

3.1.1.2 Assumptions and Limitations The following assumptions and limitations provided the foundation for the analysis of effects for all resources: • Enforcement of the laws and regulations related to Travel Management will be enforced equally in authority and weight as with all other federal laws and regulations. Additional information about law enforcement assumptions is available in the project record (Project Record: Law Enforcement Overview and Assumptions, January 2009). • Once a decision is made, it is anticipated there will be a higher number of violations (i.e., travel off designated routes) the first few years before the number of violations declines as users understand and comply with the restrictions. Publication of the motor use vehicle map, combined with signage, user education programs, and enforcement, will reduce the number of violations. Providing motorized recreation opportunities in popular, key areas will help relieve pressure to travel off of designated routes. • Public education and enforcement of Travel Management restrictions will successfully limit public motorized use to designated routes. However, seven areas on the Inyo NF, referred to as Off Road Travel Concern Areas, or ORTCAs, have documented histories of repeated cross-country travel due to terrain and lack of natural barriers. Implementation of mitigation measures, such as education, enforcement, and engineering efforts, is expected to effectively manage motorized use in these areas. • No further analysis or decision is necessary to continue public motorized use of the existing 1,355 miles of NFTS roads or 1,100-acre Poleta Open Area on the Forest. However, changes to the current NFTS (e.g., prohibiting cross-country travel, changing vehicle class or season of use, and any additions or deletions of roads, trails or areas) must be analyzed under NEPA. Changing maintenance levels on existing NFTS facilities is an administrative decision not subject to NEPA analysis. • Converting existing NFTS roads to administrative use is assumed to have no effect on all resources because (1) use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns, and/or (2) these roads currently receive little to no use by the public so recreational opportunities would not be affected. • Proposals to add unauthorized routes to the NFTS require a NEPA decision, regardless of when or how these routes were established.

Introduction – 52 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Use levels for unauthorized routes have been estimated based on the professional judgment and experience of field-going OHV patrols familiar with the area. Use levels have been categorized as light (less than 25 vehicle trips per week), low (25-100 trips per week), medium (101-500 trips), and high (greater than 500 trips per week), and are based on the peak season of use for the route. Documentation supporting use level estimates is available in the project record. • Unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS are assumed to naturally decompact and revegetate at varying rates, which will depend upon the vegetation type and other site-specific conditions. Full restoration (e.g., decommissioning) or converting routes to other uses are not reasonably foreseeable at this time as site-specific proposals have not been developed and analyzed. • Effects of roads and motorized trails on natural and cultural resources are similar in type and intensity. This assumption is based on the following: o Use of all motor vehicles—whether a motorcycle, ATV, UTV, jeep, or full-size truck—results in similar impacts such as soil compaction, removal of vegetation, noise, and dust production on native surface roads and trails. With the exception of ATV and motorcycle trails, all vehicle classes may be used on the routes added to the NFTS as part of this analysis. o Motorcycle and ATV trails have a narrower tread than Trails Open to All Trail Vehicles or Maintenance Level 2 roads. However, due to the low mileage of routes added as motorcycle and ATV trails the difference in tread width would not result in a meaningful difference in terms of resource effects. For example, of the 1,005 miles of routes added to the NFTS in Alternative 6, 35 miles are added as motorcycle and ATV trails. o The majority of routes are added as Maintenance Level 2 roads or Trails Open to All Trail Vehicles. These roads and trails would be open to full-size vehicles, in addition to ATVs and motorcycles. This means that ATVs and motorcycles, which are generally noisier than full-size vehicles, may be used on all routes added to the system either as roads or trails and that potential effects related to noise may occur both on roads and trails. • Dispersed recreation activities (i.e., activities that occur after the motor vehicle stops such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.) are not part of the scope of the proposed action. The action and the analysis focus on motor vehicle use. • Attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. Known exceptions to this assumption are the seven areas referred to as Off Road Travel Concern Areas, or ORTCAs, described in more detail above.

Introduction – 53

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following assumptions are specific to describing the short- and long-term effects of Alternative 1 (No Action), which represents the current management scenario on the Forest: • The current NFTS consists of 1,355 miles of NFTS roads and the 1,100-acre Poleta Open Area. Poleta is currently the only OHV open area on the Forest (LMP ROD, p. 2). • Although unauthorized routes would have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities, public motorized use of all existing unauthorized routes outside of designated wilderness (1,668 miles) would continue under the no action alternative. • The temporary Forest Order currently in place prohibits the possession or use of a motorized vehicle off National Forest System roads, except for the unauthorized routes and Poleta open OHV area shown on the maps attached to the Order. The temporary Order will expire in June 2010; no permanent prohibition on cross-country travel will be in place after that time. • Except for the 313,000 acres of wilderness designated in March 2009, Inyo NF lands within the focus area boundaries (approximately 1 million acres; see Chapter 1, Figure 1-1) would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country motorized vehicle travel. However, it is understood that some areas are less vulnerable to cross-country travel due to terrain, vegetation, and other factors. • It is currently prohibited for drivers to operate vehicles off NFTS roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15(h)). Because allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate using this prohibition, current difficulties associated with prosecuting users for traveling cross-country would continue under Alternative 1. The action alternatives would aid enforcement by prohibiting all motorized use off designated NFTS roads, trails, and areas. • Attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. Known exceptions to this assumption are the seven areas referred to as Off Road Travel Concern Areas, or ORTCAs, described in more detail above.

3.1.2 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). All action alternatives have the potential to improve the long-term productivity of the landscape by reducing the number of existing routes on the landscape. Routes not designated for public motor vehicle use will have the potential to revert to vegetated conditions, gradually reducing adverse effects on forest resources related to motorized use of these routes. Based on an average route width of 12 feet, this represents an improvement in productivity on up to 2,470 acres in Alternative 5; 1,460 acres in Alternative 4, 1,115 acres in Alternative 2; 1,000 acres in Alternative 6; 760 acres in Alternative 3, and 0 acres in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 propose to add existing unauthorized routes to the Forest transportation system and designate those routes for public motor vehicle use. Although these designations may be revised in the future in response to changing conditions, the designation of routes is considered to be

Introduction – 54 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 a long-term use of the environment, with long-term impacts on productivity within the route tread. However, as described in the section below on unavoidable impacts, mitigations are proposed as needed in the action alternatives to ensure adverse effects the productivity of the environment are avoided, eliminated, or minimized.

3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Unavoidable adverse effects are expected with implementation of Alternative 1, as described in the resource analyses contained in this Chapter. Alternative 1 (No Action) would allow continued use of all unauthorized routes, including those known to be adversely affecting forest resources, and would not propose mitigations to reduce, avoid, or eliminate those effects. Implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would result in some unavoidable adverse environmental effects; however, mitigations are proposed as needed to ensure effects are avoided or minimized to acceptable levels in all alternatives (e.g., species viability is maintained, Best Management Practices standards are met, etc.). Overall, these effects are not expected to be significant, because the alternatives were designed using site-specific information regarding the nature and location of sensitive natural and cultural resources. Routes with resource concerns that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. Alternative 5 would have no unavoidable adverse effects as no unauthorized routes are added to the NFTS. The environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these effects in more detail.

3.1.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a powerline right-of-way or road. None of the alternatives is expected to result in irreversible impacts. The action of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS as low standard roads or motorized trails, or changing vehicle class on existing NFTS roads would not result in any impacts that cannot be regained. However, roads and motorized trails represent a commitment of the soil resource, in that the route tread is dedicated to use as a transportation facility. As a result, the designation of existing unauthorized routes for public motor vehicle use is expected to result in an irretrievable commitment of the soil and plant and animal habitat occupied by the routes. The routes under consideration are low standard, native surface routes maintained primarily by continued passage of motor vehicles. Based on an average width of 12 feet, routes would encumber 2,470 acres in Alternative 1, followed by 1,700 acres in Alternative 3; 1,460 acres in Alternative 6; 1,350 acres in Alternative 2; 1,010 acres in Alternative 4; and 0 acres in Alternative 5. These effects are considered irretrievable for as long as the route is designated for public motorized use, in that continued passage by motor vehicles would keep the route tread free of vegetation. If designated routes are closed to motor vehicle use in future Travel Management decisions, the area occupied by the route would gradually revegetate and assume the characteristics of surrounding habitat as described in the resource effects analyses in this Chapter.

Introduction – 55

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Introduction – 56 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.2 Society, Culture, and the Economy

3.2.1 Introduction This chapter presents information on the social, cultural, and economic environments of local communities that may be affected by the Inyo National Forest’s (INF) Travel Management decision. Through the examination of demographic and economic data, the following discussion provides an analysis of potential socioeconomic effects resulting from the INF’s Travel Management decision. In addition to the analysis of these quantitative characteristics of population and fiscal sustainability, a secondary discussion addresses the distinct identities of surrounding communities, including lifestyles and attitudes unique to the affected populations. This section is organized as follows: • Economic effects analysis • American Indian concerns • Values and attitudes of those interested in and affected by this proposal • Environmental justice

3.2.2 Economic Effects Analysis

3.2.2.1 Area of Economic Effect The Inyo National Forest is spread across seven counties and two states: Inyo, Mono, Fresno, Madera, and Tulare Counties in California, and Mineral and Esmeralda Counties in Nevada. For the purposes of this socioeconomic study, the analysis area is defined as the parts of the Forest within Inyo and Mono counties in California, and Mineral and Esmeralda counties in Nevada. This is because: • Approximately 87% of the Forest lies within these four counties (with more than 80% in Inyo and Mono Counties), and • Motorized recreation on INF lands is concentrated in these counties.

Table 3-1: Summary of Counties by Total Acreage and National Forest Land Acreage County Total Acres Inyo National Forest % of Total County Area Acres1 Esmeralda 2,284,800 66,514 3% Fresno 3,853,193 24,207 < 1% Inyo 6,541,869 793,881 12% Madera 1,378,564 49,834 4% Mineral 2,455,680 50,005 2% Mono 2,003,800 818,536 41% Tulare 3,098,946 185,586 6% 1 Acres include lands administered by the Inyo National Forest for both the Sierra and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. 2 Source: INF data layers

As reflected in the table below, the vast majority of Inyo National Forest’s lands within Fresno, Madera, and Tulare counties have been designated as wilderness. Wilderness areas, by their enabling

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 57 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

legislation, prohibit the use of motorized vehicles. Because these three California counties contain very few acres of INF lands outside of designated wilderness, and have very low route mileage (as shown in the table below), it has been determined that Fresno, Madera, and Tulare Counties’ economies would not be affected by the INF’s Travel Management decision. Therefore, a review of their socioeconomic conditions was not conducted and they are excluded from further discussion within this chapter.

Table 3-2: Comparison of National Forest Acreage by Wilderness Designation with a Summary of Total Mileage of Routes within Each County County % Inyo National Total Inyo NF % of INF lands within Miles of INF Forest Lands Wilderness Acres3 County designated as Routes1, 2 wilderness Esmeralda 3% 10,523 15% 44 Fresno < 1% 24,349 100% 0 Inyo 12% 376,962 47% 768 Madera 3% 46,064 92% 12 Mineral 2% 10 < 1% 128 Mono 43% 342,896 40% 2,008 Tulare 6% 164,080 88% 23 1 This includes authorized NFTS, unauthorized, and administrative routes. 2 Mileages do not include state highways, county, private, or routes that exist outside the National Forest boundary 3 Acres include lands administered by the Inyo National Forest for both the Sierra and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. Source: INF data layers

3.2.2.2 Existing Conditions in the Economic Analysis Area

Introduction Inyo, Mono, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties comprise the communities within the economic analysis area most likely to be affected by the Forest’s Travel Management decision. Within California, more than 80% of the Inyo National Forest is located in Inyo and Mono Counties. These counties are predominantly rural in nature and contain a substantial amount of publicly owned and managed lands. Approximately 98% of lands in Inyo County and 94% of lands in Mono County are managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Department of Defense (China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center), or the State of California. Moreover, approximately 3% of the land is owned and managed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) within these two counties. In Inyo County, less than 2% of land is privately owned, whereas in Mono County less than 7% of land is privately owned (Inyo and Mono County General Plans). Within Nevada, Mineral and Esmeralda counties contain a very small portion of INF land. In Esmeralda County, less than 3% of the land base is managed by the INF. In Mineral County, INF lands account for 2% of the land base. In addition, these counties only contain approximately 7% (116 miles) of the unauthorized routes being considered in this analysis. Recreational use in these areas is generally low and is largely limited to dispersed use by local residents; there are no major recreation destinations on INF lands in these counties known to draw significant visitation by non- local users.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 58 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Development within the forest boundary is minimal, with limited growth occurring adjacent to it. Urban growth elsewhere in California and Nevada, however, has contributed to a steady increase in visitation on the INF. In addition to attracting national and international visitation, the Inyo National Forest serves as an outdoor recreation destination for urban residents within a short drive of several metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Reno. The scenic appeal and recreational attractions provided by the natural environment and the proximity of the Forest to these urban centers result in high levels of recreational use. The INF ranks among the top forests in recreation visitation both nationally and within the state of California. Popular activities that draw the majority of visitation include fishing, climbing, camping, backpacking, hiking, sightseeing, downhill and cross-country skiing, OHV riding, and horseback riding. These recreational uses are largely concentrated in Inyo and Mono counties. Inyo and Mono counties provide goods and services to a significant amount of visitors as well as a large workforce in support of those visitors. Consequently, their economies are most likely to be measurably affected if the alternatives result in changes in visitor use levels and patterns. This is not to imply that changes in use would not affect other local economies. Economic effects, however, are expected to be more direct and substantive in terms of spending levels and employment rates in these two counties as opposed to Esmeralda and Mineral counties. The population and economic base data presented in the tables below include these two Nevadan counties in light of the fact that recreation and tourism related to OHV use on lands managed by the Inyo National Forest comprise part of their socioeconomic profile. However, because these counties contain so little land managed by the INF and less than 7% of the routes under evaluation, it has been determined that a negligible effect—if any—would occur to these two counties’ economies as a result of any of the alternatives considered in the INF Travel Management project.

Population and Demographics The combined population of the economic analysis area is 36,392 (U.S. Census Bureau). The majority of the population of the economic analysis area is concentrated in Inyo and Mono counties. These counties have a combined population of 30,734 (U.S. Census Bureau), which accounts for less than one percent of the population of California. Population density ranges from 4.2 people/square mile in Mono County to 1.8 people/square mile in Inyo County (U.S. Census Bureau). These two figures compare dramatically with the state average of 217 people/square mile and reflect the rural character of these two communities. Also predominantly rural in nature, Mineral and Esmeralda counties share a combined population of 5,658 (U.S. Census Bureau), or 0.002% of the state of Nevada’s overall population. The majority of Esmeralda and Mineral county residents are involved in the agriculture, mining, and public administration industries, with tourism and recreation—particularly in Mineral County—representing a noticeable percent of their economic profile. Population densities in the area range from 0.3 people per square mile in Esmeralda County to 1.4 people per square mile in Mineral County. As shown in the following chart, population growth in the economic analysis area has been slower than the two states and nation over the last 35 years (Headwaters Economics, EPS, 2008). Between 2000 and 2006, the population in Inyo County grew by only 0.2% and actually decreased by

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 59

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

0.8% in Mono County. In comparison, the population in California increased by 7.6% during the same time period. Population growth is not generally impacted by national recessions.

Figure 3-1: Population Growth Compared to the State and the Nation in the Economic Analysis Area (Esmeralda, Inyo, Mineral, and Mono Counties)

Population Comparison

200

188 180

160

145 140 133

120

100

80 Population (Index 1970=100)

60

40

20

- -

1 2 4 5 7 8 9 1 2 4 5 7 8 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 1 2 4 5 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 1970 1 19 1973 1 19 1976 1 1 19 1980 1 19 1983 1 19 1986 1 1 1989 1990 1 19 1993 1 19 1996 1 1 19 2000 2 20 2003 2 20

Recession Bars Inyo NF 4 County Aggregation States United States

Source: Economic Profile System (EPS), Headwaters Economics, 2008.

Table 3-3: Population by Age and Gender for the Economic Analysis Area Population by Age and Sex Total Under 20 40-54 65 Years and Median Density Number Years (Baby Boom in 2000) Over Age (Pop. Number Number Share Number Share Per sq. Share mi.) Total Population 2000 36,840 9,601 26% 9048 25% 5577 15% 40.3 2 1990 36,056 9,815 27% 6724 19% 5001 14% 35.8 2 10 Yr. Change 784 (214) -1% 2324 6% 576 1% 4.5 0 10 Yr. % Change 2% -2 % 35% 12% 13% 2% 2000 Sex Breakout Male 18,913 5,004 26% 4631 24% 2614 14% 39.5 Female 17,927 4,597 26% 4417 25% 2963 17% 41.0 Male/Female Split 51%/49% 52%/48% 51%/49% 47%/53% Source: Economic Profile System (EPS), Headwaters Economics, 2008.

From 1990 to 2000, the combined population of the economic analysis area increased approximately 2 percent. The population within the analysis area has gotten older as well, with the

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 60 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 median age increasing from 36 in 1990 to 40 in 2000. For the same time period, the 40 to 54 years age group rose 6 percent, compared to a 1% increase for the 65 and over age group and a decrease of 1% for the under 20 age group.

Recreation Use Levels and Activities The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about recreation visitors to National Forest System (NFS) managed lands at the national, regional, and forest level. Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for National Forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the Agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. NVUM information assists Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science-based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality, and location of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers, including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled, “Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation,” by English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station; May 2002 (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum). NVUM results are used to assess current recreation use levels and activities for INF lands in the economic analysis area. In order to be counted in this survey, visitors must pursue a recreation activity physically located on Forest Service managed land. They cannot simply be passing through (e.g., viewing from non-Forest Service managed roads, or just using restroom facilities) (U.S. Forest Service NVUM National Summary Report, 2008). The Inyo National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2005 through September 2006. There were approximately 3,921,700 national forest visits on the Inyo National Forest during Fiscal Year 2006. The full Inyo National Forest NVUM report is available on the web through the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Human Dimensions Module at: http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/Human_Dimensions_NVUM/HD- NVUM_12/index.shtml. The table below presents participation rates by activity for the Inyo National Forest during the NVUM survey period. The Total Activity Participation (%) column of the table presents the participation rates by activity. Participation rates will exceed 100% because visitors can participate in multiple activities. The Percent as Main Activity column presents the participation rates in terms of primary activity.

Table 3-4: Activity Participation on the Inyo National Forest Activity Activity Emphasis for Total Activity Percent as Main Road & Trail Use Participation (%)1/2 Activity (%)3/4 Snowmobiling Motorized 1.1 1.1 Driving for Pleasure Motorized 24.8 0.9 OHV Use Motorized 1.8 0.3 Other Motorized Activity Motorized 1.2 0.0

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 61

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Activity Activity Emphasis for Total Activity Percent as Main Road & Trail Use Participation (%)1/2 Activity (%)3/4 Motorized Subtotal 2.3 Hiking / Walking Non-motorized 41.3 12.3 Bicycling Non-motorized 6.9 3.3 Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 5.0 0.9 Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 4.6 4.5 Backpacking Non-motorized 3.9 2.0 Horseback Riding Non-motorized 2.1 0.3 Non-motorized Subtotal 23.3 Downhill Skiing Other 43.4 39.4 Fishing Other 14.9 8.1 Viewing Natural Features Other 52.2 13.6 Relaxing Other 46.2 6.4 Motorized Water Activities Other 2.5 0.0 Hunting Other 0.7 0.6 Non-motorized Water Other 2.8 0.6 Developed Camping Other 13.8 2.6 Primitive Camping Other 2.4 0.1 Picnicking Other 11.2 0.7 Viewing Wildlife Other 37.2 1.0 Sightseeing Other 0.0 0.0 No Activity Reported Other 18.6 17.8 Resort Use Other 9.1 0.1 Visiting Historic Sites Other 12.4 0.2 Nature Study Other 8.7 0.0 Gathering Forest Products Other 2.7 0.1 Nature Center Activities Other 13.2 0.4 Other Subtotal 91.7 Total 117.3 1 Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%. 2 The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity. 3 Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%. 4 The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.

Activities are defined based on the “primary” activity on the Forest that each respondent identified in the survey. For example, on one national forest, 63% of visitors identified viewing wildlife as a recreational activity that they participated in during their visit, however only 3% identified that activity as their main recreational activity. The information on average hours viewing wildlife is only for the 3% who reported it as a main activity (U.S. Forest Service NVUM National Summary Report, 2008). The primary activity participation rates (Percent as Main Activity) displayed in Table 3-4 were used to estimate use by activity emphasis. The emphasis areas were grouped into those emphasizing non-motorized, motorized, and other activities. Motorized activities were those that used motor vehicles on Forest Service roads and trails. Non-motorized activities still used the Forest’s roads and trails, but on foot or by non-motorized transportation such as cross-country skis or bicycles. All other activities include other Forest-based activities measured by the NVUM survey that did not utilize

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 62 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 roads or trails to pursue their primary activity. Examples of “other activities” are downhill skiing, motorized water activities, etc. Motor vehicles may have been used to reach a destination or participate in the activity, but it was not the primary emphasis of the visit. The following table displays the number of visits for these activities. The number of visits is based on the primary purpose for the visit (Percent as Main Activity) displayed in Table 3-4 and the total number of visits of 3,921,700 reported in the Inyo National Forest NVUM report. Users were determined to be either local or non-local based on the miles from the user’s residence to the forest boundary. If the user reported living within 50 miles of the forest boundary, they are considered local; if over 50 miles, they are considered non-local. It is important to distinguish between local and non-local spending as only non-locals bring new money and new economic stimulus into the local community. Local spending is already accounted for in the study area base data provided by the IMPAN software (see Effects Analysis Methodology section below for a full description of IMPLAN). It is impossible to predict how locals would have spent money if they did not have local recreation opportunities on the National Forest, but it is assumed that much of that money would not have been lost to the local economy. This is because people tend to substitute other local recreation activities or change the time or place for continuing the same activity rather than traveling long distances and incurring high costs to do the same activity. Table 3-5 indicates the most popular non-motorized use is hiking and walking, followed by bicycling, while the most popular motorized use is snowmobiling, followed by driving for pleasure. Table 3-6 indicates that non-local visitors spend more per visit than local visitors, primarily because of overnight lodging expenditures. Motorized day use expenditures are generally higher than for non- motorized activities, but non-local overnight visitors engaged in non-motorized activities generally expend more than non-local motorized users (except for snowmobiling). Snowmobilers spend the most per visit, especially non-local visitors. It is important to note that the Proposed Action and alternatives are narrowly focused on designating unauthorized routes for wheeled motor vehicle use only. None of the alternatives proposes any changes in snowmobile access or management on the INF. Participation in this recreation activity will not be affected by any of the alternatives considered in this EIS.

Table 3-5: Number of Visits by Activity Use (Party-Trips) Non-local Day Non-local Local Day Local Non-Primary Use Overnight use Overnight Non-motorized Hiking/Walking 15,666 30,395 143,929 11,215 9,138 Bicycling 4,203 8,155 38,615 3,009 2,452 Other Non-motorized 1,146 2,224 10,531 821 669 Cross-country Skiing 5,373 16,657 35,323 2,617 602 Backpacking 0 12,087 0 13,116 581 Horseback Riding 382 741 3,510 274 223 Motorized Snowmobiling 1,170 1,912 9,114 1,707 1,532 Driving for Pleasure 860 1,042 11,869 410 1,379 OHV Use 525 923 2,407 702 154

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 63

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Use (Party-Trips) Non-local Day Non-local Local Day Local Non-Primary Use Overnight use Overnight Other Motorized Activity 0 0 0 0 0 Other Fishing 14,894 28,258 64,478 11,916 5,158 Hunting 478 2,112 5,900 2,323 301 Viewing Wildlife 1,337 3,096 5,617 975 1,981 Motorized Water Activities 0 0 0 0 0 Non-motorized Water 764 1,483 7,021 547 446 Downhill Skiing 43,909 103,499 263,453 84,305 22,711 Developed Camping 2,898 6,830 17,385 5,563 1,499 Primitive Camping 0 604 0 656 29 Resort Use 111 263 669 214 58 Picnicking 780 1,839 4,681 1,498 404 Viewing Natural Features 18,188 42,101 76,388 13,262 26,945 Visiting Historic Sites 223 525 1,337 428 115 Nature Center Activities 535 1,238 2,247 390 792 Nature Study 0 0 0 0 0 Relaxing 7,132 16,812 42,794 13,694 3,689 Gathering Forest Products 111 263 669 214 58 Sightseeing 0 0 0 0 0 No Activity Reported 19,837 46,759 119,022 38,087 10,260 Sub Total 130,723 308,134 784,340 250,989 67,616

Table 3-6: Expenditures ($ per Visit) by Activity Expenditures ($ per visit) Non-local Day Non-local Local Day Local Non-Primary Use Overnight use Overnight Non-motorized Hiking/Walking 21.90 137.39 10.00 47.73 6.67 Bicycling 21.90 137.39 10.00 47.73 6.67 Other Non-motorized 21.90 137.39 10.00 47.73 6.67 Cross-country Skiing 24.29 155.71 16.52 113.48 15.20 Backpacking 0.00 49.62 0.00 43.85 0.00 Horseback Riding 21.90 137.39 10.00 47.73 6.67 Motorized Snowmobiling 62.27 167.60 33.48 89.64 32.08 Driving for Pleasure 22.38 86.54 15.00 51.82 11.25 OHV Use 36.19 84.00 21.50 63.00 16.54 Other Motorized Activity 36.19 84.00 21.50 63.00 16.54 Other Fishing 26.50 119.57 22.86 58.00 22.86 Hunting 48.10 151.05 33.53 96.32 28.50 Viewing Wildlife 26.40 99.26 12.00 65.00 11.11 Motorized Water Activities 36.19 84.00 21.50 63.00 16.54 Non-motorized Water 21.90 137.39 10.00 47.73 6.67 Downhill Skiing 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Developed Camping 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 64 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Expenditures ($ per visit) Non-local Day Non-local Local Day Local Non-Primary Use Overnight use Overnight Primitive Camping 0.00 49.62 0.00 43.85 0.00 Resort Use 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Picnicking 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Viewing Natural Features 26.40 99.26 12.00 65.00 11.11 Visiting Historic Sites 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Nature Center Activities 26.40 99.26 12.00 65.00 11.11 Nature Study 26.40 99.26 12.00 65.00 11.11 Relaxing 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Gathering Forest Products 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41 Sightseeing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Activity Reported 24.81 94.29 15.00 50.40 12.41

Effects on the Economy The following assessment of economic impacts discloses potential effects of the alternatives on local, county, and regional economic systems and on people using the natural resources provided by the Inyo National Forest. In particular, the analysis focuses on identifying whether the actions proposed by the alternatives would result in measurable economic changes within the analysis area of Inyo, Mono, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties. Estimated economic effects are displayed in terms of: • Direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor income response coefficients by activity type (jobs and labor income per 1,000 visits); and • Estimated employment and labor income by motorized and non-motorized activity types.

Effects Analysis Methodology The employment and labor income effects stemming from current motorized and non-motorized activities occurring on the Inyo National Forest were estimated using the following data sources: • U.S. Forest Service GIS Spatial Layers • U.S. Forest Service TMECA (Travel Management Economic Contribution Application) • U.S. Census Bureau • Other demographic and geographic information sources as specified in the References section at the end of this document.

The economic effects of all other types of recreation combined on the Inyo National Forest have also been reported for comparison purposes. Economic effects tied to motorized and non-motorized activities were estimated to address the economic impact issue tied directly to Travel Management. Also, the marginal economic effects (employment and labor income effects per 1,000 visits) of motorized and non-motorized use are provided. The marginal effects (also called “response coefficients”) are useful for performing sensitivity analyses of various management alternatives.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 65

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Economic effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and induced. Direct effects are changes directly associated with spending by a recreation visitor. Indirect and induced effects represent the multiplier effects resulting from subsequent rounds of spending in the local economy. Input-output analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor income effects stemming from motorized and non-motorized use. Input-output analysis (Hewings 1985) is a means of examining relationships within an economy, both between businesses as well as between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy. This examination is called impact analysis. Input-output analysis requires the identification of an economic impact area. The economic area that surrounds the Inyo National Forest used for this jobs and income analysis consists of Inyo, Mono, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties as described above in the Affected Environment section of this chapter. The IMPLAN Pro input-output modeling system and 2006 IMPLAN data (the most recent data available) were used to develop the input-output model for this analysis (IMPLAN Professional 2004). IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy. For the economic impact area, employment and labor income estimates that were attributable to all current recreation use (wildlife and non-wildlife activities), motorized, non-motorized, and other activities for the Inyo National Forest were generated. The expenditure and use information collected by the National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) are crucial elements in the economic analysis. The NVUM survey collects use and expenditure information for various activity types. The expenditure information is collected by twelve activity groups within four trip segments (non-local overnight trips, non-local day trips, local day trips, and local overnight trips) (Stynes and White 2005; Stynes and White 2006). The reported spending for each of the spending categories is allocated to the appropriate industry within the IMPLAN model (the allocation process, also referred to as “bridging,” was conducted by the USDA Forest Service Planning Analysis Group in Fort Collins, Colorado). The bridged IMPLAN files were used to estimate economic effects (e.g., employment and labor income) related to changes in spending (i.e., changes in spending—technically referred to as changes in final demand—are caused by changes in use).

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on the Economy None of the alternatives is expected to result in quantifiable changes to local economies as measured by visitor expenditures. Reductions in the miles of routes available for public use are not expected to displace visitors or eliminate recreation opportunities in the economic analysis area. This is because: 1. Use levels for the vast majority of unauthorized routes are well below capacity. As shown in the table below, approximately 95% of unauthorized routes are estimated to receive less than 25 vehicle trips per week (or 3-4 vehicle trips per day; see Introduction to Chapter 3 in the EIS for more information). Another 3% receive 25-100 vehicle trips per week, which equates to 4-14 vehicle trips per day. In addition, many of these routes are short spurs off of existing NFTS roads. Since these spurs do not provide through access, use of the main artery would continue whether or not

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 66 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the spurs are available for use. Because of the low use levels on most routes, reductions in the miles of routes available for motorized use are not expected to concentrate use on designated routes to the point that safety or visitor experience would markedly change. It is expected that designated routes will absorb any increase in use resulting from route designations without reducing safety or user satisfaction.

Table 3-7: Estimated Use Levels of Unauthorized Routes Use Level Light Low Medium High Miles 1,606 54 5 <1 Vehicle Trips <25 25-100 101-500 >500 Per Week Source: INF data layers

2. Additions to the NFTS build on the existing network of roads on the Forest and adjacent public and private lands that provide similar access opportunities and recreational experiences. The following table shows the miles of existing travelways within Inyo, Mono, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties. This includes roads on NFS lands as well as neighboring lands administered by the Bishop Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Within the Inyo National Forest’s boundary, Forest Service system roads and unauthorized routes currently make up approximately 23% of existing travelways in Inyo County; 50% in Mono County; 29% in Esmeralda County; and 74% in Mineral County (total mileages for these two Nevadan counties only include travelways within INF boundaries as GIS datasets for the remainder of the State’s travelways were not available). The following table compares the miles of Forest Service system roads and motorized trails as proposed by each alternative with miles of other existing travelways in each county.

Table 3-8: Approximate Miles of All Travelways (Roads and Motorized Trails) within the Economic Analysis Area by Alternative. Road Classification Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Forest Service System 1 359 359 359 359 359 359 Roads (INF) Unauthorized Routes 409 160 294 113 8 184 on NFS Lands Other (Private, County, State, BLM, & LADWP) 2,632 2,632 2,632 2,632 2,632 2,632 Inyo County Inyo County 2, 4 TOTAL 3,400 3,151 3,285 3,104 2,999 3,175

Forest Service System 1 900 900 900 900 900 900 Roads (INF) Unauthorized Routes 1,108 694 796 517 0 739 on NFS Lands Other (Private, County, State, BLM, & LADWP) 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 2, 4 Mono County County Mono TOTAL 3,994 3,485 3,586 3,307 2,790 3,529

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 67

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Road Classification Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Forest Service System 14 14 14 14 14 14 Roads (INF)1 Unauthorized Routes 30 16 18 13 0 16 on NFS Lands Other (Private, County, State, BLM, & LADWP) 107 107 107 107 107 107 2, 4 Esmeralda County County Esmeralda TOTAL 151 137 139 134 121 137

Forest Service System 1,3 42 42 42 42 42 42 Roads (INF) Unauthorized Routes 3 86 64 72 57 86 74 on NFS Lands Other (Private, County, State, BLM, & LADWP) 45 45 45 45 45 45 2, 3, 4

Mineral County County Mineral TOTAL 173 152 159 144 173 161 1Includes both system and administrative routes. 2Mileages include miles of roads within and outside of INF boundaries in Inyo and Mono Counties. 3 Due to the small acreage of land managed by the INF in Nevada, INF routes represent a negligible portion of existing travelways in Esmeralda and Mineral Counties. Therefore, mileages for these two counties only include the segments of travelways within INF boundaries. 4These mileages do not include travelways in Death Valley National Park, as data layers were not available. Source: INF data layers

These changes are not expected to reduce motorized and non-motorized opportunities on the Forest to the point that visitation to the analysis area is measurably affected. This is because: • Unauthorized route density in Mono County is high compared to the rest of the forest, especially around Mammoth Lakes and in the Glass Mountains. The majority of the routes in these focus areas are either short spurs (less than 1/3 mile) with no obvious destination or recreational benefit, or duplicative/redundant routes. As described in the Recreation Resources analysis in Chapter 3 of the EIS, closing these routes to motorized use is not expected to change use patterns on remaining travelways. All alternatives would provide access to key destinations and a range of dispersed recreation opportunities. • It is impossible to determine if visitor spending is contingent on use of unauthorized routes on the forest, or even to correlate visitor spending for various activities to use of a particular road or trail within the economic analysis area. Therefore, loss of visitor spending cannot be measured on a route-by-route basis. • The network of roads and trails on the forest and adjacent public lands provide extensive opportunities for motor vehicle use within the economic analysis area. Adjacent lands also offer similar experiences. With some slight differences in terrain, elevation, and vegetation type, many of the opportunities provided on BLM and LADWP lands are similar to those in most non-wilderness areas of the forest. For example, rough two-tracks on remote BLM lands offer a semi-primitive experience similar to that found within Inventoried Roadless Areas on the forest (see the Section 3.13 for more information about recreation in IRAs). As a result, prohibiting public use of some existing unauthorized routes on the forest does not correlate to a loss of that type of experience within the economic analysis area.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 68 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3. A well-signed, designated system of roads and motorized trails offers better opportunities for sustainable, long-term motor vehicle use and better economic opportunities for local residents and communities. Reduction in the number of short spurs and duplicate routes—coupled with appropriate signage and publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and subsequent visitor use maps—could make some areas more accessible for exploration, especially for non-local visitors. Rather than eliminating or reducing options for local and non-local visitors, recreational opportunities on NFS land within the economic analysis area could potentially increase in quality as a result of the action alternatives. 4. Non-motorized activities and other recreation activities provide a greater contribution to local economies than motorized activities. Local and non-local visitors engaging in motorized activities (OHV use, driving for pleasure, and snowmobiling) generally spend more per trip than those engaging in non-motorized activities (Table 3-6). However, far more visitors engage in non-motorized and other recreation activities as their primary activity, leading to a greater economic effect than for motorized activities. Although non- motorized and other recreation activities involve use of forest roads, they are not expected to be measurably affected by project alternatives because: • Use of motorized routes is subsidiary to the primary recreation activity; • They predominantly occur within or originate from developed recreation areas (e.g., trailheads, resorts, campgrounds, ski areas) accessed by existing NFTS roads not affected by this proposal; • They are not dependent on motorized use of the road. That is, visitors can cross-country ski on snow-covered routes regardless of whether or not those routes are added to the NFTS for motorized use.

5. Motorized recreation activities such as OHV use and driving for pleasure have a relatively minor contribution to jobs and labor income in the economic analysis area compared to non-motorized activities and other recreation activities. Additional information about direct, indirect, and induced effects of recreation activities on jobs and labor income is provided below.

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects of Recreation on Response Coefficients The table below displays the estimated employment and labor income response coefficients (employment and labor income per 1,000 visits) by local and non-local activity types. The response coefficients indicate the number of full and part-time jobs and dollars of labor income per thousand visits by activity type. The response coefficients are useful in: 1) understanding the economic effects tied to a given use level; 2) understanding projected employment effects for various use scenarios (sensitivity analysis); and 3) understanding the differences in employment effects by activity type. The response coefficients displayed in Table 3-9 along with the visits presented in the table were used

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 69

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

to estimate the economic effects for local and non-local use by activity type. Recreation activities with the same spending profile are expected to have the same economic effects. Table 3-9 indicates the following: • First, economic effects tied to local visitation generate lower employment and labor income effects than non-local visitation. This is a result of local visitors spending less per visit in comparison to non-local visitors, particularly in day versus overnight visits (see Tables 3-6 and 3-9). Motorized day use expenditures are generally higher than for non-motorized activities, but non-local overnight visitors engaged in non-motorized activities generally expend more than non-local motorized users (except for snowmobiling). Snowmobilers spend the most per visit, especially non-local visitors. • Second, economic effects vary widely by motorized and non-motorized activity types. Local and non-local visitors engaging in motorized activities (OHV use, driving for pleasure, and snowmobiling) generally spend more per trip than those engaging in non-motorized activities. However, far more visitors engage in non-motorized and other recreation activities as their primary activity, leading to a greater economic effect. • Third, the largest economic effect is associated with non-local cross-country skiing, but is followed fairly closely by non-local snowmobiling. (Note: This project is not proposing any changes in cross-country skiing or snowmobile access on the INF. These recreation activities will not be affected by any of the alternatives considered in this EIS.) In general, economic effects vary by the amount of spending and by the type of activity, but it cannot be generalized that motorized or non-motorized activities contribute more or less to the local economy on a per visit basis.

It is also important to be careful with the use of response coefficients. They reflect an economic structure that is a snapshot in time. That is, they are not applicable to visitation numbers that are dramatically different from current recreation levels. If recreation activities and/or visits were to change radically, there would be a structural shift in the economy as spending patterns changed and these response coefficients would no longer reflect underlying economic processes.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 70 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-9: Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients by Activity Type Employment Labor Income (2008 dollars) (Jobs per 1,000 Party-Trips) ($ per 1,000 Party-Trips) Direct Indirect & Direct Effects Indirect & Effects Induced Induced Effects Effects Non-motorized Use Hiking/ Walking, Bicycling, Local Day 0 0 $4,064 $1,330 Horseback Riding, Other Local OVN 1 0 $25,831 $9,240 Non-motorized NonLocal Day 0 0 $12,467 $3,719 NonLocal OVN 3 1 $87,052 $31,210 NP 0 0 $4,064 $1,330 Backpacking Local Day 0 0 $0 $0 Local OVN 1 0 $24,155 $8,744 NonLocal Day 0 0 $0 $0 NonLocal OVN 1 0 $32,080 $10,823 NP 1 0 $24,155 $8,744 Motorized Use OHV Use Local Day 0 0 $9,268 $3,048 Local OVN 1 0 $28,666 $10,164 NonLocal Day 1 0 $16,318 $5,366 NonLocal OVN 2 0 $47,772 $16,938 NP 0 0 $9,268 $3,048 Driving Local Day 0 0 $5,922 $1,830 Local OVN 1 0 $21,779 $9,261 NonLocal Day 0 0 $10,430 $3,222 NonLocal OVN 2 1 $62,048 $21,850 NP 0 0 $5,922 $1,830 Snowmobile Local Day 1 0 $16,652 $5,482 Local OVN 3 1 $68,540 $24,453 NonLocal Day 1 0 $31,386 $10,205 NonLocal OVN 5 1 $114,236 $40,757 NP 1 0 $16,652 $5,482 Cross Country Ski Local Day 0 0 $9,117 $3,141 Local OVN 3 1 $73,795 $27,157 NonLocal Day 1 0 $16,052 $5,531 NonLocal OVN 5 1 $122,991 $45,262 NP 0 0 $9,117 $3,141 All Other Use All Other Activities Local Day 0 0 $9,245 $3,325 Local OVN 1 0 $37,226 $13,109 NonLocal Day 1 0 $18,287 $5,439 NonLocal OVN 3 1 $89,402 $25,262 NP 0 0 $9,245 $3,325 All Other Activities includes Developed Camping, Primitive Camping, Resort Use, Picnicking, Viewing Natural Features, Visiting Historic Sites, Nature Center Activities, Nature Study, Relaxing, Fishing, Hunting, Motorized Water Activities, Non-motorized Water, Downhill Skiing, Gathering Forest Products, Viewing Wildlife, Sightseeing, and No Activity Reported.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 71

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects of Recreation on Jobs and Labor Income The following table displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels reported by NVUM for local and non-local non-motorized and motorized activities. Table 3-11 expresses these employment and labor income effects as a percent of total employment and income for each activity. In general, the estimated economic effects are a function of the number of visits and the dollars spent locally by the visitors. For example, non-local users typically spend more money per visit than local users. In addition, activities that draw more users will be responsible for more economic activity in comparison to activities that draw fewer users, holding constant spending per visit. Given that the analysis is dependent on visitation and expenditure estimates, any changes to these estimates affect the estimated jobs and labor income. Table 3-10 indicates that approximately 411 total average annual jobs in the four-county area (direct, indirect and induced, full-time, temporary, and part-time) and nearly $12 million total labor income (direct, indirect and induced) are attributable to non-motorized visitation on the Inyo National Forest. The two largest activities among those in the table are hiking/walking and cross-country skiing. Together, these two activities account for about 17% of the jobs and 16% of the income generated from the activities analyzed. These activities account for about 312 jobs and provided $8.9 million in labor income to the four-county area. Motorized activities were responsible for approximately 38 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and over $1 million total labor income (direct, indirect, and induced). The two largest motorized uses are driving for pleasure and snowmobiling. These two activities contribute about 2% of the jobs from the activities in the table, and provide just under 2% of the labor income. Together, these two activities contribute 35 jobs and provide almost $1 million in labor income to the area. “All Other Activities” (see Table 3-4 for a list) are significant economic contributors for the activities studied. They provide 1,406 jobs, or 75% of the jobs from the activities analyzed. Labor income is about $42.6 million, or about 77% of the income generated by these activities.

Table 3-10: Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type Employment Labor Income (full & part-time jobs) (2008 dollars) Direct Indirect & Direct Indirect & Induced Induced Non-Motorized Use Backpacking - Local 12 3 $327,951 $118,721 Non-local 14 4 $401,390 $135,418 Hiking/Walking - Local 34 9 $905,324 $305,486 Non-local 109 29 $2,941,151 $1,042,283 Horseback Riding - Local 1 0 $22,081 $7,451 Non-local 3 1 $71,735 $25,422 Bicycling - Local 9 2 $242,892 $81,960 Non-local 29 8 $789,089 $279,637 Cross-country Skiing - Local 21 5 $533,215 $188,407 Non-local 83 22 $2,209,951 $811,184 Other Non-motorized - Local 3 1 $66,243 $22,353 Non-local 8 2 $215,206 $76,265

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 72 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Employment Labor Income (full & part-time jobs) (2008 dollars) Direct Indirect & Direct Indirect & Induced Induced Total Non-motorized 326 85 $8,726,230 $3,094,585 Subtotal 411 $11,820,815 Motorized Use OHV Use - Local 2 0 $43,927 $14,981 Non-local 2 1 $54,505 $19,098 Driving for Pleasure - Local 3 1 $82,013 $26,416 Non-local 3 1 $76,182 $26,426 Snowmobiling - Local 11 3 $278,248 $94,943 Non-local 10 3 $264,161 $93,044 Other Motorized Activity - Local 0 0 $0 $0 Non-local 0 0 $0 $0 Total Motorized 31 8 $799,036 $274,908 Subtotal 38 $1,073,944 All Other Use All Other Activities - Local 401 104 $10,748,073 $3,786,408 Non-local 709 192 $21,530,465 $6,576,302 Total Other 1,110 296 $32,278,537 $10,362,710 Subtotal 1,406 $42,641,248 Grand Total 1,467 389 $41,803,803 $13,732,203 Grand subtotal 1,855 $55,536,007

Table 3-11: Percent of Total Employment and Labor Income Effects by Activity Type Employment Labor Income(2008 dollars) (% of full & part-time jobs) % of Total Income

Direct Indirect & Direct Indirect & Induced Induced Non-Motorized Use Backpacking - Local 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% Non-local 0.7% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% Hiking/Walking - Local 1.8% 0.5% 1.6% 0.6% Non-local 5.9% 1.5% 5.3% 1.9% Horseback Riding - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Bicycling - Local 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% Non-local 1.6% 0.4% 1.4% 0.5% Cross-country Skiing - Local 1.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.3% Non-local 4.5% 1.2% 4.0% 1.5% Other Non-motorized - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Non-local 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% Total Non-motorized 17.6% 4.6% 15.7% 5.6%

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 73

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Employment Labor Income(2008 dollars) (% of full & part-time jobs) % of Total Income

Direct Indirect & Direct Indirect & Induced Induced Motorized Use OHV Use - Local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Non-local 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Driving for Pleasure - Local 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Non-local 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Snowmobiling - Local 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% Non-local 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% Other Motorized Activity - Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Non-local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Motorized 1.6% 0.4% 1.4% 0.5%

All Other Use All Other Activities - Local 21.6% 5.6% 19.4% 6.8% Non-local 38.2% 10.3% 38.8% 11.8% Total Other 59.8% 16.0% 58.1% 18.7% Totals 79.0% 21.0% 75.3% 24.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 3-12: Employment and Labor Income Effects Employment Effects Labor Income (full and part time jobs) (2008 dollars) Total Non-Motorized Use Local 100 2,822,084 NonLocal 311 8,998,731 Total Motorized Use Local 19 540,528 NonLocal 19 533,416 Total All Other Use Local 505 14,534,481 NonLocal 901 28,106,767 Local 624 17,897,093 Total NonLocal 1,231 37,638,914 Total for Area 1,855 55,536,007

Table 3-13: Percent of Total Area Employment and Total Area Labor Income Effects Employment Effects Labor Income (full and part time jobs) (2008 dollars) Percent of Total Employment Percent of Total Labor Income Non-Motorized All Non-Motorized Local 0.488% 0.339% NonLocal 1.518% 1.078% Total Non-Motorized1 2.023% 1.429% Motorized All Motorized Local 0.093% 0.065% NonLocal 0.093% 0.064% Total Motorized1 0.194% 0.135%

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 74 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Employment Effects Labor Income (full and part time jobs) (2008 dollars) Percent of Total Employment Percent of Total Labor Income Nature Related Fishing Local 0.231% 0.167% NonLocal 0.506% 0.364% Hunting Local 0.035% 0.026% NonLocal 0.035% 0.025% Nature Related Local 0.297% 0.198% NonLocal 0.908% 0.637% Total Nature Related1 2.078% 1.461% All Other All Other Local 1.921% 1.368% NonLocal 2.953% 2.396% Total All Other1 4.943% 3.816% Study Area Total 20,505 815,433,000 1Percent calculations for Totals included Non-Primary, NP.

The table above shows the relationship of jobs and income generated from all recreation activities studied compared to total jobs and income in the economic analysis area. All of the recreation jobs together only account for about 10% of the total jobs in the area, and the income generated is about 7% of the total labor income in the area studied. Based on these data, proposals to remove some unauthorized routes from the NFTS are not expected to significantly displace visitors or eliminate recreation opportunities in the economic analysis area. None of the alternatives is expected to result in measurable changes in direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor income response coefficients for any recreation activity type or in estimated employment and labor income for motorized and non-motorized activity types.

3.2.3 American Indian Concerns An important consideration in the fulfillment of the Forest Service mission is the trust relationship the Forest Service has with American Indians and the potential impact Forest Service policy, program, and project decisions may have on tribes. The Inyo National Forest manages lands that contain the traditional territory of Paiute, Shoshone, and Tubatulabal peoples. They are organized into 11 tribes, eight of which are federally recognized. The unacknowledged or non- recognized tribes are currently seeking federal recognition.

Federally Recognized Tribes: • Walker Lake Paiute Tribe of Shurz, NV • Bridgeport Indian Colony of Bridgeport, CA • Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Benton, CA • Bishop Paiute Tribe, Bishop, CA • Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley, Big Pine, CA

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 75

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Fort Independence Tribe, Independence, CA • Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Lone Pine, CA • Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Death Valley, CA

Unacknowledged Tribes Seeking Federal Recognition: • Antelope Valley Indian Community, Coleville, CA • Mono Lake Kutzedikaa , Mono Lake, CA • Kern Valley Indian Community of Lake Isabella, CA

3.2.3.1 Direction and Guidelines for Tribal Relations The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1988) Standards and Guidelines include the following direction on Tribal Relations: • Consult with local American Indian groups to ensure the protection of, and access to, traditional secular, religious, and ceremonial sites. • Assess and authorize as appropriate both general and site-specific requests by local American Indians for traditional and religious uses of National Forest System lands. • Native American religious and ceremonial sites should remain inviolate.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision of 2001 provides implementation guidelines specifically pertaining to the incorporation of American Indian issues and concerns. These are: • We will work with tribal governments and tribal communities to develop mutually acceptable protocols for government-to-government and tribal community consultations. These protocols will emphasize line officer and tribal official roles and responsibilities. • We will consult with appropriate tribal governments and communities regarding fire protection and fuels management activities that potentially affect rancherias, reservations, and other occupied areas. We will develop fire protection plans for such areas in consultation with appropriate tribal or intertribal organizations. We will coordinate with tribes and appropriate tribal organizations regarding training, outreach, and other items of mutual interest in order to support tribal and national forest fire programs. • Traditional American Indian land use practices, tribal watershed and other ecosystem restoration practices and priorities will be considered early in national forest planning, analyses, decision-making, and adaptive management processes. During landscape analyses and similar activities, we will assess vegetation community conditions where a specific area has an identified importance to an affected tribe or tribal community. We will consult with affected tribes and tribal communities to consider traditional and contemporary uses and needs. • We will consider traditional American Indian vegetation management strategies and methods, and integrate them, where appropriate, into ecosystem restoration projects.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 76 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• We will consider the relationship between fire management and plants culturally important to American Indians. Where fuels treatments may affect tribes or tribal communities, or plants culturally important to them, we will consult on the development of burn plans, and consider approaches that accommodate traditional scheduling and techniques of fire and vegetation management. • When implementing noxious weed management programs we intend to maintain or, if appropriate, increase the availability of plants traditionally used by American Indians. We will consult with appropriate tribes, tribal communities, or tribal organizations to identify areas of new or worsening weed infestations and develop plans for appropriate weed control. • We will, where appropriate, include culturally significant species in monitoring protocols related to management activities. • We will maintain appropriate access to sacred and ceremonial sites, and to tribal traditional use areas. We will consult with affected tribes and tribal communities to address access to culturally important resources and areas when proposing management that may alter existing access. After appropriate assessment and consultation, we will consider proposing mineral withdrawals and other protection on inventoried sacred sites. • We will protect all sensitive and proprietary information to the greatest extent permitted by law. We will secure permission to release information from the tribe, tribal community, or individual who provided it prior to release to others.

In the past, concerns regarding roads and trails have been raised that dealt with access in both positive and restrictive senses. Access to traditional use areas—especially to pinyon pine groves—as well as sacred sites and archaeological sites that are considered commemorative of native history is desired. On the other hand, access to prehistoric sites for artifact thieves and vandals is a major concern. Some travel actions cause inadvertent effects, such as driving through sites and over features such as bedrock mortars. Any vehicular action in the vicinity of a site that causes erosion may adversely impact site contents and distribution. To address this balance of access with cultural resource protection, the Forest consulted with potentially affected tribes and tribal organizations. Government to government consultation took place through letters and at informational meetings. Communities and interested individuals were included as well. Certified letters were sent throughout the planning process to all the tribes and communities listed above, as well at to the California Indian Basketweavers’ Association. A collection of meetings, site visits, and public field trips were held by the Forest, beginning in 2007 with the initial announcement of the Forest’s intent to develop a Travel Management Proposed Action. Following the release of the draft EIS, site visits, conducted in May 2009 and June 2009 involving members of the tribes and representatives from the Forest, provided additional opportunities to address specific concerns. In addition, the Travel Management planning process was discussed at regular community meetings held by both the Bishop Paiute Tribe and the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley. Maps and other information were supplied to those who requested them.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 77

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Concerns expressed through this consultation and coordination process included: • What are we going to do about enforcement of closures and protection of sites? • Resources such as piagi and pine nuts are available in different places from year to year. We may need occasional access to a closed area. • Native Americans use the land, they are not recreating. • Webs forming between roads is not good. • Elder access. • Wildlife habitat protection. • Old roads have been used for generations for access to sacred sites; some built on aboriginal trails. • Protection of archaeological sites; many have already been destroyed. • Continuation of traditional “walks.” • The Mammoth Lakes area was singled out for particular concern because of high use and the high number of sites. • Much access has already been lost, such as at the Casa Diablo geothermal plant. • The Forest Service should take into account respect for the land and quality of life. Remember that Inyo means “Dwelling Place of a Great Spirit.” • Native Americans get mind, body, and soul sustenance from the forest.

In addressing these concerns, the Forest followed the directives (shown above) for Tribal Relations outlined in the Standards and Guidelines section of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1988). For an additional discussion of concerns over how the Travel Management decision may affect tribal access, please see the section below entitled, “Concerns and Mitigations Related to Potential Civil Rights Impacts.”

3.2.4 Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values Forest Service roads and trails provide year-round opportunities for all types of activities, motorized and non-motorized, for local users and visitors. Some people use forest roads and unauthorized routes primarily to access areas where they can engage in non-motorized activities. For others, driving is part of the recreation experience and provides opportunities to enjoy the scenery and explore remote areas. Although they recreate in different ways, most people desire the same types of settings and experiences. For example, most people like to use the forest with their family and friends; they enjoy recreating in natural environments, and they appreciate the beauty of the area. All users tend to seek out unique destinations, areas with exceptional scenery, and loop trails and roads. Because so many people use the forest for so many different reasons—and yet value it for many of the same reasons—changing access to particular areas can produce strong reactions. The land and the resources administered by the Inyo National Forest are of great importance to both residents and visitors. In their comments on both the Proposed Action and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, members of the public expressed concerns that reflected a range of beliefs and

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 78 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 values regarding motorized vehicle access to National Forest System lands. These public comments ranged from the view that forest roads and trails should be kept to a minimum because of potential adverse ecological impacts, to the view that all existing routes should remain available for public motorized use. Members of the public also expressed concerns about law enforcement, safety, and natural resource conditions. Concerns over issues such as potential for concentrated use, reduced riding opportunities, quality hunting experiences, dust and noise, erosion, restricted access, mining exploration, and mineral claims reflect the many interests of the diverse communities closely tied to the Inyo National Forest’s recreation resources. Comments suggested that conflicts are occurring between different types of users (e.g., motorized versus non-motorized, hunting and fishing versus non-consumptive uses, and local recreation uses versus tourism). Understanding people’s relationship to public lands serves as an important consideration in Travel Management planning. The INF acknowledges that the surrounding communities remain as much a part of the forest as do its natural resources. Each community, whether Hawthorne, NV or Lone Pine, CA, maintains a unique set of characteristics, values, and beliefs that shape its relationship with the forest and its resources. The ability of these distinct civic entities to continue to thrive economically, physically, and spiritually through their connection with the Inyo National Forest cannot be understated. Although not all comments have been identified as significant issues (see Chapter 1 of the EIS), they all share in the significance of increasing the Forest Service’s understanding of the public’s beliefs and values. Because of the divergence of opinion on use and management of the unauthorized routes, one proposal cannot possibly reflect the diverse beliefs and values held by members of the public. The diversity of these viewpoints was demonstrated during the public scoping process when the public identified a broad range of concerns. It is the Forest’s goal, however, to select the alternative that best represents this range of equally important concerns while continuing to protect the natural resources that make the INF a truly unique and unsurpassed place.

3.2.5 Environmental Justice Environmental justice speaks to concerns that costs of federal decisions could fall disproportionately on people of a particular ethnic or cultural heritage group, or on people with low incomes. Environmental Justice is an executive order (EO 12898) that requires, in brief, that each Federal Agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1997) provides the following definitions in order to provide guidance for compliance with environmental justice requirements in NEPA: • “Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.”

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 79

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• “Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

All of the action alternatives provide fair and equitable access for both motorized and non- motorized users of the forest. This conclusion is based on the following: • None of the proposed alternatives would have a disproportionate effect on any minority or low-income communities as the Travel Management decisions would be spread throughout the forest and would not disproportionately affect any particular group or community. Permitted uses such as firewood gathering would still be allowed, so none of the alternatives should adversely affect low-income individuals who rely on the forest as a source of income or for essential household uses such as heating. • American Indian populations will not be disproportionately impacted under any alternative with avoidance of heritage resources, consideration of traditional values, and reasonable access through agreements, permits, and recognition of their sovereignty and legal rights. • As described above, none of the alternatives is expected to adversely affect local economies. A system of designated roads, trails, and areas offers better opportunities for sustainable, long-term motor vehicle use and better economic opportunities for local residents and communities.

3.2.6 Civil Rights Impact Analysis USDA civil rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities. A civil rights impact analysis (CRIA) facilitates the identification of the effects of eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. However, some groups could be impacted more than others. This assessment addresses such concerns.

3.2.6.1 Public Involvement and Scoping Public involvement concerning this proposal began with travel analysis that focused on the identification of unauthorized routes and assessing the effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel on forest users. Please see Chapter 1, Section 1.7, “Public Involvement,” for a full description.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 80 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.2.6.2 Concerns and Mitigations Related to Potential Civil Rights Impacts Through these public involvement efforts and interdisciplinary discussions, several concerns were raised and are addressed below: Gathering Special Forest Products It is known that many people, including members of protected groups, use motor vehicles to gather Special Forest Products including mushrooms, greenery, firewood, posts, poles, etc. Such products are gathered for both personal and commercial use. Some protected groups are known to be very active in gathering certain Special Forest Products. Concerns have been raised that the prohibition on cross-country travel will restrict such activities to designated roads or trails, limit people’s ability to gather such products, and disproportionately impact protected groups. Currently, under 36 CFR 261.6, removing any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation is prohibited. Gathering special forest products requires written authorization by the Forest Service. Such permitted activities are exempt from the prohibition on cross-country travel in accordance with provisions of the permit (36 CFR 212.51 (8)). Such activities have been, and will continue to be, subject to separate, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis, before permits are issued. This proposal does not change that policy. Permits will continue to be issued in accordance with law, regulation, and policy, regardless of this proposal. Therefore, it is not expected that gathering special forest products will be affected by this proposal or that any protected groups will be disproportionately affected.

Impacts on People with Disabilities and the Elderly Throughout scoping, concerns have been raised about the impact of this Travel Management proposal on people with disabilities and the elderly. Commenters have asserted that the proposal unfairly discriminates against these groups because they are more dependent on motor vehicles to access and enjoy our National Forests. Comments from people with disabilities and the elderly, including references to specific sites or locations, were considered in the development of alternatives. Recreation opportunities and access needs for all users were some of the criteria used in the process of developing the alternatives. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, including the prohibition of cross- country travel, is forestwide and applies to all forest users equally. Changes to the National Forest Transportation System are largely limited to changes in vehicle class and season of use. Motorized access on NFS routes is expected to be enhanced by the addition of unauthorized routes and the addition of vehicle classes on routes where such use has been prohibited. There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on trails, and in areas that are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from designations for people with disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and other management objectives of Travel Management and would fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest Service's Travel Management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 81

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied participation in a federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the Americans with Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are battery- powered, that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that are suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel.

Access by American Indians Concerns were raised by American Indians and tribal representatives that this proposal would unduly restrict access to sacred sites or traditional gathering areas that are accessed via motorized cross-country travel, including unauthorized routes. Elderly or infirm tribal members may be prevented from participating in tribal activities if motor vehicle access is denied. Such access has been traditionally granted as long as resource damage can be prevented. Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations is exempt from route designations (36 CFR 212.51 (8)). Therefore, motor vehicle access to sacred sites or gathering areas may be authorized by the Forest Service and will not be affected by this proposal.

Impacts on People with Limited English Proficiency In California, people of Hispanic origin comprise a large part of the population and access the National Forests for a variety of recreation and business pursuits. Many of these users speak English as a second language and therefore may have limited ability to read maps or other publications pertaining to Travel Management. In particular, the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) is a concern, as it will be the basis for enforcing vehicle restrictions. There is a concern that people with limited English proficiency will be more vulnerable to citation if they are unable to read or understand the MVUM. During the public scoping and public comment periods, no comments were received regarding this concern. In the future, however, should issues associated with limited English proficiency be raised, the Forest will address them accordingly.

Society, Culture, and the Economy – 82 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.3 Recreation Resources

3.3.1 Introduction This section of the Travel Management environmental analysis examines the extent to which the Proposed Action and alternatives respond to recreation resource management direction established in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), pertinent regulatory direction, and issues identified by the public. The LRMP was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The NFMA requires the provision of a broad spectrum of forest outdoor recreation opportunities that respond to current and anticipated user demands. Specifically, for off-highway vehicle use and Travel Management, NFMA requires that these opportunities be planned and implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts with other users of National Forest System lands.

3.3.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Recreation resource direction relevant to the Proposed Action and alternatives includes: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The SNFPA established direction to prohibit motorized travel off of designated routes, trails, and limited off-highway vehicle use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current Forest Land and Resource Management direction or other specific area standards or guidelines, cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles would continue.

Travel Management Rule (TM) The TM Rule requires that in designating National Forest System roads, trails, and areas, responsible officials consider the provision of recreational opportunities; public access needs; conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, including other recreation uses; and the compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas.

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) LRMP forestwide standards and guidelines set the minimum resource conditions that will be maintained throughout the Forest. The LRMP provides specific guidelines for the management of the recreation resource. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is the basis inventory that was used to create recreation resource “zoning” in the LRMP. The intent of ROS is to provide for a broad spectrum of forest and rangeland-related outdoor recreation opportunities. The current ROS inventory on the Inyo NF was conducted during Forest Plan development using aerial photos as a preliminary inventory until a complete inventory could be done (Responsive Statement - Appeal #3001, Regional Forester Paul Barker, 10/3/89). The intent of the Forest Plan was to incorporate the preliminary ROS mapping only as an interim guide until the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan was updated and routes were designated forestwide. ROS was then to be changed to comply with the new system of designated routes. For this reason, ROS is considered in the Forest Plan Consistency

Recreation Resources – 83 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

section of this document. Other measurement indicators have been developed to describe and compare recreation opportunities of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Other LRMP recreation resource direction pertinent to this environmental analysis includes: • An efficient forest transportation system is in place and maintained at least to the minimum standards appropriate for planned uses and the protection of resources (LRMP, p. 66). • A broad range of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities in balance with identified existing and future demand is provided (LRMP, p. 68). • Provide public access to public land and developed recreation sites, consistent with Forest goals and objectives (LRMP, p. 77). • Designate OHV trails and open areas to minimize conflicts with existing or potential developed recreation sites, private property, special uses, adjacent wilderness, administrative areas, cultural resources, riparian areas, key wildlife habitat, and sensitive watershed areas (LRMP, p. 88). • Provide a broad range of facilities and opportunities that will accommodate large numbers of people safely, conveniently, and with little resource damage (LRMP, p. 136). • Allow OHV use on designated routes and trails (LRMP, pp. 137, 145). • Develop full trail systems to accommodate heavy dispersed activity and to protect sensitive riparian and water areas (LRMP, p. 137). • Prohibit OHV use in and adjacent to developed sites except OHV staging areas (LRMP, p. 143).

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) The CMP is a component of the LRMP and provides goals and management direction for the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area. The CMP includes specific guidelines for the management of the recreation resource within the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area. Specific CMP recreation resource guidelines pertinent to this environmental analysis include: • Maintain a transportation system that provides suitable access while protecting the emphasized values of the Scenic Area (CMP, p. 23). • Provide a full range of dispersed recreational opportunities in all ROS classes, including motorized use on designated routes (CMP, p. 36). • Provide facilities such as parking, trails, signing, overlooks, turnouts, etc. to accommodate public use and to reduce unnecessary impacts (CMP, p. 38).

3.3.3 Affected Environment The Inyo National Forest is a popular local, regional, and national destination for outdoor-based recreation opportunities. Annually, the Inyo National Forest receives 3.9 million visits, making it the one of the most popular National Forests in California (National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey, 2006). The Forest is renowned for its sweeping vistas, natural and geologic variability, and variety of recreation opportunities and destinations provided.

Recreation Resources – 84 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Driving for pleasure and off-highway vehicle participation are noted activities on the Inyo National Forest. In 2006, driving for pleasure totaled 972,582 participants, while off-highway vehicle participation totaled 70,591 participants. In general, California has experienced a growing demand for off-highway vehicle opportunities. Annual statewide registration for all non-street licensed vehicles (including motorcycles, ATVs, dune buggies, sand rails, snowmobiles, and miscellaneous vehicles) has gone from 479,178 in 2001 to 1,013,863 in 2006, an increase of 112 percent. Statewide, 17.6 percent of individuals age 16 and older participate in some form of off-highway vehicle activity (Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: An Update National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2008). Driving for pleasure and off-highway vehicle participation on the Inyo National Forest is expected to remain popular as the State’s population grows, access from southern California via State Highway 395 is improved (i.e., lanes added), and local development continues. Off-highway vehicle participation in Nevada, although harder to quantify because registration for non-street licensed vehicles is not required, is expected to remain static or increase as development continues and the State’s population grows. Currently, in Nevada an estimated 23.9 percent of individuals age 16 and older participate in some form of off-highway vehicle activity (Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: An Update National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2008). The existing motorized recreation opportunity on the Inyo National Forest can generally be characterized as a semi-connected, expansive system of unauthorized routes branching off of National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or “system”) roads that traverse a variety of terrain features and vegetation types including high desert, Jeffrey pine forest, and alpine lakes. There are currently 1,668 miles of unauthorized routes and 1,355 miles of system roads available for motorized use. Additionally, there are approximately 680 miles of County and State Highway within the area of effect for this analysis. The existing motorized recreation opportunity is equivalent to Alternative 1: No Action. The table below displays the existing NFTS and unauthorized route network on the Inyo National Forest. A unique component of the existing motorized recreation opportunity on the Inyo National Forest occurs within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). IRAs offer a unique landscape with low route density where recreationists may experience technical trail driving and access to semi-primitive and primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities, including dispersed camping, vistas, hunting, and general exploration. There are currently 214 miles of NFTS roads, and 346 miles of unauthorized routes within IRAs. This section addresses the unique characteristics of IRAs as it relates to recreational opportunities and experiences. Further discussion of Inventoried Roadless Area characteristics is found in the IRA section of Chapter 3. Typical seasons of use vary greatly across the Forest depending on the onset and duration of snowfall, which is mostly determined by vast elevational differences. For example, in the Glass Mountains it is not uncommon for roads to be impassable to wheeled vehicles by early November and to not be clear of snow until May. The Inyo Mountains, however, may remain accessible until December and clear by March. Generally, roads are open until sufficient snow makes wheeled travel impractical or allows grooming for snow-specific activities.

Recreation Resources – 85

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-14: Miles of Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes1 Existing Road and Unauthorized Route Network Miles Forest System Road 1,355 miles Unauthorized Routes 2 1,668 miles County and Highway (approx.) 680 miles 1 Does not reflect the Poleta OHV Open Riding Area, which is 1,100 acres. Closed and Private roads are neither considered in this analysis nor proposed in any alternative for inclusion in the NFTS. 2 Does not include 27 miles of existing unauthorized routes within wilderness designated in March, 2009. These routes are not available for use as motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness are prohibited.

In addition to the existing road network, the Inyo National Forest allows open riding (unrestricted cross-country travel) within the Poleta OHV open riding area. This area covers 1,105 acres of high desert at the base of the White Mountains in Owens Valley. On the Forest, the majority of non-motorized recreation activities occur within Concentrated Recreation Areas (CRA). This is due to the fact that approximately 98 percent of public and private developed recreation sites have historically been located in these areas as a result of outstanding scenery, the presence of water, ease of access on high-standard paved roads and other recreational values (1988 LRMP FEIS, p. 275). CRAs cover approximately 55,000 acres, or 3 percent of the National Forest System land administered by the Inyo National Forest. As developed recreation sites often act as starting locations from which Forest visitors participate in other recreation activities (e.g., hiking, fishing, general relaxation), it is estimated that 65 percent of all non-wilderness dispersed recreation takes place within CRAs (1988 LRMP FEIS, p. 275). As previously described, this analysis considers the effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on non-motorized recreation activities by comparing relative access to recreation sites and potential conflicts measured by the miles of roads and trails within ¼ mile of recreation sites, residences, and communities. Participation rates for all activities are listed in the table below.

3.3.3.1 Analysis Area The effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives are considered for lands within the Forest boundary, including designated wilderness. The Forest boundary was identified as the analysis area because it encompasses the lands, roads, and motorized trails that a visitor to the Inyo National Forest might reasonably be expected to utilize on their visit to the Forest. Where needed to inform and clarify the analysis, the Forest has been divided into 11 focus areas to differentiate the Proposed Action and alternatives. Focus areas are described in Chapter 1 of this EIS. For cumulative effects in the Recreation analysis, the area considered expands to the adjacent lands in the Eastern Sierra region that are managed by the Bishop Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Roads and motorized trails on BLM and DWP lands interface directly with the Inyo National Forest; numerous recreation activities are created from this combined network of roads and trails.

Recreation Resources – 86 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-15: Participation Rates for All Recreation Activities on the INF (2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring Project) Activity Activity Emphasis for Total Activity Percent as Main Road & Trail Use Participation (%)1/2 Activity (%)3/4 Snowmobiling Motorized 1.1 1.1 Driving for Pleasure Motorized 24.8 0.9 OHV Use Motorized 1.8 0.3 Other Motorized Activity Motorized 1.2 0.0 Motorized Subtotal 2.3 Hiking / Walking Non-motorized 41.3 12.3 Bicycling Non-motorized 6.9 3.3 Other Non-motorized Non-motorized 5.0 0.9 Cross-country Skiing Non-motorized 4.6 4.5 Backpacking Non-motorized 3.9 2.0 Horseback Riding Non-motorized 2.1 0.3 Non-motorized Subtotal 23.3 Downhill Skiing Other 43.4 39.4 Fishing Other 14.9 8.1 Viewing Natural Features Other 52.2 13.6 Relaxing Other 46.2 6.4 Motorized Water Activities Other 2.5 0.0 Hunting Other 0.7 0.6 Non-motorized Water Other 2.8 0.6 Developed Camping Other 13.8 2.6 Primitive Camping Other 2.4 0.1 Picnicking Other 11.2 0.7 Viewing Wildlife Other 37.2 1.0 Sightseeing Other 0.0 0.0 No Activity Reported Other 18.6 17.8 Resort Use Other 9.1 0.1 Visiting Historic Sites Other 12.4 0.2 Nature Study Other 8.7 0.0 Gathering Forest Products Other 2.7 0.1 Nature Center Activities Other 13.2 0.4 Other Subtotal 91.7 Total 117.3 1 Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%. 2 The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity. 3 Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%. 4 The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on recreation on the Forest. This analysis is focused on the effects of three management actions: (1) the prohibition of cross-country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and (3) changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS).

Recreation Resources – 87

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.3.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology The effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on recreation are analyzed in relation to the three significant issues identified in Chapter 1. To allow for a more targeted recreation analysis, only the recreation concerns within the three significant issues identified in Chapter 1 are analyzed in this section. Specifically, these recreation concerns are: 1. The Quality and Quantity of Motorized Recreation Opportunity. This recreation-specific concern draws from Issue #1 identified in Chapter 1. 2. Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. This recreation-specific concern draws from Issue #1 and Issue #2 identified in Chapter 1. 3. Conflict. This recreation-specific concern draws from Issue #2 identified in Chapter 1.

Measurement Indicators As shown in Section 3.3.4.2, measurement indicators were developed to allow for a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the Proposed Action and alternatives in relation to the recreation- specific concerns identified above. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS; described in Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.5.6) is not used as an indicator of the diversity of recreation experiences and opportunities on the Forest. This is because of the inconsistencies in the ROS mapping effort completed during LMRP development. The two main factors contributing to these inconsistencies are: the use of local definitions (LRMP Glossary, p. 280) instead of those provided in the ROS User’s Guide, and the reliance on aerial photos instead of a complete inventory of existing routes and recreation opportunities (Responsive Statement - Appeal #3001, Regional Forester Paul Barker, 10/3/89). The ROS mapping effort was not based on a complete inventory of existing roads, trails, and other developments. Instead, the Forest relied on aerial photos, a limited route inventory, and easily discernable features such as conventional two-wheel drive roads when drawing boundaries for Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes. As a result, the presence of more primitive roads and trails did not automatically exclude an area from consideration for either of the non-motorized ROS classes. (See, e.g., LRMP Appendix A - Response to Comments, p. 175: “Motorized use is allowed in areas with the ROS class Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized designation. However, when inventoried routes and trails are present, the area is designated as semi-primitive motorized.”) Typically, ROS is used as an analysis tool to ensure recreation settings and opportunities are considered in management actions. ROS is often mapped for each alternative action in order to show the degree of change from each opportunity setting. However, because of the inconsistencies in the Forest’s ROS mapping (i.e., the reliance on aerial photos instead of a complete inventory of existing routes), ROS is not an effective tool for comparison of the alternatives and is not used to describe and compare the diversity of recreation opportunities provided by the alternatives. For more information about ROS, including current distribution and proposed amendments, please see Section 3.3.5.6.

Recreation Resources – 88 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Analysis Assumptions Assumptions specific to the Recreation resource analysis include: • The ability to add or remove routes in the future is still guided by NFMA largely through local LRMP direction. Future transportation planning will not be affected by the action of prohibiting motorized cross-country travel and limiting travel to designated routes forestwide. • Proposed additions to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) will have a beneficial effect on the motorized recreation experience by providing a variety of riding experiences (ranging from easy to difficult) and contributing to the continuity of the motor- touring experience, including access to dispersed recreation activities (both motorized and non-motorized). • The Forest’s NVUM and LRMP accurately express the most popular motorized and non- motorized recreation activities for this analysis. The Stewardship and Fireshed Assessment (SFA) accurately expresses the Forest’s WUI (wildland urban interface) defense zone.

3.3.4.2 Recreation Resource Indicators As stated above, the following measurement indicators were developed to allow for a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the Proposed Action and alternatives in relation to the recreation- specific concerns. The indicators are: • Miles of Road/Motorized Trail Available by Vehicle Class for Public Motorized Use • Loop Touring Opportunity • Access to Recreation Sites • Area greater than one quarter mile from Roads or Motorized Trails • Miles of routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites, and miles of routes within the wildland urban interface defense zone • Area under a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel

The following section relates the measurement indicators to the recreation specific concerns, and explains why and how these indicators are used in the recreation analysis.

3.3.4.3 Recreation Resource Methodology Whereas other resource areas have confined the direct/indirect effects analysis to the unauthorized routes considered in each alternative, this analysis includes system and other public roads when disclosing direct and indirect effects for some of the indicators. This is because the connectivity of the road network makes it difficult to describe the recreational opportunities provided by unauthorized routes unless connecting system roads are also considered. When system road mileage is included in the direct/indirect effects analysis, results are typically described as “total miles of routes available.”

Recreation Resources – 89

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Analysis Concern #1: Quality and Quantity of Motorized Recreation Opportunity: The LRMP identifies a goal to provide a broad range of recreation opportunities in balance with existing and future demand (LRMP, p. 68). Public comment and motorized participation rates clearly indicate a demand for a wide range of motorized recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest. For example, the 2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring Results (NVUM) indicated over 1 million people participated in off-highway vehicle travel or driving for pleasure on roads on the Inyo National Forest (2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey; based on 3.9 million Inyo National Forest visits and participation rates of 1.8% for “OHV use” and 24.8% for “driving for pleasure on roads”). Measurement Indicator: Miles of Road/Motorized Trail Available by Vehicle Class for Public Motorized Use This measurement indicator assesses cumulative effects of present and foreseeable future Forest projects, the motorized recreation opportunity on neighboring federal and private lands, and the alternatives on the recreation resource of the Inyo National Forest. • Mileage. Providing sufficient mileage of roads and motorized trails to meet current and expected motorized need is important to the success of any motorized transportation system (Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation, 2006). While “sufficient” is a relative measurement, mileage available in the Proposed Action and alternatives suggests the degree to which Forest users may travel across the National Forest and either participate in motorized recreation, or to access dispersed locations for the purposes of non-motorized recreation activities such as camping, hunting, or hiking. While different routes may provide varying levels of specific opportunities for these activities, this measurement indicator assumes that more miles of motorized roads and trails provide a corresponding increase in opportunities accessed by motorized vehicles. • Vehicle Class. Public comments from off-highway vehicle enthusiasts indicate a demand for designated motorized trail opportunities for full size vehicles, 50-inch trails for ATV quads and motorcycles, and 18-inch singletrack available exclusively for motorcycles. Motorized trails offer a unique motorized recreation opportunity as users are subject to more technical/skill-based driving when compared to full-sized roads. • Miles of Routes within IRAs. A unique component of the existing motorized recreation opportunity on the Inyo National Forest occurs within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). IRAs offer a unique landscape with low route density where recreationists may experience technical trail driving and access to semi-primitive and primitive motorized and non- motorized recreation opportunities, including dispersed camping, vistas, hunting, and general exploration.

Measurement Indicator: Loop Touring Opportunity This measurement indicator responds to proposals in the alternatives to: Add currently unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and make changes to the existing NFTS (e.g., vehicle class and administrative use). • Loop touring has been identified through public comment as a desired attribute of the Forest’s motorized recreation opportunity. Loops are said to provide a more enjoyable

Recreation Resources – 90 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

motorized recreation opportunity in that Forest users are not required to double-back on roads in order to return to their starting locations. Loop touring opportunities are compared in the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Analysis Concern #2: Dispersed Recreation Opportunities Use of Forest roads and motorized trails is both a primary recreation activity (i.e., driving for pleasure) and a secondary recreation activity (i.e., providing access to trailheads, campgrounds, and day-use sites). Specific LRMP management direction requires access to public land and developed recreation sites (LRMP, p. 77). Measurement Indicator: Motorized Access to Recreation Sites (including CRAs) This measurement indicator responds to proposals in the alternatives to: Add currently unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and make changes to the existing NFTS (e.g., vehicle class and administrative use). • Providing access to developed recreation sites, and within CRAs, is analyzed in the Proposed Action and alternatives. Assessing access to developed recreation sites, and within CRAs, is used to compare access to dispersed recreation opportunities as developed recreation sites act as starting locations for dispersed recreation activities (i.e., hiking, fishing) (LRMP, pp. 47- 48).

Measurement Indicator: Area Greater than ¼ Mile from Roads or Motorized Trails This measurement indicator responds to proposals in the alternatives to: Add currently unauthorized routes to the NFTS and make changes to the existing NFTS (e.g., vehicle class and administrative use). • To compare the opportunity for recreationists to experience non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities beyond the immediate influence of roads or motorized trails, a ¼- mile buffer was applied to all roads and motorized trails and the acreage outside of this buffer calculated for each alternative. This buffer was selected in part because the State of California’s noise limit requires off-highway vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1998 to be no louder than 96dB at a distance of 20-inches. At ¼ mile, this 96dB will be perceived by non-motorized recreationists as a level comparable to a rural residential area. If one considers further reduction of noise levels due to the presence of dense vegetation and varied topography, at ¼ mile 96dB would be perceived by non-motorized recreationists as approximating a spoken conversation.

Analysis Concern #3: Conflict Non-motorized recreation and motorized recreation often come into conflict over the issues of noise and safety. This may be particularly true in locations where non-motorized recreation is the predominant use and motorized recreation is neither expected nor desired. LRMP direction compels

Recreation Resources – 91

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

the Forest to minimize conflict between motorized recreation and existing or potential developed recreation sites, private property, or other uses (LRMP, p. 88). Measurement Indicator: Miles of Road and Motorized Trail within ¼ Mile of Developed Recreation Sites, and Miles of Road and Motorized Trail within the Wildland Urban Interface Defense Zone (WUI) This measurement indicator responds to proposals in the alternatives to: Add currently unauthorized routes to the NFTS, and make changes to the existing NFTS (e.g., vehicle class and administrative use). • Developed recreation sites and the WUI defense zone represent areas where non-motorized recreation activities are the predominant uses, leading to a higher potential for conflict with motorized recreation uses. • Developed recreation sites include campgrounds, trailheads, day-use sites, and other facilities and are oriented toward overnight accommodation, day-use, and interpretation. Considerations in these areas include noise levels, perceptions of safety, and conflicts with expectations of non-motorized recreationists. • The wildland urban interface defense zone (WUI) extends ¼ mile from the edge of communities, areas with higher densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites with facilities into surrounding National Forest System lands (2004 SNFPA ROD, p. 40). The intent of comparing the miles of roads and motorized trail within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and the WUI defense zone is to capture the effect of recreational vehicle noise on these locations. As stated above, at ¼ mile 96dB will be perceived as no louder than a rural residential area. At distances less than ¼ mile, noise levels increase, with a corresponding increase in the potential for effect on, and conflict with, occupants of these areas.

Measurement Indicator: Area Under a Permanent Prohibition on Cross-Country Travel This measurement indicator responds to proposals in the alternatives to prohibit cross-country travel off of designated NFTS roads, trails, and areas. • As described in the Introduction to Chapter 3, a permanent prohibition on motorized cross- country travel clarifies enforcement of existing LRMP direction. For each alternative, the acres of National Forest System land that would be subject to a permanent prohibition are measured.

3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Recreation Resources This section uses the measurement indicators previously described to compare the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on recreation on the Inyo National Forest.

Recreation Resources – 92 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.3.5.1 Effects of the Alternatives on Concern #1: Quality and Quantity of Motorized Recreation Opportunities Among the “action alternatives”, which include Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Alternative 3 proposes the most combined total miles of road and motorized trail for any alternative, thus providing the most motorized recreation opportunity in terms of combined total miles of road and motorized trail and locations accessible by motor vehicles. The following table depicts the total NFTS that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. It includes County and highway, Forest System roads, additions and changes proposed in each alternative, and additions and changes in IRAs proposed in each alternative.

Table 3-16: Total Miles of Routes Available in the Proposed Action and the Alternatives Route Type Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 (Includes Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS) Roads Open to All Vehicles 3,023 2,153 1,952 1,798 1,299 1,976 Designated 4-wheel Drive Trail 0 0 392 154 0 279 Designated <50” ATV Trail 0 54 84 25 0 28 Designated Singletrack Motorcycle 0 20 41 15 0 21 Trail Non-USFS Jurisdiction 681 681 681 681 681 681 Highway and County Roads Total Miles 3,704 2,908 3,150 2,673 1,980 2,985 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

Table 3-17 displays the unauthorized routes added to the NFTS and changes to the existing NFTS for each alternative. Motorized trails offer a unique motorized recreation opportunity as users are subject to more technical/skill-based driving when compared to full-sized roads. Alternative 3 would result in a system of 517 miles of motorized trails (includes reclassification of existing NFTS roads and unauthorized routes added as motorized trails), compared to 328 miles in Alternative 6, 194 miles in Alternative 4, and 74 miles in Alternative 2. Alternative 5 would not add any unauthorized routes to the system as either roads or trails. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 provides more miles of motorized trails that would be managed for more technical/skill-based driving than roads. The trade-off for motorized recreationists would be an NFTS network with fewer roads available for all vehicles while providing more miles of 18” singletrack, 50” ATV trail, and 4-wheel drive trail. As the classification of a route as a road or motorized trail directly correlates to vehicle class, Alternative 3 would provide fewer miles of low standard, primitive road available for all vehicles in favor of more miles of motorized trail available for motorcycle, ATV quads, and all trail vehicles (4WD trails). Among the action alternatives, Alternative 5 proposes the fewest combined total miles of road and motorized trail, thus providing the least motorized recreation opportunity in terms of combined total mileage and motor vehicle accessible locations. Alternative 5 would not reclassify any roads as trails, and would not provide any routes intentionally managed as trails, reducing the long-term

Recreation Resources – 93

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

opportunity for Forest users to participate in motorized trail travel. Roads would be open to all vehicles where permitted. It is important to note that the difference in total miles of road proposed between Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 is largely due to the degree to which redundant routes were added or eliminated in each alternative, particularly in the Mammoth West, Mammoth East, Casa Diablo, Glass Mountain, and Mono Lake/June Lake Focus Areas. In other words, while Alternative 4 proposes the second fewest total miles of route available, many of the same destinations and landscapes remain accessible to motorized recreation. What largely changes between these alternatives are intermediary locations where dispersed recreation may occur. For example, while Alternative 4 provides motorized access through Coyote Flat (Bishop Focus Area), this alternative would eliminate many connectors and short spurs popular for dispersed camping, hunting, and motorized exploration.

Table 3-17: Additions to the NFTS and Changes to Existing NFTS in the Proposed Action and the Alternatives Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Roads Open to All 1,668 875 841 659 0 850 Vehicles Unauthorized Routes 4-wheel Drive Trail 0 0 225 15 0 120 Added to NFTS 50” ATV Trail 0 41 71 12 0 19 18” Singletrack 0 13 34 8 0 15 Total Miles 1,668 929 1,171 694 0 1,005 Miles of Road 0 0 167 139 0 159 Reclassified as 4- Wheel Drive Trail Miles of Road 0 13 13 13 0 8 Reclassified as <50” ATV Trail Changes to Existing Miles of Road 0 7 7 7 0 6 NFTS Reclassified as Singletrack Motorcycle Trail Cross-country Travel Open - Open - Open - Closed to Open - Open - in Poleta OHV Open No No No X-country No No Riding Area Change Change Change travel Change Change Total Miles 0 20 187 159 0 173 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

Another important factor contributing to the difference in total miles of road in the alternatives is the degree to which routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) were added to the NFTS as motorized trails, particularly in the Bishop, South Sierra Escarpment, Inyo Mountain, and White Mountain Focus Areas. As described in Section 3.13, IRAs offer a unique landscape where recreationists may experience technical trail driving and access to semi-primitive motorized and non- motorized recreation opportunities. In all alternatives, NFTS roads currently exist in IRAs. The action alternatives differ in the miles of unauthorized routes in IRAs added to the NFTS as motorized trails. As described in Section 3.13, none of the alternatives are anticipated to detract from the semi- primitive recreation opportunities provided in IRAs, as rugged terrain masks the visibility of motorized trails and use levels are light compared to roads and motorized trails outside of IRAs.

Recreation Resources – 94 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Alternative 3 would result in the largest network of motorized trails in IRAs. Motorized trails in IRAs are also proposed in Alternatives 6 and 2, both to a lesser extent than Alternative 3. No motorized trails in IRAs are proposed in Alternatives 4 and 5. Since all action alternatives would result in fewer motorized roads and trails than currently exist, the semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive recreational opportunities that are a key element of IRAs would potentially be improved. Semi-primitive motorized opportunities, on the other hand, are expected to decrease, most noticeably in Alternatives 4, 5, and 2. Those routes in IRAs being proposed as additions to the NFTS have, in most cases, been used by Forest visitors for many decades, providing access to a variety of dispersed recreational opportunities consistent with the Inyo LRMP.

Loop Touring Opportunities All alternatives provide loop touring opportunities, the degree to which can be inferred by the total mileage of road and motorized trail proposed in each alternative. The potential for additional loop touring increases as additional miles of road and motorized trail are proposed in the alternatives. Among the action alternatives, Alternative 3 provides the greatest opportunity for loop touring as this alternative proposes the greatest mileage of road and motorized trail. It should be noted that various sections of unauthorized routes in Alternative 3 are proposed as motorized trail resulting in some loops available only to trail vehicles such as ATVs or dirt bikes. Among the action alternatives, Alternative 5 provides the fewest opportunities for loop touring as this alternative proposes the fewest miles of road and no motorized trails. Importantly, Alternative 5 would not add the unauthorized routes that pass through the U.S. 395 tunnel crossing at Smokey Bear Flat and the U.S. 395 tunnel crossing north of the June Lake Junction Store at the terminus of Forest road 01S152. Eliminating both tunnel crossings in this alternative greatly reduces the connectivity of the Mammoth East and Mammoth West Focus Areas, as well as the Mono Lake/June Lake and Glass Mountain Focus Areas. Alternative 4 also reduces the connectivity between the Mammoth East and Mammoth West Focus Areas by eliminating the tunnel crossing at Smokey Bear Flat. Maps of off-highway vehicle loop tours were submitted during public comment periods. Seven loop tour maps covering the Mammoth West, Mammoth East, Glass Mountain, Bishop, Casa Diablo, Inyo, and White Mountain Focus Areas were provided. The maps identify motorized touring opportunities to popular areas within the Forest, all of which can be completed as a loop. The table below describes the effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on these popular loop tours. The values in the following table are: • Accommodated – Alternative allows for continued loop touring as described by the public. • Accommodated with Minor Modification – Alternative allows for continued loop touring with only minor deviations required to complete or access locations. Minor deviations include short duration re-routes or use of adjacent alternative roads. • Accommodated with Moderate Modification – Alternative generally allows for continued loop touring in the area described. However, key portions of unauthorized routes needed to complete the loop are not added to the system, restricting access to some locations. • Eliminated – Unauthorized routes needed to complete the loop are not added to the system in the Alternative.

Recreation Resources – 95

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Among the action alternatives, Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would result in the least deviation from the routes identified in the loop tour maps. In comparison, Alternative 5 would require the most deviation and would eliminate the Black Mountain Loop, the Hartley Loop, and the Crater Loop. The Black Mountain Loop is eliminated in Alternatives 4 and 5 due to the closure of the only connection between the Inyo and White Mountain Focus Areas, unauthorized routes N2223, N2248, and 08S169. Not adding these routes to the system eliminates the Black Mountain loop. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 propose to include these routes in the Forest’s NFTS thus allowing off-highway vehicle users to complete a long-distance loop between these Focus Areas. Due to terrain, these routes are only proposed as either ATV trail or motorcycle trail.

Table 3-18: Effect of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on Loop Tours Loop Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Name

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Mammoth Accommodated with minor with minor with minor with moderate with minor modification modification modification modification modification

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Lookout Accommodated with minor with minor with minor with minor with minor modification modification modification modification modification

Accommodated Hartley Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated with moderate Eliminated Accommodated modification

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Crater Accommodated with minor with minor with minor Eliminated with minor modification modification modification modification

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Coyote Accommodated with minor Accommodated with minor with minor with minor Flats modification modification modification modification

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Casa Accommodated with moderate with minor with moderate with moderate with minor Diablo modification modification modification modification modification

Accommodated Accommodated Accommodated Black Accommodated with minor with minor Eliminated Eliminated with minor Mountain modification modification modification

The Hartley Loop is eliminated in Alternative 5 due to the fact this alternative does not include unauthorized routes 02S368 and 02S283, which are required to complete a loop around Obsidian Dome. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 propose to include these routes in the Forest’s NFTS, thus allowing the completion of the described loop. Alternative 4 adds route 02S368 to the NFTS. However, the alternative proposes to eliminate route 02S283, therefore requiring a moderate modification to the Hartley Loop as motorized recreationists would have to double-back around Obsidian Dome. The Crater Loop is eliminated in Alternative 5 due to the closure of all unauthorized routes near the “Punch Bowl” east of the June Lake Junction Store. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 would allow

Recreation Resources – 96 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 some level of travel through this area by all vehicles, therefore allowing completion of the Crater Loop. A substantial portion of the Casa Diablo and Coyote Flats Loop occurs off National Forest System lands. Only the portion utilizing NFTS roads is described in Table 3-18. In the Casa Diablo Loop, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 do not include route 03S600, which is a long segment required to complete the loop as proposed. In these alternatives, motorized recreationists would be required to by-pass this route by traveling on 02S84. In the Coyote Flats Loop, all alternatives would allow motorized recreation from Warren Bench to the Chipmunk Mine and beyond as this loop largely occurs on existing Forest System roads. However, Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 would eliminate routes 08S122 and 08S123, reducing the loop by approximately 1.5 miles and eliminating motorized access to the south of Lookout Mountain. Only Alternatives 1 and 3 require no deviation of the loop described. Alternative 3 designates a semi-connected series of motorized trail segments on both the west and east side of Highway 395 to form a loop from Shady Rest Park in the Town of Mammoth Lakes to the June Lake Junction Store. Alternative 3 proposes to designate this series of motorized trail segments as 50” ATV trails. The ATV trail segments are said to be “semi-connected” due to the fact completion of the loop would require utilization of unpaved system roads in some areas. This semi- connected ATV loop is in close proximity to campgrounds popular with off-highway vehicle enthusiasts including Deadman Campground, Glass Creek Campground, and Hartley Springs Campground. Alternatives 2 and 6 propose adding the same loop as open to all vehicles. Alternative 4 would accommodate the loop, although the loop would require significant re-routes, resulting in a reduction in mileage due to the elimination of key connectors and the loop would be open to all vehicles. Alternative 5 would eliminate the loop. Use of the loop would continue unchanged in Alternative 1.

3.3.5.2 Effects of the Alternatives on Concern #2: Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Access to Recreation Sites All developed recreation sites remain accessible by motor vehicle in all alternatives. This is due to the fact that all existing developed recreation sites are accessible by county, highway, or Forest System roads. However, a notable change from the existing condition is the elimination of access for non- highway licensed vehicles (i.e., quads and motorcycles) to the June Lake Junction Store in Alternatives 4 and 5. Currently non-highway licensed vehicle operators constitute a high percentage of summer business, as the Store is a popular stop for food and gas. Alternatives 4 and 5 would not add route 01S339 (restricting non-highway licensed vehicle traffic traveling from the Glass Creek Campground area to the south), route 01S162 (restricting non-highway licensed vehicle traffic from Oh! Ridge area), and route 01S163 (restricting non-highway licensed vehicle traffic from the north). Access to the June Lake Junction Store for non-highway licensed vehicles would be maintained in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Recreation Resources – 97

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

As described in the Mixed Use Analysis, all alternatives would continue to allow ride-in, ride-out of non-highway licensed vehicles at Deadman Campground, Glass Creek Campground, and Hartley Springs Campground. Ride-in, ride-out of non-highway licensed vehicles at Sherwin Creek Campground would not be allowed under any action alternative, as off-highway vehicle opportunities accessible from Sherwin Creek Campground are limited. All action alternatives have the potential to reduce motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities due to the elimination of roads and motorized trails that access dispersed recreation sites. It is estimated that 65 percent of all non-wilderness dispersed recreation takes place within CRAs (1988 LRMP FEIS, p. 275). The table below displays the miles of system road and motorized trail within CRAs, and the miles of unauthorized routes within CRAs proposed in each alternative. Primary access to CRAs is via the baseline network of highways, County system, or NFTS roads. Across the action alternatives, total mileage in CRAs changes from the existing condition (Alternative 1) based on the miles of unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. In Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, unauthorized routes that were duplicate or redundant, and some short spurs were not added to the system. Closing these routes to public motorized use is not expected to significantly affect dispersed recreation opportunities in CRAs.

Table 3-19: Total Miles of County and Highway Roads, System Roads, Motorized Trails, and Unauthorized Routes within CRAs by Alternative Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of System Road and Motorized 268 268 268 268 268 268 Trail within CRAs Miles of Unauthorized Routes Within 147 94 104 75 0 98 CRAs Total Miles of Road and Motorized Trail 415 362 372 343 268 366 Within CRAs 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

Alternative 5 eliminates motorized use of all unauthorized routes in CRAs, and thus has the highest potential to reduce motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities within CRAs. A notable change from the existing condition proposed in Alternative 5 is the elimination of motorized access to the headwaters of the Owens River (Glass Mountain and Mammoth East Focus Areas). Currently, unauthorized routes allow Forest visitors to drive directly to Owens River from Owens River Road to the south and from road 02S351 from the north. These routes offer dispersed camping opportunities as the river is a popular destination for fishing, exploring, and day-use. Motorized access to the headwaters of the Owens River would be retained in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities outside of CRAs is largely a function of miles of road and motorized trail proposed for motorized use in each alternative. For example, among the action alternatives, motorized access to dispersed camping opportunities would be least impacted under Alternative 3, as this alternative proposes the most combined total mileage of road and motorized trail for any alternative. Alternative 5 has the highest potential to eliminate motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities, as this alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, resulting in the lowest combined total mileage of road and motorized trail for any alternative. Because dispersed recreation activities occur nearly ubiquitously across the Forest, all

Recreation Resources – 98 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 action alternatives potentially reduce motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities outside of CRAs. However, as previously indicated, it is estimated that most dispersed recreation opportunities either occur within CRAs (i.e., day use facilities) or start within CRAs (i.e., trailheads, campgrounds). Alternative 5 proposes one notable change from an existing dispersed recreation opportunity outside of CRAs: the elimination of motorized access to Little Hot Creek (Mammoth East Focus Area). Little Hot Creek is a popular swimming location and is directly accessible by motor vehicle via unauthorized route 03S510. Route 03S510 is eliminated in Alternative 5 but would remain open in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. In all action alternatives, additional use on existing system routes is not expected to result in recreation capacity-based conflict because unauthorized routes generally experience light use (less than 25 vehicle trips per week). Rather, with regard to dispersed recreation, the action alternatives provide different recreation opportunities. For example, Alternative 6 designates many miles of routes and motorized trail in response to the desire for motorized exploration and motorized access to dispersed campsites. In contrast, Alternative 5 considerably reduces opportunities for motorized exploration and dispersed recreation. It would restrict motorized access to dispersed campsites to within one vehicle length of existing system roads, likely diminishing the ability to experience solitude for those seeking dispersed campsites via motorized vehicles.

Area Greater than One-Quarter Mile from Roads or Motorized Trails In all alternatives, non-motorized recreationists seeking dispersed recreation sites beyond the immediate influence of roads and motorized trails would continue to be most successful when traveling on non-motorized trails, or traveling cross-country to distance themselves from roads and motorized trails. Examples of such activities include dispersed camping, exploration, and general relaxation. To consider the opportunity for non-motorized recreationists to experience dispersed recreation opportunities beyond the immediate influence of roads and motorized trails, a ¼-mile buffer was applied to all roads and motorized trails and the acreage outside of this buffer calculated. The following table displays the results.

Table 3-20: Total Area More than ¼ Mile from All Motorized Routes (County and State Roads, Existing Forest System Roads, and Unauthorized Routes Proposed in Each Alternative) Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Total Area More than ¼ Mile from 534,770 602,161 565,923 619,277 670,658 589,791 Road or Motorized Trail (acres) Average Size of Contiguous Areas Greater than ¼ Mile from Motorized 948 1,176 991 1,231 1,452 1,109 Routes (acres) 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS. Area measured does not include designated wilderness.

The alternatives vary both in terms of the total area further than ¼ mile from motorized travelways and the average size of those areas. While the “minimum” or “optimum” size, shape, or characteristics of such an area would be highly subjective and nearly impossible to define, it is assumed that the potential for a high quality non-motorized recreation experience would increase as

Recreation Resources – 99

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

the areas increase in size. In all alternatives, the areas range from less than one acre to over 41,000 acres in Alternative 5 (this figures excludes Mono Lake’s acreage). In Alternative 1, which has the highest number of unauthorized routes, there are a total of 534,770 acres greater than ¼ mile from roads. Average size for each contiguous area—948 acres—is less than any of the alternatives. On the other hand, Alternative 5 would maximize the area greater than ¼ mile from all travelways, for a total of 670,658 acres. Average size for these areas would be 1,452 acres, greater than in any of the other alternatives. While not directly measurable, this indicates that Alternative 5 has the highest relative potential for non-motorized recreational opportunities, followed by Alternative 4, 2, 6, then 3. In all action alternatives, lands further than ¼ mile from motorized travelways increase compared to the existing condition. As such, the potential for non-motorized recreationists seeking dispersed recreation sites beyond the immediate influence of roads and motorized trails would increase in all action alternatives, with Alternative 5 providing the most potential and Alternative 2 providing the least potential. However, a trade-off for non-motorized recreationists would be the relatively long distance required to access more desirable dispersed recreation sites due to the reduction of motorized access to these areas. In all alternatives, the Inyo National Forest will continue to provide vast areas of National Forest System lands for a broad spectrum of dispersed recreation opportunities outside the immediate influence of roads and motorized trails. The table below displays the total acreage of National Forest System lands within designated wilderness as well as lands more than ¼ mile from roads and motorized trails.

Table 3-21: Total Area More than ¼ Mile from All Motorized Routes (County and State Roads, Existing Forest System Roads, and Unauthorized Routes Proposed in Each Alternative) Including Approximate Acreage of Designated Wilderness Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Total Area More than ¼ Mile from 534,770 602,161 565,923 619,277 670,658 589,791 Road or Motorized Trail (acres) Designated Wilderness (approx. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 acres) Total 1,534,770 1,602,161 1,565,923 1,619,277 1,670,658 1,589,791 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

3.3.5.3 Effects of the Alternatives on Concern #3: Conflict

Concentrated Use Areas (Developed Recreation Sites and the WUI Defense Zone) The following table displays the miles of system road within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites, and the miles of unauthorized routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites proposed in each alternative.

Recreation Resources – 100 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-22: Total Miles of County and State Roads, System Roads, and Proposed NFTS Additions within ¼ Mile of Developed Recreation Sites by Alternative Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Existing System Road within 1/4 Mile of Developed 165 165 165 165 165 165 Recreation Sites Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS within 1/4 Mile of Developed 40 31 32 28 0 32 Recreation Sites Total Miles of Road and Motorized Trail within 1/4 Mile of Developed 205 196 197 193 165 197 Recreation Sites 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

The table below displays the miles of system road and motorized trail in the WUI defense zone, and the miles of unauthorized route proposed as NFTS additions in each alternative. It is important to note that few existing conflicts within the WUI defense zone may be directly or indirectly affected by any alternative. This is due to the fact that the Forest’s road network is mostly well beyond existing community development within the WUI defense zone, particularly in the Owens Valley where most lands surrounding communities are administered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The greatest potential for existing conflict to be affected by any of the alternatives would be near those communities that directly border National Forest System lands such as Mammoth Lakes, Lee Vining, or June Lake. In those key areas, few unauthorized routes are being proposed for addition to the NFTS in all the action alternatives, and those unauthorized routes being proposed for addition to the NFTS generally experience only light use. In all alternatives, it is anticipated that the majority of motorized recreational activities will continue to occur well beyond the WUI defense zone.

Table 3-23: Total Miles of County and State Roads, System Roads, and Proposed NFTS Additions within ¼ Mile of the WUI Defense Zone by Alternative Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Existing System Road 160 160 160 160 160 160 Within the WUI defense zone Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS 61 35 40 31 0 36 Within the WUI defense zone Total Miles of Road and Motorized 221 195 200 191 160 196 Trail Within the WUI defense zone 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

All action alternatives have the potential to reduce conflict over the issue of noise, as all action alternatives reduce the total miles of road and motorized trail within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and within the WUI defense zone. Alternative 5 proposes the fewest miles of road and motorized trail in both areas. Alternative 3 proposes the most miles of road and motorized trail within the WUI defense zone. Alternatives 3 and 6 propose the most miles of road and motorized trail within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites.

Recreation Resources – 101

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Comments regarding the proximity of unauthorized routes to existing community development were received from the Mammoth Knolls Homeowner’s Association. All action alternatives eliminate route N1068, which is the longest stretch of unauthorized route within a ¼ mile of Mammoth Knolls development. Alternative 4 would additionally close unauthorized route N1079, which was identified by the Association as a noise concern. Alternative 5 would eliminate all unauthorized routes within ¼ mile of the Mammoth Knolls development. None of the alternatives, including Alternative 1, are anticipated to reduce visitors’ high satisfaction levels with developed recreation sites on the Inyo National Forest. Existing conditions of developed recreation sites, as measured by the 2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring project, were generally described by visitors as “Good” to “Very Good.”

Area Under a Permanent Prohibition on Cross-Country Travel The following table displays the acres of National Forest System lands under a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel in each alternative.

Table 3-24: Area Under a Permanent Prohibition on Cross-Country Travel Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 1.0 million + Acres of National Forest System 1,100 1.0 Land Under a Permanent Prohibition 0 1.0 million 1.0 million 1.0 million 1 Poleta Open million on Cross-Country Travel Area 1 Does not include wilderness.

All action alternatives increase the acres of National Forest System lands under a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 4 proposes the most acres as this alternative would restrict motorized travel to designated routes within the Poleta Open Area. Alternative 1 would not implement a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. As described in the introduction to Chapter 3, a clearly defined NFTS and a permanent prohibition on motorized cross-country travel clarifies enforcement of existing LRMP direction. Currently, restricting motorized travel to existing routes is enforced through Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that prohibit drivers from “unreasonably disturbing the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources” or driving in “violation of State law established for vehicles used off roads” (36 CFR 261.15h and 36 CFR 261.15i). However, with no clearly defined NFTS, motorized recreationists may be confused as to what constitutes an existing route and cross-country travel, and therefore what constitutes motorized use that unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resource. From an enforcement standpoint, allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate using the prohibition cited above. As a result, current difficulties associated with prosecuting users for traveling cross-country would continue under Alternative 1. All action alternatives would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Alternative 1 would not implement a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel, and would require the continued use of 36 CFR 261.15h and 36 CFR 261.15i to enforce existing LRMP direction. Alternative 4’s inclusion of the Poleta Open Area in the permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would eliminate approximately 1,100 acres currently designated in

Recreation Resources – 102 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the NFTS as open to cross-country motorized travel (LRMP, p. 211). As a result, Alternative 4 would eliminate the opportunity for motorized cross-country travel on the Inyo National Forest.

3.3.5.4 Effects of Proposed Resource Mitigations on Recreation Mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on forest resources are summarized in Chapter 2 and listed by route in Appendix A. None of the mitigation proposed for reducing potential impacts on cultural or natural resources in any alternative will appreciably affect the recreation resource. Seasonal restrictions have the highest potential to impact motorized recreation access; however, those seasonal closures proposed as mitigations are applied to routes that are neither key connectors nor long in length, nor in some cases available for wheeled vehicle use for much of the closure period due to snow. Other proposed mitigations such as signs, kiosks, and barriers would have a beneficial effect, as they would clarify where motorized use is allowed and where it is prohibited.

3.3.5.5 Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives The cumulative effects analysis for recreation considers the impact of the alternatives when combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events. As described in the introduction of Chapter 3, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. For the purposes of this analysis, “relevant” present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are those that involve new public road or motorized trail construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning. These activities are considered relevant to the discussion of cumulative effects because they could affect one or more of the recreation-specific concerns identified in this analysis: (1) the quality and quantity of motorized recreation opportunity; (2) dispersed recreation opportunities; and (3) recreational conflict. Based on a review of the Forest’s Present or Foreseeable Future Actions (PFFA) project inventory contained in Appendix D, there are no present or reasonably foreseeable future actions that involve new public road or motorized trail construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning. As a result, no reasonably foreseeable future activities on the Forest or on adjacent lands would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. While several projects identify the construction of temporary access or maintenance roads, the design and use of these roads will reflect the purpose and need of the project and not motorized recreation. Futhermore, it is reasonable to expect that all projects will incorporate measures to reduce or eliminate potential recreation-based conflict where appropriate. For example, it is reasonably foreseeable that additional geothermal fluid pipelines will be constructed north of the Town of Mammoth Lakes (see Mammoth Pacific Geothermal Project on PFFA). As required in the past, the Forest Service may require these new pipelines to be placed underground at road crossings to not restrict motorized use. Development adjacent to National Forest System lands is reasonably foreseeable, and has the potential to increase conflict over the issue of noise. For example, the Snowcreek VIII project is currently undergoing plan review with the Town of Mammoth Lakes. However, this development will occur only within the WUI defense zone boundary, and all action alternatives reduce the total miles of routes within the WUI defense zone from the current level. In addition, those routes

Recreation Resources – 103

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

proposed for addition in the action alternatives generally experience only light use as the Forest’s road network is predominantly located well away from reasonably foreseeable future development (see Visual Resource Section’s cumulative effects analysis for discussion of other developments and their proximity to roads and motorized trails). In addition to the motorized recreation opportunity available on the Inyo National Forest, neighboring lands administered by the Bishop Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) provide additional motorized recreation opportunities in the Eastern Sierra. A partial inventory identified more than 3,500 miles of road under BLM and LADWP jurisdiction within the analysis area. Additionally, many miles of routes exist outside of the analysis area on adjacent National Forest lands and on other BLM lands in Nevada and on National Park Service lands, which are not calculated in these totals. Roads and motorized trails on lands administered by BLM and LADWP constitute a substantial portion—roughly half—of the overall motorized recreation opportunity currently provided in the cumulative effects analysis area. The following table displays the approximate total miles of road and motorized trail available in the greater Eastern Sierra area by alternative.

Table 3-25: Approximate Total Miles of Road and Motorized Trail Available on Inyo National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and LADWP Lands Agency Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Forest Service 3,731 2,908 3,151 2,673 1,980 2,985 BLM and LADWP 3,573 3,573 3,573 3,573 3,573 3,573 Total Miles 7,304 6,481 6,724 6,246 5,553 6,558 Forest Service mileages include County and Highway mileage.

While concrete proposals to change public access on BLM and LADWP roads are not reasonably foreseeable at this time, future planning efforts could result in changes in the miles of roads available for public use in the analysis area. The designation of roads and trails on Forest Service lands are not permanent and can be revised in the future in response to changing conditions, such as major changes in access on adjacent lands that are not reasonably foreseeable at this time. In terms of miles of road and motorized trail provided by alternative, there is no change in the relative “ranking” as described in the direct and indirect analysis. For example, Alternative 3 continues to provide the most miles of road and motorized trail among the action alternatives. Alternative 5, which would not add any additional routes to the NFTS, provides the fewest miles of road and motorized trail. None of the projects listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary would affect the broad spectrum of motorized and non-motorized recreation currently available on the Inyo National Forest. In any action alternative, there may be a very small, likely immeasurable amount of displacement of motor vehicle use to other routes in adjacent lands in the Eastern Sierra region. The amount of displacement and potential effects of this are expected to be extremely minor across all alternatives for the following reasons: • The miles of routes and opportunities available for motorized public access on the multiple agency-managed lands.

Recreation Resources – 104 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• In many cases, routes on LADWP, BLM, and other lands are already currently being used to access the system and unauthorized routes on Forest lands. • Routes that will be authorized for motorized use typically provide access to the high value destinations being sought by the public on Forest lands. Conversely, the routes that are not being designated for motorized use are often duplicate routes, routes providing similar opportunities in areas with many routes, small spurs, and routes that receive relatively low use. • With some slight differences in terrain, elevation, and vegetation type, many of the opportunities provided on BLM and LADWP lands are similar to those on most of the non- wilderness segments of the Forest. Much of the BLM lands provide similar opportunities for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized activities. • While many opportunities on the various lands are similar in type, where there are differences in the type characteristically provided by any one agency, visitors will still likely travel to those areas to attain that specific type of opportunity. • Major changes in motor vehicle access on adjacent lands are not reasonably foreseeable at this time.

While the effects of the potential actions of any of the action alternatives may create a small reduction in the overall total motorized miles available to the public in the Eastern Sierra area, the actual effect on recreational access and opportunities in this larger area is expected to be minor. In Alternative 4, travel would be limited to designated routes (approximately 12 miles) within the NFS portion of the Poleta Open Area, and cross-country travel would be prohibited. While most motorized use in the Poleta Open Area currently occurs on these existing routes, those seeking to travel off-route for cross-country and hill-climbing experiences would likely move to other areas, where this activity is allowed. This would potentially cause a minor increase in such use at the adjacent 1,800 acre BLM section of the Poleta Open Area, as well as on some LADWP parcels where this use occurs.

3.3.5.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction This section discusses the Proposed Action and alternatives’ compliance with the Forest Plan and the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55.

Management Prescriptions The LRMP established recreation management direction using eighteen Management Prescriptions (Rx). Management Prescriptions specify how individual resources will be managed within a Management Area (LRMP, p. 106). The eighteen Management Prescriptions reference motorized recreation essentially one of two ways. Either, the prescription explicitly states that off- highway vehicle use is permitted on designated or existing routes, or the prescription states, “Allow no off-highway vehicle use.” Those prescriptions that explicitly allow off-highway vehicle use on designated or existing routes did so with the expectation that the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan would be updated shortly after

Recreation Resources – 105

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

completion of the LRMP. As such, references to “existing” and “designated” routes in the LRMP allowed for the addition of routes to the NFTS through the Motor Vehicle Use Plan update. (See, for example LMP Appendix A, p. 167: “Prescription #7 has been changed to read: “Prohibit vehicle use off of roads and restrict vehicle travel to designated routes. This would permit designation of an OHV route”; p. 40: “Roads open for use…will be specifically designated in that update [of the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan]”; p. 174: “The 1977 [Motor Vehicle Use] Plan prohibits OHVs off of designated routes only in areas where routes have been designated and signed as such. OHV use on most of the Forest is restricted to existing (as opposed to designated) routes.”) The current proposal carries out Forest Plan direction to update motor vehicle use direction for the Forest by designating a system of roads and trails (LRMP, p. 87). The Forest road inventory was not completed following implemention of the LRMP, and the Motor Vehicle Use Plan was not updated to establish “designated” or “existing” routes. All management prescriptions that restrict motorized use to existing or designated routes allow for the addition of routes to the NFTS as part of this current proposal. This applies to Rx #16 and 17, both of which state that the LRMP will allow OHV use on designated routes (LRMP, pp. 145, 147). Of the management prescriptions which specify that motorized or OHV use is not allowed (e.g., Rx #1, 3, 8, and 13), only Management Prescription #3 “Mountain Sheep Habitat” and Rx #13 “Alpine Ski Area” are affected by the current proposal to add routes to the NFTS. • Rx #1 – One long-standing unauthorized route enters designated Wilderness boundaries. This route is proposed for closure in all action alternatives. • Rx #3 – A non-significant amendment is proposed to clarify direction for Rx #3; see the LRMP Compliance section of the Terrestrial Wildlife analysis for more information. • Rx #8 – No routes are proposed for addition to the NFTS in Wild segments of Rx #8 “Wild and Scenic Rivers.” Motorized use is allowed on designated routes within Scenic and Recreational segments of Rx #8. • Rx #13 – Alternative 3 proposes to add 0.28 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS within Management Prescription 13. While the prescription states, “Allow no OHV use,” the prescription also states, “Allow the recreation activities appropriate in the Rural ROS class.” Both the LRMP glossary definition and the ROS User’s Guide explicitly allow roads and motorized use within the Rural ROS class. In addition, well known and frequently used system roads existed within the prescription area when established by the LRMP, including those near the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. Because Rx #13 management direction acknowledges and allows road-dependent recreational activities by the public, adding motorized routes to the NFTS is considered to be consistent with the intent of this management prescription. Plan direction will be corrected with an errata sheet to clarify that motorized use will be restricted to designated roads and trails.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Forest Service policy recommends use of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to describe recreation opportunities during programmatic and project-level planning (FSM 2310.3). The ROS provides a systematic framework for looking at the actual distribution of recreation opportunities and a logical procedure for assessing impacts to those opportunities from potential management actions.

Recreation Resources – 106 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The ROS does not, however, offer a prescribed formula for providing outdoor recreation opportunities (GTR-PNW-98 in 1986 ROS Book, p. III-22). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum assesses existing recreation characteristics on the through the application of a set of criteria: remoteness, size, evidence of humans, user density, and managerial regimentation and noticeability. The criteria are used to assign one of seven ROS classes to geographic areas on the forest: primitive (PNM), semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), semi- primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (UR). The current ROS classes for the Inyo National Forest were mapped as part of the development of the LRMP in the mid-1980s. The current distribution of ROS classes is shown on the LRMP maps entitled ‘Facilities and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum’. The ROS boundaries shown on these maps have been digitized and used in the following analysis. Consistency with each opportunity setting criterion (e.g., size, remoteness, evidence of humans, etc.) is an ideal concept (p. III-23). Routinely, when considering real conditions on the ground, one or more of the setting criteria are inconsistent with the ‘ideal’ characteristics for that setting. In some cases, this inconsistency affects the overall character and opportunities offered by a setting, while in others it does not. As an example, while the remoteness criteria for the PNM class is based on distance from motorized uses, it can also be assessed using other factors such as topography, vegetative screening, and difficult travel conditions (ROS User’s Guide, p. 18). The use of these other factors may be appropriate based on local conditions, but in other situations may result in apparent setting inconsistencies. Inconsistencies arise from a variety of causes, including earlier management actions or purposeful courses of action. For the latter, the apparently inconsistent factor might, in fact, be completely in line with the type of opportunity most needed in the area (p. III-23). Proposed Forest Plan Amendment. Current LRMP direction is to “Maintain activities and developments at levels that meet prescribed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes as defined in the ROS Users Guide” (p. 86). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would not be consistent with this direction because they propose additions to the NFTS within Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes as mapped during LRMP development. The proposed amendment would change the ROS class for the area immediately surrounding the routes added to the NFTS in PNM and SPNM ROS classes to recognize existing motorized access and allow the addition of routes to the NFTS to provide needed semi-primitive motorized opportunities. Definitions for the PNM and SPNM classes are shown in the table below, and include definitions from both the 1982 ROS User’s Guide and the LRMP Glossary.

Table 3-26: Definitions of Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) ROS Class ROS Class LRMP Glossary (p. 280) 1982 ROS Users’ Guide Remoteness Criteria Primitive An area three miles or more from conventional (two wheel drive) roads, generally 5,000 acres or more in An area…at least 3 miles from all size, with an essentially unmodified natural roads, trails, or railroads with environment. Users will probably experience a high motorized use. degree of isolation, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance.

Recreation Resources – 107

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

ROS Class LRMP Glossary (p. 280) 1982 ROS Users’ Guide Remoteness Criteria Semi-Primitive An area more than 0.5 miles but less than 3 miles An area…at least 0.5 mile but not Non-Motorized from conventional roads, 2,500 to 5,000 acres in size, further than 3 miles from all roads, with only subtle modifications of an otherwise natural railroads, or trails with motorized use; setting. Users will have experiences similar in kind can include primitive roads and trails (but to a lower degree) to those found in the Primitive if usually closed to motorized use. ROS class.

Effects of the Proposed Amendment. The following table shows the miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in PNM and SPNM classes by alternative. In addition to the unauthorized routes, there are currently 16 miles of existing NFTS road in PNM, and 118 miles in SPNM. Existing NFTS roads are currently part of the official transportation system. No further analysis or decision is necessary to continue public motorized use of these roads.

Table 3-27: Total Miles of Unauthorized Routes Available for Motorized Use by Alternative Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added 43 17 37 1 0 28 to the NFTS within Primitive ROS Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS within Semi-Primitive 170 35 106 22 0 56 Non-Motorized ROS 1 Existing unauthorized routes would be available for motorized use under Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS. No LRMP amendment is proposed.

As shown in the following table, the addition of the routes to the NFTS would shift up to 60,410 acres to shift from PMN to SPNM, 9,760 acres from PMN to Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), and 54,640 acres from SPNM to SPM (Alternative 3). In Alternative 1, ROS classes would not be changed, but use of all routes would continue to cause apparent ROS class inconsistencies that resulted from the ROS mapping that occurred during the development of the LRMP. Alternative 5 would not add any routes to the NFTS and no amendment would be needed. In Alternatives 2 , 3, 4, and 6, all routes would be added to the NFTS as either low standard roads maintained for high clearance 4WD vehicles (i.e., Maintenance Level 2), or as motorized trails that would be specifically managed and maintained for trail vehicles such as ATVs. Consistent with the remoteness criteria specified in the ROS User’s Guide (p. 18), the area within ½ mile of the added routes would shift to Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). The area greater than ½ mile but less than 3 miles from the added routes would shift to Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM). Acres within Congressionally designated wilderness would not change from the mapped ROS class.

Table 3-28: ROS Class Change, by Alternative Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 6 Acres Change from PNM 51,590 60,410 1,410 58,680 to SPNM Acres Change from PNM to 3,360 9,760 300 6,040 Semi-Primitive Motorized Acres Change from SPNM to 24,770 54,640 17,710 33,750 Semi-Primitive Motorized

Recreation Resources – 108 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The change in ROS class is needed because of inconsistencies resulting from the way in which the ROS mapping exercise was conducted during LRMP development. As explained below, the two main factors contributing to these inconsistencies are: the use of local definitions (LRMP Glossary, p. 280) instead of those provided in the ROS User’s Guide (see Table 3-28 above), and the reliance on aerial photos instead of an inventory of all existing routes (Responsive Statement - Appeal #3001, Regional Forester Paul Barker, 10/3/89). The proposed LRMP amendment would be consistent with the LRMP goal to provide a broad range of developed and dispersed recreation in balance with identified existing and future demand (LRMP, p. 68). This determination has been made based on the following: • As defined during the preliminary ROS mapping conducted for the LRMP, outside of designated wilderness, neither the Primitive nor the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes were mapped to exclude existing motorized use (LRMP Glossary, p. 280). For example, to be inventoried as Primitive ROS during the Forest Plan development process, Forest staff generally relied on aerial photos to identify areas “three miles or more from conventional (two-wheel drive) roads, generally 5,000 acres or more in size” (LRMP, p. 280). Similarly, areas were generally identified as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized based on their proximity to conventional two-wheel drive roads shown on aerial photos, size, and degree of visible modification. In contrast, the ROS User’s Guide specifies that Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas should generally be 3 miles and ½ mile, respectively, from all roads, trails, or railroads with motorized use. • The LRMP ROS mapping effort was not based on a complete inventory of existing roads, trails, and other developments. Instead, the Forest relied on aerial photos, a limited route inventory, and easily discernable features such as conventional two-wheel drive roads when drawing ROS class boundaries. As a result, the presence of more primitive roads and trails did not automatically exclude an area from consideration for either of the non- motorized ROS classes. (See, e.g., LRMP Appendix A - Response to Comments, p. 175: “Motorized use is allowed in areas with the ROS class Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized designation. However, when inventoried routes and trails are present, the area is designated as semi-primitive motorized.”) o An example of this inconsistency is found at the Rush Creek drainage near Agnew Lake, assigned to the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS class during the ROS mapping. This drainage is associated with a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed Southern California Edison hydroelectric project, and contains a rail/tramway, numerous buildings, two dams, and motorboat use across Agnew Lake. These improvements were constructed and have been in use since the 1920s. Two other examples include the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area adjacent to Grant Lake that includes system road 01S127 (Maintenance Level 2), and the Patriarch Grove in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (that includes a designated picnic area and access road) that was assigned to the Primitive ROS class. • This amendment is not expected to reduce or eliminate opportunities to engage in non- motorized recreation, and would provide needed opportunities for semi-primitive

Recreation Resources – 109

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

motorized recreation. As shown in the table below, Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would reduce the Primitive ROS class slightly from 43% of the Forest land base to 40%. There would be no measurable change in the distribution of Primitive ROS class under Alternative 4. Acres allocated to the SPNM class would increase under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6, and decrease slightly under Alternative 4. Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS would increase under all alternatives, with a maximum increase to 306,200 acres (15%) in Alternative 3 and a minimum increase to 259,810 acres (13%) in Alternative 4. • In all alternatives, approximately 65-67% of the Forest land base is in the Primitive and SPNM ROS classes, compared to 68% in the existing condition. Seventy percent of the existing Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized classes is designated wilderness where motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited. Outside of designated wilderness, 16% of the Forest is in the Roaded Natural class (329,530 ac), followed by 14% in SPNM (285,550 ac), 12% in SPM (241,800 ac), 6% in Primitive (113,050 ac), 3% in Roaded Modified (56,370 ac), and 0.8% in Rural (16,830 ac). None of the alternatives would change the distribution for Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, or Rural ROS.

In conclusion, the proposed amendment would be consistent with the LRMP goal to provide a broad range of developed and dispersed recreation in balance with identified existing and future demand (LRMP, p. 68). Routes proposed for inclusion in the NFTS in Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes provide needed access to opportunities for semi-primitive motorized exploration and dispersed recreation. Given that approximately half of the Forest land base is within Congressionally designated wilderness—where all motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited— and the high demand for vehicle access to remote, primitive settings where users can experience isolation, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance, the changes in ROS class are in line with recreation opportunities needed on the INF.

Table 3-29: Existing and Post-Amendment Distribution of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes, by Alternative Primitive SPNM Semi- Roaded Roaded Rural Primitive Natural Modified Motorized (SPM) Existing ROS Class 0 0 241,8000 329,530 56,370 16,830 Distribution (acres) 3, 4 Percent of Forest 2 43% 25% 12% 16% 3% 0.8% Alt 2 - ROS Class Distribution 807,700 527,570 269,930 Percent of Forest 40% 26% 13% Alt 3 - ROS Class Distribution 792,480 506,520 306,200 Percent of Forest 40% 25% 15% No change from existing Alt 4 - ROS Class Distribution 860,940 484,450 259,810 distribution Percent of Forest 43% 24% 13% Alt 6 - ROS Class Distribution 797,930 525,680 281,590 Percent of Forest 40% 26% 14%

1 Includes ROS classes for Mono Basin Scenic Area. Source: GIS layers derived from LRMP FEIS, p. 415 and the 1989 Mono Basin Scenic Area Plan, p, 39. Acres allocated to the Urban ROS class are outside INF boundaries and are not displayed. 2 Based on Forest land base of 2 million acres. Does not add up to 100% because of lakes, inholdings, and other areas within forest

Recreation Resources – 110 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

boundaries not assigned an ROS class. 3 Based on Forest LRMP ROS data layer. Includes Mono Basin Scenic Area. Does not include lands added to the Inyo National Forest as part of the Nevada Enhancement Act or lands outside the Forest boundary. 4 For the purposes of this comparison, acres of designated wilderness in SPM (34,900 ac), RN (16,600 ac), RM (3,900 ac), and Rural (800 ac) classes were subtracted from those classes and allocated to the Primitive ROS class. Acres of wilderness in the SPNM class (215,200) were not reallocated.

Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR 212.55) In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on recreation opportunities, access needs, and conflict with other Forest visitors were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in all action alternatives. This determination is based on the following: • Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of proposed road and trail additions was used in the development of the alternatives to determine recreation opportunities, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. Importantly, the significant issues, and the recreation-specific concerns identified in this section are analogous to those recreation criteria identified at 36 CFR 212.55(a), as displayed in the following table.

Table 3-30: Crosswalk between Recreation Analysis Indicators and Travel Management Rule Criteria Recreation-Specific Concerns Analogous TM Rule Criteria Measurement Indicators (EIS Section 3.3.4.3) (36 CFR 212.55(a)) • Miles of Road/Motorized Trail Concern #1: Quality and Quantity Provision of Recreation Available for Public Motorized of Motorized Recreation Opportunities Use Opportunity • Loop Touring Opportunity • Access to Recreation Sites Concern #2: Dispersed Recreation Access Needs • Area Greater than One Quarter Opportunities Mile from Roads and Motorized Trails • Miles of Road and Motorized Trail Within ¼ Mile of Developed Recreation Sites, and Miles of Conflict with Other Road and Motorized Trail Within Concern #3: Conflict Visitors to NFS Lands the WUI Defense Zone. • Area Under a Permanent Prohibition Restricting Cross- Country Travel.

Given that the significant issues identified during scoping, and more specifically the recreation- specific concerns identified in this section, are analogous to the recreation criteria identified at 36 CFR 212.55(a), and that these recreation-specific concerns resulted in the development of measurement indicators, the effects on recreation opportunities, access needs, and conflict with other Forest visitors as required by 36 CFR 212.55(a) have been explicitly considered throughout the recreation analysis. As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives were designed to provide different approaches to address the significant issues while still fulfilling the purpose and need for the project. For example, Alternative 3 places greater emphasis on maximizing motorized recreation by adding additional

Recreation Resources – 111

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

unauthorized routes to the NFTS. In contrast, Alternative 4 adds fewer miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, in favor of avoiding existing or potential resource concerns. Information used to develop the alternatives was gained from a variety of sources, including the public, who provided route-specific input about the potential for conflict, the recreational opportunities, and access needs associated with each route. As a result, the range of alternatives considered in this EIS directly address the recreation criteria identified at 36 CFR 212.55(a). In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(b), effects on potential conflict between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed non-motorized recreational uses, including neighboring lands, was considered in the development of trail additions proposed in all action alternatives. The objective was to minimize impacts, as demonstrated by the following: • The action alternatives were developed in an interdisciplinary setting, with the objective of avoiding potential conflict between motor vehicle use and non-motorized recreational use. Information was gained from both Forest Service employees and the public who provided route-specific information. • The Recreation Resource analysis used three measurement indicators to measure the potential for conflict (Section 3.3.4.3): (1) Miles of road and motorized trails within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites; (2) Miles of road and motorized trails within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) defense zone; and (3) Area under a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. The potential for conflict is generally considered to be low in the action alternatives.

3.3.6 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Summary by Alternative This section considers the results of the measurement indicators and provides a summary of the direct and indirect effects of each alternative on the recreation resource. The summary considers the direct and indirect effects of each of the three actions being undertaken: (1) the prohibition of cross- country motorized vehicle travel; (2) the effect of adding unauthorized roads and motorized trails to the NFTS; (3) the effect of changes to the existing NFTS.

3.3.6.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would propose no changes to the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would also propose no additional prohibitions to cross-country motorized travel. With no clearly defined NFTS, motorized recreationists may be confused as to what constitutes an existing route and cross-country travel, and therefore what constitutes motorized use that unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resource. Cross-country motorized travel would still only be allowed in the Poleta Open Area based upon existing direction in the LRMP. Existing unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, although these routes would remain accessible to motorized recreation. As a result, Alternative 1 would provide the most total miles of routes available for motorized recreation. All existing unauthorized routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) would remain accessible in their current condition. All existing loop touring opportunities would remain accessible. For non-motorized recreationists, Alternative 1 would result in the fewest acres of land beyond the immediate influence of roads in any alternative. While providing the most total miles of road available for motorized recreation, the quality and diversity of the Forest’s motorized recreation experience would not change, as Alternative 1 does not

Recreation Resources – 112 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 propose any motorized trails (including 4-wheel drive trail, 50’ ATV trail, or 18’ singletrack). Alternative 1 proposes no changes to either the existing NFTS or currently inventoried unauthorized routes. This may lead to a more homogenous motorized recreation experience, as existing system roads and unauthorized routes will remain available to all vehicle classes, potentially leading to the widening of routes over time. For example, field observations show that where routes start as 18-inch singletrack and are not managed specifically as singletrack, they progressively become wider due to use by ATVs and 4WD vehicles. Alternative 1 would not displace motorized access to any specific developed or dispersed recreation site. In addition, no seasonal closures are proposed by this alternative. Seasonal closures would be limited to existing direction in the LRMP or other management guidance as described in Chapter 2. Alternative 1 would not eliminate any unauthorized routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites or within the WUI defense zone. Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 1, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest. as described above.

3.3.6.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would change the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would supplement existing LRMP direction in that cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited except within the Poleta Open Area. Alternative 2 would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Because this direction already exists in the LRMP and has been enforced through the restrictions prohibiting resource damage, the action of prohibiting cross-country travel with a regulatory prohibition will not have a noticeable effect on motorized recreationists. Alternative 2 would add 929 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Of the action alternatives, only Alternatives 3 and 6 propose adding more miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Alternative 2 modifies 20 miles of existing NFTS road by reclassifying those miles as motorized trail. Only Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 propose reclassifying more miles of existing NFTS road as motorized trail. As most unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS as high clearance roads, Alternative 2 would provide the most miles of route open to all vehicles compared to any other action alternative. The trade-off for motorized recreationists would be the relative lack of motorized trails managed for specific vehicles (i.e. quads or motorcycles) and more technical driving experiences. The quality or diversity of 4-wheel technical driving would not change in Alternative 2, as it does not propose adding 4-wheel drive trail or reclassifying existing Forest System roads as 4-wheel drive trail. Most routes would be open to all vehicles (see Mixed-Use Analysis). In some locations, proposing routes open to all vehicles may directly conflict with the existing predominant motorized use. For example, unauthorized route 02S168 is currently restricted to ATVs and motorcycles and provides an important connection between the Glass Creek Campground area and the Hartley Springs Campground area. Adding 02S168 to the NFTS as open to all vehicles

Recreation Resources – 113

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

would change the character and use of the route, potentially to the detriment of ATV and motorcycle riders. Seasonal closures due to resource concerns (e.g., bighorn sheep) would not significantly impact motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative 2. Existing loop touring opportunities would be reduced, although to a lesser extent than Alternatives 4 and 5. Loop touring based on maps submitted during public comment would be accommodated with minor modifications. Compared to the existing conditions, Alternative 2 would reduce the miles of routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and within the WUI defense zone, although in both measurements less than Alternative 4 or 5. Alternative 2 would not displace motorized access to developed recreation sites. Alternative 2 would reduce existing motorized access to dispersed recreation sites, although to a lesser extent than Alternatives 4 or 5. Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 2, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest as described above.

3.3.6.3 Alternative 3: Maximize Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Alternative 3 would change the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would supplement existing LRMP direction in that cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited except within the Poleta Open Area. Alternative 3 would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Because this direction already exists in the LRMP and has been enforced through the restrictions prohibiting resource damage, the action of restricting cross-country travel with a regulatory prohibition will not have a noticeable effect on motorized recreationists. Alternative 3 would add 1,171 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 proposes adding the most miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Alternative 3 changes the management of 187 miles of existing NFTS road by reclassifying those miles as motorized trail. This represents the reclassification of more miles of existing NFTS road as motorized trail than any other alternative. Compared to Alternative 2, the trade-off for motorized recreationists would be a reduction of roads open to all vehicles in favor of more miles of motorized trail for 4-wheel drive touring, ATVs, and motorcycles. The quality and diversity of technical driving would improve in Alternative 3 as it proposes the most miles of 4-wheel drive trail, 18-inch single track, and 50-inch ATV trail of any action alternative. Typically, these designations reflect the existing route width and vehicle types, so would not change the current uses; rather, it would clarify the continued and future management of these routes as system trails. However, certain system and unauthorized routes may reflect a change from current use types, changing the access from “open to all” vehicles to trail vehicles. Alternative 3 would not displace motorized access to developed recreation sites. Alternative 3 would reduce existing motorized access to dispersed recreation sites, although in terms of total miles, Alternative 3 provides the most motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities among the action alternatives.

Recreation Resources – 114 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Existing loop touring opportunities would be reduced from the existing condition in Alternative 3, although in terms of total miles, the alternative provides the most loop touring opportunity among the action alternatives. Loop touring based on maps submitted during public comment would be accommodated with minor modifications. However, compared to all other action alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the most complex NFTS in terms of mapping and way-finding due to the miles of redundant roads – particularly in the Mammoth West, Mammoth East, Glass Mountain, Casa Diablo, and Mono Lake/June Lake Focus Areas. In these Focus Areas, Alternative 3 proposes the most miles of redundant roads, which in many instances access the same destinations and landscapes, and parallel alternate roads. Compared to the existing conditions, Alternative 3 would reduce the miles of routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and within the WUI defense zone, although in both measurements less than Alternatives 2, 4, 5, or 6. Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 3, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest as described above.

3.3.6.4 Alternative 4: Minimize Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Area Character, Natural Resources, and Cultural Resources Alternative 4 would change the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would supplement existing LRMP direction by prohibiting cross-country travel within the Inyo National Forest, and extend the prohibition to include the Poleta OHV open riding area. In Alternative 4, motorized travel through the Poleta OHV open riding area would be restricted to 8 miles of existing inventoried route. This represents a loss of approximately 1,100 acres of cross-country riding opportunity, thus eliminating cross-country motorized travel within the Inyo National Forest. Alternative 4 would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Alternative 4 would add 694 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This is the second fewest among the action alternatives. However, Alternative 4 proposes reclassifying 159 miles of existing NFTS road as motorized trail, nearly the same mileage as Alternative 6, and only 28 miles less than Alternative 3. The trade-off for motorized recreationists would be an NFTS with reduced total mileage compared to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6, yet a more diverse NFTS due to the addition of motorized trail compared to the existing condition. In general, the difference in miles of road proposed in Alternative 4 compared to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 is largely due to the degree to which redundant routes were eliminated – particularly, in the Mammoth West, Mammoth East, Casa Diablo, Glass Mountain, and Mono Lake/June Lake Focus Areas. In these Focus Areas, Alternative 4 provides similar access to destinations and landscapes as Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6. However, notable changes from the existing condition would occur, including the elimination of the tunnel at Smokey Bear Flat. Alternative 4 would not displace motorized access to developed recreation sites. However, non- highway licensed vehicles would lose connectivity to the June Lake Junction Store because routes

Recreation Resources – 115

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

01S339, 01S162, and 01S163 would not be added to the system. Alternative 4 would reduce existing motorized access to dispersed recreation sites, although to a lesser extent than Alternative 5. Existing loop touring opportunities would be reduced, although to a lesser extent than Alternative 5. Loop touring within IRAs would be greatly reduced, as no unauthorized routes within IRAs would be added to the existing system road network. Loop touring based on maps submitted during public comment would be accommodated with minor or moderate modification. However, the Black Mountain loop would be eliminated due to the closure of the only connection between the Inyo and White Mountain Focus Area. Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 4, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest as described above.

3.3.6.5 Alternative 5: Cross-country Travel Prohibition Only - No Additions to the NFTS Alternative 5 would change the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would supplement existing LRMP direction in that cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited except within the Poleta Open Area. Alternative 5 would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Because this direction already exists in the LRMP and has been enforced through the restrictions prohibiting resource damage, the action of restricting cross-country travel with a regulatory prohibition will not have a noticeable effect on motorized recreationists. No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in Alternative 5. In addition, Alternative 5 does not reclassify any existing NFTS road as motorized trail. As a result, Alternative 5 provides the least motorized recreation opportunity in terms of diversity and miles of route available for motorized use. Alternative 5 does not address identified motorized trail needs, and most roads would be open to all vehicles. For non-motorized recreationists, Alternative 5 would result in the most acres of land beyond the immediate influence of roads. However, the trade-off for non-motorized recreationists would be the distance required to access more desirable dispersed recreation sites due to the closure of unauthorized routes. Motorized access to developed recreation sites and concentrated recreation areas (CRAs) would be maintained in this alternative due to the fact that they are both accessible by county, highway, and existing system roads. However, Alternative 5 would eliminate access for non-highway licensed vehicles to the June Lake Junction Store. In addition, this alternative eliminates all unauthorized routes in CRAs, and has the highest potential to reduce motorized access to dispersed recreation locations in those areas. In addition, Alternative 5 also has the highest potential to eliminate motorized access to dispersed recreation locations outside of CRAs due to the elimination of all unauthorized routes. Alternative 5 considerably reduces opportunities for motorized exploration and dispersal. It would restrict motorized access to dispersed campsites to within one vehicle length of existing system roads, likely diminishing the ability to experience solitude for those seeking dispersed campsites via motorized vehicles. Alternative 5 provides the fewest opportunities for loop touring as this alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the existing baseline network of roads. This alternative would eliminate

Recreation Resources – 116 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the tunnel crossing at Smokey Bear Flat and the tunnel crossing north of the June Lake Junction Store at the terminus of Forest road 01S152. Loop touring based on maps submitted during public comment would be accommodated with minor or moderate modification. However, the Hartley, Crater, and Black Mountain Loops would be eliminated due to the non-designation of key connectors. Alternative 5 would result in the greatest reduction of miles of route within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and within the WUI defense zone. Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 5, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 5 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest as described above.

3.3.6.6 Alternative 6: Modified Proposed Action Alternative 6 would change the NFTS as described in Chapter 2. In general, Alternative 6 builds on the NFTS proposed in Alternative 2 by proposing additional routes in IRAs as motorized trails, adding key connectors in the general forested area, and reclassifying more system roads as motorized trails. Alternative 6 would supplement existing LRMP direction in that cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited except within the Poleta Open Area. Alternative 6 would result in a clearly defined NFTS and would resolve confusion as to what constitutes cross-country travel. Alternative 6 would add 1,005 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Of the action alternatives, only Alternative 3 proposes adding more miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. Alternative 6 modifies 173 miles of existing NFTS road by reclassifying those miles as motorized trail. Only Alternative 3 proposes reclassifying more miles of existing NFTS road as motorized trail. Compared to Alternative 2, there would be a reduction of roads open to all vehicles and 50-inch ATV trails in favor of more 4-wheel drive trails and a slight increase in 18–inch singletrack. The quality and diversity of technical driving would improve in Alternative 6, as the NFTS would include a total of 328 miles of 4-wheel drive trail, 18-inch singletrack, and 50-inch ATV trail. Only Alternative 3 proposes more total miles of motorized trail. In some locations, adding routes to the NFTS as motorized trail may directly conflict with existing motorized use and result in a reduction of miles open to all vehicles. Alternative 6 would not displace motorized access to developed recreation sites. Alternative 6 would reduce existing motorized access to dispersed recreation sites in CRAs. However, in terms of total miles, only Alternative 3 provides more motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities among the action alternatives. Existing loop touring opportunities would be reduced from the existing condition in Alternative 6, although in terms of total miles, only Alternative 3 provides more miles of loop touring opportunity among the action alternatives. Loop touring based on maps submitted during public comment would be accommodated with minor modifications. Compared to the existing conditions, Alternative 6 would reduce the miles of routes within ¼ mile of developed recreation sites and within the WUI defense zone, although in both areas less than Alternatives 2, 4, or 5.

Recreation Resources – 117

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Considering potential cumulative effects, no project listed on the Forest’s PFFA summary, in combination with Alternative 6, would have a measurable additive effect on motorized recreation on the Inyo National Forest. Rather, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 6 are likely to influence future recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest as described above.

Recreation Resources – 118 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.4 Visual Resources

3.4.1 Introduction This section of the Motorized Travel Management environmental analysis compares the effects of the six alternative transportation systems on the visual resource of the Inyo National Forest. It examines the extent to which the alternatives respond to public concerns about aesthetic values on the Forest, as well as visual resources management direction established in the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); the 1989 Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area; and the Travel Management (TM) Rule. The LRMP visual resources direction was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). In the development of the Inyo National Forest’s LRMP, the Forest’s visual resources were inventoried to determine the landscape’s scenic attractiveness (Variety Class inventory) and the public’s visual expectations (Sensitivity Level inventory). Based upon these inventories, Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) were established for all forest land areas. The VQOs establish minimum acceptable thresholds for future landscape alterations from an otherwise natural-appearing forest landscape. For example, areas with a Retention VQO are expected to retain a natural appearance in the future; areas with a Partial Retention VQO may have some alterations, but they remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape; and areas with a Modification VQO can have alterations that do not appear natural. Roads and trails create linear alterations in landscapes that can be mitigated through sound design. Unmitigated, they present uncharacteristic line qualities in forest landscapes. Landscapes with a dense canopy cover have the capability of masking these linear alterations; sparsely covered landscapes have less capability. The proliferation of unauthorized routes, particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, can adversely affect the Forest’s visual resources.

3.4.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects visual resources includes: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required the inventory and evaluation of the forest’s visual resource, addressing the landscape’s visual attractiveness and the public’s visual expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive lands areas of the forest are to include Visual Quality Objectives.

Travel Management Rule (TM) The TM Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the designation of trails or areas, the responsible official shall consider effects on forest resources, with the objective of minimizing effects of motor vehicle use.

Visual Resources – 119 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) No specific direction related to visual resources in the Final Supplemental ROD.

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; 1988) The LRMP contains forestwide management direction in the form of Visual Quality Objectives as well as specific direction for visual resources within certain management areas and prescriptions. Forestwide visual standards and guidelines in the LRMP and CMP pertinent to the analysis for Motorized Travel Management include: 1. Obtain the Forest Supervisor's approval through the environmental analysis process for any deviations from VQOs assigned in prescriptions. 2. Maintain foregrounds and middlegrounds of the scenic corridors of the following travel routes to Retention and/or Partial Retention VQOs as inventoried, but not less than Partial Retention. Highways officially designated by the state as California State and County Scenic Highways and California State Scenic Highway System routes as designated in the September 1970 Master Plan. These highways include: Highway 395; Highway 168; Highway 203; Highway 158; and Highway 120 West from Highway 395 to Tioga Pass. 3. Meet the retention VQO in all foreground zones of other Sensitivity Level 1 roads and trails.

Other LRMP standards for visuals, such as those related to VQOs in concentrated recreation areas, rehabilitation of visual condition, or placement of new overhead powerlines, are not pertinent to the current proposal and will not be considered further. The table below lists the highway corridors on the Inyo National Forest that have visual management prescriptions as described in the visual standards and guidelines in the LRMP and Mono Basin CMP. These highway corridors are defined as key viewsheds for the purpose of this analysis.

Table 3-31: Highway Corridors on the INF with Visual Management Prescriptions Highway Corridor Route Number Designation Highway 395 – Mono County 01S66-US395 CA Designated Scenic Byway CA Designated and Nominated Scenic Highway 395 – Inyo County 01S66-US395 Byway Highway 168 west (Highway 395 to South O8S10-CA168W CA Designated Scenic Byway Lake) Highway 168 east (Highway 395 to Nevada O8S10-CA168E CA Designated Scenic Byway Border) Highway 203 03S44-HWY203 CA Nominated Scenic Byway Highway 158 CA158 CA Nominated Scenic Byway Lee Vining Canyon Scenic Byway (Highway CA Nominated Scenic Byway 120 west) 01S27-CA120W FS Designated Scenic Byway

FS Designated Scenic Byway Ancient Bristlecone Scenic Byway 04S01 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Highway 120 east (395 to Benton) 01S27-CA120E Sensitivity Level 1 Road

Visual Resources – 120 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Highway Corridor Route Number Designation Highway 167 02N28-CA167 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Lundy Canyon 02N01 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Cemetery Road (395 to County Park) 02N04 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Walker Canyon Concentrated Recreation Area 01N19 Sensitivity Level 1 Road 02S05/02S07 - Deadman Creek Concentrated Recreation Area Sensitivity Level 1 Road portions Lakes Basin Road 03S10 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Convict Lake Road 04S07 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Hot Creek Road 03S45 Sensitivity Level 1 Road McGee Creek Road 04S06 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Rock Creek Road 04S162 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Pine Creek Road 06S17 Sensitivity Level 1 Road South Lake Road 08S01 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Glacier Lodge Road 09S21 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Oak Creek Road 13S04 - portion Sensitivity Level 1 Road Onion Valley Road 13S17 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Mt. Whitney Road 15S07 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Last Chance Meadow Road 16S02 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Horseshoe Meadow Road 20S03 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Death Valley Road 09S18 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Saline Valley Road 09S01 Sensitivity Level 1 Road

With few exceptions, most of these roads are entirely within the Retention VQO. The following roads also pass through Partial Retention and Modification VQOs: • Highway 168 West – Partial Retention VQO (~1 mile) • Highway 203 – Partial Retention VQO (~3.5 miles) • Ancient Bristle Cone Scenic Byway – Partial Retention VQO (~ 3 miles) • Lakes Basin Road – Partial Retention VQO (~ 1 mile) • Death Valley Road – Partial Retention VQO (~ 2 miles) • Saline Valley Road – Partial Retention VQO (~4.75 miles) and Modification VQO (1.25 miles)

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (1989) The CMP contains management direction in the form of Visual Quality Objectives and specific management area direction for visual resources within the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area.

Visual Resources – 121

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act of 1988 This act transferred lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Forest Service. Lands within these areas are administered under the BLM resource management plans (RMP) in place at the time the lands were transferred until the Inyo LRMP is revised to include direction for these areas. The RMPs contains area-wide management direction in the form of Visual Resource Management objectives (classes) and specific management area direction for visual resources. The applicable RMPs include: • Tonopah Resource Area Management Framework Plan, BLM Tonopah Resource Area (1981). • Walker Resource Management Plan, BLM Carson City District (1986).

3.4.3 Affected Environment Virtually the entire Forest landscape has evolved during the last five million years, with a significant portion resulting from volcanic activity during the last 0.75 million years. Large-scale uplift and faulting, glaciations, and volcanic activity have dominated the recent geologic history of the Forest. These recent geologic processes have created a distinct landscape of 10,000 foot escarpments, mountain vistas, deep valleys, mountain canyons, volcanic landscapes, and glacial lakes. The quality of the Inyo National Forest’s scenic resources can be described as distinctive (44%), common (48 %), and minimal variety (8%) (LRMP FEIS, 1988). The public’s expectations for scenic quality are measured by sensitivity levels, which reflect people’s concern for the scenic quality of a landscape. The public’s expectations for the Forest are high, as 76% of the INF is classified at the highest sensitivity level with a moderate capacity to screen land-disturbing activities such as roads (FEIS, 1988). The primary access route to the Inyo National Forest is Highway 395, a designated and nominated Scenic Highway that traverses the Owens Valley and runs the length of the Eastern Sierra. Designated and nominated scenic highways, as well as Sensitivity Level 1 system roads, have higher visual quality standards in the LMRP for the immediate foreground (0 – 300 feet), foreground (300 feet – ½ mile) ,and middleground viewing zones (300 feet - 4 miles). More than half of the key view sheds identified in this analysis are pristine and natural in appearance with few to no routes or other alterations beyond the designated scenic byway/Sensitivity Level 1 road. The remainder of the key viewsheds shows varying levels of human-made alterations, including system roads and unauthorized routes. The views from these scenic byway/Sensitivity Level 1 roads include system and unauthorized roads, roads on BLM and private land, homes and communities, ski areas, power lines and utilities, and other recreational developments. Before visual management direction was established in the LRMP and CMP, roads were typically built to follow the most direct route and may have incorporated uncharacteristic line qualities such as switchbacks, routes perpendicular to contour, and long straight linear alignments sometimes many miles in length. While the visual quality of the Highway 395 Scenic Corridor and other scenic byways is in general high, there are historical travel routes within the corridor that predate the Forest Plan and the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) assigned to the landscape at the time.

Visual Resources – 122 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Some of these pre-existing system roads may not actually be consistent with the assigned VQO, since VQOs were intended to set the maximum levels of future alteration of a landscape (LRMP Glossary, p. 290). For example, some switchback roads are highly visible from the Highway 395 Scenic Corridor and create linear alterations in the landscape that are uncharacteristic visual alterations of the Sierra landscape. Along the Sierra Escarpment examples include Forest Service system roads 04S48 (Laurel Mountain) and 16S02 (Last Chance Meadow). Unauthorized routes are typically secondary routes that branch off of existing system roads. While many of these routes predate the forest plan, they are considered unauthorized and have never been formally evaluated for inclusion in the transportation system. Forest Supervisor approval is required if adding an unauthorized route to the system would result in a deviation from the VQO assigned to the area (LRMP, p. 93). Forestwide, one third of the 1,695 miles of existing unauthorized routes are within Forest and Pinyon Woodland vegetation types, and the visual effects of these routes are minimal to nonexistent. This vegetation screening limits the visibility of these routes from key viewsheds. In the sparsely vegetated landscape such as the open, shrub, and desert shrub plant guilds, the unauthorized routes may be more visible in the steeper topography in the foreground and middleground viewing zones. There are seven Off Route Travel Concern Areas (ORTCAs) in Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. Four of the ORTCAs are within identified key viewsheds of Highway 395, Highway 120 East, and Horseshoe Meadow Road (FS 20S03). There are numerous routes within these ORTCAs, many of which are visible in the immediate foreground and foreground viewing zones. The other three ORTCAs are in either Forest or Shrub/Desert Shrub landscapes and not visible from a key viewshed.

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences The visual effects of roads and motorized trails are described from the viewpoint of the casual observer traveling within a vehicle or hiking along a trail. The type of visual experience differs whether the landscape is viewed from a motorized or non-motorized mode of travel (walking, hiking, skiing), or from a fixed viewpoint such as an overlook. The speed of the traveler also has a direct relationship to the visual perception of the landscape. The ability to identify and discern individual objects, and their relationship to the whole, become more difficult the faster you travel. Deviations from the natural landscape are hard to discern while driving in a car at 65 mph. Those same deviations for a hiker on a trail become very evident because the viewing period increases dramatically. The six proposed alternatives have the potential to affect the visual resource at the Forest scale. In general, the more routes that are available for public motorized travel the greater the impact to visual resources and the forest visitor’s perception of the natural landscape. Conversely, when unauthorized routes are not added to the NFTS they will naturally rehabilitate over time and visual resources at the Forest scale will improve.

3.4.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology Agriculture Handbook Number 434 (USDA Forest Service, 1973) and Agriculture Handbook Number 701 (USDA Forest Service, 1995) describes the basic landscape management concepts used

Visual Resources – 123

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

by the Forest Service for the management of visual resources. The basic visual terminology used to describe landscape character includes form, line, color, and texture. For classification, analysis, and inventory of the visual resource landscape viewing is identified by the distance zones of immediate foreground (0 – 300 feet), foreground (300’ to ½ mile), middleground (½ – 4 miles), and background (4 miles to horizon). Agriculture Handbook Number 462 (USDA Forest Service, 1974) provides a description of the VQOs used for the visual management of lands administered by the Inyo National Forest: • Preservation – Only allows for ecological changes and all other management activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited. • Retention – Provides for management activities that are not visually evident and landscape character appears unaltered with only minimal deviations. Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should not be evident. • Partial Retention – Provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate to the landscape and landscape character may appear slightly altered. Activities may repeat form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape but still remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. • Modification – Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. Activities such as roads should borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely and at such scale that its visual characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings.

Roads and trails are linear alterations of the landscape. The roads and trails that are composed primarily of straight lines and few curves create a strong visual contrast with the landscape. Examples of uncharacteristic line qualities that may not meet visual quality objectives include switch backs, routes perpendicular to contour, and long straight linear alignments sometimes many miles in length. Roads that meet visual quality objectives typically have meandering curves, follow topography, require a minimum of cut and fill, and preserve natural features. Roads that may have one or more uncharacteristic line qualities may still meet assigned VQOs depending on whether the routes are screened from view by topography or vegetation and the routes ability to meet the form, line, color, and texture of the adjacent landscape. A switch back route located in a heavily forested area will have less visual impact than a switch back route located on the Sierra escarpment visible for long distances. The site-specific analysis of individual routes proposed for addition in each alternative was conducted using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and the methodology is described below: • The route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management were used to develop a geographic database of all inventoried routes on the Forest.

Visual Resources – 124 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• The geographic database for vegetation types was used to identify the spatial boundaries of forested areas on the Forest. Forested areas include all areas identified as Pinyon woodland and Forested in the vegetation type geodatabase. Routes within forested areas were excluded from analysis and are assumed to meet assigned VQOs. Routes within forest cover in Partial Retention and Retention VQOs are screened from viewing from other routes and viewing points. • All remaining routes outside of forested areas and within the Partial Retention and Retention VQO were identified. Routes within these VQOs have the greatest potential to create uncharacteristic line qualities that do not appear natural. • All unauthorized routes (and system roads for cumulative effects) outside of forested areas and within the Partial Retention VQOs were analyzed using the following screening criteria to identify potential visual concerns: 1. Routes with one or more switchbacks (highest sensitivity). 2. Routes perpendicular to contour (90 degrees +/- 15 degrees). 3. Routes on slopes greater than 20%. 4. Routes on open slopes visible to Level 1 sensitivity roads. 5. Routes forming straight lines greater than 1 mile in length (lowest sensitivity). • The routes were analyzed using the geographic information system (GIS) software. The system roads and unauthorized routes were displayed over a base file consisting of a contour map showing slope gradients in five percent increments, VQO geodatabase, and sensitive plant guilds geodatabase. The routes were examined on a systematic process to identify which roads met the selected screening criteria. • The Forest LMRP was used to determine which visual resources had a higher priority for resource protection and were analyzed in using the following hierarchy: 1. Key viewsheds of nominated and designated Scenic Byways. 2. Key viewsheds of Sensitivity Level 1 roads. 3. All remaining areas with Partial Retention and Retention VQO. • The routes which met one or more of the visual concern screening criteria were ranked from the highest sensitivity (switch backs) to the lowest sensitivity (straight routes >1/2 mile). Routes that did not meet the screening criteria are likely to meet assigned VQOs. The effects of adding these routes to the NFTS system are assumed to be minimal. • Field visits were completed of all routes that did not meet the screening criteria by Forest Service personnel with a Landscape Architecture degree or education. Field visits were necessary because the GIS analysis is a two dimensional analysis. A field visit identifies the visibility of the route as seen from the travel way or view point, whether its screened by topography or vegetation, and the effects to landscape character from the form, line, color, and texture of the route. Field visits were not completed for some routes that did not meet the screening criteria if personnel had previously visited the route.

Visual Resources – 125

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• If a route did not meet the assigned VQO, the route could be included in an alternative through development of site-specific mitigations to reduce the visual effects to less than adverse.

Measurement Indicators The forest level analysis used GIS data to evaluate the visual impacts of adding routes in the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs using the following measurement indicators: 1. The miles of unauthorized routes within Off-Road Travel Concern Areas (ORTCAs) not added to the NFTS. 2. Miles of routes available for public motorized use within Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. 3. Miles of unauthorized routes not available for motorized use (motorized use prohibited in action alternatives) within the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. 4. Degree of alteration of form, line, color, and texture within key viewsheds of nominated and designated Scenic Byways and Sensitivity Level 1 roads.

These indicators are designed to determine whether the NFTS additions affect the form, line, color, and texture of the landscape for each alternative and meet the assigned VQOs. At the forest scale, there are long-term beneficial effects to visual resources when unauthorized routes are closed to public motorized use. Revegetation of individual road prisms and decreasing the density of the route network will enhance the natural appearance of the landscape and reduce the contrast between the road bed and the surrounding landscape. The visual effects from viewing the routes from other routes and user areas would be improved.

Assumptions specific to visual resources analysis: 1. The Retention and Partial Retention VQOs were selected as the spatial boundary and measurement indicators because routes in these VQOs have the greatest potential to create uncharacteristic line qualities that do not appear natural. The Modification and Maximum Modification VQOs are not analyzed because these VQOs allow for alterations such as roads that do not appear natural. 2. The Preservation VQO is not addressed since there are no proposed additions to the NFTS within these areas. 3. Existing natural and human-made features were considered when VQOs were assigned to the landscape during the development of the Forest Plan. Since VQOs set the maximum levels of future alteration of a landscape (LRMP Glossary, p. 290), some areas include pre-existing features, such as roads and trails, which may not meet the assigned VQOs. 4. Routes added to the NFTS as ATV trails and motorcycle trails will have less visual impact than low standard roads due to their narrower tread width. However, due to the limited mileage of ATV and motorized trails proposed for the alternatives, measurable differences in effects on VQOs are not expected. However, changing existing NFTS roads to NFTS ATV and motorcycle trails would not affect visual resources because there would be no on-the-

Visual Resources – 126 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

ground change in route condition as a result of this action. That is, the NFTS “roads” proposed for vehicle class changes already have the narrow tread width and other physical characteristics of ATV and motorcycle trails. 5. The LRMP standard and guideline to maintain or enhance the size/diversity of riparian zones, aspen stands, meadows, and alpine tundra visible from Sensitivity Level 1 and 2 roads and trails are not considered in this analysis. This requirement is met with botany and watershed standard and guidelines and is not reviewed as part of the visual analysis. 6. The LRMP standard and guidelines for the Mono Basin CMP supersede the Retention VQO identified in the Visual Resource Map in the Forest Plan. The CMP for the Mono Basin has established a Partial Retention VQO for the general use zone and no less than Partial Retention in the development zone. The limited development and no development zones have a VQO of Retention. 7. Sensitivity Level 1 roads are defined as all roads classified as scenic highways; roads leading directly to major areas of interest such as National Parks, wilderness, major recreation composites; historic sites, botanical sites, etc (USDA Forest Service, 1974, p. 19). In this analysis, concentrated recreation areas defined in the LRMP are equivalent to major recreation composites. Historic sites and botanical sites are not reviewed in this analysis. 8. The Scenic Byways and Sensitivity Level 1 roads are composite viewsheds. A composite viewshed is a continuous linear sequence of viewpoints along a road or a network of viewpoints surrounding a road (US Department of Transportation, FHA, 1988. p. 27). The composite viewsheds of the scenic byways and Sensitivity Level 1 roads are identified as key viewsheds for this analysis. 9. The following LRMP standards are not pertinent to the current proposal and will not be considered further: a. Meet the retention VQO in all foreground zones for individual recreation sites and concentrated recreation areas: The actions proposed by the alternatives (i.e., changes to the transportation system) have no effect on the visual condition of recreation sites and concentrated recreation areas. b. Rehabilitate and/or enhance current visual resources when implementing projects, where the existing visual condition fails to meet the assigned VQO; or where the existing visual condition is monotonous: This standard is not pertinent to the analysis because all routes considered in the alternatives meet the assigned VQO. c. Do not allow new overhead lines outside of existing utility corridors, which are visible from sensitivity level 1 roads and trails: The alternatives propose changes to the transportation system, including the addition of roads and motorized trails. New overhead lines are not proposed.

Data Sources The following data sources were used to define the spatial boundary for the effects analysis identifies routes with possible visual impacts, and to evaluate the intensity and severity of those effects:

Visual Resources – 127

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

1. LRMP and CMP maps and management direction for distribution of Partial Retention and Partial Retention VQOs across the Forest and identification of key viewsheds. 2. California Scenic Highway Mapping System (CA Department of Transportation, 2008) to identify all highways within the Forest boundary designated by the state as California State or County Scenic Highways. The LRMP includes specific management direction for foregrounds and middlegrounds of designated Scenic Highways (LRMP, p. 94). 3. 2003 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report to determine the popularity of viewing scenery or driving for pleasure on the Forest. 4. Route-specific visual information and visual surveys were completed in 2008 by Forest Service personnel trained in Landscape Architecture. 5. Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data sets. 6. GIS layers and associated tabular data sets of the following data: routes, plant guilds, and VQOs.

Visual Resources Methodology by Action 1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. In general, attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. However, seven Off Route Travel Concern Area (ORTCA) have been identified on the Forest. These areas have documented histories of repeated cross-country travel where the prohibition on cross-country travel is difficult to enforce. It is impossible to quantify unauthorized cross-country travel use outside of identified ORTCAs so all other areas are excluded from this analysis. Short-term timeframe: 1 year Long-term timeframe: 20 years, the approximate length of time for natural rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Spatial boundary: The Inyo National Forest lands within identified ORTCAs with VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention. Indicator(s): The miles of unauthorized routes within ORTCAs that are not added to the NFTS. Methodology: GIS analysis of routes in ORTCAs in Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. Rationale: Sparsely vegetated landscapes dominated by shrub, desert shrub, alkali flat, carbonate, riparian, alpine, and open sensitive plant guilds (everything outside of Forest and Pinyon woodland guilds) have much less of an ability to screen the effects of cross-country travel routes. ORTCAs in these landscapes are identified as areas of continued unauthorized cross-country travel. The closure of routes within ORTCAs should lead to an improvement of visual resources.

Visual Resources – 128 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the NFTS. Short-term timeframe: 1 year Long-term timeframe: 20 years, the approximate length of time for natural rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Spatial boundary: The Inyo National Forest lands designated in the LRMP with VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention. Indicator(s): (1) Miles of presently unauthorized routes available for public motorized use within Retention and Partial Retention VQOs; (2) Miles of unauthorized routes not available for motorized use (motorized use prohibited in action alternatives) within the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs; and (3) Degree of alteration of form, line, color, and texture within key viewsheds of nominated and designated Scenic Byways and Sensitivity Level 1 roads. Methodology: GIS analysis of proposed routes to NFTS in relation to Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. Rationale: At the forest scale there are long-term beneficial effects to visual resources when unauthorized routes are closed to public motorized use. Increasing the number of open routes as measured against the No Action alternative will lead to a general trend of decreasing the quality of visual resources as measured in the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. Any increase in the number of closed routes as measured against the No Action alternative will lead to a general trend of improving visual resources in the foreground view zone of these key view sheds and areas with a Retention and Partial Retention VQO.

3. Changes to vehicle class and season of use on existing NFTS roads. Changing existing NFTS roads to NFTS ATV and motorcycle trails would not affect visual resources because there would be no on-the-ground change in route condition as a result of this action. That is, the NFTS “roads” proposed for vehicle class changes already have the narrow tread width and other physical characteristics of ATV and motorcycle trails. There are no other changes proposed to the existing NFTS under any of the alternatives likely to affect visual resources, therefore, this action will not be discussed further in this analysis.

4. Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term time frame. Long-term timeframe: 20 years, the approximate length of time for natural rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Spatial boundary: The cumulative effects area includes federal and private lands in California and Nevada, between and bounded by: Inyo National Forest boundary on the west;

Visual Resources – 129

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Inyo National Forest boundary and Highway 167 on the north; Highways 203-Highway 264-Highway 3A-Highway 168-Inyo National Forest boundary on the east (White Mountains); Death Valley National Park boundary on the east (Inyo Mountains); All lands north of Owens Lake. All federal wilderness areas are excluded from the cumulative effects analysis because motorized use is prohibited and none of the alternatives would directly or indirectly affect the visual quality within these areas. A detailed cumulative effects map is included in the Project Record. Indicator(s): Degree of alteration of form, line, color, and texture caused by present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. Methodology: All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were catalogued with estimates of total acreage and/or miles of proposed disturbance (available in project record). The information was presented in an inventory spreadsheet to allow for sorting by categories of actions. All of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were reviewed to determine which categories of activities contribute the same type of impacts to visual resources as motorized routes. Alteration of form, line, color, and texture for each selected category of actions were qualitatively compared against alterations resulting from proposed additions to the NFTS in all alternatives. Compliance with the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs for each selected category was determined. Rationale: The selected boundaries generally define the topographic viewsheds of Owens Valley and the west side of Fish Lake Valley. Any proposed projects outside the defined boundary are outside of these large topographic viewsheds, and would not contribute additive or cumulative effects to visual resources because the potential impacts to visual resource because there are no direct or indirect effects to the proposed action. Road closures proposed on the Toiyabe National Forest are within different topographic viewsheds and have no physical link to the topographic view sheds of the Inyo National Forest.

3.4.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives The unauthorized routes proposed for inclusion in the NFTS are compatible with the natural surroundings because they borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture. Most have native surfacing, follow natural contours, have minimum cut and fill, and preserve natural features. These characteristics make unauthorized routes consistent with the Modification VQO, which allows alterations, such as roads, trails, and open areas, to visually dominate the characteristic landscape. As a result, adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS will have no measurable effect on visual quality within areas assigned a Modification VQO. Unauthorized routes within Modification VQO will not be considered further in this analysis. Landscape alteration resulting from continued cross-country travel in the NFTS Poleta Open Area is consistent with the Modification VQO assigned to the area because these cross-county routes may visually dominate the landscape. Under the no action alternative, there are approximately twice as many miles of unauthorized routes in Partial Retention VQOs than Retention VQOs. This same ratio applies to each of the alternatives.

Visual Resources – 130 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-32: Miles of Routes and Measurement Indicator by Alternative Number Miles Proposed Route Type in NFTS Indicators – Visual Resources Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Routes Available for Public Motorized Use 982 511 691 372 0 565 within the Partial Retention VQOs Miles of Routes Available for Public Motorized Use 467 276 326 216 0 290 within the Retention VQOs Total Miles within the Partial Retention and 1,449 787 1,017 588 0 855 Retention VQOs

Miles of Unauthorized Routes Not Available for Public 19 490 310 629 1,001 436 Motorized Use within the Partial Retention VQOs Miles of Unauthorized Routes Not Available for Public 12 203 153 263 479 189 Motorized Use within the Retention VQOs Total Miles within the Partial Retention and 31 693 463 892 1,480 625 Retention VQOs

Because there are few to no unauthorized routes within the following key viewsheds, there are no effects to visual resources in any alternative for the addition or closure of unauthorized routes. These viewsheds will not be considered further in this analysis.

Table 3-33: Viewsheds Not Considered in this Analysis Highway Corridor Route Number Designation Lee Vining Canyon Scenic Byway (Highway 120 CA Nominated and FS Designated 01S27-CA120W west) Scenic Byway Lundy Canyon 02N01 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Cemetery Road (395 to County Park) 02N04 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Walker Canyon Concentrated Recreation Area 01N19 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Lakes Basin Road 03S10 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Convict Lake Road 04S07 Sensitivity Level 1 Road McGee Creek Road 04S06 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Rock Creek Road 04S162 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Pine Creek Road 06S17 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Glacier Lodge Road 09S21 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Onion Valley Road 13S17 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Mt. Whitney Road 15S07 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Last Chance Meadow Road 16S02 Sensitivity Level 1 Road Horseshoe Meadow Road 20S03 Sensitivity Level 1 Road

In July 2007, the Oak Creek Fire burned approximately 39,000 acres of Forest, BLM, and private land west of the town of Independence. In July 2008, a massive mudflow affected the Oak Creek Road (13S04 portion) and surrounding Concentrated Recreation Area. The mudflow destroyed a campground, damaged system and unauthorized routes, and covered the landscape with rock and mud debris. The fire and mudflow drastically changed the landscape within the Concentrated Recreation Area but had no significant effect to visual resources. After the mudflow, this area was almost identical in color to the surrounding, unaffected landscape. The unauthorized routes, even ones that

Visual Resources – 131

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

were buried by the mudflow, were not significantly affected as viewed from Oak Creek Road or the Highway 395 Scenic Byway and all proposed additions to the NFTS meet the assigned VQOs in all alternatives. Unauthorized routes that do not meet the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs in the existing condition are not proposed to be added to the NFTS system in any of the action alternatives. The remaining routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in the action alternatives meet the minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations according to the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs assigned for their individual viewsheds. The proposed additions are either not visible or the additions are visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. The action alternatives meet the route specific requirement for compliance with Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. At the forest scale, there are long-term beneficial effects to visual resources when unauthorized routes are closed to public motorized use. Passive restoration of unauthorized route prisms as well as decreasing the density of the route network will enhance the natural appearance of the landscape and reduce the contrast between the road bed and the surrounding landscape. When viewed from other routes and user areas, the visual effects of the landscape would be improved. Since the action alternatives do not identify whether unauthorized routes will be decommissioned or converted to other uses, this analysis cannot determine whether or not closing the unauthorized routes to motorized use within any of the viewsheds will improve the assigned VQOs (i.e., cause a change from Partial Retention to Retention or from Modification to Partial Retention). However, natural revegetation or decommissioning would gradually reduce evidence of human activity and enhance the natural appearance of the landscape, resulting in a general improvement of visual resources at the forest scale.

3.4.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects to Visual Resources for the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel

Effects of Alternative 1 The temporary Forest Order currently in place prohibits the possession or use of a motorized vehicle off National Forest System roads, except for the unauthorized routes and Poleta open OHV area shown on the maps attached to the Order. The temporary Order will expire in June 2010; no permanent prohibition on cross-country travel will be in place after that time. It is currently prohibited for drivers to operate vehicles off NFTS roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15(h)). Because allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate using this prohibition, current difficulties associated with prosecuting users for traveling cross-country would continue under Alternative 1. Attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. Known exceptions to this assumption are the seven areas referred to as Off Road Travel Concern Areas, or ORTCAs, described in more detail above. Although they would have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities, public motorized use of all existing unauthorized routes in ORTCAs would continue under the no action alternative. Public access would remain at current levels, and current problems with cross-country travel are expected to continue. Continued use in the Mono Craters, Crestview, Smokey Bear, and Monache Dunes ORTCAs would have the greatest effect to the foreground

Visual Resources – 132 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 viewing zone of the key view sheds of Highway 395, Highway 120 East, and Horseshoe Meadow Road (FS 20S03). The remaining ORTCAs are within forest cover outside of key viewsheds. Continued cross-country use in these areas may result in localized impacts to visual resources but will not be visible from key viewsheds. Closure of unauthorized routes in ORTCAs should reduce the potential for the creation of new cross-country travel routes. Forestwide, cross-country travel in sparsely vegetated terrain would be particularly visible and would have a negative effect on visual resources through the introduction of uncharacteristic line quality to the landscape. Over the long- term timeframe, the public would notice increased impacts to visual resources from cross-country travel.

Effects of Alternative 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 With the selection of any of these alternatives, cross-country travel (including travel on any routes not added to the NFTS) would be prohibited forestwide. This should result in a positive effect on visual resources because new unauthorized routes would not be created and existing routes not added to the NFTS would gradually revegetate. Within the seven identified ORTCAs, the visual quality of the Crestview ORTCA (within the immediate foreground and foreground viewing zones of the Highway 395 Scenic Byway) should see an improvement in all action alternatives, especially in Alternatives 5 and 4. With the exception of the Monache Dunes ORTCA, all of the remaining ORTCAs will see an improvement in visual quality in all action alternatives.

Table 3-34: Number of Existing Unauthorized Routes Not Available for Motorized Use within Off Road Travel Concern Areas (ORTCAs) Number of Routes Not Available for Motorized Use in Off Road Travel Concern Area (ORTCA) Identified ORTCAs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Mono Craters (19 routes) 0 15 14 15 22 14 Smokey Bear Flat (11 routes) 2 7 7 7 8 7 Crestview (25 routes) 0 6 5 11 23 5 Deadman South (8 routes) 0 1 0 1 8 1 Crater Flat (28 routes) 7 36 33 37 42 36 Monache Dunes (4 routes) 0 1 1 1 1 1 Wheeler Ridge (2 routes) 1 3 2 3 3 2 Total Number of Routes within ORTCAs 10 69 62 75 106 66 Not Available for Public Motorized Use

3.4.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects to Visual Resources for Adding or Removing Facilities to the NFTS

Effects of Alternative 1 In the No Action Alternative, 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes would remain in place but would not be added to the NFTS. Approximately 6.5 miles of these unauthorized routes do not meet

Visual Resources – 133

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

established Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. These routes were identified in the site specific route analysis and typically did not meet one of the five screening criteria, were not screened by topography or vegetation, and occurred in a key view shed. Approximately 5 miles of these routes are in the Highway 395 and Highway 168W Scenic Byways, closed in all other alternatives, and would continue to have a negative effect to these key viewsheds. This alternative does not meet the VQOs for Partial Retention and Retention for the Highway 395 and Highway 168W Scenic Byways. The continued use of the remaining unauthorized routes would not affect visual resources on a route by route basis. However, while these routes meet the minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations in Partial Retention and Retention VQOs individually, the overall route density tends to detract from the foreground and middleground viewing of the landscape at the Forest scale. Maintaining the ‘status quo’ over the long-term time frame (20 years) would not improve visual conditions on the Forest because no permanent forest order prohibiting cross-country travel would be implemented and there would be no revegetation of any unauthorized routes (except for those routes which receive very low to no motorized use in the future). This alternative will have a negative effect to visual resources over the long-term time frame.

Effects of Alternatives 2 and 6 A total of 855 miles (Alternative 6) and 787 miles (Alternative 2) of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS within designated Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. All routes meet assigned VQOs. Motorized vehicle travel would be prohibited on 625 miles in Alternative 6 and 693 miles in Alternative 2. This represents 38% and 47%, respectively, of the unauthorized routes within the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. These two alternatives meet the visual quality objectives for Partial Retention and Retention for the short-term timeframe for individual viewsheds. Both alternatives have a positive effect on visual resources for the long-term timeframe when unauthorized routes are closed to motorized use. Within the key viewsheds, there will be some incremental improvement to visual resources through the elimination of route intersections in the foreground viewing zones and the more visible routes in the open, shrub, and desert shrub guilds.

Effects of Alternative 3 A total of 1,017 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS within designated Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. All routes meet assigned VQOs. A total of 463 miles, or 31% of the unauthorized routes, would be closed to motorized use in the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. This alternative meets the visual quality objectives for Partial Retention and Retention short-term timeframe for individual viewsheds. This alternative closes the smallest number or routes of any of the alternatives, and has a much smaller effect for improving visual resources through natural rehabilitation over the long-term timeframe. There is no measurable improvement to visual resources within the key viewsheds.

Visual Resources – 134 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Alternative 4 A total of 588 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS within designated Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. All routes meet assigned VQOs. A total of 892 miles, 60% of the unauthorized routes, are closed in the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. This alternative meets the visual quality objectives for Partial Retention and Retention short-term timeframe for individual viewsheds. This alternative has a positive effect on visual resources for the long-term timeframe through the natural rehabilitation of the closed routes. The key viewsheds of Saline Valley Road (09S01); Death Valley Road (09S18); Ancient Bristlecone Scenic Byway (04S01); and Highway 120 East to Benton (01S27) would see the greatest benefit when unauthorized routes are closed to motorized use because they travel through landscapes with open, shrub, and desert shrub guilds. Viewing opportunities in the immediate foreground and foreground should substantially improve in these key viewsheds by allowing closed routes to naturally rehabilitate. The Highway 395 Scenic Byway would see improvement in the immediate foreground and foreground viewing zones because the route closures would eliminate a large number of parallel routes and routes that intersect the highway corridor between the Highway 203 and 158 interchanges. This alternative will have a significant effect to these key viewsheds over the long-term timeframe through natural rehabilitation of closed routes. There is only a minimal effect within the viewsheds of the other scenic corridors and Level 1 roads because only a few of the closed routes are within these viewsheds.

Effects of Alternative 5 In this alternative, no routes are added to the NFTS. A total of 1,480 miles, or 100% of the unauthorized routes, are closed in the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. Highway 395 Scenic Byway; Highway 168W and 168E Scenic Byways; Highway 120 East to Benton (01S27); Saline Valley Road (09S01); Death Valley Road (09S18); Ancient Bristle Cone Scenic Byway (04S01); and Highway 120 East to Benton (01S27) would see an improvement in visual resources over the long- term time frame. There would also be some improvement to visual resources within the following key viewsheds: Highway 158 and 203 Scenic Byways; Deadman Creek Concentrated Recreation Area (02S05/02S07); Hot Creek Road (03S45); South Lake Road (08S01); and Onion Valley Road (13S17). This alternative would have the greatest beneficial impact on visual resources in the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs for key viewsheds as well as Forest wide because over the long-term the landscape would return to a more natural and undisturbed environment.

3.4.4.5 Effects of Mitigation Measures Mitigations are specific actions that are proposed to ensure the stability of routes added to the NFTS in the action alternatives. Mitigations include barriers; creek crossing/ford; waterbars, drainage, water diversion; harden surface within route prism; monitoring; realignment to alternate existing route; reroute constructed in new location; stabilization of route prism through riparian area/meadow; signage; seasonal closure; and weed removal. Most of these mitigations are geographically small in scale and involve minimal to no change in form, line, and color of the landscape. As a result, none of the proposed mitigation measures except for reroutes constructed in

Visual Resources – 135

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

new locations will have measurable direct/indirect or cumulative effects to visual resources after implementation of the mitigation. Portions of Routes N1406; N2156; and N2694 totaling approximately 0.9 miles would be rerouted to new locations in Alternatives 3 and 6. Reroutes for Routes N2156 and N2694 are in a Partial Retention VQO, dense Pinyon Pine vegetation, screened by topography and vegetation from all potential viewing points; no effect on visual resources is expected. The reroute for Route N1406 is in Retention and Partial Retention VQO, screened by topography from most potential viewing points; no effect on visual resources is expected. Incorporation of the following standard design features such as limiting road width, incorporation of meandering curves, following topography, using a minimum of cut and fill, limiting disturbance of existing vegetation, and preserving natural features in the proposed reroutes will further minimize potential effects to visual resources.

3.4.4.6 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives Past actions and events that have affected the visual resources of the Forest include urbanization, utilities (including irrigation, easements, etc.), the development of hydroelectric facilities, ski area development, and minerals and geothermal development. In order to account for the contribution of past activities into the cumulative effects of the proposed route designation project, this analysis uses the existing condition of the landscape as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. (See the Introduction to Chapter 3 for more information about the cumulative effects analysis for this project.) Direct and indirect effects of current and foreseeable future projects are different from those of past projects. Many of the past activities identified above occurred before there was an appreciation for visual resources and before the implementation of regulations, rules, and codes at the federal, state, and local levels for the protection of visual resources. The main difference between historical activities and current and foreseeable future projects is that direct and indirect effects of current and future projects are designed and implemented to ensure there is adequate planning and mitigations to protect visual resources and keep the landscape appearing natural. The nature and extent of the potential effects of current and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area (CESA) that have the potential to impact visual resources are listed below. These types of activities are considered in this analysis because—like the action alternatives—they could alter the visual characteristics within the CESA.

Urban Expansion The PFFA inventory (available in the project record) indicates there are a number of existing and future projects for homes, buildings, and resort development within the existing urban boundaries of Mammoth Lakes and various Mono and Inyo County subdivisions. These projects will only have a small impact to visual resources if all projects follow prescribed visual mitigations because they occur within the boundaries of the communities as urban infill on empty lots or as rebuilds of existing infrastructure. In general, while there may be visual impacts at the site level, if the existing and future projects are not visible outside of the urban area they will not affect the natural appearance of the surrounding landscape managed by federal agencies. Therefore, development within existing urban boundaries would not contribute additively to the direct/indirect effects to visuals resources of any of the action alternatives.

Visual Resources – 136 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

When existing and future subdivision development occur at the forest/urban interface, or in landscapes with shrub and desert shrub guilds, existing and future projects may affect visual resources if visual mitigations are not implemented. Examples of present and foreseeable future projects involving the conversion of currently undisturbed landscapes to residential subdivisions include the Mountain Vista Estates (28.95 acres); Rock Creek Estates (54.70 acres); the White Mountain Estates (70.38 acres), and #348/Hinds (70.71 acres). Effects to visual resources from these four projects are summarized below: • There may be limited views of Rock Creek Estates from the Highway 395 Scenic Byway and the direct/indirect effects should be negligible with the implementation of visual mitigations. The closest unauthorized route is FS 05S129 approximately 1 ½ - 2 miles to the north near the Rock Creek Drainage. While this route is added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, it is unlikely that effects of adding this route to the NFTS combined with the effects of building the subdivision, would affect the key viewshed of the Highway 395 Scenic Byway (i.e., cause visual effects within the same viewshed). • The Mountain Vista Estates is adjacent to Highway 6 in Chalfant Valley and there should be no direct/indirect effects to visual resources. There are no unauthorized routes near this project, so none of the alternatives would contribute additive effects to visual resources in this area. • The #348/Hinds development consists of subdividing the 70.71 acre parcel into four smaller parcels for the development of four homes. There are no unauthorized routes near this project, so none of the alternatives would contribute additive effects to visual resources in this area. This small number of homes should not impact the key viewshed of the Glacier Lodge Road, a Sensitivity Level 1 Road (09S21). • The White Mountain Estates development consists of developing 88 single-family residential lots on 70.38 acres east and adjacent to the existing White Mountain Estate development. The panoramic views from Highway 6 and the Partial Retention VQO in this area of the White Mountains should not be significantly affected. The closest unauthorized routes are approximately one mile to the east of the proposed development and not visible from Highway 6, so it is unlikely that effects of adding these routes to the NFTS would affect the Highway 6 viewshed.

Controversial projects that occur at the forest/urban interface or in landscapes with shrub and desert shrub guilds that will affect visual resources include the Pine Creek Village project (230 acres) and the Mt. Whitney Portal (74.1 acres). • The Pine Creek Village development consists of redeveloping 92 lots within the existing subdivision and developing approximately 70 more units on 230 acres of land. The proposed project would be visible from the Highway 395 Scenic Byway and Pine Creek Road, a Sensitivity Level 1 road (06S17). There are no unauthorized routes near this project, so none of the alternatives would contribute additive effects to visual resources in this area. The project continues to evolve and the number of units and size of development has changed over time. It is hard to predict the effects to visual resources from this project, but any new

Visual Resources – 137

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

development in this area will have at least some effects to visual resources, and the Retention VQO along this portion of the Sierra escarpment. • The Mt. Whitney Portal project consists of developing 27 homes on 74.1 acres of land. The proposed project is directly visible from the Mt. Whitney Road, a Sensitivity Level 1 system road (15S07). The impacts to the panoramic views of Mt. Whitney and the Sierra escarpment directly affect visual resources for this portion of the Sierra escarpment, which is assigned a Retention VQO. Portions of the Mt. Whitney Road also do not meet the assigned VQOs of retention. There are nine unauthorized routes approximately 2 - 2 ½ miles to the west of the proposed housing development. Two of the routes are closed in all alternatives and seven of the routes are added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. It is unlikely that effects of adding these routes to the NFTS combined with the effects of building the subdivision would increase the cumulative effects to the Mt. Whitney Road key viewshed.

Infrastructure and Utilities The PFFA inventory indicates that there approximately 100 existing authorizations for infrastructure and utility, irrigation, and highway easements within the CESA on Forest System lands. An approximate linear equivalent for total miles of existing utilities within the CESA is 1400 miles. Information on utility development on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management or private land is limited, but utility infrastructure is known to be fairly evenly distributed between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and private land within the CESA. As a result, actual miles of utility corridors on federal and private land within the CESA is estimated to be approximately 3,000 miles. It is important to note that these corridors may include multiple parallel power line structures. Infrastructure (poles, towers, pipelines, maintenance roads, etc) can create strong visual impacts in the foreground and middleground viewing zones and have affected the visual resources in the CESA. The infrastructure for built structures such as electrical transmission lines and water pipelines typically have roads or trails associated with their development and they create some of the longest, linear alterations on the landscape, sometimes visible for tens of miles of length. In general, much of the infrastructure present on federal and private land are historical improvements put in place before the adoption and approval of visual quality standards, such as those contained in the Inyo National Forest LRMP. Many of the oldest Forest Service authorizations have infrastructure that may not meet the existing VQOs. Since VQOs set the maximum levels of future alteration of a landscape (LRMP Glossary, p. 290), the presence of infrastructure that does not meet established VQO is an allowed deviation from the assigned VQO. All recent authorizations on Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or on private land should meet the existing regulation and codes for visual resource protection. Past and present activities within the utility corridors include normal maintenance of the existing lines such as vehicle access along the utility corridor; removal of hazard trees; replacement of existing poles and cables that have exceeded their recommended lifespan; replacement of existing poles and cables damaged from natural elements; and pipeline maintenance. Disturbance can include the removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance in immediate vicinity of pipelines, ditches, highways. Disturbance can spread weeds and change vegetation condition within the easement due to

Visual Resources – 138 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 utility line/highway/ditch maintenance. These types of disturbance create much less impacts to visual resources than the actual infrastructure itself. In landscapes that have forested and pinyon woodland guild vegetation, the visual impacts of utilities will be reduced. In landscapes with shrub and desert shrub guild vegetation, the visual impacts from utilities are substantially greater in the immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground viewing zones because there is no vegetation capable of screening these very large structures on the landscape. Almost the entire utility infrastructure on Bureau of Land Management and private land is located on these open landscapes and the impacts to visual resources in the CESA is much greater than similar utilities located on the more forested Forest system lands. The PFFA inventory indicates that there are a total of 6 foreseeable future proposals for normal maintenance activities for approximately 12 miles of existing utilities. These activities are no different from present maintenance activities and will not affect visual resources. The largest proposed utility project is the construction of the Vulcan Power G3 500-kv Transmission Project through Nevada and California. Within the CESA, the proposed transmission will follow an existing transmission corridor for 62 miles from the Nevada/California border to Bishop, California. A total of 41 miles are on Bureau of Land Management lands, 17 miles on Forest Service land, and 4 miles on private land. The facilities are similar in size and character to the existing infrastructure that is currently in place, and with the implementation of appropriate visual resource mitigations, there should be no significant effects to visual resources. Only a small portion of the Highway 395 Scenic Byway will be affected, and combined with the existing infrastructure that is in place, there should be no direct/indirect effects to visual resources. Most of the unauthorized routes that are adjacent to the utility corridor are located in the Pizona focus area and will not be closed under an alternative. The addition of these routes to the NFTS in addition to the construction of another utility project within a pre-existing utility corridor will not create any cumulative effects for visual resources within the designated Partial Retention VQO. The proposed project is still in the preliminary phases of planning and any alternative routes that could be developed through the environmental planning process are not be reviewed in this cumulative effects analysis.

Existing Highways, Roads, and other Motorized Routes In addition to the 1,695miles of unauthorized routes and 1,355 miles of NFTS roads on the Inyo National Forest, there are approximately 3,500 miles of routes on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the City of Los Angeles. While site-specific data is not available for these other routes, each of these routes can create similar types of visual impacts as they do on Forest lands. Forested and pinyon woodland guild vegetation screen routes from being viewed in the landscape. In landscapes with shrub and desert shrub guild vegetation, the visual impacts from motorized routes are substantially greater, especially in the foreground and middleground viewing zones. Within the CESA, most of the routes on Bureau of Land Management and City of Los Angeles land are located on open landscapes of shrub and desert shrub guild vegetation and the impacts to visual resources in the CESA are similar to routes located in similar vegetation on Forest System lands. Route proliferation is an ongoing concern on all lands within the CESA, regardless of jurisdiction. Many of the routes on BLM and City of Los Angeles land are visible in the foreground of Highway 395 and directly affect the visual resources of this scenic byway. Regardless of which

Visual Resources – 139

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

action alternative is selected, the addition of unauthorized routes in the Inyo National Forest should not lead to any additional cumulative effects in the CESA. The closure of routes should lead to a long-term improvement to visual resources in the CESA.

Hydroelectric Projects The hydroelectric facilities within the CESA are fixed structures that impact visual resources in individual viewsheds. Hydroelectric facilities are also infrastructure that may not meet the existing VQOs, but are allowed deviations from VQOs since they predate the Forest Plan. The PFFA inventory indicates that there are a total of 4 existing authorizations for normal maintenance activities of existing hydroelectric facilities on approximately 14 acres and 0.3 miles. These activities include the driving and maintenance of existing roads and infrastructure and will not result in measurable changes to existing visual conditions.

Mineral and Geothermal Exploration and Development There are approximately 211 acres of disturbance from existing mineral and geothermal development on federal and private land within the CESA. Past and present activities include removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance associated with drilling, excavation, pad construction, access, and mining. All projects have established reclamation plans and bonding to return the sites to natural conditions. Fewer than 30 acres of disturbance are proposed for future exploration and mining on federal and private land. These projects will also have reclamation plans and bonding to return the sites to natural conditions as required by Federal, State, and Local regulations. During mineral activities, there will be direct and indirect effects to visual resources from existing and future disturbance. Upon the completion of reclamation, the direct/indirect effects to visual resources should be minimal, meaning that visual conditions will be returned to pre-activity levels. The Programmatic EIS for geothermal leasing in the Western United States will also have no direct/indirect effects to visual resources since it does not issue a site specific decision for leasing of geothermal resources on federal land.

Timber Activities and Fuel Treatments A total of 28,853 acres of timber and fuel treatments is identified in the PFFA inventory. Typical effects to visual resources include changes to foreground and middleground viewing zones in the landscape. Implementation of visual mitigations will limit the direct/indirect effects to visual resources in the short term. Natural rehabilitation should be enhanced through these activities and return the landscape to an undisturbed condition.

Livestock Grazing and Guzzlers A total of 915,174 acres of livestock grazing area (including guzzlers) is within the CESA. Impacts to visual resources occur from trampling of native vegetation and soil disturbance, particularly in heavily used areas, which can create large open areas and affect the viewing in the foreground and middleground. A well managed grazing program rotates livestock across the landscape making this in general a minor effect to visual resources.

Visual Resources – 140 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Ski Area Development The PFFA inventory indicates that there is a total of 17 acres of proposed development within the ski areas. Implementation of visual mitigations will limit the direct/indirect effects to visual resources. Projects include trails for mountain biking or movement of skiers on the mountain such as widening existing ski runs. These projects are in forested landscapes at lower elevations and should not be visible from key viewsheds. The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, in combination with minimal effects to visual resources from future ski area development, should not lead to any additional cumulative effects in the CESA.

Road Rehabilitation and Other Watershed Restoration Projects A total of 22 acres of road rehabilitation and other watershed restoration projects are identified in the PFFA inventory. When these projects are successfully implemented, they should all lead to an improvement to visual resources and there are no adverse effects to visuals from these projects.

Recreation A total of 8.3 miles of activities are identified in the PFFA inventory and mostly include trail restoration and/or development. Implementation of visual mitigations will result in negligible effects to visual resources and should result in any cumulative effects.

Wildland Fire The PFFA inventory indicates that from 2000 – 2007 there was a total of 82,000 acres affected by wildland fires. Typical effects to visual resources are short-term in duration and result in roads that are more easily viewed in the foreground and middleground viewing zones. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams develop landscape scale mitigation plans to rehabilitate the landscape from the effects of wildland fire. Activities include reclamation of dozer lines, soil erosion protection measures (mulches, erosion cloth, seeding), and post fire seeding. These activities accelerate the recovery and rehabilitation of landscapes affected by wildland fire. Over the long-term time frame of 20 years, the combination of post-fire mitigations and natural rehabilitation are expected to restore areas currently affected by wildland fires to a more natural condition and shield existing roads from view. The PFFA inventory predicts that in the foreseeable future there will be approximately 54,000 acres of land affected by wildland fires in the next 20 years. Effects to visual resources are the same as past effects from previous wildland fires. The addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, in combination with minimal effects to visual resources after post-fire mitigation and natural rehabilitation of future wildland fires, should not lead to any cumulative effects in the CESA.

Summary A complete list of activities and projects are available in the project record. Not all projects have acres available, so the figures given above can only be considered as general. Due to the lack of spatial data, the overlapping nature of effects from different projects, and the variability of effects

Visual Resources – 141

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

within any given present or future project area the effects of all of the activities listed above cannot be adequately compared between the alternatives in a quantitative fashion. Urbanization, the existing utility facilities, and the road networks across all federal and private land have had the most direct impacts to visual resources within the CESA. Hydroelectric facilities, ski area development, and minerals and geothermal development have also contributed effects on visual resources, although to a lesser degree than urbanization, utilities, and roads. Present and reasonably foreseeable livestock grazing, recreation, road and watershed restoration projects, timber and fuel treatments, and wildland fire are not expected to result in additive effects on visual resources over the next 20 years. Therefore, no cumulative effects to visual resources are expected for any of the action alternatives.

3.4.5 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives For all action alternatives, there are long-term beneficial effects to visual resources at the forest scale when unauthorized routes are closed to public motorized use. Revegetation of individual road prisms and decreasing the density of the route network will enhance the natural appearance of the landscape and reduce the contrast between the road bed and the surrounding landscape. The visual effects from viewing the routes from other routes and user areas would be improved Alternatives 4 and 5 will substantially improve visual resources on the Inyo National Forest. The selection of Alternative 1 will not implement a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel and, because use of all existing unauthorized routes would continue, there would be no revegetation of any unauthorized routes. Alternative 1 will have a negative effect on visual resources on the Inyo National Forest over the long term.

Table 3-35: Summary of Effects on Visual Resources Number of Miles of Proposed NFTS Indicators – Visual Resources Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Unauthorized Routes Not Available for Public 19 490 310 629 1,001 436 Motorized Use within the Partial Retention VQOs Miles of Unauthorized Routes Not Available for Public 12 203 153 263 479 189 Motorized Use within the Retention VQOs Total Miles of Routes within the Partial Retention and 31 693 463 892 1,480 463 Retention VQOs Not Available to Motorized Use

3.4.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Alternative 1 would not meet the goals of the LRMP because approximately 6.5 miles of existing unauthorized routes do not meet established VQOs. Per Forest Plan direction, Forest Supervisor approval would be needed to obtain approval for these deviations. Alternatives 2 – 6 would meet the goals and objectives of the LRMP to:

• Maintain foregrounds and middlegrounds of the scenic corridors of designated and nominated California State Scenic Highway System routes to Retention and/or Partial Retention VQOs as inventoried but not less than Partial Retention.

• Meet the retention VQO in all foreground zones of other Sensitivity Level 1 roads and trails, recreation sites, and within all concentrated recreation areas.

Visual Resources – 142 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on visual resources were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in Alternatives 2 – 6, with the objective of minimizing potential impacts. This determination is based on the following: • Site-specific information regarding the nature and location and of distribution of Partial Retention and Partial Retention VQOs across the Forest and identification of key viewsheds was used in the development of the alternative to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. • Routes with visual resource concerns that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. For the purpose of this analysis, “acceptable level” means meets assigned visual quality objectives will be met. • Travel off designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects to visual resources

Visual Resources – 143

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Visual Resources – 144 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.5.1 Introduction Cultural resources provide information about past human behavior and activities. They are found in a variety of physical forms that include, but are not limited to, material objects, archaeological sites, historic architecture, and cultural landscapes. Cultural resources are non-renewable assets that frequently consist of ephemeral materials susceptible to destruction or deterioration. This section and the next provide a short summary of the principal authorities that govern how the Federal government is to manage and protect cultural resources. The Congress in 1966 declared it to be our national policy that the Federal government “administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations” (National Historic Preservation Act) (16 U.S.C. 470-1(3)). This need was made more explicit when the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to expand and underscore federal agency responsibility for identifying, protecting and avoiding unnecessary damage to historic properties. Many historic properties are fragile and once damaged or destroyed they cannot be repaired or replaced. Section 106 of the NHPA compels federal agencies to take into account the effect of its undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR §60) (Historic Properties). The Travel Management Rule requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the objective of minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National Forest lands (36 CFR §212.55(a), §212.55(b)(1)).

3.5.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties by several laws. However, the NHPA provides comprehensive direction to federal agencies about their historic preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the identification and consideration of historic properties in federal land management decisions. The NHPA extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to include resources that are of state and local significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers. NHPA Section 106 directs all federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations (36 CFR §800) implement NHPA Section 106. Section 110 of the NHPA sets inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally-owned and administered historic properties. The Forest Service’s policy for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in Travel Management with respect to route designation for motor vehicle use was issued in 2005: USDA Forest Service

Cultural Resources – 145 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (USDA Forest Service 2005b). This policy was developed in consultation with the ACHP. It outlines minimal requirements for considering possible effects to historic properties that may be associated with designating routes and areas as part of a national forest’s transportation system. This policy statement recognizes that forests with programmatic agreements for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will follow the terms of those agreements. Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHP’s implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR §800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR §800.14(b)) provide alternative procedures for complying with 36 CFR §800. Region 5 is utilizing a programmatic agreement for those portions of this undertaking located in the State of California: Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California (USDA Forest Service 2006b) (Motorized Recreation PA). This agreement defines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (see discussion in Affected Environment section below) pursuant to 36 CFR §800.4(a)(1) and includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of historic properties, and effect determinations; it also includes protection and resource management measures that may be used where effects may occur. In addition to the Region 5 Motorized Recreation PA cited in the last paragraph, the Inyo National Forest (Forest) entered into a programmatic agreement with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that would apply to about 111,600 acres of Inyo National Forest lands located in the State of Nevada. The Nevada programmatic agreement (Nevada PA) , entitled the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Inyo National Forest and the Nevada Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating A National Forest Transportation System on Inyo National Forest Lands in Nevada was executed in July, 2009 (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Like the Region 5 Motorized Recreation PA implemented in California, the Nevada PA defines the APE pursuant to 36 CFR §800.4(a)(1). It includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventories, NRHP evaluations, and effects determinations, and addresses protection and resource management measures that may be used where effects occur. Throughout the remainder of this section, all references to the “Motorized Recreation PA” refer to both the Region 5 Motorized Recreation PA implemented in the State of California and the PA executed between the Inyo National Forest and the State of Nevada. Both the Nevada and California programmatic agreements have similar standards and guidelines and are similar in design and content except where specified in this document.

Cultural Resources – 146 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 13, 1971, directs federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned properties.

The Inyo National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1988) The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) outlines the minimum conditions that will be retained throughout the Forest in order to ensure resource protection and enhancement. The LRMP specifically lists the following standards and guidelines as the minimum resource conditions necessary to protect cultural resources identified on the Forest: • Consult with local American Indian groups to ensure the protection of, and access to, traditional secular, religious, and ceremonial sites. • Assess and authorize as appropriate both general and site-specific requests by local American Indians for traditional and religious uses of National Forest System Lands. • Consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and nominate appropriate cultural/historical sites to the National Register. • Identify the types of data and research efforts needed to develop more efficient inventory, evaluation, protection, and compliance processing. Encourage and support in-service and private sector efforts that address these needs. Develop and implement appropriate management plans and strategies. • Foster active research programs by issuing antiquity/special use permits, cooperative agreements, and volunteer agreements. • Document inventories, site evaluations, assessments of impacts, and mitigation plans in all EAs/EISs for Forest-initiated, authorized, or licensed activities. • Treat Class II [unevaluated for NRHP eligibility] properties as if they were Class I [NRHP eligible] until they are evaluated. • Maintain the confidentiality of cultural resource site locations to aid in their protection. • Avoid cultural resource damage during fire suppression activities and provide protection for known cultural values. • Interpret cultural resources for the benefit of the public. • Develop and implement strategies including road closures for the protection of cultural sites.

3.5.3 Affected Environment Cultural resources are the material manifestations of past human behavior and activities. The objective of this section is to review the most current information available regarding the scale, nature, and condition of cultural resources identified within the project area. These data provide a

Cultural Resources – 147

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

baseline for the comparison of effects reported in the subsequent Environmental Consequences section. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966 and amendments) requires federal land-managing agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The regulation defines a historic property as:

… any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. (36 CFR §800.16(l)(1))

For this analysis, all cultural resource sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) are considered historic properties, regardless of whether or not they have been formally evaluated using NRHP criteria (36 CFR §60.4). Exceptions are made for those resources that have been formally determined not eligible for the NRHP in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) through regulatory procedures (36 CFR §60.4; 36 CFR §800). The term “historic properties” is used interchangeably with “cultural resources” or “cultural resource sites” throughout this document. The former has a more specific definition according to the NHPA, but the two are used synonymously here as a literary convenience to reduce repetition. In order for the Forest to determine the potential effects of the proposed action on historic properties, it is first necessary to identify the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The 36 CFR §800 regulations define an APE as:

… the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. (36 CFR §800.16(d))

The APE for the cultural resources component of the Travel Management project is specifically defined in the Motorized Recreation PA: a. APEs include vehicular use areas, such as roads, trails, routes, corridors, stopping points, trailheads, off-route use areas, or other associated areas where maintenance for and motorized recreation occur, or, that are considered for designation. For most undertakings, APEs may be restricted to 30m wide corridors centered on linear motor vehicle features (i.e., roads, trails, corridors, routes) and 30m wide buffer zones around nonlinear features (e.g., stopping points, specifically defined open areas, trailheads, etc.). Roads and trails used to access favorite hunting areas, for example, would be considered part of APEs; hunting camps within

Cultural Resources – 148 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

30-meter buffer zones of routes would be part of APEs, but hunting grounds that are closed to cross-country vehicular travel would not be considered part of APEs. b. Inventory of associated areas included in APEs, such as stopping points, trailheads, or vista points, should include the immediate surroundings that can generally be limited to a radius of 30 meters centered on point-specific locations (i.e., stopping points, vista points), or 30-meter wide buffer areas surrounding larger areas (e.g., trailheads). (USDA Forest Service 2006b:8).

The following assessment of the affected environment is based on the APE as defined above.

3.5.3.1 Existing Conditions Forestwide The Travel Management project constitutes one of the Inyo National Forest’s largest project planning efforts ever undertaken. The scale of this undertaking required that extensive field survey be conducted to identify historic properties in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect information on their current condition. Cultural resources specialists conducted field surveys throughout the summers of 2004–08. They also reviewed existing archaeological, historic, and ethnographic literature in the Forest’s Heritage Program files. The results of the cultural resource surveys and information from the Forest’s Heritage Program files were used in the following analysis. Cultural resources reports (USDA Forest Service, 2009a and 2009b) have been completed for this project. The reports include site-specific analysis of the cultural resources associated with all routes or areas being considered for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). A total of 340 previously unidentified cultural resource sites were located and documented between June 2004 and November 2008. Documentation included the completion of site records for all newly discovered cultural resource sites. In addition, nine pre-existing site records were updated and two other sites were monitored. The reports provide background information, outline the methodologies employed, describe the condition of cultural resource sites, describe results, and include cultural resource site records. Route-specific survey coverage, cultural resource site locations, and selected cultural resource data were also entered into the Forest’s digital Geographic Information Software (GIS) files. The primary objective of this project from its inception in 2004 has been to identify historic properties in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect information on their current condition. Surveys consisted of pedestrian transects conducted according to methods and standards mandated in the Motorized Recreation PA. The data compiled and reported in this section describe current conditions as reflected by the No Action alternative. The Motorized Recreation PA includes an identification strategy outlining cultural resource inventory requirements for most routes and areas considered for addition to the NFTS; however, inventory may be deferred for routes with light use. The former are considered “priority” surveys and the latter “deferred.” The distinction is related primarily to vehicle use rates and, by extension, increased risk for potential adverse effects. These terms are used in all subsequent analyses. Inventory of all priority routes is complete. Deferred survey will be completed in accordance with the stipulations in the Motorized Recreation PA.

Cultural Resources – 149

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The status of the cultural resource field survey is tabulated in the following table. The Forest currently calculates that 1,668 miles of unauthorized routes are analyzed as potential additions to the NFTS. A total of 1,276 miles of unauthorized routes has been surveyed on Forest Service lands (USDA Forest Service 2004, 2005a, 2006a, 2007a, 2009a, and 2009b). Of that number, 1,008 miles were surveyed specifically for this project. The remaining 268 miles had been surveyed at various periods in the past in conjunction with other unrelated Forest undertakings. A total of 419 miles of routes receive only light use (less than 25 vehicles per week); field surveys can be deferred for that subset (Motorized Recreation PA). Field survey is complete on all routes identified as priority routes due to more frequent use rates (greater than 25 vehicles per week).

Table 3-36: Status of Cultural Resources Survey within APE Miles of Routes Surveyed 1,276 Miles of Unsurveyed Deferred Routes 419 Miles of Unauthorized Routes (Total) 1,695

The existing condition of cultural resources identified in the APE provides baseline information with which to assess potential effects of adding routes to the NFTS. The first-order indicator of existing conditions is the total number of historic properties located within the project APE – regardless of effects. A total of 627 cultural resource sites have been identified within the APE forestwide. The sum includes all properties where any segment of an unauthorized route bisects the boundary of a historic property, regardless of scale or impact. A second, more important indicator of existing conditions is the number of at-risk historic properties currently identified within the project APE. This group is a subset of the 627 total properties cited in the last paragraph. An “at-risk historic property” is defined in the Motorized Recreation PA as:

…a property that the Forest Heritage Resources Manager (HRM) identifies as susceptible to being adversely affected as a result of designating a motor vehicle OHV route or specifically defined area, or using or maintaining the designated motorized recreation OHV system. An at-risk historic property is identified based on property characteristics and proximity to designated OHV routes or specifically defined areas (e.g., trail corridor, trailhead, vista point). (USDA Forest Service 2006b:1.J).

The number of historic properties determined to be “at risk” is therefore based on their condition and proximity to the APE. The “at risk” category used in subsequent analyses consists of cultural resource sites with identified or potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. The nature of any identified or potential effects to “at risk” properties is analyzed and tabulated below. In addition to the guidance in the Motorized Recreation PA addressing potential effects, the integrity measures listed in the adverse effect criteria at 36 CFR §800.5(a) were used to characterize the severity of any identified effects:

Cultural Resources – 150 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Criteria of adverse effect: An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.[emphasis added] Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. (36 CFR §800.5(a)(1))

Different disturbance agents can combine in a variety of ways to create a potential threat to historic properties. The results of field survey and the literature search demonstrated a number of identified and potential adverse effects to cultural resources should certain routes be added to the NFTS. The analysis documented both direct effects (caused by the action and occur at the same time and place) as well as indirect (caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable). The more common threats identified are summarized in following table. The list is not exhaustive. Other disturbances have been noted, but those threats specified in the table below constitute the most common disturbances documented.

Table 3-37: Examples of Site Disturbances Documented within Project APE Indirect Effects Direct Effects • Driving off-established routes on cultural sites • Routes bisect a primary locus in a prehistoric • Ground disturbance activities associated with cultural resource site. motorized vehicle camping within boundaries of • Routes cross and disturb features at cultural cultural resource sites that contain significant resource sites. cultural features. • Motorized vehicle camping on a cultural resource site where campers dismantled all or a portion of architectural features to use the materials for a modern fire pit or some other use. • Graffiti painted on historic structures accessed by motorized vehicles. • Vandalism to historic mine sites accessed by motorized vehicle, e.g., bullet holes, theft, and structural damage. • Evidence of vandalism or illicit digging activity within prehistoric cultural resource sites accessed by motorized vehicles.

Effects to the integrity of each of the 627 cultural resource sites currently identified in the APE were assessed. Available data were reviewed for each cultural resource site in order to determine whether the proposed addition of any route to the NFTS would diminish the integrity of the property's NRHP values, i.e., location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The following table summarizes the quantity and risk assessment for all cultural resources identified

Cultural Resources – 151

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

within the APE. Of the extant cultural resource sites identified, 123 would be directly and/or indirectly affected by adding a respective route to the NFTS.

Table 3-38: Quantity and Assessment of Historic Properties Identified within APE Total “Not At-Risk” Properties Identified within APE 504 Total “At-Risk” Properties Identified within APE 123 Total Properties Identified within APE 627

All cultural resource sites that have not been determined eligible for the NRHP are considered eligible for the purposes of this undertaking unless they have previously been determined not eligible (Motorized Recreation PA). Consequently, “at risk” properties (see above table) include all cultural resource sites where direct, indirect or cumulative effects have been identified, except for those formally determined not eligible for the NRHP. Any mitigation measures needed for identified effects will be equally applied. The process of completing evaluations of significance for the NRHP is often a time consuming and expensive undertaking. For that reason, very few cultural sites have formally been evaluated. The current NRHP status of all sites located within the APE are reported in the table below.

Table 3-39: National Register of Historic Places Status of Cultural Resource Sites within APE Unevaluated Eligible Not Eligible Total 605 12 10 627

A simple calculation of the number of at-risk historic properties provides only general information about potential effects. It does not sufficiently disclose the scale and severity of potential effects on any given property, nor does it address the type of mitigation measures that may be necessary to eliminate or lessen all direct and indirect effects. The magnitude of effect to a historic property’s integrity determines the severity of any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. The following effects analyses identify the scale and severity of identified or potential effects. Severity of effect is categorized based on a professional assessment of the data available to date: no/negligible, minor, moderate, and major. These categories represent a progressive scale that provides a qualitative assessment of the severity of any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the integrity of a cultural resource site. No distinction is made between “no” effect and “negligible” effect. The majority of cultural resource sites determined to be within the APE have been bisected in varying degrees by some route or area. Therefore, it is more appropriate to describe the most innocuous effects as “negligible” as opposed to “none.” In either case, the effect to historic properties is minimal and no mitigation measures are required. Working definitions for the four severity categories are provided in the table that follows. The column on the right provides additional insight as to how the associated category is operationalized. The four categories represent relative as opposed to absolute units based on professional assessments.

Cultural Resources – 152 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-40: Severity of Effects Severity of Working Definition Explanatory Notes Effects If the effect on integrity measures is determined to be “negligible,” there is essentially no measurable effect on the cultural resource; therefore no mitigation measures are prescribed. Route bisects some portion of the cultural No distinction is made between “no” disturbance and “negligible” Negligible resource site, but the disturbance. All sites determined to be within the APE have been effect on NRHP values bisected in varying degrees by some length of motorized vehicle is insignificant. route; therefore it is more appropriate to describe the most innocuous effects as “negligible” as opposed to “none.” In either case, no mitigation measures are necessary, so the outcome is identical. If the severity of effect is determined to be “minor,” some type of mitigation measure may be required. In most cases the preferred method of protection will be the erection of signs with wording to the effect that there are critical resource concerns in the area and certain activities (for example, camping) may be prohibited in localized areas. Most minor problems consist of indirect effects.

Effects on cultural In some cases, monitoring is prescribed to ensure that the minor resources are relatively degree of disturbance (or potential for disturbance) initially noted minor, but not does not increase in severity over time. insignificant. Integrity Minor of the NRHP values It is assumed for minor effects that an adaptive management may diminish if strategy may be utilized—a prescription specifically outlined in the measures are not taken Motorized Recreation PA. An adaptive management strategy to alleviate the potential means that progressively more complex and potentially costly effect. protective measures will be employed to eliminate a sustained potential for adverse effects. Signs, for example, may be erected as a first measure. If signs do not curtail potential adverse actions, more aggressive measures will be taken. Barriers are sometimes prescribed for minor threats when it appears as though the action responsible for the disturbance is well entrenched and not likely to be curtailed by the simple installation of a sign. The threshold between a “minor” and “moderate” threat is therefore more subjective than others. Effects on cultural resources are either If the severity of effect is determined to be “moderate,” some type localized or noted in of mitigation measure is required. In most cases the preferred multiple areas. method will be to erect a barrier large enough to prohibit vehicle Materials associated traffic off the designated route, thereby eliminating the potential for effects to cultural resources. Moderate with NRHP values exhibit some degree of damage or alteration, An adaptive management strategy will be employed where but NRHP integrity can progressively more complex and potentially costly protective be retained or improved measures will be employed to eliminate a sustained potential for if the detrimental adverse effects. activity is curtailed. Effects on cultural resources are severe. If the effect is determined to be “major,” more complex and If that particular route is potentially costly mitigation measures are required to prevent direct added to the system effects to the resource. In most cases, the only viable option may Major without mitigation be re-routing the road/trail around the resource. Other mitigation measures, the action measures may necessitate scientific data recovery which can be would result in adverse expensive and requires additional consulation under 36 CFR §800. effects to the NRHP values.

Cultural Resources – 153

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

An effect severity rating of “minor” indicates that some relatively minor disturbance has been noted within the boundaries of cultural resource site. A “minor” value indicates that, if present patterns of use are indicative of future trends, direct and indirect effects can most likely be avoided by employing the simplest of protection measures. In most cases, this will consist of installing signage in strategic locations informing the public of the presence of sensitive forest resources. In some locations, it may be necessary to prohibit motorized vehicle camping or use to eliminate the threat. If a cultural resource site is “moderately” susceptible to direct, indirect or cumulative effects, more extensive site disturbance has been noted. In this case, mitigation measures to avoid or minimize identified effects are required. Prescribed mitigation measures for moderate severity effects will most often take the form of physical barriers that prohibit off-route travel that could adversely affect cultural resources. Materials used may consist of timber, boulders, vegetation, or other materials or a combination thereof. The construction of barrier fences constitutes an additional option. A number of alternative mitigation measures could be employed, many of which are expressly described in Appendix B of the Motorized Recreation PA. An effect severity rating of “major” indicates that the integrity of cultural resource site values would be affected in a significant way unless appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A “major” value is reserved for those cases where a cultural resource site exhibits evidence of an adverse effect associated with past activities either directly or indirectly associated with the motorized use of an unauthorized route and these adverse effects will continue or increase if the route or area is added to the NFTS. Mitigation measures associated with direct or indirect effects of “major” severity require a substantial investment of time and resources to implement. The following table provides a summary of the 123 cultural resource sites whose integrity would be affected based on this analysis. The data categorize current forestwide severity of effects if no action is taken to avoid adverse effects.

Table 3-41: Cultural Resource Effect Severity Negligible Minor Moderate Major Total 504 34 68 21 627

The mitigation measures initially prescribed may qualify as the minimal actions necessary to alleviate potential adverse effects. The Motorized Recreation PA specifies that all “at-risk” properties within the APE be monitored over a two-year period after designation. If monitoring demonstrates that mitigation measures initially prescribed prove ineffective, it will be necessary to proceed through stages that include progressively more complex protective measures in a sequential process that could culminate in route closure if other measures prove unsuccessful. This type of adaptive management policy is listed as an option in the Motorized Recreation PA (USDA Forest Service 2006b and 2009) In the event that mitigation treatments listed in the Motorized Recreation PA are inadequate or untenable, the PA will no longer apply and compliance with 36 CFR §800 regulations will be necessary). Where such cases arise, the Forest will consult directly with the appropriate SHPO(s) and Indian Tribe(s) in order to find an appropriate means to mitigate. A total of 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes have been inventoried on the Forest. Analyzing the effects of an undertaking of this magnitude on cultural resources poses significant challenges regarding data collection, organization, and presentation. For this reason, the Forest has divided the

Cultural Resources – 154 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 project into eleven focus areas based on geographic units (see Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of this document). The divisions facilitate analysis by reducing the data into more manageable units. Parsing the data into focus areas has the added benefit of identifying areas where resources and potential risks to those resources are more or less concentrated. A cultural resources risk assessment is presented in tabular form in the following table. In contrast to the summaries presented above which were reported at the forestwide scale, the risk factors reported in the table below are broken down according to focus area. Appendix C provides a comprehensive list of all cultural resources identified within the APE. That table organizes the cultural resource sites according to focus areas and discloses risks (where applicable), proposed mitigation measures, and the status of each site according to alternative.

Table 3-42: Number of Historic Properties and Risk Severity According to Focus Area Focus Area Sites Sites Sites At Risk Not At Risk Total Bishop 2 18 20 Casa Diablo 38 82 120 Glass Mountains 15 66 81 Inyo Mountains 14 47 61 Mammoth East 6 118 124 Mammoth West 8 69 77 Monache 0 0 0 Mono/June 2 14 16 Pizona 6 14 20 South Sierra 1 8 9 White Mountains 31 68 99 Totals 123 504 627

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences The Affected Environment outlined in the previous section reflects the status of cultural resources under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) in the short term. The calculations presented in that section provide baseline data used to form the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of the alternatives outlined in the Environmental Consequences section. In this section, the data are broken down and evaluated in more precise detail to determine the effects that each of the five action alternatives (Alternatives 2–6) will have on cultural resources. The disclosure of specific data related to the location or character of a historic property is regulated pursuant to stipulations in 36 CFR §800.11(c) and Section 304 of the NHPA when disclosure may cause a significant risk. Maintaining confidentiality of cultural resource site locations is also specifically directed in the LRMP (see Analysis Framework section above). Accordingly, cultural resource sites are grouped and analyzed according to geographic focus areas as defined in Chapter 1 (Figure 1-1) of this document. Route- specific cultural resource data, however, are included in the comprehensive final reports (USDA Forest Service 2009a and 2009b).

Cultural Resources – 155

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.5.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions specific to cultural resources analysis: 1. Unauthorized routes and areas have already affected historic properties within route/area prisms. 2. Under the action alternatives, use will continue at current levels or increase over time on the designated system with the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. 3. There is no measurable difference in potential impact to cultural resources, given identical environmental variables, between that generated by different vehicle classes, i.e., full-size four-wheel drive vehicles, off-road vehicles, and motorcycles. 4. According to the Motorized Recreation PA, all cultural resources identified within the APE for all alternatives adding facilities to the NFTS are considered historic properties for the purposes of this undertaking, unless they already have been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed on procedures (36 CFR §60.4; 36 CFR §800).

Data Sources: 1. Site-specific cultural resource inventories. The Forest conducted cultural resource field surveys for this undertaking throughout the summers of 2004–08. The primary objective of these surveys was to identify historic properties in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect information on their current condition. Reports documenting the results of the surveys are on file with the Forest’s Heritage Program (USDA Forest Service 2004, 2005a, 2006a, 2007a, 2009a, and 2009b) 2. Existing information was also utilized from sources such as cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial layers on file with the Forest’s Heritage Program.

Cultural Resources Indicators: 1. Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished. 2. Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use. 3. Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if new routes or areas are created.

Cultural Resources Methodology by Management Action: 1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. Short-term timeframe: 1 year Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forest scale where motor vehicle use is not already prohibited by law (e.g., wilderness, proposed wilderness, etc.). Indicator(s): (1) Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use; and (2) Average number of historic properties per acre at risk if new routes or areas are created.

Cultural Resources – 156 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Methodology: GIS analysis of site-specific cultural resource inventories and cultural resource records to identify: (1) the number of historic properties at risk within existing unauthorized routes (estimate of on-going direct/indirect effects curtailed); and (2) the average number of historic properties per acre that would be protected from any new routes created in the future without a prohibition (estimate of indirect effects). Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA (California and Nevada). 2. Changes to the existing NFTS such as changes in vehicle class and season of use. This type of action is not considered an undertaking subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance (USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005b). Motorized vehicles can already use NFTS roads. Allowing or prohibiting use of those roads by different types of vehicles will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on cultural resources. 3. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class. Short-term timeframe: 1 year Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Location of historic property. Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct or indirect effects. Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA (California and Nevada). 4. Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term. Long-term timeframe: 20 years Spatial boundary: Forest administrative boundary (outside of designated wilderness). Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Methodology: Due to the relatively static boundaries of cultural resources sites, effects are limited to either direct/indirect in all of the action alternatives. Both types of effects have been identified during the analytical phase and mitigation measures have been prescribed to eliminate any potential for an adverse effect to NRHP values. Extensive monitoring is prescribed in the Motorized Recreation PA following the designation of the NFTS. Additional potential threats will be identified during the post-decision monitoring phase and mitigation measures applied as necessary to eliminate any newly identified risks to NRHP values. Consequently, cumulative effects are not anticipated under any action alternative

Cultural Resources – 157

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

because cross-country travel is prohibited and mitigation measures have been prescribed to eliminate any potential for an adverse effect to NRHP values. Cumulative effects would be possible under the no-action alternative because cross-country travel would not be prohibited. To estimate possible cumulative effects, one can calculate the average number of previously identified historic properties per acre that would be susceptible to new routes created in the future without a prohibition. Any additional attempts to quantify cumulative effects would be speculative in nature. Rationale: Motorized Recreation PA (California and Nevada).

3.5.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Cultural Resources As outlined above, three discreet management actions are common to each action alternative: (1) The prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel, (2) Changes to the existing NFTS (for example, altering the vehicle class that will be permitted on any given system route), and (3) The addition of facilities (unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the NFTS. To minimize redundancy, the first two management actions are addressed corporately in the following section for all five of the action alternatives. The third action—the addition of roads, trails, and/or areas to the NFTS—will be addressed individually under each alternative discussion below.

Effects of the Prohibition on Cross-country Travel and Changes to the Existing NFTS For the action alternatives, the prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated transportation systems and areas would have a beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the forest in the short and long terms. It would curtail on-going potential for adverse effects and reduce the threat to cultural and historic properties that would occur if use were to continue on all unauthorized roads and trails. It would also help eliminate potential effects resulting from the creation of any new routes and trails if cross-country motorized vehicle use was not prohibited. Under this prohibition, most if not all future permitted or other authorized motorized vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads will be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural and historic properties can be identified at that time. Proposed changes to the existing NFTS are minimal (see Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered in Detail”). The most common modification proposed to existing system routes is a change in permitted vehicle class. For purposes of this cultural resource assessment, it is assumed that there is no measurable difference in the magnitude of effects to cultural resources between full-size four-wheel drive vehicles, passenger vehicles, specialized off-highway vehicles, and single-track motorcycle trails. In many cases where field reviews were conducted for this project, only one tire track directly contacted cultural features. Based on the current data available, there is no measurable difference in the scale of potential damage to cultural resources, regardless of vehicle size or type. Similarly, converting existing NFTS roads to administrative use would have no effect because use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns.

Effects of Adding Routes to the NFTS In each of the action alternatives described below, the assumptions stated in the last two paragraphs apply and no further analysis of those actions is attempted. All subsequent analyses focus

Cultural Resources – 158 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 on effects associated with each alternative. The Effects Analysis Methodology section below provides a summary of how the analyses were conducted. The data reported below differentiate between direct and indirect effects. The definitions for each are provided in NEPA implementing regulations. Effects on cultural resources can take the form of: a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. (40 CFR §1508.8)

Cumulative effects are also addressed: "Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment [historic properties in this case] which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR §1508.7). The NEPA regulations state that “effects” and “impacts” as used in the 40 CFR §1500 regulations are synonymous (40 CFR §1508.8).

Effects of Mitigation Measures on Cultural Resources As described in Chapter 2 and Appendix A, mitigation measures have been proposed to eliminate or lessen direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on forest resources. Some mitigations may consist of ground-disturbing activities with the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. In this section, all proposed mitigation measures are reviewed and those with the potential to affect cultural resources are identified and analyzed. Certain mitigation measures have little or no potential to affect cultural resources because they do not involve ground or surface disturbance. Mitigations that do not pose a threat include: monitoring, realignments to existing routes, seasonal closures, installation of single-post signs needed to help alleviate resource damage, and installation of non-intrusive barriers to control traffic flow (see discussion in Effects Analysis Methodology section above). Weed removal mitigations also pose no threat to cultural resources. The effects of these mitigations on cultural resources were analyzed as part of the 2007 Forestwide Weed EA (USDA Forest Service 2007b). The mitigation measures listed in this paragraph have little or no potential to affect cultural resources and are therefore exempt from further analysis. Mitigation measures that may have the potential to affect cultural resources, depending upon specific engineering details, include: installation of intrusive barriers to control traffic flow, modification of creek banks associated with the hardening of stream crossings, installation of water bars or other ground-disturbing devices to manipulate water drainage, hardening of route surfaces (if disturbance extends beyond existing route prism), ground disturbance associated with the rerouting of existing routes, and the installation of signs (depending on complexity). The stabilization of routes through meadows and riparian areas also has the potential to affect cultural resources, but to a lesser extent. All barriers currently proposed to control traffic flow are non-intrusive in nature and therefore

Cultural Resources – 159

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

pose no threat cultural resource sites. They will not be considered further. All subsequent analysis in this section is focused on the measures listed in this paragraph. The procedure used to analyze prescribed mitigations consists of a multi-staged process of elimination. First, all route segments where mitigation measures were prescribed in any action alternative were isolated in a separate file. Those route segments where mitigation measures had been prescribed only for cultural resources were then eliminated from further analysis because the beneficial effects of those mitigations on cultural resources had already been considered. Next, all route segments were removed from the file where only non-threatening mitigative treatments listed above had been prescribed. In sum, a total of 196 route segments have mitigations prescribed with the potential to affect cultural resources. Each of the 196 route segments was then analyzed individually to determine if, 1) cultural resource surveys had been conducted on each route and, 2) cultural resource sites had been identified on the route segment. Of the 196 route-segment subset, 117 segments could be readily eliminated because they had been surveyed and no cultural resources had been identified. Of the remaining 79 route segments, 45 had received no/partial survey and 34 had received complete survey coverage. Portions of 12 segments with no/partial survey contained at least one cultural resource site. Portions of 34 of the surveyed route segments contained at least one cultural resource site. The 45 no/partial surveyed routes all qualify for deferred survey under the Motorized Recreation PA and are identified as “Survey Deferred” in Table 3-43. Multiple mitigations were proposed for some routes. Consequently, a total of 236 mitigations were prescribed for the 196 route segments under analysis. The 236 mitigations are grouped according to type in Table 3-53.

Table 3-43: Routes with Prescribed Mitigations that Potentially Affect Cultural Resources Survey Coverage Totals Surveyed Survey Deferred Total Route Segments 151 45 196 Routes Route Segments with 34 12 46 Sites Sign Installation 64 3 67 Creek Crossing 13 18 31 Waterbars/Drainage 70 24 94 Road Hardening 23 7 30 Mitigations Riparian Stabilization 7 1 8 Reroute 1 0 1 Gate Installation 4 1 5 Totals: 182 54 236

The installation of simple signs to restrict certain activities or for informational purposes is expressly permitted in the Motorized Recreation PA due to the small amount of disturbance required for installation (Appendix B.II.A.4(b)). As a result, the installation of single post signs will not have an effect on cultural resources. At present, only single-post signs are planned. Larger scale signs may have an effect and would require additional assessment.

Cultural Resources – 160 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Three mitigation prescriptions are not expected to have any effect on cultural resources because of design features: creek crossing stabilizations, the installation of waterbars or other modifications to drainage patterns, and activities associated with the hardening of road surfaces. The modification of creek beds to better support motorized vehicle traffic will not extend beyond the flood plain in most cases. In the rare instances where cultural resources have been identified in close proximity to active stream channels where modifications to the channel have been proposed, a heritage resource specialist will assist with the engineering to minimize any potential disturbance to cultural resources. Waterbars, other drainage manipulations, and the hardening of road surfaces will all occur within the existing route prism. For that reason, no cultural resources are expected to be affected. Any significant cultural resources that have been identified within the route prism will be protected by mitigations specifically applied to protect cultural resources. A total of four reroutes are prescribed, however, three are proposed to eliminate effects to cultural resource sites, so are not included in Table 3-53. Cultural resource surveys have been completed for the single remaining reroute proposed, and no cultural resource sites were identified anywhere near the reroute. In summary, the majority of mitigation measures proposed by other specialists will have no effect on cultural resources. In the rare instances where stream-channel modifications may extend beyond the flood plain or existing road prism, a cultural resources specialist will be consulted to ensure that there is no resource disturbance.

3.5.4.3 Effects of Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct/Indirect Effects General effects of the No Action Alternative on cultural resources have been addressed in the Affected Environment section above. Consequently, the discussion here is limited to distinguishing between direct and indirect effects. One-hundred-twenty-three of 627 cultural resource sites identified within the APE will be directly or indirectly affected (or at risk) if no action is taken to manage vehicle use (Table 3-44). The following table provides a breakdown of the potential direct and indirect effects.

Table 3-44: At-Risk Sites within APE Tabulated According to Direct/Indirect Effects Direct Indirect Direct & Indirect Total 43 36 44 123

Cumulative Effects The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis is limited to the Forest’s administrative boundary because impacts to cultural resources accumulate at their specific locations, irrespective of actions in surrounding areas. The cumulative effects analysis excludes designated wilderness, proposed wilderness, and Research Natural Area (RNAs) where motorized uses are currently prohibited. The data reported in the table above demonstrate that the No Action alternative would have unmitigated, long-term adverse effects on cultural resources. A minimum of 123 historic properties

Cultural Resources – 161

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

would be adversely affected if no mitigation action was taken. Another 504 sites identified within the APE could potentially be affected in the absence of any long-term management actions or oversight. Although cross-country travel is not currently allowed anywhere except the Poleta Open Area (LRMP ROD, p. 2), drivers have to be caught causing resource damage in order to be cited. Cross- country travel is more likely to continue under Alternative 1 than the action alternatives, which would simplify enforcement by prohibiting any motorized use off NFTS roads, trails, and areas. As a result, cumulative effects would likely occur under Alternative 1. To quantify potential cumulative effects, one can calculate the average number of previously identified cultural resource sites per acre that would be susceptible to new routes created in the future without a prohibition. The 11 focus areas encompass roughly 1.4 million acres (excluding Mono Lake). Within that same geographic subset, 2,892 historic properties have been identified. Based on those data, site densities within the collective focus areas average one cultural resource site every 484 acres. Excluding the 627 cultural resource sites that have already been identified within the APE, more than 2,268 additional historic properties could be susceptible to an adverse effect if no management actions were implemented. An estimated 12% of all Forest lands within the 11 focus areas have been surveyed for cultural resources; therefore, the quantity of historic properties reported in the previous paragraph that are potentially subject to adverse effects should be considered a minimum. Additional cultural resources not yet identified unquestionably exist. Any further attempts to quantify cumulative effects, however, would be highly speculative.

3.5.4.4 Effects of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct/Indirect Effects Alternate 2 would add 929 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. A total of 414 cultural resource sites has been identified within the APE of Alternative 2. The table below quantifies identified and potential direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. Cultural resource sites are grouped according to focus area. Of the 414 properties identified, 341 currently exhibit little or no evidence of effect from motorized uses. Conversely, direct and/or indirect effects requiring mitigation have been identified at 73 cultural resource sites.

Table 3-45: Identified and Potential Direct/Indirect Effects Associated with Alternative 2 Inyo East West White White Glass Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Not at Risk 12 63 50 16 92 53 0 12 9 5 29 341 Risk Factor At Risk 1 20 13 3 6 8 0 1 4 1 16 73

Totals 13 83 63 19 98 61 0 13 13 6 45 414

Cultural Resources – 162 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-46 provides a more detailed assessment of the 73 historic properties susceptible to direct and/or indirect effects under Alternative 2. The table quantifies the type of effect, severity of effect, and mitigation measures prescribed to eliminate or lessen effects. The data are presented by focus area. Direct effects are the most common type associated with Alternative 2. Direct effects to site integrity because of motorized-vehicle use have been identified at 24 cultural resource site locations. Indirect effects are a close second in frequency (23 locations). These consist primarily of potential impacts due to activities associated with motorized-vehicle camping. A combination of direct/indirect effects was noted at 26 locations. Severity of effects has been collectively determined to be minor and/or moderate for 93% of the historic properties. Severity is assessed as major for only two properties. Signage is proposed at 26 locations to curtail various activities that have the potential to diminish NRHP values. Protective barriers will be used at 21 locations to safeguard historic properties from the effects of vehicle use. Thirty of the 73 at-risk properties will be monitored closely to assess direct/indirect effects due to specific activities that have been identified as potentially destructive if sustained over a period of time (see Table 3-42 for examples).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 2 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology Sections above.

Table 3-46: Effects and Mitigations for Historic Properties Associated with Alternative 2

Inyo East West Glass White White Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Total Sites At Risk 1 20 13 3 6 8 0 1 4 1 16 73 Direct 1 5 8 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 24 Type of Indirect 0 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 7 23 Effects Direct/Indirect 0 7 2 0 3 6 0 0 3 0 5 26 Totals 1 20 13 3 6 8 0 1 4 1 16 73 Minor 0 7 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 10 25 Severity of Moderate 1 12 10 2 3 5 0 1 2 1 6 43 1 Effects Major 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Totals 1 20 13 3 6 8 0 1 4 1 16 73 Monitor 0 4 6 1 5 8 0 0 2 1 3 30 Signage 0 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 9 26 Mitigation Measures2 Barriers 1 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 21 Reroute 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 1 20 13 3 6 8 0 1 6 1 18 77 1Where potential threats have been assessed as “negligible”, cultural resources are not considered at risk. Consequently, that category is eliminated from consideration in this table. 2The effects reported in this subset sometimes have a one-to-many relationship with heritage properties. For example, multiple mitigation measures may have been documented for different sites. Consequently, the totals reported in this table will, on rare occasions, exceed the actual number of properties.

Cultural Resources – 163

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.5.4.5 Effects of Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternate 3 would add 1,171 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This action alternative favors motorized vehicle use by maximizing access and motorized recreation opportunities. A total of 472 cultural resource sites have been identified within the APE of Alternative 3. The following table quantities identified and potential direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3. Cultural resource sites are grouped according to focus area. Of the 472 cultural resource sites identified, 379 currently exhibit little or no evidence of effects from motorized uses. Conversely, direct and/or indirect effects requiring mitigation have been identified at 93 cultural resource sites.

Table 3-47: Identified and Potential Direct/Indirect Effects Associated with Alternative 3 Inyo East West White White Glass Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Not at Risk 15 65 56 26 96 55 0 13 10 6 37 379 Risk Factor At Risk 2 24 14 10 6 8 0 1 6 1 21 93

Totals 17 89 70 36 102 63 0 14 16 7 58 472

Table 3-48 provides a more detailed assessment of the 93 historic properties susceptible to direct and/or indirect effects under Alternative 3. The table quantifies the type of effect, severity of effect, and mitigation measures prescribed to eliminate or lessen effects. The data are presented by focus area as they were in the previous table. Direct effects have been identified at 31 cultural resource sites associated with Alternative 3. Direct effects are a product of motor vehicle contact with some component of a cultural resource site. Potential indirect effects have been identified at 29 cultural resource sites. A combination of direct/indirect effects was noted at 33 additional properties. Severity of effects has been determined to be minor for 33% of the historic properties and moderate for 55%. Severity is assessed as major for 11 properties. Reroutes will be required in order to mitigate adverse effects at three of the eleven cultural resource sites where major effects have been identified. Signage is proposed at 33 locations to curtail various activities that have the potential to diminish NRHP values. Protective barriers will be used at 27 locations to safeguard historic properties from vehicle activity. Thirty-four of the 73 at- risk properties will be monitored closely to assess direct/indirect effects due to specific activities that have been identified as potentially destructive if sustained over a period of time (see Table 3-42 for examples).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 3 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated.

Cultural Resources – 164 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Table 3-48: Effects and Mitigations for Historic Properties Associated with Alternative 3

Inyo East West Glass White White Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Total Sites At Risk 2 24 14 10 6 8 0 1 6 1 21 93

Direct 1 7 9 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 5 31

29 Type of Indirect 0 10 3 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 9 Effects Direct/Indirect 1 7 2 2 3 6 0 0 5 0 7 33

Totals 2 24 14 10 6 8 0 1 6 1 21 93

Minor 0 7 2 4 1 2 0 0 3 0 13 32

Moderate 2 14 10 6 3 5 0 1 2 1 6 50 Severity of Effects1 Major 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 11

Totals 22 24 14 10 6 8 0 1 6 1 21 93

Monitor 1 4 6 4 5 8 0 0 2 1 3 34

Signage 0 10 2 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 11 33 Mitigation Measures2 Barriers 1 9 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 27 Reroute 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

Totals 2 24 14 10 6 8 0 1 8 1 23 97 1Where potential threats have been assessed as “negligible”, cultural resources are not considered at risk. Consequently, that category is eliminated from consideration in this table. 2The effects reported in this subset sometimes have a one-to-many relationship with heritage properties. For example, multiple mitigation measures may have been documented for different sites. Consequently, the totals reported in this table will, on rare occasions, exceed the actual number of properties.

3.5.4.6 Effects of Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternate 4 would add 694 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This action alternative favors resource protection by minimizing impacts to IRA character in addition to natural and cultural resources. A total 319 cultural resource sites has been identified within the APE of Alternative 4. The following table quantifies identified and potential direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4. Cultural resource sites are grouped by focus area. Of the 319 properties identified, 265 currently exhibit little or no evidence of effects from motorized uses. Conversely, direct and/or indirect effects requiring mitigation have been identified at 54 cultural resource sites.

Cultural Resources – 165

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-49: Identified and Potential Direct/Indirect Effects Associated with Alternative 4 Inyo East West White White Glass Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Not at Risk 9 47 25 14 79 45 0 12 7 5 22 265 Risk Factor At Risk 0 13 10 3 5 8 0 0 3 0 12 54

Totals 9 60 35 17 84 53 0 12 10 5 34 319

Table 3-50 provides a more detailed assessment of the 54 historic properties susceptible to direct and/or indirect effects under Alternative 4. The table quantifies the type of effect, severity of effect, and mitigation measures prescribed to eliminate or lessen effects. The data are grouped by focus area as they were in the previous table. Indirect effects are the most common type of risk associated with Alternative 4. These consist primarily of potential impacts due to activities associated with motorized-vehicle camping. Direct effects to site integrity because of vehicle use have been identified at 13 cultural resource site locations. A combination of direct/indirect effects was noted at 22 locations. Severity of effects has been collectively determined to be minor for 39% of the historic properties and moderate for 52%. Severity is assessed as major for two properties. Signage is proposed at 23 locations to curtail various activities that have the potential to diminish NRHP values. Protective barriers will be used at ten locations—including the five properties at risk of major effects—to safeguard historic properties from the effects of vehicle use. Twenty-five of the 54 at-risk properties will be monitored closely to assess direct/indirect effects due to specific activities that have been identified as potentially destructive if sustained over a period of time (see Table 3-42 for examples).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 4 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential effects will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology Sections above.

Cultural Resources – 166 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-50: Effects and Mitigations for Historic Properties Associated within Alternative 4

Inyo East West Glass White White Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Total Sites At Risk 0 13 10 3 5 8 0 0 3 0 12 54

Direct 0 2 6 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 13

Type of Indirect 0 7 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 19 Effects Direct/Indirect 0 4 1 0 3 6 0 0 3 0 5 22

Totals 0 13 10 3 5 8 0 0 3 0 12 54

Minor 0 6 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 8 21

Moderate 28 Severity of 0 6 7 2 2 5 0 0 2 0 4 Effects1 Major 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

Totals 0 13 10 3 5 8 0 0 3 0 12 54

Monitor 0 3 5 1 4 8 0 0 2 0 2 25

Signage 0 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 8 23 Mitigation Measures2 Barriers 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 Reroute 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 13 10 3 5 8 0 0 5 0 14 58 1Where potential threats have been assessed as “negligible”, cultural resources are not considered at risk. Consequently, that category is eliminated from consideration in this table. 2The effects reported in this subset sometimes have a one-to-many relationship with heritage properties. For example, multiple mitigation measures may have been documented for different sites. Consequently, the totals reported in this table will, on rare occasions, exceed the actual number of properties.

3.5.4.7 Effects of Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 5 would retain the current NFTS system. No additional routes or areas would be added to the NFTS. The alternative also prohibits cross-country travel. The Motorized Travel PA clearly states that: Procedures in the Heritage Resources Motor Vehicle Route Strategy generally do not apply to routes in the APE that previously were designated part of Forest systems and not subject to review pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) (USDA Forest Service 2006b:6).

Cultural Resources – 167

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Based on these criteria, no heritage properties would be affected under Alternative 5.

Cumulative Effects Likewise, cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 5 because no routes would be added to the Forest’s system. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology Sections above.

3.5.4.8 Effects of Alternative 6

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternate 6 would add 1,005 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This action alternative was developed in a collaborative effort by a group of citizens with vested, but sometimes diverse, interests in the project. A total 438 cultural resource sites has been identified within the APE of Alternative 6. The table below quantifies identified and potential direct and indirect effects of Alternative 6. Cultural resources sites are grouped according to focus area. Of the 438 properties identified, 357 currently exhibit little or no evidence of effects from motorized use. Conversely, direct and/or indirect effects requiring mitigation have been identified at 81 cultural resource sites.

Table 3-51: Identified and Potential Direct/Indirect Effects Associated with Alternative 6 (as of June 2008) Inyo East West White White Glass Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Not at Risk 12 63 54 18 96 55 0 13 9 5 32 357 Risk Factor At Risk 1 23 14 5 6 8 0 1 6 1 16 81

Totals 13 86 68 23 102 63 0 14 15 6 48 438

Table 3-52 provides a more detailed assessment of effects to the 81 historic properties susceptible to direct and/or indirect effects under Alternative 6. The table quantifies the type of effect, severity of effect, and mitigation measures prescribed to eliminate or lessen effects. The data are presented by focus area as they were in the previous table. Indirect effects are the most common type of effect associated with Alternative 6. These consist primarily of potential impacts due to activities associated with motorized-vehicle camping. Direct effects to site integrity because of motorized-vehicle use have been identified at 26 cultural resource site locations. A combination of direct/indirect effects was noted at 28 locations. Severity of effects has been determined to be minor for 33% of the historic properties and moderate for 54%. Severity is assessed as major for 10 properties. Reroutes are recommended mitigations at one location in order to bypass threatened properties and avoid adverse effects. Signage is proposed at 30 locations to curtail various activities that have the potential to diminish NRHP values. Protective barriers will be used at 23 locations to safeguard cultural resource sites from the effects of vehicle use. Thirty-one of the 81 cultural resource sites will be monitored closely to assess direct/indirect effects due to specific

Cultural Resources – 168 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 activities that have been identified as potentially destructive if sustained over a period of time (see Table 3-42 for examples).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 6 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Table 3-52: Effects and Mitigations for Historic Properties Associated within Alternative 6

Inyo East West Glass White White Totals Pizona Pizona Bishop Bishop Monache Mammoth Mammoth Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Mono-June Mono-June Casa Diablo South Sierra South Sierra

Total Sites At Risk 1 23 14 5 6 8 0 1 6 1 16 81

Direct 1 6 9 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 3 26

Type of Indirect 0 10 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 27 Effects Direct/Indirect 0 7 2 0 3 6 0 0 5 0 5 28

Totals 1 23 14 5 6 8 0 1 6 1 16 81

Minor 0 7 2 2 1 2 0 0 3 0 10 27

Severity Moderate 1 13 10 3 3 5 0 1 2 1 5 44 1 of Effects Major 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 10

Totals 1 23 14 5 6 8 0 1 6 1 16 81

Monitor 0 4 6 2 5 8 0 0 2 1 3 31

Signage 0 10 2 3 1 0 0 0 5 0 9 30 Mitigation 2 Barriers 1 8 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 23 Measures Reroute 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Totals 1 23 14 5 6 8 0 1 8 1 18 85 1Where potential threats have been assessed as “negligible”, cultural resources are not considered at risk. Consequently, that category is eliminated from consideration in this table. 2The effects reported in this subset sometimes have a one-to-many relationship with heritage properties. For example, multiple mitigation measures may have been documented for different sites. Consequently, the totals reported in this table will, on rare occasions, exceed the actual number of properties.

3.5.5 Summary of Effects Analysis for All Alternatives The quantity of cultural resource sites within the APE and the effects on those resources vary significantly among the six alternatives. Table 3-53 summarizes the identified or predicted effects of all the alternatives at a forestwide scale. The ratio of at-risk resources is juxtaposed with those properties not currently threatened. The number of cultural resource sites for which data are currently being analyzed are also quantified and disclosed. In the lower section of the table, the at-risk sites are quantified according to type of effect, severity of effect, and the mitigation measures prescribed to

Cultural Resources – 169

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

eliminate or lessen effects. All data are tabulated by alternative. Appendix C provides a comprehensive list of all cultural resource sites identified in the APE. Effects assessments and proposed mitigations are provided for each property according to individual alternatives. Cross-country travel is more likely to continue under Alternative 1 because it would not be prohibited. Cross-country travel occurring under Alternative 1 would cause unmitigated impacts to cultural resources and the loss of NRHP values. The No Action alternative is the only alternative where adverse effects to historic properties would continue without prescribing and implementing mitigation measures. At present, adverse effects to at least 123 cultural resource sites would continue unmitigated if no management action is taken. Alternative 5, in sharp contrast to Alternative 1, would have the least impact on cultural resources of the six alternatives. No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS under Alternative 5. The alternative also prohibits cross-country travel. Because no historic properties would be affected under Alternative 5, no mitigation measures would be required. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 is designed to have the second-lowest impact on cultural resources. The number of at-risk cultural resource sites identified in Alternative 4 (n=54) is nearly half the number reported in Alternative 3 (n=93)—the action alternative on the other end of the spectrum which is designed to enhance motorized recreation opportunities. The number of at-risk properties under Alternatives 2 and 6 is 73 and 81, respectively. From a strictly quantitative perspective, indirect and direct effects fluctuate back and forth in the alternatives as the most prominent risk type. When those cases are examined in more detail, however, the qualitative data demonstrate that indirect effects are often minor in severity while direct effects more often result in moderate effects (or more detrimental effects) to the resource. Severity of effect is an important indicator in this analysis. Trends noted in the types of effects are maintained when the severity data are compared. Alternative 3 would result in eleven cases where adverse effects to historic properties are of major severity. Ten properties would be susceptible to a significant loss of integrity in Alternative 6, while Alternatives 2 and 4 each include five properties threatened by disturbances of comparable magnitudes. Mitigation measures prescribed for each alternative are designed to reduce or eliminate effects based on the nature of effects and their severity. Alternative 3 requires the most intensive mitigation measures. Conversely, Alternative 4 consistently requires the fewest mitigative actions. Monitoring is the most common mitigation measure prescribed in all action alternatives. Monitoring is frequently prescribed where there is uncertainty regarding the risk to historic properties or where it is unclear whether previous disturbances may continue (USDA Forest Service 2006b: Appendix C).The erection of signs is the next most common mitigation measure prescribed in all action alternatives. Signage is most often prescribed to reduce or eliminate indirect effects, such as activities associated with motorized vehicle camping within the boundaries of a site. The strategic placement of barriers is the third most common protective measure. The number of barriers required to implement Alternative 4 (n=10) is considerably less than that mandated for Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 (n=21, 27, & 23, respectively). Reroutes frequently require the greatest investment of resources to implement (see the Transportation Facilities section of this EIS for a discussion on estimated costs). Alternatives 3 and 6 are the only alternatives that would require such extensive mitigation measures to protect site

Cultural Resources – 170 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 integrity and avoid adverse effects. Alternative 3 would require three reroutes while Alternative 6 would require one reroute. In summary, potential adverse effects to cultural resources would vary according to alternative, demonstrating a trimodal distribution when quantified. On one extreme, Alternative 1 would pose the greatest threat to cultural resources because no management actions would be taken to curb threats or current effects to NRHP values. In contrast, Alternative 5 would eliminate adverse effects to cultural resources within the APE because no routes would be added to the NFTS and cross-country travel would be prohibited. The remaining four action alternatives cluster between the two outliers. Organized from the least direct and indirect effects on cultural resources to the greatest, the order would be Alternatives 4, 2, 6, and 3.

Table 3-53: Summary of Effects and Mitigations for all Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Sites Not At Risk 503 341 379 265 0 357

Sites At Risk 123 73 93 54 0 81

Sites in APE 626 414 472 319 0 438

Direct 43 24 31 13 0 26

Indirect 36 23 29 19 0 27 Type of Effect Direct/Indirect 44 26 33 22 0 28

Totals 123 73 93 54 0 81

Minor 34 25 32 21 0 27

Moderate 68 43 50 28 0 44 Severity of Effects1 Major 21 5 11 5 0 10

Totals 123 73 93 54 0 81 Sites At Risk Monitor 0 30 34 25 0 31

Signage 0 26 33 23 0 30

Mitigation Measures2,3 Barriers 0 21 27 10 0 23

Reroute 0 0 3 0 0 1

Totals 0 77 97 58 0 85 1Where potential threats have been assessed as “negligible”, cultural resources are not considered at risk. Consequently, that category is eliminated from consideration in this table. 2The effects reported in this subset sometimes have a one-to-many relationship with heritage properties. For example, multiple mitigation measures may have been documented for different sites. Consequently, the totals reported in this table will, on rare occasions, exceed the actual number of properties. 3No mitigation measures would be implemented if Alternative 1 was selected.

Cultural Resources – 171

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.5.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Forest Plan The Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988) (LRMP) outlines the minimum conditions to be retained throughout the Forest in order to ensure resource protection and enhancement. The LRMP standards and guidelines that govern management of cultural resources on the Forest are listed in the form of 11 bullet statements in the Introduction section above. In this Section, the six alternatives are analyzed in the context of the LRMP to determine whether and how they comply with LRMP standards and guidelines. The No Action alternative is discussed separately because compliance with the LRMP is demonstrably different in that alternative. Alternative 5 is addressed separately as it, too, is unique among the alternatives. The four remaining action alternatives are evaluated in the concluding paragraphs. The following assessment is limited to a brief summary. A more extensive discussion of the LRMP as it relates to the Travel Management project is available on file. If the No Action alternative is selected, many of the LRMP cultural resources standards and guidelines would be compromised. To date, no formal action has been taken by the Forest to promote or otherwise encourage cross-country travel; therefore, there was no formal undertaking by which to consider LRMP standards and guidelines. Should the No Action alternative be selected, however, the decision would formally constitute an undertaking. Selecting the No Action alternative would result in a failure to conduct adequate consultation with SHPOs and/or American Indian groups in addition to insufficient inventory, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. The lack of adequate management plans would be expected to result in sustained and extensive adverse effects to historic properties. Because the Forest would formally be electing to take no action to manage or protect cultural resources, the Forest would be in non-compliance with the LRMP. It would also fail to comply with Section 106 mandates outlined in the Analysis Framework section above. Alternative 5 would retain the present NFTS and no new routes or areas would be added to the NFTS. Under this option, the Forest would maintain compliance with the LRMP and other applicable laws and regulations. The effects of future undertakings associated with the maintenance, modification, or expansion of the NFTS would be assessed separately and applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., NEPA and NHPA) would be applied as appropriate to protect cultural resources and other resources. The Travel Management EIS includes four other action alternatives: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. LRMP standards and guidelines would be met under these four action alternatives provided the stipulations outlined in the Motorized Recreation PA are met. Under all of the action alternatives, consultation with the appropriate SHPOs and American Indian groups has been conducted and will continue in accordance with Federal law and USDA Forest Service policy. One LRMP guideline calls for all properties to be considered eligible for the NRHP unless specifically demonstrated otherwise. All four action alternatives comply with this directive. The Forest will develop and implement appropriate management plans and strategies in all four alternatives as required by the LRMP and the Motorized Recreation PA. The data presented in this chapter document the Forest’s efforts to conduct cultural resources inventories, complete assessments of effects, and formulate mitigation plans to eliminate threats to historic properties. The LRMP specifically instructs that each of these actions be completed for all EAs/EISs associated with Forest-initiated, authorized, or

Cultural Resources – 172 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 licensed activities. In particular, each of these four action alternatives would comply with the final LRMP guideline in the list: Develop and implement strategies including road closures for the protection of cultural sites. None of the mitigation measures prescribed for this project specifically proposes that roads be dropped from consideration to protect cultural resources. Some mitigation measures necessary to protect historic properties may, however, prove to be too complex or ineffective to implement (for example, rerouting of roads). For that reason, it is possible that an unknown percentage of routes will not be added to the NFTS. In summary, Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would deviate from LRMP direction and applicable cultural resource laws and implementing regulations. Compliance with all relevant laws, regulations, and policies could be maintained in Alternatives 2–6, although resource investments and the complexity of mitigation measures associated with each alternative vary significantly.

Travel Management Rule In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a) and (b), effects on cultural resources were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in the action alternatives. The objective was to minimize effects on cultural resources, as demonstrated by the following: • The alternatives were developed in an interdisciplinary setting with full participation of the team’s cultural resources specialist, with the objective of avoiding cultural sites to the degree appropriate for the emphasis of each alternative). • All potential or identified adverse effects to cultural sites are eliminated by the application of mitigations measures as recommended by the Motorized Travel PA. • Cumulative effects are not anticipated under the action alternatives because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated • Routes with identified or potential direct or indirect effects that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. • Travel off designated routes will be prohibited in each action alternative, further minimizing effects to cultural sites both within the APE of system roads and trails and on unauthorized routes.

Cultural Resources – 173

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Cultural Resources – 174 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.6 Soil and Geologic Resources

3.6.1 Introduction The soil resource provides many essential functions for national forest lands. It sustains plant growth that provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection. It absorbs precipitation, stores water for plant growth, and gradually releases surplus water, which attenuates runoff rates. It sustains microorganisms that recycle nutrients for continued plant growth. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other acts recognized the fundamental need to protect, and where appropriate improve, the quality of soil. This section describes the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on soil site productivity and geomorphology (surface erosion and slope instability). It describes the area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. Measurement indicators are used to quantify effects to soils and describe how well the proposed action and alternatives meet the project objectives and address resource concerns. The Forest has no known areas of serpentine rock or soil in the analysis area. Therefore, exposure to asbestos while on forest routes is not a concern and will not be addressed further in this analysis. Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) have the potential to cause concern for public safety. The Forest identified two routes (N1981 and N1962) that pose a safety risk based on their proximity to mine shafts adjacent to the route. These routes are not proposed to be added to the system in any of the action alternatives. Therefore, AMLs will not be discussed further in this document.

3.6.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects the soil resource includes:

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Renewable Resource Program “(C) Recognize the fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources.”

Forest Service Manual 2500 – Chapter 2550 – Soil Management The manual outlines objectives for maintaining or improving soil quality.

Forest Service Manual 2800 – Chapter 2880 – Geologic Resources and Services The manual outlines objectives for providing quality geologic information for managing the National Forest.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 175 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

National Soil Management Handbook The Soil Management Handbook (USDA 1991) is a national soils handbook that defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity, and establishes thresholds to assist in forest planning.

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement The Forest Service Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1) establishes regional soil quality analysis standards. The analysis standards address three basic elements for the Soil Resource: (1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity; and organic matter), (2) soil hydrologic function, and (3) soil buffering capacity. The analysis standards are to be used for areas dedicated to growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses, such as developed campgrounds, administrative facilities or in this case, the actual land surface authorized for travel by the public using various kinds of vehicles. Activities on unauthorized routes will be analyzed in terms of their effects to soil compaction and erosion because of the potential to affect off-site soil quality

Regional Forester’s Letter (dated Feb 5, 2007) This letter provided clarification to Forest Supervisors on the appropriate use of the R5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement (R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1). It states in part:

Analysis or evaluation of soil condition is the intended use of the thresholds and indicators in R5 FSH Supplement 2509.18-95-1. They are not a set of mandatory standards or requirements. They should not be referred to as binding or mandatory requirements in NEPA documents. Standards and guidelines in Forest Land and Resource Management Plans provide the relevant substantive standards to comply with NFMA.

The thresholds and indicators represent desired conditions for the soil resource. Utilization of the thresholds and indicators provides a consistent method to analyze, describe and report on soil condition throughout the Region. Desired condition for soils within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) as stated in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (2004) includes “soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and sustain favorable conditions of stream flow.”

The INF LRMP includes the following management direction related to soil resources: • Reduce accelerated erosion resulting from management activities to natural background levels within three years after the soil-disturbing activity (p. 94). • Conserve the surface mineral and/or organic layer of the soils by minimizing soil disturbance to maintain long-term soil productivity. (p. 95).

Soil and Geologic Resources – 176 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Require an interdisciplinary review to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts for any projects or activities proposed in areas identified in the soil resource inventories as having an erosion hazard rating of nine or greater (p. 95). • Limit land disturbance to no more than five percent per decade on that portion of a management area characterized by steep slopes, very high erosion potential or high instability (p. 95). • Avoid the use of soil-disturbing equipment, OHVs, and trampling by livestock on wet or poorly-drained soils whenever possible (p. 95). • Locate roads and trails on natural benches or ridges well away from stream courses and other water bodies where possible. Avoid constructing roads and trails that parallel or cross tributaries to a main stream (p. 96). • Use the steepest permissible pitches and grades to avoid paralleling the stream at stream crossings. Design to maintain the existing width: depth ratio of the stream (p. 96). • Wild and Scenic Rivers (Management Area 8): Scenic Segment: Allow camping and OHV use at locations at least 100 feet form the river’s edge (p. 128).

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (1989) The Mono Basin CMP provides specific guidance for management of Mono Basin Scenic Area. • Improve roads when necessary to provide for heavy public use and protect the natural integrity. If resource values are threatened, close roads, restrict access, or otherwise resolve the issue in accordance with Action Item 10h (p. 39). • Implement OHV direction as shown on the OHV map for the Scenic Area. Close and rehabilitate routes identified by the Scenic Area Motor Vehicle Use work Group. Work with this group to resolve future issues. Incorporate direction in the Inyo National Forest OSV/OHV use Plan (p. 41). • Avoid the use of soil-disturbing equipment, OHVs, and the trampling by livestock on wet or poorly drained soils whenever possible (p. 45). • Revegetate roads and trails when use is terminated (p. 49).

Region 5 Best Management Practices (USDA FS, 2000) The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards entered into agreements with the U.S. Forest Service to control non-point source discharges by implementing control actions certified by the State Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency as Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are designed to protect and maintain water quality and prevent adverse effects to beneficial uses both on-site and downstream. They are also designed to protect soil quality. A complete list of applicable BMPs for this project can be found in the Appendix G: “BMP for OHV use (4-7) and 28 BMPs related to road construction and maintenance (2-1 to 2-28).”

Soil and Geologic Resources – 177

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.6.3 Affected Environment The Forest contains three separate soil surveys. The surveys are: 1. Soil Survey, East Part, Inyo National Forest Area California, September 1994 2. Soil Survey, West Part, Inyo National Forest Area California, June 1995 3. Soil Survey, Sequoia National Forest Area California, surveys started 1973, published 1996

The surveys were completed over a number of years starting in 1973 with the Sequoia N.F. ending in 1991 with the West Part of the Inyo National Forest. The Sequoia Soil Survey covers the Monache area and was completed when that area was part of the Sequoia National Forest. The surveys are recent for soils data within the State of California. The surveys provide a landscape scale assessment of soil properties, behaviors, and inherit limitations or hazards. More detailed information is gathered at the project site. This analysis is split into three parts: Soils in the Western Part of the Forest (Sierra Nevada and Glass Mountains); Soils in the Eastern Part of the Forest (Whites, Inyo Mountains and Pizona area) and Soils in the Monache area (mapped as part of the Sequoia Soil Survey).

Soils in the Western Part of the Forest The general soils map in the Western part of the Forest groups soils by four soil temperature zones: (1) Thermic, (2) Mesic, (3) Frigid and (4) Cryic. The Thermic zone is in the southern part of the Forest, generally from Big Pine south to the Cartago area, comprising about one percent of the survey area. The soils are generally on alluvial fans, fan terraces and bench terraces. Elevation ranges from 3,700 to 6,800 feet. Precipitation ranges from 4 to 10 inches a year, mostly as rainfall. Soils formed in material weathered from granitic and basaltic rock. Soil depth ranges from approximately 40 inches to greater than 60 inches. Vegetation includes white bursage, spiney hopsage, shadscale and desert needlegrass. Typical soil types include: (1) Xeric Torriorthents, (2) Xeric Haplargids and (3) Xeric Torripsamments. Soils in the Mesic zone are widely distributed throughout the survey area comprising forty three percent of the analysis area. They formed in material that weathered from granitic, basalt, metamorphic rocks, pumice and tuff. Topography includes mountainsides, hillsides, valley bottoms, lake terraces, fan terraces, moraines, ridges and colluvial slopes. Elevations range from 4,300 to 9,600 feet. Precipitation ranges from 4 to 30 inches. Soil depth ranges from 12 inches to greater than 60 inches. Rock outcrops are a main component of some of the map units in this zone. Vegetation consists of big sagebrush, Jeffrey pine, red fir, singleleaf pinyon and western juniper. Common soil types include Xeric and Vitrandic Torripsamments, Xeric Haplargids Lithic Xerorthents and Xeric Torriorthents. Soils in the Frigid zone formed in material that weathered from granitic, basalt, metamorphic rocks, pumice, ash and tuff. They are found on mountainsides, hillsides, basalt flows, mountain toe slopes, moraines, hilltops, ridges and colluvial slopes. These soils are widely distributed throughout the survey areas and cover thirty six percent of the analysis area. Elevations range from 5,000 to 13,000 feet. Precipitation ranges from 8 to 45 inches, much of it snow. Soil depth ranges from18 inches to greater than 60 inches. Rock outcrops are a main component of some of the map units in

Soil and Geologic Resources – 178 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 this zone. Vegetation consists of Big Sagebrush, Jeffrey Pine, red and white fir, Lodgepole pine, singleleaf Pinyon and Western Juniper. Typical soils include Lithic Argixerolls, Typic Xeropsamments, Entic Haploxerolls, Typic Xerorthents, Mollic Haploxeralfs, Vitrandic Xerorthents and Vitrandic Haploxerolls. Soils in the Cryic zone formed in material weathered from granitic, basalt, metamorphic rocks, pumice, rhyolite, obsidian and ash. These soils cover approximately eleven percent of the survey area. They formed on mountainsides, hillsides, mountaintops, hilltops, terraces and mountain basins. Elevation ranges from 7,400 to 13,400 foot. Annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 45 inches, occurring mostly as snow. Vegetation consists of big sagebrush, whitebark pine, red fir, lodgepole pine, Jeffrey Pine, sedges and grasses. Typical soils include Lithic Cryoborolls, Typic Cryorthents, Vitrandic Cryorthents and Vitrandic Cryopsamments.

Soils in the Eastern Part of the Forest This area includes the White and Inyo Mountains and the Pizona area. Westgard pass is considered to be the break between the White and Inyo mountain ranges. The Pizona area is separated from the White Mountains by Queen Valley at the California-Nevada state line. The Whites and Inyo Mountains are considered typical Basin and Range Province range and differ from the Sierra Nevada as it characterized as a transition from the Mediterranean climate and the continental climate. In this area, soils were not characterized for a section around Mount Montgomery west to the California-Nevada state line. Soils in the eastern part of the Forest are grouped by topographic/geomorphic landscape position, soil temperature and broad geologic types: Soils of Alluvial plains – mesic and frigid temperature regimes: These soils formed from material weathered from granitic and mixed rocks. They are found on alluvial depression, sand dunes, alluvial fans and terraces. These soils make up eight percent of the survey area. Elevations range from 3,800 to 10,100 feet. Precipitation ranges from 6 to 11 inches. Soil depth ranges from 14 inches to greater than 60 inches. Typical Vegetation consists of big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, goldenbush, Nevada Ephedra, shadscale and boxthorn. Typical soils include: Typic and Xeric Torriorthents, Xeric Torripsamments, Typic Xeropsamments, Xerollic Haplargids, Typic Durargids and Typic Camborthids. Soils of the Temperate Uplands – Mesic and Frigid Temperatures: These soils formed in material weathered from volcanic, limestone, dolomite, marble, plutonic and noncarbonated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. They are found on lava flows; colluvial alluvial and residual positions on mid- mountain and mountainsides. Granitic, volcanic and limestone rock outcrops are common throughout this zone. Elevations range from 4,100 to 12,700 feet. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 12 inches, which predominantly falls as snow at the higher elevations. This zone comprises 81% percent of the survey area. Soil depth ranges from 4 to greater than 60 inches. Typical vegetation includes: big sagebrush, singleleaf pinyon, curl-leaf mountain mahogany, shadscale, greenfire, juniper, and antelope bitterbrush. Typical soils include: Aridic and Lithic Haploxerolls, Xerollic Haplargids, Lithic Torriorthents, and Aridic Argixerolls.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 179

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Soils of the cold uplands – Cryic temperature regimes: These soils formed from plutonic, sedimentary and metamorphic rock materials. They are found on colluvial and alluvial positions on high mountains. This unit is entirely within the White Mountain range. Elevations range from 8,800 to 14,250 feet. Soil depth ranges from 39 to over 60 inches. The annual precipitation is 11 to 18 inches consisting mostly of snow. This zone comprises eleven percent of the survey area. Typical vegetation includes: Goldenbush, bluegrass, lupine and Bristlecone Pine. Typical soils include Pergelic and Typic Cryoborolls.

Soils in the Monache Area This area is west of the Sierra crest. This area is entirely within the frigid temperature zone. Soils formed from weathered granitic, or basic igneous rock (andesite). They are found on alluvial fans, upland basins, mountain sides and ridges. Elevations range from 7,800 to 9,200 feet. Soil depth ranges from 19 inches to greater than 60 inches. Annual precipitation is 16 to 30 inches, falling mostly as snow. Typical vegetation includes: Lodgepole Pine, sedges, basin sagebrush, and singleleaf pinyon.

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on geomorphic processes (surface erosion and mass wasting) and soil productivity. This analysis is focused on the effects of three actions: (1) the prohibition of cross-country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the national forest transportation system (NFTS), and (3) changes to the use of existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). Unauthorized routes vary widely in their origin. Some have been in use for several decades but have never been formally designated for public use, while others have been created recently by users traveling cross-country off existing roads. User-created routes generally lack engineering design. They usually lack drainage structures, rolling dips and often traverse steep gradients. Since they were not actually constructed, the route treads are often in loose surface soils rather than well compacted subsoil, which better supports traffic and resists mechanical erosion. Many of the more long-standing routes have the same characteristics as user-created routes. In some cases, however, they were engineered and are less susceptible to erosion. Discussion of effects also requires defining the severity, timeframe, and spatial extent of effects. For this analysis, severity is described as minor, moderate, or major. Minor effects are those that impact the route tread but do not measurably affect soil productivity (e.g., rilling that is confined to the route tread). A moderate effect is one where off-site erosion or route widening is present but does not appreciably diminish soil productivity. A major effect is one that is limiting soil productivity through off-site erosion (rill or gullies in the route bed) and/or route widening.

Geomorphic Processes Roads affect geomorphic processes by four primary mechanisms: (1) accelerating erosion from the road surface and prism itself by both mass and surface erosion processes; (2) directly affecting channel structure and geometry; (3) altering surface flow paths, and (4) causing interactions among water, sediment and woody debris at engineered road-stream crossings (Gucinski, et al. 2001). These mechanics involve different physical processes, have various effects on erosion rates, and are not

Soil and Geologic Resources – 180 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 uniformly distributed within or among landscapes (Gucinski, et al. 2001). Two of the most common processes affected by native surface forest roads—surface erosion and mass wasting—are described in more detail below.

Surface Erosion Roads are considered the principal cause of accelerated erosion in forests throughout the western United States (, Reid and Dunne 1984, McCashion and Rice 1983, Furniss and others 1991, Harr and Nichols 1993). Surface erosion from road surfaces, cut banks, and ditches represents a significant and, in some landscapes, the dominant source of road-related sediment input to streams. Surface erosion is a greater concern on routes with slope gradients greater than 15%. Generally, surface erosion is a function of three factors: (1) the energy available from erosion forces, (2) the inherent erosion hazard of the site and (3) the amount and type of cover available to protect the soil surface (FAO, 1998). The majority of sediment generated on roads occurs within the first year following construction (Megahan and Kidd 1972) and are closely correlated to traffic volume on unpaved roads (Reid and Dunne 1984). Specifically, causes of erosion may include: (1) removal or reduction of protective cover; (2) destruction or impairment of natural soil structure and fertility; (3) increased slope gradients created by construction of cut and fill slopes; (4) decreased infiltration rates of parts of the road, (5) interception of subsurface flow by the road cut slopes; (6) decreased soil strength; (7) increased sheer stress or both on cut and fill slopes; and (8) concentration of generated and intercepted water (Megahan, 1977).

Mass Wasting/Slope Instability Forest roads, especially those on steeper slopes (40%), are subject to failure through mass wasting processes. The mechanisms for road-related mass wasting failures include removing slope support in roadcuts, increasing the weight on fillslopes, groundwater saturation of the road prism, intercepting subsurface flow, hillslope drainage rerouting, and initiating debris flows at failed stream crossings (USDA Forest Service 1999). Much research has indicated that roads increase the risk of landslides and are sources of sediment, debris, and wood to streams (Jones et al., 1996; Watterson and Jones, 2006; Gucinski et al. 2000). However, a majority of those studies occurred on unstable landscapes in Oregon, Washington, and coastal California. Those studies have limited applicability to the Inyo National Forest, as the geology and climate are different. Climate of the Inyo National Forest is dryer than those other areas, as it lies in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Most of the winter precipitation is snow, whereas rain and rain on snow predominates winter precipitation in the studies. Furthermore, the geologic environments of those research areas are actively eroding, which is partly due to their proximity to the subduction zones of the Pacific and North American plates.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 181

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Soil Productivity Soil productivity is defined as the soil's ability to provide beneficial resource values such as diverse plant and animal communities, healthy watershed conditions, and the sustainability of these resources. Roads represent a commitment of the soil resource, in that the soil resource is dedicated to use as a transportation facility. Forest roads can have significant effects on soil productivity by removing and displacing topsoil, altering soil properties, changing microclimate and accelerating erosion. (Gusinski et al., 2001).

3.6.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology

Data Sources Based on a risk assessment conducted using existing Geographic Information System (GIS) data, a subset of unauthorized routes and/or route segments more susceptible to soil and watershed concerns was field reviewed to evaluate site-specific conditions. The initial GIS screening used Erosion Hazard Ratings (EHRs), which evaluate the relative risk of surface erosion using information found in Soil Resource Inventories that cover the Forest; routes located within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) of perennial stream channels and routes which pass through meadows. The field surveys focused on routes or route segments in moist and wet meadows on slopes over 15% and routes within RCAs of perennial stream channels. A subset of routes located in dry meadows was also field reviewed. These field visits indicated that impacts to soil and watershed function in dry meadows were negligible. In addition, surveys completed by other resource specialists identified possible areas of concern that were then reviewed by a qualified watershed specialist. Approximately 300 miles of routes or route segments were visited in this manner. Additional information about meadow condition is located in the Water Resources section. In addition to the site-specific field reviews conducted by the watershed/soil specialist, resource technicians reviewed approximately 300 miles of routes in the summer of 2008 to document existing conditions and potential resource concerns with photo points. Very few resource concerns were identified during these reviews (Route Observation Data, project file), indicating that the screening process described above accurately identified the routes most susceptible to soil concerns. The Forest has 10 areas in which OHV patrol, route maintenance, and conservation efforts are concentrated. These areas include the following: • Monache • Poleta Open Area • Bishop/Coyote • White Mountains and Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest • Mazourka and Inyo Mountains • McGee Creek and Sagehen Meadow area/Taylor Canyon • Glass Creek/Deadman/Crater Flats • Lookout Loop • East Craters • Mono Basin Scenic Area

Soil and Geologic Resources – 182 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

These areas represent a cross section of different soil types and conditions found throughout the Forest. For instance, in the Monache and Bishop/Coyote areas system routes traverse through wet and dry meadows. In the McGee Creek, Glass Creek/Deadman/Crater Flats, Lookout Loop, East Craters and Mono Basin Scenic Area routes traverse through ashy/pumiceous soil types. As part of OHV management on the Forest, approximately 215 miles of system roads and unauthorized routes used by OHV enthusiasts are monitored using the 1991 California Department of Parks and Recreation Soil Conservation Standards and Guidelines. The majority of the monitoring is focused on system roads in the ten “OHV management areas”, many of which were engineered with proper grade and drainage. The Soil Conservation Standards and Guidelines (checklist) rate the condition of route segments as Green, Yellow, Red (G, Y, R). The green condition class means that the route is in stable condition and is generally functional with minimal resource issues. Yellow condition relates to routes that need minor erosion control and/or tread work that should be prioritized for maintenance. The red rating is used for routes in need of restoration and/or heavy maintenance work. Generally, routes are rated on a yearly basis. As of the summer of 2007, 88 percent of the monitored routes were found to be stable and functional (green-rated) with continued maintenance. The remaining 12 percent of routes were rated yellow, with minor drainage problems, multi-trailing, and/or off-trail headcutting. The G,Y,R monitoring results are used to identify and prioritize routes for corrective action, including heavy maintenance, repair of drainage/erosion control features or damaged tread surfaces, and, in some cases, re-routing to avoid the sensitive area. Restoration and maintenance activities implemented since 2003, for instance, have increased the percentage of green-rated routes from 82% to 88%, and decreased yellow-rated routes from approximately 18% to 12% in 2007. A project started in 2007 is intended to address the drainage problems on the remaining yellow-rated routes. Route specific data is found in the project record. Based on this data, trails/routes through meadows and steep areas (over 15% slopes) on ashy/pumiceous soils generally have the most potential for soil concerns (e.g., surface erosion and loss of soil productivity on adjacent sites) from public motor vehicle use. These data were used to identify potential problem areas associated with unauthorized routes and understand how routes through different soil environments respond to motor vehicle traffic.

Analysis Area This analysis addresses effects to soil resources outside of designated wilderness areas on the Inyo National Forest. This is because effects to soils generally occur immediately below or adjacent to the routes where motorized use occurs.

Indicator Measures As described in detail in Chapter 2, the actions proposed by the alternatives are: • Prohibition on cross-country travel

Soil and Geologic Resources – 183

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Addition of currently unauthorized routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system), and • Changes to the existing NFTS.

Measurement indicators have been developed to assess the effects of the prohibition on cross- country travel and the addition of routes to the NFTS. These indicators are listed in the table below. The proposed changes to the NFTS described in Chapter 2 will not be considered further in this analysis. This is because: • Proposed limited changes to the existing NFTS road network include managing some as motorized trails rather than roads. For all action alternatives, off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation would decrease slightly given the smaller footprint and/or disturbance when a route is managed as a motorcycle or ATV motorized trail rather than as a road for all vehicles. The resulting beneficial effect would not result in a measurable change to the soil resource because it would be very limited in extent and intensity. • Proposals to close existing NFTS roads to public travel for administrative purposes would not result in a measurable change to the soil resource because use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns. These roads are currently part of the NFTS and their effects on soil resources were considered in past management decisions.

To display the differences between alternatives, with respect to effects to the soil resource, the following three indicators were used:

Table 3-54: Soil Resource Measurement Indicators Description of Indicator Usefulness of Indicator Measure Action to be Measure Analyzed Indicator #1 Percent reduction in the Provides a measure of the area available to Effects of miles of existing routes recover full soil productivity. prohibiting cross- available for motorized use country travel Indicator #2 Miles of routes available for Identifies the relative risk to soil condition Effects of adding motorized use resulting from alternative transportation routes to the system proposals. A decrease in routes NFTS available for public use has the potential to concentrate use. Indicator #3 Routes available for motor Identifies the likelihood that a soil disturbing Effects of adding vehicle use in each Region activity would cause accelerated sheet and rill routes to the 5 Erosion Hazard Rating erosion. Identifies the relative risk for NFTS Class. accelerated sheet and rill erosion

Assumptions The following assumptions are central to the analysis of effects on soil resources: • The unauthorized routes currently being evaluated for inclusion in the Forest Transportation System already exist and are being used by motorized vehicles. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that unauthorized routes do not have the capacity to grow vegetation within the road prism or trail tread as long as motorized use continues. It is also assumed that soil has

Soil and Geologic Resources – 184 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

been physically displaced and compacted within the road prism or trail tread, resulting in a reduction in productivity, soil hydrologic function, and loss of soil cover. The severity and duration of these effects depends on use levels, location, and whether the route was engineered or not. • In the action alternatives, unauthorized routes that are not added to the system will no longer be used by motorized vehicle and through passive restoration will gradually move toward a more productive state. • Allowing public use on motor vehicle routes would have few direct effects on soils (e.g., compaction, disturbance, removal of vegetation have already occurred), but the alternatives have the potential to affect soils indirectly if use is concentrated on fewer routes and maintenance needs are increased and through the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize known erosion concerns. • Native surface routes are more susceptible to soil loss than surfaced (e.g., paved or aggregate) routes. All but four unauthorized routes within the analysis area are native surface. • Native surface roads and motorized trails are most susceptible to damage by motor vehicles when wet, especially in meadows and routes with sandy clay loam or clay loam surface texture. Soils in the Little Hot Creek area, for instance, have an unusually high level of clay compared to the surrounding areas and the majority of the Inyo National Forest. Rutting and damage from wet season travel is noticeable in this area. Wet season use of native surface roads and trails often leads to ruts which channel water and increase the erosive power of that water; this can lead to increased erosion both on and adjacent to the road or trail. • Implementing seasonal closures on routes susceptible to wet-weather damage by motor vehicles would reduce rutting and subsequent channeling of surface water runoff. Seasonal closures would decrease the potential effects of motorized vehicle use on by decreasing erosion and sedimentation. Additional information on seasonal closures and weather patterns is found in Appendix F.

3.6.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects The indicator measures listed previously are used to describe and compare the effects of the actions proposed by the alternatives. Short term effects are defined as those occurring within 1-5 years of implementation with long- term effect defined as those expected to occur between 5 – 20 years after implementation.

Effects Common to All Alternatives Direct impacts to soils, adjacent watersheds, and stream courses that result from the activities proposed in the project alternatives are limited. There are no new ground disturbing activities proposed with this project. The routes being evaluated in this analysis already exist on the ground, but may require upgrading to NFTS standards as well as periodic maintenance. They have some degree of compaction, soil displacement and generally lack vegetation. From the standpoint of soil productivity and growing vegetation, these routes are already considered non-productive even though some are

Soil and Geologic Resources – 185

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

likely to have some degree of soil productivity as evidenced by vegetation growth within the route “prism”. Therefore, the potential effects of the alternatives on soil resources are related to sustaining road or trail function, protecting adjacent soils from runoff and gully erosion, or protecting water quality as described in the Water Resources section. Although erosion of the trail or road surface may represent a degradation of the facility (e.g., may make the route impassable to certain types of vehicles), it is not a particular concern for the soil resource, because the travelway surface is dedicated to the purposes of transportation rather than vegetation. The effects analysis for the soil resource will focus on the risk of soil erosion from trail/road runoff water to the soil adjacent to or down slope from the route. Secondary effects from erosion are reduction in soil depth, infiltration capacity and permeability or a reduction in soil hydrologic function. As discussed in the Water Resources section, sediment generated by erosion of the trail or road surface may be a concern to water quality if there is the potential for its delivery to a stream channel. The action alternatives would indirectly affect soil resources by (1) affecting the amount of traffic and season of use on routes; (2) adding routes to the transportation system in areas with highly erosive soils; (3) affecting levels of maintenance by designating routes on highly erosive soils and/or concentrating use; and (4) affecting the potential for recovery and restoration. The action alternatives would prohibit public motorized use of unauthorized routes that are not added to the transportation system and designated for motorized use. If motorized use of the route ceases, in the short term (five years or less), some native vegetation may establish on routes that have little soil compaction. It is likely that routes with moderate to heavy soil compaction (within the wheel tracks) will take more than five years to recover vegetation. Some stable, moderately-used routes will recover within twenty years. In some cases, native shrubs growing along the sides of the trail will lean into the trail. The most severely disturbed (i.e., actively eroding, affecting adjacent soils) routes are not likely to recover without some type of active restoration. Unauthorized routes may be decommissioned or converted to other uses after appropriate site-specific analysis is completed. Prohibiting motorized use on native surface routes may result in less erosion in places where recurrent disturbance of the soil surface by motor vehicle traffic is the primary cause of erosion. On many routes, however, erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to water bodies is the result of a combination of factors that include motorized use, as well as season of use, lack of drainage structures, inadequate maintenance, and poor trail design or location. If non-motorized trail users continue to use the roads and trails some erosion and sediment transport could continue to occur as vegetative recovery would be slower. Unauthorized routes that have been used by motorized vehicles for several decades would recover more slowly than recently created unauthorized routes. The few unauthorized routes which were constructed with fill slopes and cut slopes would re-vegetate in time, but compacted road prisms would recover slowly (likely longer than 20 years) without a physical treatment to break up the compaction. Actively eroding routes are unlikely to improve on their own. On most of these routes, restoration to a fully productive state would require decommissioning. By contrast, the majority of unauthorized routes have the potential to recover faster. Compaction is not as deep, less topsoil has been displaced, and natural soil profiles have not been as greatly

Soil and Geologic Resources – 186 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 disturbed. These factors are quite variable, mostly depending upon level of use, season of use, location on the landscape, and location on the Forest. Routes are expected to recover some level of productivity within 20 years, with some fully recovered within that timeframe. Given the large environmental variability on the Forest precise characterization of route recovery is not possible. For example, routes in the Mammoth and June Lake areas are likely to recover faster than routes on the South Sierra Escarpment and Inyo Mountains. Even within these broad geographical areas variability exists, as discussed above.

Effects Related to Mass Wasting While rock fall is a concern on some system roads (e.g., Horseshoe Meadow Road and Whitney Portal Road) and highways (e.g., State Route 168 along Bishop Creek; State Route 120 through Lee Vining Creek Canyon; and US 395 in the Mono Basin), unauthorized routes do not elevate the risk of mass wasting events (e.g., landslides and debris flows). While debris flows are sometimes initiated above routes due to localized thunderstorm events, unauthorized routes are not expected to destabilize hillslopes and cause debris flows or landslides that could transport sediment and debris into streams. This is because: • Ground water saturation of the road prism is rare due to the low rainfall and high soil permeability that characterizes the majority of the INF (see Soils Analysis for more information) • None of the unauthorized routes located on hillslopes have known culverts at stream crossings, reducing the likelihood the crossing could fail and initiate a debris flow. • The vast majority of unauthorized routes which cross stream channels have low water crossings, which may be degraded and/or become impassable after summer thunderstorms (especially in the White and Inyo Mountains) but generally do not lead to a larger mass wasting event. • Three unauthorized routes (N1620, N1624, and 02S370) are known to have culverts. These routes are located on flat ground and would not contribute to mass wasting failures extending past the stream crossing. • Unauthorized routes generally follow terrain and contour. They generally have not been constructed and lack road cuts and fill which are subject to mass wasting failures if slope support is removed or weight is increased.

Effects of Cross-Country Travel Prohibition for All Alternatives (Indicator 1) Of the six alternatives, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of impacts to soil resources. This is because it will not implement a permanent forestwide prohibition on cross-country travel (the temporary forest order currently in place expires in June 2010). Under Alternative 1, it will prohibited for drivers to operate vehicles off NFTS roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15(h)). However, because allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate (compared to the prohibition on cross-country travel), current difficulties associated with prosecuting users for traveling cross-country would continue under

Soil and Geologic Resources – 187

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Alternative 1. In addition, public motorized use of all existing unauthorized routes outside of wilderness (1,668 miles) would continue under the No Action alternative, providing access to a greater number of areas where cross-country travel may be possible, even if prohibited by temporary Forest Order. In general, it is difficult to predict where cross-country travel may occur in the future, attempting to measure effects associated with future cross-country travel highly speculative. Most forest visitors will stay on existing unauthorized routes and system roads. However, within the identified Off Road Travel Concern Areas (ORTCAs), cross-country travel is likely to continue because no new mitigations (e.g., barriers, signs) are proposed in these areas. Cross-country travel in these areas would result in direct effects to soils, including new soil disturbance, exposure of bare soil through the removal of vegetation, and, if the use occurs repeatedly, soil compaction. If soil is physically displaced and compacted within the wheel treads, cross-country travel could result in a reduction in productivity and soil hydrologic function. Cross-country travel is prohibited in Alternatives 2 – 6, which is expected to limit the proliferation of new unauthorized routes on native surfaces. Motorized use would also be prohibited on all unauthorized routes not added to the National Forest Transportation System. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would reduce the area affected by motorized use of unauthorized routes by 30%, Alternative 6 by 41%, Alternative 2 by 46%, Alternative 4 by 59% and Alternative 5 by 100% (Indicator 1). The relatively small difference in routes available to the public between Alternative 2, 3, and 6 would likely not result in any appreciable changes in use patterns and is not expected to result in measurable effects on soils. However, compared to Alternative 1, the action alternatives are expected to result in minor beneficial impacts to the soil resource as motorized use of certain unauthorized routes is prohibited and the routes gradually move toward a more productive state (passive restoration). The Poleta Open Area would be closed to cross-country travel in Alternative 4. In the short–term, changes would be nearly imperceptible as the climate of this area is arid and hot. In the long-term vegetation would begin to colonize disturbed areas and off-site soil erosion would decrease. Full recovery of routes would likely take more than 20 years given the hot, arid climate characterizing the Poleta area and the likelihood that there will be a higher number of violations (i.e., travel off of designated routes) the first few years before the number of violations declines as users understand and comply with the new restrictions. Except for Alternative 5, reductions in the miles of routes available for motorized use are not expected to concentrate use on designated routes to the point that routine maintenance of remaining system roads and trails would markedly change. More than 96% of unauthorized routes are estimated to receive less than 25 vehicle trips per week (or 3-4 vehicle trips per day). Another 3% receive 25- 100 vehicle trips per week, which equates to 4-14 vehicle trips per day. In addition, many of these routes are short spurs off existing NFTS roads. Since these spurs do not provide through access, use of the main artery would continue whether or not the spurs are available for use. Alternative 5, which would not add any unauthorized routes to the system, would concentrate motorized use on existing system roads (paved and unpaved). However, because additional facilities would not be added to the NFTS in this alternative, the limited maintenance funding available could be dedicated to completing routine maintenance of the existing system on a more regular basis than the other action alternatives. (See the Section 3.14 for more information about administration and maintenance of the NFTS for each alternative.)

Soil and Geologic Resources – 188 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS for All Alternatives Surface erosion occurs on most forest roads because their surfaces, cutslopes, fillslopes and associated drainage structures are usually composed of erodable material and are exposed to rainfall and concentrated surface runoff (USDA Forest Service, 1999). Concentrated runoff is the primary agent of erosion on native surfaced roads and trails and unauthorized routes. Mechanical displacement of soil by motor vehicle traffic is also important especially in pumiceous, ashy soils and other non-cohesive soil types, although most mechanically displaced soil is ultimately transported by concentrated runoff. There are three types of soil loss related to motorized routes: 1. Loss of capacity to grow vegetation: When an existing unauthorized route is added to the transportation system, the soil within the road prism or trail tread is dedicated to use as a transportation facility and loses its capacity to grow vegetation. Since these routes already exist and new construction is not needed, soil is not actually lost from the site. 2. Erosion of the route tread: Tread erosion can reduce the ability of the route to function as a transportation facility, so soil lost by erosion is a loss of facility function rather than a loss of productivity. Although erosion of the route tread may represent a degradation of the facility (e.g., may make the route impassable to certain types of vehicles), it is not a particular concern for the soil resource, because the travelway surface is dedicated to the purposes of transportation rather than vegetation once the route is added to the NFTS. 3. Water movement to create gullies: The third type of soil loss occurs when water concentrated on a road or trail leaves the route and creates a gully in adjacent soils. This results in a reduction in productivity, the capacity to grow vegetation, and hydrologic function.

The effects analysis for the soil resource will focus on the risk of soil erosion from trail/road runoff water and tread widening to the soil adjacent to or down slope from the route. There are other off-site impacts of soil loss, such as when sediment from erosion of roads and trails is delivered to a watercourse. For this analysis, sedimentation is not considered a soil impact. Sedimentation is covered in the Water Resources and Aquatic Resources sections of this Chapter as an impact on water quality. Tables in Appendix A list the unauthorized routes by class and alternative. The relatively small difference in routes available to the public between Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 would likely not result in any appreciable changes in use patterns and is not expected to result in measurable effects on soils. The decrease in routes available for public use may concentrate use on fewer routes for Alternatives 4 and 5. However, because most unauthorized routes receive very low use, and are short dead-end spurs rather than key arterial routes, proposed route additions are not expected to concentrate use to the point that tread wear greatly exceeds existing levels. In some limited parts of the forest that experience high use levels on unauthorized routes, tread wear on routes added to the NFTS is likely to increase if other routes in the area are closed to motorized travel. This would lead to increased maintenance return intervals on those routes, especially under Alternatives 4 and 5.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 189

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

To assess the relative risk of sheet and rill erosion occurring outside of route prisms, miles of routes available for motorized use in each of the four Maximum Erosion Hazard Ratings (EHR) were calculated for each alternative. The Maximum EHR ratings are based on information in the Soil Resource Inventories (SRI) completed on the East and West Side of the Forests and on the Sequoia SRI completed for the Monache area.

Table 3-55: Miles of Unauthorized Routes Available for Motorized Use by Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating and Alternative (Indicator 3) Max EHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Low 845 505 603 365 0 538 Moderate 507 266 356 202 0 294 High 163 54 114 38 0 61 Very High 19 4 9 3 0 6 Routes Not Rated (miles) 12 4 5 2 0 3

Under Alternative 1, approximately 11% of unauthorized routes are located on high and very high EHR soils. In the action alternatives, percent of total miles of routes added to the system on high and very high EHR soils ranges from 0% in Alternative 5, 2% for Alternative 4, 3% for Alterative 2, 4% percent for Alternative 6, and 7% percent for Alternative 3. Alternatives 2, 4 and 6 have a relatively small proportion of added routes that are susceptible to sheet and rill erosion. Alternatives 1 and 3 would have a higher risk as more routes are open that have a high and very erosion hazard rating. This means that Alternatives 1 and 3 have a slightly higher risk of sheet and rill erosion on soils adjacent to the open routes. These alternatives would likely require higher levels of maintenance to protect soils from off-site erosion. During field surveys it was discovered that EHR strongly correlates with slope grade of the route as EHR assumes no ground cover. Routes over 15 percent grade generally have evidence of rilling with mechanical disturbance observed in the pumiceous/ashy soil types. These routes also are subject to expansion as vehicles move to a more favorable position when climbing steep grades. The routes with high EHR in pumiceous/ashy soils have a greater potential for sheet and rill erosion. Few areas in pumiceous/ashy soils have a very high EHR. Soils derived from granitic and/or glacial till parent materials have lower potential for sheet and rill erosion given similar slope grades. Almost all of the very high EHR occurs in the White and Inyo Mountains. Because the high rock content in the soils in these areas minimizes the extent of rilling on routes, EHR is overestimated for routes in the Whites and Inyo Mountains. A Maximum EHR of high and very high generally indicates that a route may need more intensive and frequent maintenance. It cannot be used to identify specific effects on individual routes. Coupled with site-specific information about route condition, however, the maximum EHR indicator can be used to assess relative risk of sheet and rill erosion on a forestwide basis. The table below displays routes with known erosion problems that were identified during Travel Management surveys. All routes would remain available for use without mitigation in Alternative 1. Some of the routes with minor effects are added to the NFTS in the alternatives without mitigation. Routine maintenance is expected to maintain route tread, retard off-site erosion, and ensure soil productivity is not impacted on these routes. Additional mitigation is not needed.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 190 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Note that route proposals listed for Alternatives 2-6 may have been driven by resource concerns other than soils. For example, motorized vehicle use may be prohibited on a route with minor soil concerns due to unavoidable conflicts with rare plants, or perhaps because the route is duplicative or redundant. See the tables in Appendix A for more information about the mitigation proposals for these routes.

Table 3-56: Unauthorized Routes with Known Erosion Concerns Route No. Condition Degree of Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Effect N246 Rilling minor No MV1 No MV No MV No MV No MV Add to Add to Add to N247 Rilling minor No MV No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS Add to Add to Add to Add to 05S103 Rilling minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS Add to Add to Add to Add to 05S104 Rutting minor NFTS - NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation N673 Rilling minor No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV 01S477 Rilling minor No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV 01S264 Soft pumice minor No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV Soft pumice, Add to Add to Add to Add to U03S515 route Minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS expansion 03S554 Rutting moderate No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV Add to Add to Add to Add to 03S520 Rutting moderate NFTS - NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Rutting, Add to Add to 03S521 route major No MV NFTS - No MV No MV NFTS - expansion Mitigation Mitigation Soft pumice, Add to Add to Add to 03S512 rutting, route moderate No MV NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - expansion Mitigation mitigation mitigation Soft pumice, route Add to Add to 03S473 expansion, major No MV NFTS - No MV No MV NFTS - multi-trails, mitigation mitigation moguls Soft pumice, Add to Add to Add to Add to 03S511 route minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS expansion Add to Add to Add to Add to 03S526 Rilling moderate NFTS - NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation 03S527 Rutting moderate No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV Add to Add to Add to Add to 03S536 Rilling minor NFTS - NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Soft pumice, Add to Add to Add to Add to 03S475 route minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS expansion Add to Add to Add to Add to 02N106 rilling minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS

Soil and Geologic Resources – 191

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Route No. Condition Degree of Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Effect Rilling, route N2240 moderate No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV expansion Add to Add to Add to N2244 Rilling minor No MV No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS N234 Rilling minor No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV N2563 Rutting moderate No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV Add to Add to Add to Add to N2564 Rilling minor No MV NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS Rilling, route 03S626 expansion, moderate No MV No MV No MV No MV No MV moguls Add to Route Add to Add to Add to 04S324 minor No MV NFTS - expansion NFTS NFTS NFTS mitigation Rilling, route Add to Add to Add to Add to 01S119 minor No MV expansion NFTS NFTS NFTS NFTS Rutting, Add to Add to Add to Add to route N5002 Moderate NFTS - NFTS - NFTS - No MV NFTS - expansion, mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation moguls Soft pumice, Add to Add to Add to Add to 04S171 route minor No MV NFTS - NFTS NFTS NFTS expansion mitigation Add to Add to Add to 05S127 Rilling minor No MV No MV NFTS - NFTS NFTS mitigaiton 1 “No MV” indicates that the route would not be added to the NFTS in that alternative and motorized use would be prohibited.

The action alternatives would reduce site-specific erosion impacts on these routes by: • Eliminating motorized use of some or all of the routes with known erosion concerns (i.e., not adding the routes to the NFTS), and/or • Proposing mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate erosion concerns if the route is added to the NFTS.

For example, route 03S521 in the Little Hot Creek area (0.4 miles) would be added to the NFTS in Alternatives 3 and 6 but closed to public use in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Alternatives 3 and 6 propose mitigations to stabilize the route (e.g., installing drainage such as waterbars, adding barriers to prevent entry into streams, hardening the road surface to prevent erosion, and seasonal closure). Burroughs (1989) found that hardening a road section with four inches of 1.5 minus gravel reduced sediment yield by 79 percent. In addition, implementation of the seasonal closure would provide an improvement in soil quality compared to the no action alternative. The seasonal closure would lessen the risk for damage to trail tread, trail widening, off-site erosion, and off-site sedimentation. The degree of effect is great on a site-specific basis given the degree of degradation that can occur during wet season travel. Based on experience and research using similar mitigations to address similar resource concerns, implementation of these mitigations is expected to result in localized improvement in soil condition compared to the no action alternative.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 192 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Mitigation Measures Mitigations proposed to reduce or eliminate effects to soil resources are analyzed in the Direct and Indirect Effects sections above. The effects determination assumes that all pre- and post- designation mitigations applied to minimize effects on water resources will be completed within the short-term effects timeframe of five years. Priority for mitigations is dependent on the severity of effects and recreational opportunity. Routes with pre-designation mitigations have effects greater in scope and intensity than routes with post-designation mitigations. Routes with pre-designation mitigations were prioritized to ensure mitigations to minimize effects are completed quickly and recreational opportunity restored. As stated earlier in the analysis, even when motor vehicle use ceases impacts will still occur until mitigation is completed. For instance, while motor vehicle induced effects would cease, active erosion and sedimentation to water bodies would continue until mitigation is completed. Routes with post-designation mitigations have minor effects that are localized and contained. Some routes with minor effects are not proposed for mitigation. These routes were identified as needing routine maintenance, as defined in Chapter 2, to ensure effects are at an acceptable level. Post-designation mitigations provide for continued recreational opportunity while ensuring that effects are mitigated to acceptable levels within the short-term effect timeframe. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on other forest resources are summarized in Chapter 2 and listed by route in Appendix A. These mitigations are analyzed here to assess potential impacts on the soil resource. Of those, only proposed reroutes (to a new location), signage, barriers, and weed treatments were identified as having potential effects on soil erosion potential and soil productivity due to their potential to remove vegetation and expose bare soil. Mitigations were reviewed by a combination of field knowledge of the area, GIS analysis, and aerial photo interpretation. Of all the mitigations, reroutes have the greatest potential to increase soil erosion and affect soil productivity. The reroutes would be engineered with appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) applied. In addition, the old route would be decommissioned by a combination of barriers, signage and hand and mechanical scarification and revegetation. During implementation, off-site soil erosion would increase on the new route. As the route would be engineered and BMPs applied the effect would be temporary. This would be partially off-set by implementing active restoration of the old route path. In the long-term, the old route path would stabilize, essentially eliminating off-site erosion and restoring soil productivity. Barriers would consist of rocks and boulders. In some instances, they would be placed outside the existing route footprint. This may crush vegetation; however, the impact to soil erosion and productivity would be negligible. Signage would have similar effects. Weed treatments were analyzed in Noxious Weed Environmental Assessment with the Decision Notice signed in November 2007. No additional effects are anticipated.

3.6.5 Cumulative Effects This analysis addresses effects to soil resources outside of designated wilderness on the Inyo National Forest. This is because effects to soils generally occur immediately below or adjacent to the routes where motorized use occurs. The analysis area encompasses approximately 1.4 million acres. Cumulative effects are considered for a 20-year horizon. This timeframe generally encompasses

Soil and Geologic Resources – 193

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

expected vegetative recovery and reduction in compaction resulting from implementation of relevant present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Existing Conditions Current soil conditions are a reflection of past management activities. Parts of the Inyo have been altered by both natural and anthropogenic land disturbances since the late 1800s. The major anthropogenic land disturbances include timber harvest, road building, mining, recreation, the building of dams, OHV use, human settlement, and the grazing of livestock. In general, the anthropogenic land disturbances have been more intense where commodities have been extracted and/or in meadows where livestock grazing is the heaviest. The most significant natural land disturbances since the late 1800s have been large wildfires, flood events, earthquakes and avalanches. Since 2000, approximately 82,439 acres have burned in wildfires on the Forest. This is approximately four times the amount of acreage compared to previous decades back to the 1940’s. A flood event occurred in July 2008 that affected areas around the North and South Fork of Oak Creek, including approximately 640 acres on the National Forest. The mud flow and gullies will affect soil productivity for 20 years or more. Management of the transportation system over the past 20 years has included road/trail construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance. Transportation system projects were implemented following Forest Plan Standards and guidelines, and road/trail design to minimize soil resource impacts, including Best Management Practices (BMPs). In the past 10 years, grants for trail maintenance, conservation, and restoration from the State OHV Commission have been used to address known problem areas on the Forest to stabilize existing NFTS routes and limit areas of incursion by disguising user-created routes. Projects have included re- routing steep, eroding hillclimbs and hardening stream crossings. At the current rate of rehabilitation and restoration, it is anticipated that all system routes monitored under this program will be rated as “green” in the next 1-2 years. These actions have stabilized route tread, decreased soil erosion, increased soil productivity, and improved water quality.

Present and Foreseeable Future Actions The following activities are considered in the cumulative effects analysis because they can contribute the same type of effects on the soil resource as motorized use of roads and trails. Additional details about these relevant actions are contained in the list of current and reasonably foreseeable future actions in Appendix D. Fuel and Vegetation Management Projects: The Forest is proposing fuel and vegetation management on 28,853 acres. Vegetation Management projects have the potential to affect soil productivity by removing ground cover, displacing soil, causing compaction, and disturbing the soil hydrologic function. Present and foreseeable future actions in the analysis area include the following projects: Jeffery Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction project, Arcularius Windmill Project, SCALP, June Lake Fuel Break, Tunnel Burn Piles, Dechambeau Ranch Fuels Project, Mammoth Fuel Break, Moraine Fuels Management Project, Doe Ridge Fuels Reduction, June Fire Restoration, Rust II Forest Health and Fuel Reduction Project, Kingfisher Ridge Fuels Reduction Project, Portal Fuels Reduction

Soil and Geologic Resources – 194 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Project, Crowley Communities Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project, Lee Vining Personal Fuelwood Project, and Sherwin Scenic Loop Hazardous Fuels Reduction. In all cases, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Inyo LRMP soil and watershed standards, as amended by the SNFPA (2004), were or are going to be applied to these projects during implementation. See below for a summary of BMP effectiveness from onsite evaluations conducted in 2007. In addition, any temporary roads and fire lines constructed as part of these projects would be blocked, disguised and decommissioned after use. Once decommissioned, temporary roads and fire lines are expected to recover full soil productivity within 20 years. Livestock grazing: Livestock grazing currently occurs on approximately 738,000 acres throughout the Forest. Livestock grazing has similar soil effects as vegetation management projects. It is important to note that grazing impacts on soil resources are not equally distributed throughout the allotments. Generally, impacts are greater in sensitive areas where livestock tend to congregate, such as wet meadows and riparian areas. The intensity and severity of impact to the soil resource also increase around water sources, salt blocks, and in areas subject to cattle trailing. For these reasons, allotment acreage will not be used quantitatively to compare the effects of grazing with the effects of designating routes. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 6 (1995) is used to evaluate range allotment key area conditions using selected soil and vegetation characteristics as well as performing Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) evaluations on stream channels through key areas. Results of these analyses are used to develop mitigations for degraded soil and water resources. For instance, in the Crowley Lake project identified headcuts and damage to spring areas are being addressed in the Environmental Assessment. This will improve soil productivity and water quality in a limited capacity in the short-term more so in the long-term as sites revegetate and soil hydrologic function is restored. The Forest has two projects related to grazing management, Crowley Lake Watershed Grazing Allotment Analysis and White Mountain Group Allotment Analysis, which are currently in the planning stages. The analyses will evaluate whether grazing will continue on 17 allotments in the Crowley Lake Basin and White Mountains, and if it is continued, how future grazing will be conducted. Grazing on other allotments in the analysis area in the foreseeable future will continue under existing allotment management plans and annual allotment plans. Road Stabilization and decommissioning projects (approximately 22 acres of beneficial soil and watershed effect): The Forest has numerous road stabilization and decommissioning projects on- going and in the foreseeable future including: Lower Wyman Canyon Road and Silver Canyon Road Conservation Project, West Olancha Wilderness Road Restoration, Mammoth area road conservation and restoration project, Inyo N.F. Restoration and Conservation project and Monache area Conservation and Restoration project.. The objectives of these projects are to prevent off-site erosion, improve water quality and restore soil productivity. Beneficial effects of road stabilization activities on soils are localized and generally moderate as areas of soil erosion are restored or stabilized. Decommissioning restores areas formerly occupied by a road prism, resulting in a long-term increase in soil productivity. Decommissioning has a major positive effect on the soil condition as the disturbed area is restored and vehicle traffic is eliminated. The effect is immediate; however, it may take several years to a decade for natural vegetative recovery to stabilize bare soils and fully restore

Soil and Geologic Resources – 195

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

soil productivity. Monitoring of past road stabilization and decommissioning projects by the Forest watershed staff over the past 5 years indicate that objectives are met as sites are recovering and vehicle incursion is low to non-existent. Road, Trail, and Ski Area Development: Other projects that could influence site productivity and/or off-site soil erosion includes road and trail development and ski area development (218 acres). These projects have the potential to permanently affect soil productivity as roads and trails are dedicated to the transportation system and not to growing vegetation. Projects include the Lake Mary Bicycle Lands and Offstreet paths project. Mining and Geothermal Activities(affecting approximately 211 acres; 1,000,000 Cubic yards): Mining projects, depending on the extent and scope, can negatively affect soil productivity in the short term by disturbing top soil and creating bare soil. They can also permanently affect soil productivity, even with site rehabilitation. Although site rehabilitation can restore a measure of soil productivity, it may not be possible to return to pre-disturbance conditions. Depending on the project, site restoration can be 20 years or more in the future. The following mine projects are currently on-going or proposed in the foreseeable future: U.S. Pumice Mining Operation, Standard Industrial Mineral Kaoline Mine Operation, Standard Industrial Mineral Pacific Sericite Mine, Black Point Cinder Inc. Mining Operation, Rush Creek Gravel Pit (Aggregate Mining), Mammoth Pacific Geothermal Project, Tom Crosby Silver Load Mine Operation, Lynn Goodfellow Pine Creek Mine, Mineral Exploration Activities Queen Canyon and Escape Gold Drilling Project, Mineral Prospecting Permit to CPX Uranium, Australia Too, Underground Mining Exploration. Wildfire: It is assumed that large wildfires will continue to occur. It is anticipated that at least 54,000 acres of wildfires will burn on the Forest within the next 20 years, based on average acreage burned from 1960-2007. The size and location of these natural events, as well as the extent and severity of effects from these events to soil erosion and soil productivity, cannot be predicted. Generally, wildfires consume vegetation and ground fuels leading to accelerated erosion from 1-5 years depending on the severity of the fire. In the event of a future wildfire on the INF, a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team would be assembled to evaluate post-fire erosion risk and provide recommendations for treatment. Many of the ongoing and foreseeable future activities described above contribute effects similar to those caused by unauthorized routes. However, other motorized travelways (i.e., designated system roads and county/state roads) contribute effects most directly relevant to an assessment of cumulative effects for the Travel Management project. The following table compares the total area dedicated to the designated transportation system (all FS, state, and county roads and motorized trails) under each alternative. For the action alternatives, this total excludes all unauthorized routes that are not added to the system because motorized use would be prohibited.

Table 3-57: Total Area Dedicated to Roads and Motorized Trail within the Analysis Area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Total area dedicated to roads 6,140 5,025 5,410 4,680 3,670 5,060 and motorized trails (ac)

Soil and Geologic Resources – 196 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

All the action alternatives would decrease the transportation system “footprint” and route-related disturbance from existing conditions. Alternative 5 would result in the greatest change. This will lead to incremental reductions in soil erosion and increases in soil productivity as the footprint and route related disturbances decrease in the long-term. The net effect in the long-term would be vegetative recovery, a decrease in compaction and erosion, and a restoration of soil hydrologic function within unauthorized route treads. The effects are expected to be localized and minor. Once closed to public use, the degree to which site productivity on unauthorized routes recover depends on current condition of the route, location on the landscape, location on the Forest and the effectiveness of enforcing the closure. Recently created user routes would likely recover within the cumulative effects analysis timeframe (20 yrs). More long-standing routes or routes that experience moderate to high use would take longer to recover, with site productivity approaching natural range at the end of the cumulative effects analysis timeframe. Actively eroding routes would experience limited recovery (less erosion, higher productivity) in 20 years without active restoration.

Cumulative Effects Determination Total area affected by relevant present and foreseeable future activities is approximately 738,000 acres. On any given allotment, the intensity and severity of impacts of livestock use on soils are diffuse and variable based on the suitability of certain areas, the location of facilities (troughs, fences, etc.) and preferred grazing areas. Those sites that receive the heaviest livestock use comprise a small part of the total allotment, and yet are most susceptible to loss of soil productivity through the removal of ground cover, displacement of soil, compaction, and disruptions of soil hydrologic function. Because allotment acreage alone is not an accurate measure of the intensity and extent of grazing effects on soils, it will not be used quantitatively to compare the effects of grazing with the effects of designating routes. Livestock grazing is not the only action where a simple quantitative comparison of “acres affected” would be misleading. The effects of all of the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities described previously cannot be adequately compared between the alternatives in a quantitative fashion due to the following limitations: • Lack of spatial data, which means that the overlapping nature of effects from different projects cannot be determined or assessed (e.g., a fuels reduction project may occupy the same acreage on the ground as a livestock allotment, and a transmission line and associated roads may pass through both projects), and • Variability of effects within any given present or future project area, ranging from severe soil disturbance and complete removal of native vegetation to no ground disturbance at all.

Cumulative effects of the alternatives are, quantified for those activities contributing the same effects as the alternatives. To do so, this analysis compares the total area dedicated to use as a road or trail in each alternative, with area dedicated to by FS system roads and roads under other jurisdiction in the existing condition. Results are shown in Table 3-57 above. Total area dedicated to transportation purposes on the Forest is 6,138 acres in Alternative 1; 5,025 acres in Alternative 2; 5,409 acres in Alternative 3; 4,683 acres in Alternative 4; 3,671 acres in Alternative 5; and 5,063

Soil and Geologic Resources – 197

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

acres in Alternative 6. This represents a maximum of approximately 0.4% of the analysis area dedicated to transportation use in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6, and a minimum of 0.3% in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. In addition to reducing the soil area dedicated to use for transportation purposes, all action alternatives would incrementally improve soil condition as compared with the No Action Alternative, mostly because cross-country travel would be permanently prohibited. Alternative 5 would provide the most improvement for the soil resource as it does not add any unauthorized routes to the system and prohibits cross-country travel. Outside of the areas dedicated to transportation use, the effects of implementing the action alternatives, when added to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, are not be expected to result in appreciable adverse cumulative effects to soil erosion and soil productivity on the Inyo NF.

3.6.6 Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 3-58 provides a summary of the short- and long-term effects to soils resources for the project alternatives. Of the six alternatives, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of impacts to soil resources due to cross-country travel. This is because it will have the greatest number of routes available for motorized use (1,695 miles), and therefore provide access to a greater number of areas where cross-country travel may be possible, even if prohibited by temporary Forest Order. Alternative 1 would also have the highest risk of sheet and rill erosion because there would be no permanent prohibition on cross-country travel and use of all existing unauthorized routes would continue. Over time, there would be soil displacement and compaction, and the risk of erosion would increase due to the exposure of bare soil. Under Alternative 1, approximately 11% of unauthorized routes are located on high and very high EHR soils. In the action alternatives, percent of total miles of routes added to the system on high and very high EHR soils ranges from 0% in Alternative 5, 2% for Alternative 4, 3% for Alterative 2, 4% percent for Alternative 6, and 7% percent for Alternative 3. For Alternatives 1 and 5, no changes to the class of vehicle or season of use for existing system roads are proposed. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to soil resources are expected. For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation would decrease slightly given the smaller footprint and/or disturbance when an existing system road is managed as a motorized trail rather than as a road for motorcycles and All Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would also close some NFTS roads to public travel. Most of these roads experience very low to no use by the public currently as they are associated with special uses or Forest Service administrative use. No change to existing soil condition is expected in the short and long-term.

3.6.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction All actions alternatives comply with Forest Plan and other regulatory direction for soil resources. Alternative 5 does not propose adding any unauthorized routes to the system. Alternative 4 of the other action alternatives, is the best in meeting the direction by limiting routes in areas sensitive to soil and water resources. Alternative 4 limits the amount of miles on high and very high erosion hazard areas and has the lowest overall mileage of motorized routes open to the public.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 198 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, does not address known soil erosion concerns on unauthorized routes. This alternative would not improve existing conditions or prescribe mitigation to stabilize routes for continued motorized use. Therefore, it would not make progress toward desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan and SNFPA for soil resources. In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a)(b), effects to soil erosion and soil quality were considered in the development of the road and trail additions in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 6. The objective was to minimize impacts, as demonstrated by the following: 1. Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of routes with both on-site and off-site erosion concerns was used in the development of the alternatives in an interdisciplinary setting to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. The objective was to avoid off-route erosion and route expansion. 2. Where avoidance could not be achieved because of the need to balance resource impacts with recreational access needs and adverse effects were anticipated, mitigations were proposed to minimize effects to acceptable levels. “Acceptable level” means there is no measurable reduction in soil productivity, the capacity to grow vegetation, and soil hydrologic function on soils adjacent to the route. 3. Routes with off-site erosion concerns that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. 4. Travel off designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects to soil productivity.

Soil and Geologic Resources – 199

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-58: Summary of Short- and Long-term Effects by Alternative Alternative 1 (No Action) Action Alternatives (2, 3, 4, 6) Alternative 5 Action Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Prohibition of cross- Not applicable. Not applicable. Within 1 to 3 years, Within 20 years, Within 1 to 3 years, Within 20 years, country motorized Greatest risk of Highest potential for there would be a erosion should have there would be a erosion on existing travel impacts to soil creation of new slight decrease in been eliminated due slight decrease in routes should have resources due to unauthorized routes erosion as motorized to vegetative erosion as motorized been eliminated due cross-country (and associated soil use has been recovery. use has been to vegetative travel (creation of disturbance, loss of discontinued. Productivity of routes discontinued. recovery. new routes). soil cover, and not added to NFTS Productivity of all compaction). Off-site is expected to have existing erosion would recovered or be well unauthorized routes continue unmitigated underway. is expected to have on new routes. recovered or be well underway. Additions to the Not applicable. Not applicable. Off- Would reduce Reduction in miles of Would not add any Expected to National Forest Off-site erosion site erosion mileage of routes on routes on more routes on high and concentrate use on Transportation System: would continue expected to increase high and very high erosive soils could very high EHR. existing system unmitigated on in severity on EHR. Routes with decrease need for Routes with known routes, resulting in existing routes. existing routes. known problems maintenance and erosion concerns need for more would be mitigated or potential for resource would be closed to frequent closed to motorized impacts (compared motorized use maintenance to use. to existing condition). (unmitigated). keep road at standard and prevent resource damage. Changes to Class or Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable Not applicable. Vehicles and/or Season of Use of NFTS Roads:

Soil and Geologic Resources – 200 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.7 Water Resources

3.7.1 Introduction Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2007 to 2012, July 2007). Management activities on national forest lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of streamflow. The use of roads, trails, and other areas on national forests for public operation of motor vehicles has the potential to affect these hydrologic functions through interception of runoff, compaction of soils, and detachment of sediment (Foltz, 2006). Management decisions to eliminate cross-country motorized travel, add new routes and areas to the national forest transportation system (NFTS), and make changes to the existing NFTS must consider effects on watershed functions. This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences for water resources. It describes the area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. This analysis covers all watersheds on the Inyo National Forest (INF) that contain unauthorized routes. Measurement indicators are used to describe the existing conditions for watersheds within the analysis area. The measurement indicators are also used in the analysis to compare, quantify, and describe how each alternative addresses resource concerns as they pertain to meadows, streams, and lakes. Major water bodies within the Inyo National Forest include Mono Lake, headwaters of the Owens River, headwaters of the San Joaquin River, and South Fork of the Kern River in Monache Meadow. Drainages from the Sierra Nevada mountain range are the main sources to these water bodies. On the east side of the White Mountains, headwater streams drain into Fish Lake Valley and Deep Springs Valley in Nevada. Streams draining on the west side of the Whites do not have connectivity with the Owens River, as they disappear in the alluvial fans. The Inyo Mountain drainages generally flow into Saline Valley on the east and the Owens Valley on the west. Generally, these drainages do not have connectivity with the Owens River or any perennial water body. Changes in analysis since publication of the draft EIS reflect the new wilderness additions, public comments received, and additional data collected.

3.7.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction This section summarizes the federal and state laws and guidelines applicable to water resources; sources of information; indicator measures; and assumptions for the analysis.

Clean Water Act of 1948 As amended in 1972 and 1987, establishes as federal policy the control of point and non-point pollution and assigns the States the primary responsibility for control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) by national forests in California is achieved under federal and state laws (see below).

Water Resources – 201 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Clean Water Act Section 404 The Federal Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 promulgated under CWA Section 404 (b)(1)provide substantive environmental criteria that must be met to permit such discharges into waters of the United States. These criteria require a permitted discharge to: (1) be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA); (2) avoid causing or contributing to a violation of a State water quality standard; (3) avoid jeopardizing a federally listed species or adversely modifying designated critical habitat for a federally listed species; (4) avoid causing or contributing to significant degradation of the waters of the United States; and (5) mitigate for unavoidable impacts to water. Permits maybe required prior to completion of proposed stream crossing and meadow mitigations recommended in the action alternatives. The Forest will obtain appropriate approval prior to implementation of the mitigations.

The California Water Code Consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to water quality (Sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the proposed action is Section 13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.

The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act As amended in 2006, it is included in the California Water Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Chapter 445A and Nevada Revised Statutes Chapters 444A and 445A Consist of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws and statutes related to water controls. Of particular relevance are NRS 445A.335 for diffuse sources (non-point source pollution) and NAC 445A.312 to “eliminate or reduce water pollution from diffuse sources resulting from the use, maintenance or improvement of soil, water, and plant resources.”

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 SNFPA includes standards and guidelines that apply to the 10 Sierran forests for construction and relocation of roads and for management of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). These standards and guidelines require the Forest Service to avoid road construction, reconstruction, and relocation in meadows and wetlands (SNFPA standard and guideline #70); maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, and wetlands by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt flow paths and implementing corrective actions (standard and guideline #100); and determine if stream characteristics are within the range of

Water Resources – 202 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 natural variability prior to taking actions that could adversely affect streams (standard and guideline #102). SNFPA standard and guideline #92 requires that the Forest Service evaluate new management activities within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) during environmental analysis to determine consistency with Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) at the project level and the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals for the landscape. The RCO consistency review conducted for the unauthorized routes considered for inclusion in the transportation system can be found in Appendix B of this EIS. Consistency with RCOs ensures that Aquatic Management Strategy goals are met and that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to minimize the risk of activity– related sediment entering the aquatic system and minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian- dependent plant and animal species. RCA Width Adjustment: SNFPA standards and guidelines applied to RCAs are intended to minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and to minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species (2004 SNFPA ROD, p.62). As such, the SNFPA established standard RCA widths to be applied to all Sierra Nevada forests, but acknowledged that RCAs may need to be adjusted at the project level. Default RCA widths established in the 2004 ROD include: • 300 feet on each side of perennial streams • 150 feet on each side of intermittent and ephemeral streams • 300 feet from lakes, meadow, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools and springs

The routes under consideration in the alternatives have the greatest potential to affect riparian resources if the route crosses natural stream channels or there is a continuous surface flow path between any part of the route prism and a natural stream channel during a runoff event. Such hydrologically connected routes can dramatically increase stream sedimentation, increase stream peak flows and serve as conduits for transport of chemicals from road spills or those applied to roadside areas (Furniss, et al. 1999). Riparian areas on the INF vary greatly from those found on other Sierra Nevada forests. Compared to other forests, INF streams are snowpack driven, generally incised (streams are deeply cut through glacial till, with riparian vegetation limited to the incised area). In addition, the arid climate restricts riparian vegetation growth to the soil wetability zone, which is generally within the incised area. Many other Sierra Nevada forests have more rainfall leading to more vegetation, less incisement (more water spread, which means that activities occurring at greater distances from stream channels have the potential to contribute sediment input and impacts to aquatic and riparian species), and less permeable soils, meaning that runoff can travel farther distances to reach a stream channel. To acknowledge those differences, Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) widths have been adjusted based on the results of GIS analysis, Travel Management field surveys, site-specific Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO) analysis included in Appendix B, and the ongoing landscape-level analysis of desired and existing conditions. Key elements of a landscape analysis as outlined in the 2001 SNFPA ROD were used to develop the proposed action and alternatives, and are included in this EIS. Throughout Chapter 3, ecosystem functions and processes are related to desired conditions, and

Water Resources – 203

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

current and reference conditions for forest resources are defined. This analysis identified opportunities for changes in the transportation system to achieve or maintain desired resource conditions. Using this information, RCA widths were adjusted to better reflect the conditions under which motorized routes can become hydrologically connected with or adversely affect stream channels and other water bodies. The RCA buffer for perennial streams and special aquatic features such as lakes and springs has been adjusted to 100 feet on the INF. This adjustment was made because: • The steep topography, natural channel incisement, and arid environment that characterize much of the Inyo National Forest severely limit the extent of riparian vegetation and habitats. It is difficult to generalize riparian vegetation extent. However, perennial streams in steeper areas usually have less than 100 feet of riparian vegetation on each bank. For example, an analysis of air photos for Rock Creek, one of the ten largest perennial streams on the Forest, shows that the average width of riparian vegetation within the Forest boundary is about 150 feet total, or 75 feet on each bank. • On the INF, roads greater than 100 feet from perennial streams, lakes, and springs are generally not hydrologically connected due to naturally high soil infiltration rates, which means that runoff infiltrates the soil before reaching water bodies. However, roads within 100 feet of perennial streams are potential sources of sediment via sediment plumes. Sediment plumes have been observed traveling up to 100 feet from native surface roads following intense rainstorms and rain on snow events (Project Record: L. Sims photo documentation). • Coe (2006) showed that one mechanism by which native surface routes become connected to streams and other water bodies is through the initiation of gullies downstream of cross-drains on soils with clay. Soils on the Inyo National Forest generally have low clay contents and are not susceptible to gully erosion. Exceptions to this are found in the Little Hot Creek area east of Mammoth Lakes, portions of the White and Inyo Mountains, and the Monache Meadows area. • On the INF, only two water bodies have been listed on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, and none for sediment or nutrients, suggesting that sediment input, from roads or otherwise, is not a large concern for water quality.

The table below displays the miles and number of unauthorized routes within 100-foot RCA buffers for ephemeral and intermittent stream channels by alternative. (Note: Ephemeral streams run for short periods of time immediately following rainfall and snowmelt, whereas intermittent streams run continuously through the wet portion of the year, drying only when the water table drops below the stream bed.).

Table 3-59: Miles and Number of Routes Available for Public Motorized Use within 100 feet of Ephemeral and Intermittent Stream Channels by Alternative Alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of routes within 100 feet of seasonal channels 220 93 148 69 0 108 Number of routes within 100 feet of seasonal channels 1311 660 837 529 0 706

Water Resources – 204 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The analysis for seasonal stream RCAs has limited applicability in understanding which routes could increase the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems or increase impacts to aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species. This is because most ephemeral channels and intermittent channels do not transport water and/or an excessive amount of sediment to perennial stream channels for the reasons outlined below: • Many features in the GIS layer that are shown as ephemeral streams are not actually ephemeral streams on the ground – they are draws, swales, or upland areas that were erroneously added as ephemeral streams in the GIS layer. Because no water actually flows in these features, even during large storms, there could be no effects to hydrology from roads near these features. In addition, there is no discernable difference in the GIS layer for ephemeral and intermittent channels. Therefore, using the GIS layer for meaningful analysis has severe limitations. • Soils on the Forest generally have a high infiltration rate, which means that sediment carried in intermittent runoff is often dropped before reaching a perennial stream channel during average weather events. • Runoff carried by seasonal streams draining the west side of the White and Inyo Mountains, as well as the southern portion of the eastern slope of the Sierra and eastern Glass Mountains, infiltrates into alluvial fans before reaching any water bodies. • Based on observations of stream channels, conditions documented during route surveys, and air photo reviews, almost all ephemeral channels and many intermittent channels do not support aquatic or riparian habitat. These reasons also explain why the RCA buffer for ephemeral and intermittent (seasonal) streams has been adjusted from the SNFPA default width of 150 feet to 100 feet for the purposes of this analysis.

The analysis of seasonal stream RCAs can be thought of as a broad overview to identify areas that could potentially affect sediment input and riparian and aquatic habitats. Alternatives that have more miles of routes within the RCA buffer have a higher “relative risk” of causing effects during a catastrophic precipitation event. However, because such catastrophic events are unpredictable and highly localized, the extent and severity of effects from these events on stream sedimentation as well as impacts to riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat is speculative. As a result, seasonal stream RCAs will not be used as an indicator to compare the effects of the alternatives. However, to focus the analysis of the alternatives on areas with greatest potential sensitivity, the Forest applied 100-foot buffers on seasonal channels in Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs). CARs are subwatersheds, generally ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 acres, 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 (SNFPA ROD, 2004, p. 43). Application of a seasonal stream buffer within CARs served to focus the analysis of road-related effects on those areas that provide habitat for rare and native fish, amphibian, and aquatic invertebrate populations. Proposals to add routes to the NFTS within CARs and RCAs are evaluated for consistency with RCOs in Appendix B of this document.

Water Resources – 205

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1988) The INF LRMP includes the following management direction related to water resources: • Resources dependent on riparian areas receive priority over other resources where they are in conflict (p. 51). • Protect streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands and the plants and animals dependent on these areas (p. 89). • Relocate existing roads, trails, and campsites outside riparian areas where necessary to eliminate or reduce unacceptable deterioration of riparian-dependent resources (p. 89). • Maintain the integrity of desert springs in the White and Inyo Mountains and the South Sierra Eastern Escarpment to conserve plant and wildlife habitat (p. 91). • Recognize the important and distinctive values of riparian areas when implementing management activities. Give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources when conflicts among land use activities occur (p. 91). • Avoid the use of soil-disturbing equipment, OHVs, and trampling by livestock on wet or poorly drained soils whenever possible (p. 95). • Locate roads and trails on natural benches or ridges well away from stream courses and other water bodies where possible. Avoid constructing roads and trails that parallel or cross tributaries to a main stream (p. 96). • Use the steepest permissible pitches and grades to avoid paralleling the stream at stream crossings. Design to maintain the existing width/depth ratio of the stream (p. 96).

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (Mono Basin CMP, 1989) The Mono Basin CMP provides specific guidance for management of the Mono Basin Scenic Area: • Rehabilitate all closed roads (p. 38). • Improve roads when necessary to provide for heavy public use and protect the natural integrity. If resource values are threatened, close roads, restrict access, or otherwise resolve the issue in accordance with Action Item 10h (p. 39). • Implement OHV direction as shown on the OHV map for the Scenic Area. Close and rehabilitate routes identified by the Scenic Area Motor Vehicle Use Work Group. Work with this group to resolve future issues. Incorporate direction in the Inyo National Forest OSV/OHV Use Plan (p. 41). • Avoid the use of soil-disturbing equipment, OHVs, and the trampling by livestock on wet or poorly drained soils whenever possible (p. 45). • Revegetate roads and trails when use is terminated (p. 49).

Region 5 Best Management Practices (USDA FS, 2000) The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards entered into agreements with the U.S. Forest Service to control non-point source discharges by implementing control actions certified by the State

Water Resources – 206 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency as Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are designed to protect and maintain water quality and prevent adverse effects to beneficial uses both on-site and downstream. A complete list of applicable BMPs for this project can be found in Appendix G of this EIS.

3.7.3 Affected Environment There are 151 6th field watersheds on the Inyo National Forest. Sixth field watersheds (also called Hydrologic Unit Code 6, or HUC 6 watersheds) range from 11,000 to 43,000 acres in size. Of those, 106 watersheds contain unauthorized routes and are within the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. To date, 7th field watersheds, which are nested within the larger 6th field watersheds, have not been delineated on the Forest. The following table summarizes the key hydrologic characteristics of the water resources analysis area on the Inyo National Forest. This includes the 106 6th field watersheds that contain unauthorized routes.

Table 3-60: Hydrologic Characteristics of the Water Resources Analysis Area Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains, White Mountains, Glass Mountain, and Inyo Landscape Mountains. Elevation ranges between 4,400 and 14,246 feet (White Mountain Peak)

Highly variable across the Forest due to elevation, rain shadow effect of the Eastern Sierra Nevada, 4 distinct mountain ranges, and a 2º change in latitude on the forest. Mediterranean climate, whereby most of the precipitation occurs between November and April. Monsoonal precipitation does occur, especially on the east side of the White Mountains, Climate but contribution to annual precipitation is small relative to winter precipitation. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches in the low elevation (4,400-5,000 ft) southern areas east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to over 60 inches near Mammoth Mountain, at around 10,000 ft. Winter precipitation is usually snowfall above 6,000 feet. 857 miles of perennial streams An unknown mileage of seasonal streams. Aquatic features 4,917 acres of lakes with an average size of 12.1 acres. 19,127 acres of meadows with an average size of 19.6 acres.

Mono Lake and its tributaries Major Lakes and Headwaters of the Owens River Rivers Headwaters of the San Joaquin River (mostly outside of analysis area) South Fork of the Kern River

Varies by watershed; Municipal water supplies for domestic use; groundwater recharge; fire protection; hydropower generation; irrigation, contact and non-contact recreation; cold Beneficial Uses1 freshwater habitat; spawning habitat; stock-watering; and wildlife habitat. Almost all perennial streams have the beneficial uses of: municipal water supply, agricultural water supply, contact and non-contact recreation, cold freshwater habitat and wildlife habitat. California: Big Pine Creek, Bishop Creek, Independence Creek, Lee Vining Creek, Lone Municipal Pine Creek, Mammoth Creek, Pine Creek, Rock Creek, Rush Creek, and Upper Owens Watersheds River (USDA FS, 1988) Nevada: Leidy Creek and Chiatovich Creek (NDEP, 2008) Clean Water Act Mammoth Creek (mercury and metals; adjacent to unauthorized routes); Twin Lakes 303 (d) Water (nitrogen; upstream of any unauthorized routes) in California (2006 303 (d) list for Bodies1 Lahontan Region

Water Resources – 207

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

151 sixth field watersheds (HUC 6) on the Inyo National Forest 106 sixth field watersheds within the project area (containing roads). Sixth Field 2 Average size: 31,299 acres Watersheds Maximum size: 94,395 acres (Owens Lake) Minimum size: 10,093 aces (Laurel Creek) On the INF there are: 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes Motorized 1,355 miles existing NFTS roads under Forest Service jurisdiction Travelways Approximately 680 miles of existing roads under other jurisdiction (county, state, etc.)

Of those, approximately 2% pass through meadows. 45% of the watersheds have a road density of less than 0.5 miles of road per square mile Existing Road of land (mi. /mi.2). Density in 6th 46% of the watersheds have a road density of 0.5 to 2.5 mi./mi.2 Field Watersheds3 7% of the watersheds have a road density of 2.5 to 4.5 mi./mi.2 2 % of the watersheds have a road density greater than 4.5 mi/mi.2 Existing Road 12% of the watersheds have a road density of less than 0.5 mi. /mi.2. Density within 53% of the watersheds have a road density of 0.5 to 2.5 mi./mi.2 Perennial RCA’s 18% of the watersheds have a road density of 2.5 to 4.5 mi./mi.2 in 6th Field 17% of the watersheds have a road density greater than 4.5 mi/mi.2 Watersheds4

California 215 miles on 34 system and unauthorized routes are monitored annually Department of 2007: 12% of routes had drainage problems and/or multi-trailing and minor off-trail head- Parks and cutting and 88% were in functioning condition with continued maintenance Recreation OHV 2003: 18%of the routes were rated as yellow with drainage problems, minor erosion Soil Loss 5 and/or multi-trailing; remaining 82% were in functioning condition. Monitoring Number of Unauthorized Stream crossings that Are Known to 8 (across the Inyo National Forest) Be Causing Excess Sediment Input or Stream Bank Damage 1 Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards. States are then required to prioritize waters/watersheds for total maximum daily loads (TMDL) development. California compiles this information in a list and submits the list to U.S. EPA for review and approval. This list is known as the 303(d) list of impaired waters (303(d) list). 2 Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board is the regulatory agency for watersheds draining into the Mono Basin and Owens Valley; Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is the regulatory agency for the San Joaquin and Kern River watersheds; and Nevada Department of Environmental Protection is the regulatory agency for water bodies in Nevada. 3 Road density includes miles of system roads, unauthorized roads, and state and county highways. Municipal roads were not included. 4 60 sixth field watersheds have perennial RCAs with system and/or unauthorized routes. 5 As part of OHV management on the Forest, OHV routes are monitored using the 1991 California Department of Parks and Recreation Soil Conservation Standards and Guidelines (checklist) for identifying red, yellow and green (R,Y,G) segments of trails. Yellow condition relates to routes that need minor erosion control and/ or tread work needing maintenance, Red trails needing restoration and/or heavy maintenance work. Green being the trails is in stable condition. This survey work is focused in the ten areas on the Inyo National Forest.

Global climate change is expected to substantially affect California over the next 50 years (http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/062807factsheet.pdf). Precipitation is likely to become more variable from year to year. Warmer temperatures will reduce the proportion of precipitation that falls as snow and increase the proportion that falls as rain. This shift will result in higher peak flows, more frequent flooding, increased erosion, reduced summer baseflows, more frequent droughts, and increased summertime stream temperatures.

Water Resources – 208 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

These expected changes have several implications for OHV use effects on water resources on national forests: 1. As floods become more frequent and of greater magnitude, roads and trails will likely be subjected to greater stresses from higher runoff. Erosion of route surfaces and route- stream crossings will become more common. Ephemeral channels will carry water more frequently than in the past. 2. The role of roads and trails in increasing runoff and peak flows (Ziemer, 1981; Jones and Grant, 1996) is likely to increase. Cumulative watershed effects in watersheds near their thresholds of concern may become more common. 3. Protection and restoration of meadows and other riparian areas that extend the duration of baseflows will be increasingly important as snowpack diminishes. Routes through riparian areas that are currently not causing resource damage could cause damage in the future as runoff becomes more extreme.

Seasons of use for routes may need to be modified as precipitation and temperature patterns change. Routes normally closed by snow may remain accessible to users but may be damaged by OHV use when wet.

Water Resources – 209

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Figure 3-2: Watersheds on the Inyo National Forest1

1Includes only the watersheds that contain roads.

Water Resources – 210 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on water quality within the analysis area. This analysis is focused on the effects of three actions: (1) the prohibition of cross- country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system), and (3) changes to the existing NFTS. Before describing the effects of the alternatives, it is important to define the characteristics of motorized routes most likely to contribute impacts to water quality:

Native surface unauthorized routes • Unauthorized routes vary in their origin. Some have been in use for several decades but never formally designated for public use, while others have been created recently by users traveling cross-country off of existing roads. These routes generally lack engineering design and drainage structures. Some traverse steep gradients. Because they were not actually constructed, the route treads are often in loose surface soils rather than well-compacted subsoil, which better support traffic and resists mechanical erosion. Some of the more long- standing routes were engineered and are less susceptible to erosion.

Native surface National Forest Transportation System roads (considered in cumulative effects) • These roads were originally constructed to provide access for a variety of activities, ranging from hauling timber to accessing mine sites to accessing desirable recreation sites. These routes generally have a compacted prism (the entire width of the road, including disturbed shoulders) and drainage features. Approximately 90 to 120 miles of system roads are maintained on the Inyo National Forest annually, based on a prioritized maintenance schedule. Most of this maintenance occurs on level 3 to 5 roads, which are maintained for passenger vehicles and are generally surfaced. Limited maintenance occurs on native surface level 2 roads, primarily for resource protection purposes (Section 3.14). • Maintaining drainage structures is crucial to minimizing erosion on these roads. Without regular maintenance and functioning drainage features, these roads can lead to increased sediment input to streams at road crossings, and, if the roads are within 100 feet of streams, erosion outside of the road prism has an increased likelihood of carrying sediment into streams. Depending on the stream crossing type, roads can have effects to stream morphology at the crossings. Some of these roads have culvert crossings that reduce sediment input, however, culverts can also be subject to failure during extreme weather events if large amounts of sediment enter a stream over a very short time period and plug the culvert. Other system roads have low water crossings, where small amounts of sediment may enter the stream with each vehicle crossing or during periods of runoff. Existing system roads will be considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Discussion of effects also requires defining the severity, time frame, and spatial extent of effects. For this analysis, severity will be described as either minor, moderate, or major. Minor effects are those that may alter water quality or stream morphology, but would not measurably affect beneficial

Water Resources – 211

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

uses of the stream. A moderate effect is one that measurably affects beneficial uses, but does not prevent those beneficial uses entirely. A major effect is one that has severe effects to beneficial uses, preventing that beneficial use to occur. The time frame for effects is split into two categories: short-term and long-term. For purposes of this analysis, short-term is defined as effects occurring within 1-5 years of project implementation. Long-term effects are those expected to occur within 20 years. In 20 years, routes not added to the NFTS would be recovered or well on their way to recovery with minimum residual impacts on watershed function. Spatially, effects can be local, affecting an area up to 100 square feet; of moderate extent, affecting an area up to tens of acres in size; or extensive, affecting the resource at the watershed scale.

3.7.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology

Data Sources The first step of the water resource analysis was to stratify unauthorized routes based on the relative risk of adverse water resource effects. This included identification of the following: • Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) forestwide using the Order 3 Soil Resource Inventory in order to evaluate the relative risk of sheet and rill erosion (EHR is used as an indicator measure in the Geology and Soils Section of Chapter 3); • Routes within 100 feet of perennial streams; and • Routes that cross perennial streams and meadows.

Based on initial GIS screening and stratification, the subset of routes and/or route segments at higher risk of water resource effects were visited to evaluate site-specific condition. The field surveys focused on routes or route segments in moist and wet meadows, routes with gradients exceeding 15%, and routes within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) of perennial stream channels (including those with stream crossings). Initially, all routes through dry, moist, and wet meadows were reviewed. However, field reviews were concentrated on routes in wet and moist meadows after reviews of several dry meadows confirmed these areas are at low risk of impacts to soil and watershed function due to motorized use of existing routes. Field reviews served to verify the results of the initial GIS screening. In addition, surveys completed by other resource managers highlighted additional areas of concern that were later visited by a qualified watershed specialist. Approximately 300 miles of routes or route segments were visited in this manner. The results of these surveys provide the basis for the effects analysis of the alternatives. Route-specific data is available in the project record. The table below summarizes the information sources used for the analysis.

Water Resources – 212 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-61: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Hydrology Analysis Area Covered Type of Data Collected Protocol 1991 California Department of Parks and 215 Miles on 34 Routes within Recreation Soil Conservation Standards Tread Erosion State-funded OHV Grant Areas and Guidelines (Red, green, yellow soil loss form)1,2 244 Miles of Unauthorized Routes within/near Hydrologically Sensitive Areas Consistency with RCOs, Watershed Analysis for Route in Bishop, White Mountains, erosion, and off-site impacts Designation2 Mono-June, Mammoth-West, and Mammoth East Focus Areas

Routes with potential water resource concerns (internally High Sensitivity Sites: and externally identified) near Field review of routes in hydrologically Approximately 161 miles of perennial stream channels, sensitive areas with known or potential Unauthorized Routes meadows, and springs. resource concerns Forestwide Included review of routes with road grades over 10%.

Low Sensitivity Sites: Review of routes with low Approximately 300 Miles of resource concerns to verify Route observations and photographs Unauthorized Routes existing conditions Forestwide Quantification of direct and indirect effects on water All Unauthorized Routes resources based on erosion GIS analysis Forestwide3 hazard rating, stream and meadow location, road grade 1 Provides trend analysis of soil loss over time. 2 Project Record 3 Includes both the High and Low Risk figures featured in the table.

Analysis Area The hydrologic analysis includes all aquatic resources that could be affected by motorized use of unauthorized routes. For direct and indirect effects, the analysis is bounded to the Inyo National Forest because that is the area in which the effects of the alternatives on water resources would be observed. For cumulative effects, the analysis area is bounded to the 106 6th field watersheds overlapping the Forest boundary that contain motorized routes. A map of the 6th field watersheds by name is included in Figure 3-2.

Indicator Measures The following four indicator measures are used to compare the effects of the alternatives: 1. Number of perennial route/stream crossings per watershed. 2. Miles of routes within 100 feet (RCA buffer) of perennial streams, lakes, springs, and seasonal streams, including seasonal streams in CARs. 3. Route density within perennial stream RCAs displayed in miles/square mile forestwide and by 6th field watershed. 4. Miles of routes available for public use that pass through wet/moist meadows and alkali flats.

Water Resources – 213

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

5. Equivalent roaded areas in acres and overall route density in perennial stream RCAs (cumulative effects).

Rationale for Indicators Indicator 1. Number of route/perennial stream crossings per watershed. The greatest risk of sediment moving into streams occurs where routes cross stream channels. Routes that cross streams have the potential for direct impacts to streams in four different ways. 1. Travel through a stream can cause disturbance to the streambed or banks. The steeper the approaches (ingress and egress), the higher the likelihood of degraded conditions and sediment transport. 2. Vehicle passage through stream channels contributes sediment to the water body. However, the majority of the stream crossings on unauthorized routes are unimproved fords (low water crossings) with unhardened native material within the stream channel and the approaches. A few routes are known to have hardened (ingress/egress/channel bottom) crossings. (See Chapter 3.11, Aquatic Wildlife analysis, for additional details on conditions of stream crossings.) Water generally ponds on the lowest section of the route crossing during the wet season. (The number of stream crossings is used here as a proxy for the relative amount of sediment entering water. It can be assumed that all native stream crossings contribute a small amount of sediment into water annually.) 3. Contaminants such as petroleum products, sediment, and/or anything that is spilled on the roadway can enter the stream at crossings. 4. Roads often divert streamflow at road-stream crossings, and these diversions can result in erosion of native hillslopes, as well as road surfaces. When a stream crossing fails, there is typically a large pulse of sediment released into the stream system. Research has shown that many road-related failures occur due to the plugging of culverts and ditches, resulting in excess fill material reaching streams (Chapter 9 in Dissmeyer, 2000; Gucinski, et al., 2001). Stream crossing failure is not a common problem on unauthorized routes on the INF. As described above, the majority have unimproved or hardened crossings, and only a few have constructed culverts. Consequently, the risk of sediment inputs to streams as a result of culvert failure should be minimal.

This indicator is used to measure and compare the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel, adding routes to the system, and changing use on existing NFTS roads for each alternative.

Indicator 2a: Miles of routes within 100 feet of perennial streams, lakes, springs, and seasonal streams in CARs. Indicator 2b: Miles of routes within Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) and within 100 feet of perennial and seasonal streams in CARs. Research studies have shown that roads near streams increase the drainage network of streams, causing increased peak flows and sedimentation of streams (Wemple et al. 1996; Coe, 2006; Furniss et al., 1997). For this analysis, the primary pollutant analyzed is fine-grained sediment and the effect

Water Resources – 214 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 on beneficial uses. Fine-grained sediment inputs are used as a proxy for increased metals, as cations (metals) bind to sediments (Chapter 9 in Dissmeyer, 2000), to address effects to the three water bodies on the INF listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act (i.e., Mammoth Creek, Crowley Lake, and Twin Lakes). Native surface routes (unauthorized and NFTS) pose the highest risk of causing soil erosion (on the route tread and/or on areas adjacent to the route) and subsequent sediment delivery to water bodies. Such routes are susceptible to surface erosion (Graves and Elliot, 2000), especially during periods when the road surface is wet or saturated. Surface erosion of roads depends on traffic levels and climate. Increased rates of erosion lead to sedimentation of surface water bodies (Chapter 10 in Dissmeyer, 2000; Fulton and West, 2002) if road networks are hydrologically connected. Fine- grained sediment that reaches water bodies can impair aquatic habitat (Fulton and West, 2000). Although unpaved roads are the primary sources of sediment in many forested catchments, the effect of this sediment on downstream water resources depends on both the magnitude of the road erosion and the connectivity of the roads to the stream network (Coe, 2001). Routes within 100 feet of perennial streams or on steep slopes above those channels are commonly “hydrologically connected” to the stream system. This means during a runoff event, a road segment has a continuous surface flow path between the road prism and a natural stream channel. Hydrologically connected routes can dramatically increase stream sedimentation, increase stream peak flows and serve as conduits for transport of chemicals from road spills or those applied to roadside areas (Furniss, et al. 1999). Coe (2006) showed that one mechanism by which native surface routes become connected to streams is through the initiation of gullies downstream of cross-drains on soils with clay. As explained in the RCA adjustment section, soils on the Inyo National Forest generally have low clay contents and are not susceptible to gully erosion. Exceptions to this are found in the Little Hot Creek area east of Mammoth Lakes and portions of the White and Inyo Mountains. During rainfall events, sediment and other pollutants are transported from hydrologically connected routes to water bodies. Downstream uses would potentially experience negative effects including reservoir infilling, silting of spawning gravel and aquatic habitats, plugging drainage features, and introduction of petroleum products and other pollutants from vehicle operation. On the INF, routes within 100 feet of perennial streams have the highest potential for hydrologic connectivity. Application of 100 foot buffers on seasonal channels in Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) served to focus the analysis of road-related effects on those areas that provide habitat for rare and native fish, amphibian and aquatic invertebrate populations. These indicators are used to measure and compare the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel and adding routes to the system proposed by each alternative.

Indicator 3: Route density within perennial riparian conservation areas (RCAs) displayed in miles/square mile forestwide and by 6th field watershed. Roads within the RCAs for perennial streams (100 feet) are more likely to have an effect on stream function and water resources than those outside of RCAs. As a result, this analysis uses route density within perennial RCAs and within perennial RCAs in 6th field watersheds to assess the relative risk of off-site erosion, stream sedimentation, and the risk of cumulative watershed effects

Water Resources – 215

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

under each alternative. A comprehensive report in the Columbia River Basin and parts of the Klamath River Basin showed an inverse relationship between high road density and aquatic habitat quality (Part 67 of Quigley et al., 1997). Fine-grained sediment that reaches water bodies can impair aquatic habitat (Fulton and West, 2000) by filling in redds and inter-gravel spaces necessary for juvenile fish (Reid et al, 1994). This indicator is used to measure and compare the effects of prohibiting cross-country travel and adding routes to the system for each alternative.

Indicator 4: Miles of routes available for public use that pass through wet/moist meadows and alkali flats. Routes through meadows and alkali flats can affect hydrologic function and biotic productivity in the following ways (USDA FS, 1996): • Constraining and diverting surface and subsurface flows • Dewatering wetlands • Concentrating and accelerating runoff • Creating a source of toxic pollution • Increasing sediment loading • Intercepting groundwater flows • Accelerating soil erosion and the loss of soil nutrients • Triggering site conversion from wetland to upland species • Degrading water quality

Accelerated erosion, rutting, and localized lowering of water tables resulting from motorized use of system roads and unauthorized routes occurs in some meadows on the Inyo National Forest. While many of these problems have been remedied through the Forest’s watershed and OHV restoration programs, this indicator is used to assess the relative risk of adverse effects to meadow hydrologic function for each alternative. Additionally, this indicator is used to measure and compare the effects of prohibiting cross- country travel and adding routes to the system, proposed by each alternative.

Indicators 5a and 5b. Equivalent Roaded Acres and Overall Route Density in Perennial Stream RCAs (cumulative effects). Cumulative watershed effects are assessed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods as described below. 1. For each 6th field watershed in the water resources analysis area, the risk of the occurrence of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) was assigned to one of the following four categories: low, moderate, high, or very high. The assignment of the risk of CWE was based on a quantitative evaluation of the land disturbances in the watershed using the method of equivalent roaded acres (ERA). In the ERA method, an index is calculated for an entire

Water Resources – 216 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

watershed that expresses most land uses in terms of the percent of the watershed covered by roads. Based on the ERA and a threshold of concern (TOC), a given watershed is assigned a relative risk of CWE. The ERA method and assumptions are described in more detail later in this section. 2. The quantitative CWE is supplemented with a discussion of the type and extent of present and foreseeable future actions. Contributing effects to water resources are described qualitatively for watersheds at low risk of CWE (less than 1% of their area covered by roads). This method was used to describe the potential for CWE when a quantitative assessment using the ERA methodology would not result in measurable effects. 3. Finally, overall route density within perennial stream RCAs was used as another indicator of the potential for cumulative watershed effects. Routes near perennial streams are more likely to have an effect on stream function than those outside of RCAs due to their proximity to streams. These routes can be sources of sediment, cause impacts to riparian vegetation, and degrade aquatic habitat.

Assumptions The following assumptions used for the analysis are based on published literature and professional judgment of Forest Watershed staff based on more than 30 years of combined experience with hydrologic conditions on the Inyo National Forest. 1. The alternatives differ in terms of the miles of routes added to the transportation system for public motor vehicle travel; they are the same in terms of the number of unauthorized routes that currently exist on the ground. 2. Adverse effects of route use by motor vehicles include long-term damage to soil and water resources owing to soil compaction, alteration of drainage patterns, and destruction of vegetation. Without active restoration, these effects will persist for periods of years to decades following any prohibition of public motorized vehicle use of those routes. 3. Sediment production from motor vehicle use of native-surface routes is increased by higher levels of traffic and is reduced by maintenance of road drainage features (culverts, waterbars, ditches). 4. Hydrologically sensitive areas include streams, lakes, reservoirs, fens, wet meadows, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and unstable hillslopes. Please see the Rare Plants chapter (Section 3.8) and Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO) section (Appendix B) for analysis of effects to fens, and the Soil Resources section (Section 3.6) for discussion of hillslope stability and mass wasting.

3.7.4.2 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Alternatives The indicators listed above are used to describe and compare the effects of the actions proposed by the alternatives. As described in detail in Chapter 2, the actions proposed by the alternatives are: • Prohibition on cross-country travel; • Addition of currently unauthorized routes to the NFTS; and

Water Resources – 217

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system)

Effects of Cross-country Travel - Alternative 1 Of the six alternatives, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of impacts to overall watershed function due to cross-country travel. This is because it will have the greatest number of routes available for motorized use (1,695 miles, of which 27 miles are in newly designated wilderness), and therefore provides access to a greater number of areas where cross-country travel may be possible, even if restricted by a temporary Forest Order. In general, it is difficult to predict where cross-country travel may occur in the future, making attempts to measure effects associated with future cross-country travel highly speculative. Most forest visitors will stay on existing unauthorized routes and system roads. However, within the identified Off Road Travel Concern Areas (ORTCAs), cross-country travel is likely to continue under Alternative 1 because no additional mitigations (e.g., barriers, signs) are proposed and all routes would remain available for public use. Because of terrain and lack of natural barriers, it is reasonable to assume that without further mitigation, cross-country travel would continue in these areas leading to reasonably quantifiable effects on water resources. All of the identified ORTCAs, except for Wheeler Ridge, are dry and have no surface water. Therefore, there should continue to be no effects to water resources. The Wheeler Ridge area of concern contains a pond and an intermittent channel, which will likely continue to receive disturbance from cross-country vehicle use. Stream bank alteration is expected to continue to occur along with sediment entering the pond and intermittent channel. The Poleta Open Area (approximately 1,100 acres on NFS land) is currently part of the designated NFTS. Effects of cross-country travel on water resources within the designated area have been considered in past management decisions. Alternative 1 proposes no change in current management of the open area.

Effects of Cross-country Travel Prohibition - Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) Cross-country travel is prohibited in Alternatives 2 through 6, which will limit the proliferation of new unauthorized routes on native surfaces. The prohibition of cross-country travel also results in the closure of all unauthorized routes not added to the National Forest Transportation System. Relative to Alternative 1, the action alternatives would slightly reduce the number of stream crossings and motorized travel in RCAs and meadows. This would have a long-term, slightly beneficial effect by reducing sediment input into water and reducing bank damage from vehicle travel. The elimination of vehicle traffic on a route near a stream will result in less sediment delivered from the road to the stream, and in turn reduce the risk of adverse effects to the stream system from routes. In the long term, the elimination of vehicle traffic should reduce the amount of loose material on the route surface (caused by mechanical disturbance) and increase the amount of leaf litter and vegetation on the road surface. As a result, the amount of material that is available to erode from the road to the nearby stream should be reduced. Research has shown that erosion rates on a closed road will often decrease to near background levels as the density of vegetation on the surface of the road increases (Dissmeyer, 2000). In addition, the amount and extent of riparian vegetation will increase

Water Resources – 218 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 in the long-term as it re-colonizes suitable areas. Riparian vegetation will serve to trap hillslope sediments, provide shade for the stream channel and stabilize disturbed stream banks. As shown in the table below, the action alternatives will reduce the miles of native surface routes available for motorized use by 46% in Alternative 2, 31% in Alternative 3, 59% in Alternative 4, 100% in Alternative 5, and 41% in Alternative 6.

Table 3-62: Miles of Unauthorized Routes No Longer Available for Motorized Use1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Miles of unauthorized routes no 765 (46%) 525 (31%) 1000 (59%) 1695 (100%) 690 (41%) longer available for motorized use 1As miles and percentage of all existing 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes.

Compared to Alternative 1, all of the action alternatives reduce the number of stream crossings and routes within RCAs by prohibiting cross-country travel and use of unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS. The indicators cannot be quantified for cross-country travel because, by definition, cross-country travel occurs off of existing routes or travelways. Closures of existing unauthorized routes would reduce the number of stream crossings and therefore the amount of sediment entering streams by a small amount on a forestwide scale. However, even if use is discontinued on unauthorized roads, existing stream crossings would continue to allow for some sediment input over the long term, likely stabilizing within 20-30 years to background levels. Because of the high net productivity, vegetation is expected to regrow more quickly on routes within wet meadows, alkali flats, and RCAs than on routes in upland areas. The exception is where the meadow’s hydrologic function has been compromised as is the case with route 01N134. There are sections of this route where the meadow’s hydrologic function has been altered locally (less than 100 square feet), but severely, and would likely not recover without active restoration. Under Alternative 1, this road would remain open and would continue to be rutted in the meadow, altering surface and groundwater flow. This road would not be available for use under any of the action alternatives, but will likely continue to alter hydrologic function of the meadow until some active restoration is completed. However, over decades, as the road slowly decompacts, portions of the road will return to a desired hydrologic function even without active restoration. Effects of cross-country travel in Poleta for the other action alternatives are expected to be the same as described for Alternative 1. In Alternative 4, the Poleta Open Area would be closed to cross- country travel. As described in Chapter 2, motorized use would be confined to approximately 8 miles of NFTS roads within the 1,100-acre area. Disturbed vegetation outside of those roads would slowly recover. Recovery of routes closed to vehicle traffic would likely take several decades given the hot, arid climate characterizing the Poleta area. In the short term, changes would be nearly imperceptible as the climate is expected to limit vegetative regrowth. In the long term, vegetation would begin to colonize disturbed areas, decreasing off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Much of the route in Redding Canyon would be added to the NFTS, continuing slight, long-term alteration to stream morphology and water quality.

Water Resources – 219

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Adding Facilities to the NFTS – All Alternatives Direct impacts to water resources that result from the six alternatives are limited. There are no new ground disturbing activities proposed with this project. The routes being evaluated in this analysis already exist on the ground, but some may require upgrading to NFTS standards. Topsoil has been disturbed and compacted within the treads or roadbed. Runoff from the surface is collected and discharged as potentially erosive flows at points below the route. Some routes are eroded or causing erosion; others are stable and are not causing any negative resource impacts. (See the Soil Resource section, Chapter 3.6 of the EIS, for a list of routes with erosion concerns). From the standpoint of watershed resources, most adverse impacts associated with these routes have already occurred. Therefore, potential effects on watershed resources are related to sustaining road or trail function and protecting water quality. As described in more detail below, routes with known elevated risk to water resources are mitigated in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, but not in Alternative 1. Depending on the severity and extent of effect, some mitigations would be completed before public use of the route is allowed (pre- designation mitigations), while others would be scheduled for implementation after the route is added to the system (post-designation mitigations). Both levels of mitigation are required to add an unauthorized route to the NFTS. Chapter 2 provides a summary of proposed mitigations by alternative. See Appendix A for route-specific mitigations. The primary objective in mitigation is to stabilize the route and/or stream crossing to limit the amount of stream sedimentation and the potential for flow diversions by the road or geomorphic alteration of the channel. Sediment inputs would not be completely eliminated as stabilization often takes more than one year to be effective and the route would still be utilized by motor vehicles so some disturbance is expected. In the long term, riparian vegetation is likely to colonize the stabilized area and enhance the effectiveness of the mitigation. On other routes, the amount of off-site erosion and stream sedimentation is expected to decrease from existing levels. Based on past experience implementing similar mitigations to rectify similar water resource concerns, proposed mitigations are expected to preserve and/or enhance hydrologic function.

Effects of Proposed NFTS Additions on Perennial Stream Crossings: The table below shows the miles of currently unauthorized routes within 100 feet of perennial streams that would be available for public use under each alternative. As shown, Alternative 1 would result in the greatest number and miles of routes within perennial RCAs. All of the Action Alternatives would result in a reduction in the number and miles of routes within perennial stream RCAs, slightly reducing the potential for sediment to enter water from road runoff.

Table 3-63: Total Miles of Currently Unauthorized Routes that Would Be Available for Public Use Forestwide within 100 feet of Perennial Stream Channels Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of currently unauthorized routes available for motorized use 15.4 8.03 10.8 5.46 0 8.2 within 100 feet of perennial streams

Water Resources – 220 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Forestwide, Alternative 1 would continue motorized use of approximately 15.4 miles of unauthorized routes within 100 feet of perennial streams. Through GIS analysis and Travel Management field surveys, it was found that four routes (4.5 miles) within 100 feet of perennial streams have erosion occurring and have minor to moderate, local negative effects to water quality and stream morphology due to increased runoff from the native road surfaces. This does not include effects from stream crossings, only routes that are near stream channels. Stream crossing effects will be discussed later in this section. These routes, all of which are located in the Little Hot Creek area, are listed in the table below.

Table 3-64: Routes Contributing Excess Sediment to Creeks, Outside of Stream Crossings and Meadows, and Their Management under Each Alternative Route Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Number 03S510 Open for Added to Added to Added to Not added to Added to public use. NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS. No NFTS, with Not mitigated mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations 03S526 Open for Added to Added to Added to Not added to Added to public use. NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS. No NFTS, with Not mitigated mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations 03S536 Open for Added to Added to Added to Not added to Added to public use. NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS, with NFTS. No NFTS, with Not mitigated mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations 03S553 Open for Not added to Not added to Not added to Not added to Not added to public use. NFTS. No NFTS. No NFTS. No NFTS. No NFTS. No Not mitigated mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations mitigations

As shown in the table above, the action alternatives would reduce local impacts on water quality by: 1. Eliminating motorized use of some or all of the routes (i.e., not adding the routes to the NFTS); and 2. Proposing mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate effects to water quality if the route is added to the NFTS.

Mitigations applied to routes in the Little Hot Creek area include repairing drainage such as waterbars, adding barriers to prevent entry into streams, hardening the road surface to prevent erosion, and monitoring after the road is open. Implementation of seasonal closures, for example, would provide an improvement in watershed function compared to the No Action alternative. The seasonal closure would lessen the risk for damage to trail tread, trail widening, off-site erosion, and off-site sedimentation. Given the degree of degradation that can occur during wet season travel, implementing the seasonal closures is expected to have considerable beneficial effects. Based on experience using similar mitigations to address similar resource concerns, implementation of these mitigations is expected to result in localized improvement in watershed function compared to the No Action alternative. Risk for off-site erosion, route widening, and off-site sedimentation to the adjacent meadow and stream channel would be reduced. Reduced sedimentation would lead to improved meadow hydrologic function and stream channel condition in the long term.

Water Resources – 221

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Across the forest, existing unauthorized routes are not known to be causing more than local, moderate effects to water quality and stream morphology. In no case is there known to be a watershed-wide effect to water quality or stream morphology due to use of these currently unauthorized routes. Therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to result in large scale effects to water resources. Outside of the Little Hot Creek area, existing routes within 100 feet of perennial channels would continue affecting riparian vegetation under Alternative 1, with some localized erosion on some routes that does not reach a channel. Other routes with concerns at stream crossings and in meadows are discussed below. At a watershed scale, the decrease in routes in Alternatives 2-6 would allow for locally improved water quality and aquatic habitat in Little Hot Creek under all action alternatives, but there would be little to no change in other watersheds based on this indicator. The following table compares the number of perennial stream crossings on routes available for public use in all 20 watersheds that contain perennial stream crossings.

Table 3-65: Number of Perennial Stream Crossings on Routes Available for Public Use in Each Alternative 5th Field 6th Field Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 51 Alt 6 Watershed Watershed Fish Lake Cotton Wood Creek 1 0 1 0 0 1 Fish Lake Upper Rock Creek 3 1 1 1 0 1 Valley/Rock Creek Adobe Valley Dexter Creek 2 0 1 0 0 0 McGee Creek 2 0 1 0 0 1 North Canyon Creek 1 0 1 0 0 1 Sawmill Creek 1 1 1 0 0 1 Upper Owens River Deadman Creek 2 1 1 0 0 0 Hilton Creek 2 1 1 2 0 1 Owens River/ 1 1 1 1 0 1 Wilfred Creek Owens River/Mclaughlin 2 2 2 1 0 2 Creek Owens Horton Creek 1 1 1 0 0 1 River/McGee Creek McGee Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pine Creek 1 0 1 0 0 0 Owens Lower Bishop Creek 1 0 1 0 0 0 River/Bishop Creek Silver Canyon 2 2 2 1 0 2 Middle Owens Owens 2 2 2 2 0 2 River River/Division Creek Owens Owens 3 2 2 0 0 2 River/Tinemaha River/Rawson Creek Owens Lake West Olancha Creek 1 1 1 0 0 1 Shore Upper Cottonwood 1 1 1 0 0 1 Creek Deep Springs Wyman Creek 2 2 2 1 0 2 Valley Queen Valley/Benton Queen Valley 2 0 0 0 0 0 Valley

Water Resources – 222 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

5th Field 6th Field Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 51 Alt 6 Watershed Watershed Mono Lake West Shore Mill Creek 1 1 1 1 0 1

Total by Alternative 35 19 25 10 0 21

Number of crossings mitigated before 0 2 3 6 NA 2 allowing public use Number of crossings mitigated after public 0 15 21 4 NA 19 use is authorized 1Unauthorized routes will not be added to the NFTS in Alternative 5. Motorized use will be prohibited.

Alternative 1 would result in the greatest number of crossings through perennial stream courses. This alternative, which represents the current condition, is not expected to lead to any watershed-wide effects to water quality or other beneficial uses, or stream morphology. This is based on a review of the watersheds with the most perennial stream crossings in the existing condition where watershed- level effects from unauthorized route crossings would be most likely to occur. Currently, unauthorized crossings increase sediment locally. Just downstream of the crossings, however, the sediment was not found to be in large enough quantities to affect water quality downstream or on a watershed scale The crossings also have some eroded streambanks at the crossing, but, again, no effect has been observed on a watershed-wide scale. The effects are local and minor to moderate in watersheds with multiple creek crossings. See the Aquatic Wildlife section of Chapter 3 for additional details on condition of stream crossings. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would result in a reduction in the number of perennial stream crossings from the existing condition. Alternative 5 would eliminate all existing stream crossings on unauthorized routes. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 propose mitigations to reduce sediment input at stream crossings as needed to protect water quality and stream morphology. Mitigations (listed in Appendix A) are proposed for 17 route-stream crossings in Alternative 2, 24 in Alternative 3, 10 in Alternative 4, and 21 in Alternative 6. No crossings will need mitigations under Alternative 5 as no currently unauthorized routes will be authorized for public use. Together, reductions in the number of stream crossings and/or mitigation of stream crossings on routes added to the NFTS are expected to result in slight benefits to aquatic species, riparian vegetation, and water quality at a local scale, with no differences seen in any watershed at a watershed-scale. See direct and indirect effects to water resources common for all alternatives for discussion on route recovery and mitigation.

Effects of New Facilities on Riparian Conservation Areas: This section considers the effects of proposed route additions on: • Perennial stream RCAs • Lake RCAs • Spring RCAs

Water Resources – 223

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs), including perennial and seasonal channel RCAs in CARs Perennial Stream RCAs: Of the 106 6th field watersheds in the analysis area, 52 contain unauthorized routes within 100 ft. of perennial stream channels (i.e., perennial RCAs). To assess the risk of direct and indirect effects to water quality, the Forest considered watersheds with RCA route density greater than 4.5 miles per square mile at high risk of impaired water quality; 2.5 to 4.5 mi/mi2 at moderate risk; and less than 2.5 miles/mi2 at low risk of adverse effects. Route densities relative to watershed condition have been rated on various scales, depending on the study and its assumptions. Studies from areas around California, Washington, and Oregon suggest that route densities above 4.5 miles per square mile present a high risk in terms of excessive sediment reaching stream channels leading to improperly functioning watersheds and adversely impacting aquatic habitat (ICBEMP, 1997; KRIS, date unknown; Cedarhorm et al., 1980). As shown in the table below, approximately 94% of the 52 6th field watersheds containing routes within perennial RCAs have less than 2.5 mi/mi2 route density within RCAs and would be considered at low risk of water quality impairment under Alternative 1. For the analysis of direct and indirect effects, route density includes only the unauthorized routes added to the NFTS (or available for motorized use) in RCAs for each of the alternatives. The cumulative effects analysis will compare total route density for existing system and routes added to the NFTS in order to determine the relative contribution of the alternatives to the risk of cumulative watershed effects.

Table 3-66: Currently Unauthorized Route Density in RCAs (Alternative 1) for Watersheds within the Analysis Area Existing 50% of the watersheds have a route density of less than 0.5 mi. /mi.2 within perennial unauthorized RCAs. route density 44% of the watersheds have a route density of 0.5 to 2.5 mi./mi.2 within perennial RCAs. within perennial 4% of the watersheds have a route density of 2.5 to 4.5 mi./mi.2 within perennial RCAs. RCAs in 6th field 2% of the watersheds have a route density greater than 4.5 mi/mi.2 within perennial RCAs. watersheds 1 1There are a total of 52 6th field watersheds that contain unauthorized routes within 100 feet of perennial stream channels.

The table below displays the 6th field watershed with RCA route densities above 2.5 mi/mi2 for unauthorized routes. Based on the initial assessment of route density alone, these watersheds were considered to be at a moderate to high risk of direct and indirect effects to water quality in the existing condition.

Table 3-67: 6th Field Watersheds with Greater than 2.5 mi per Square Mile Route Density (Unauthorized Routes Only) in Perennial RCAs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Punch Bowl Punch Bowl Punch Bowl Punch Bowl N/A Punch Bowl

Owens River/ Owens River/ Owens River/ Owens River/ Owens River/ N/A Taboose Creek Taboose Creek Taboose Creek Taboose Creek Taboose Creek

Owens

6th Field Watershed Watershed Field 6th River/Wilfred N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Creek

Water Resources – 224 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

A site-specific review of RCAs in these watersheds was conducted in order to verify this risk. Results of that review follow: • Punch Bowl. There are no natural perennial channels in Punch Bowl, but there is a 0.3 mile section of canal that carries water from the Rush Creek drainage into a tunnel, eventually ending up in the Owens River. Because this is the only “perennial” stream in the watershed, and because an unauthorized route parallels the ditch its entire length, this gives a route density of over 20 miles/square mile, which would remain the same under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. However, the road is on a bench above the ditch, and does not contribute sediment to the ditch. There is limited aquatic habitat or riparian vegetation along this ditch, so the only beneficial use is municipal water supply. This beneficial use is not being affected by this unauthorized route, and therefore this high route density does not actually affect any beneficial uses. • Taboose Creek. The high route density in the Taboose Creek watershed is contributed by two unauthorized routes (11S101 and 11S103) located on a bench above the creek. These routes do not deliver sediment to the channel because they drain runoff away from the channel rather than towards it. As a result, the high RCA route density in this watershed is not resulting in actual effects to water quality. Actual risk of direct and indirect effects to Taboose Creek is considered to be low under all alternatives.

As shown in the table below, average route density in RCAs forestwide declines from 0.61 mi/mi2 under the No Action alternative to a low of 0 mi/mi2 in Alternative 5. All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) would result in a reduction in the number and miles of routes within perennial RCAs. These changes in route density are not expected to result in measurable differences in effects on water quality. All alternatives, including the No Action, are considered at low risk of direct and indirect effects to water quality at the watershed scale.

Table 3-68: Average Route Density in All Perennial RCAs by Alternative Alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Average Route Density Within 0.61 0.38 0.45 0.3 0 0.4 RCA (mi/mi2)

Effects on Lake RCAs: The table below displays the miles of routes available for public use within 100 feet of lakes under each alternative. As shown, Alternative 1 would have the greatest miles of routes within lake RCAs. All of the action alternatives would result in a reduction in the number and miles of routes within lake RCAs compared to the existing condition. Overall, there would likely be a slight reduction in the potential for sediment to enter the lake from road runoff. Impacts to beneficial uses of lakes and recreation opportunities are not expected from any of the alternatives.

Water Resources – 225

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-69: Total Miles of Routes that Would Be Available for Public Use within 100 feet of Lakes Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Routes Available for Motorized 3.4 2.4 2.0 1.9 0 2.4 Use within 100 feet of Lakes

Effects on Spring RCAs: The table below displays the miles of currently unauthorized routes within 100 feet of known springs that would be available for public use under each alternative. In all alternatives, the miles of routes within spring RCAs is extremely limited. All of the action alternatives would result in a reduction in the number and miles of motorized routes within spring RCAs. Mitigations related to meadows associated with the springs are proposed for three routes (01S469, 01S474, and 03S526; see Appendix A). There are no known impacts to actual spring function from any unauthorized routes.

Table 3-70: Total Miles of Currently Unauthorized Routes that Would Be Available for Public Use within 100 feet of Springs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Routes Available for .5 .25 .36 .10 0 .38 Motorized Use within 100 feet of Springs

Effects of New Facilities on CARs: The table below displays the miles of routes in CARs that would be available for public motorized use (i.e., added to the NFTS in Alternatives 2-6). In all cases, Alternative 1 contains the most miles of routes available for public use in each of the CARs. Overall, there would be a reduction in the risk of off-site erosion and stream sedimentation in the action alternatives compared to Alternative 1.

Table 3-71: Total Miles of Currently Unauthorized Routes that Would Be Available for Public Use within CARs CAR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Baker Creek 13.0 4.7 12.2 1.8 0 5.9 Cottonwood 4.8 0 3.8 .86 0 1.5 Crooked 4.5 1.1 3.3 1.1 0 1.1 Creek Dry Creek 11.3 6.3 7.2 4.1 0 6.3 Glass Creek / Deadman / 48.6 35.0 38.4 22.5 0 33.5 Upper Owens Haiwee 1.8 0 .3 0 0 0 Little Hot 24.6 12.5 15.3 9.2 0 14.4 Creek O’Harrel .75 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 Olancha .24 0 0 00 0 0

Water Resources – 226 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below displays the miles of unauthorized routes available for public use within 100 feet of perennial channels in CARs.

Table 3-72: Miles of Routes within 100 feet of Perennial Channels within CARs CAR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Baker Creek .05 .03 .05 .03 0 .03 Crooked Creek .56 0 .49 0 0 0 Glass Creek/ Deadman / Upper 1.3 .35 .35 .06 0 .29 Owens Little Hot Creek .29 .13 .13 .13 0 .13 O’Harrel .27 .04 .04 .04 0 .04 Olancha .03 0 0 0 0 0

In all cases, Alternative 1 contains the most miles of routes adjacent to stream channels in CARs. There would be a decrease in risk of off-site erosion and stream sedimentation in all the action alternatives, with the greatest reduction in Alternative 5. In Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, mitigations are applied to minimize impacts on routes with known off-site erosion and stream sedimentation concerns in Little Hot Creek and Glass Creek/Deadman/Upper Owens.

Effects of New Facilities on Seasonal Stream Channels within CARs: Seven CARs contain unauthorized routes that cross seasonal stream channels. These are Baker Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Crooked Creek, Dry Creek, Glass Creek/Deadman/Upper Owens, Little Hot Creek, and Haiwee. The tables below display the miles of currently unauthorized routes within 100 feet of seasonal stream channels within these CARs. Results for ephemeral and intermittent streams are combined because of the GIS limitations outlined earlier in this section. In all cases, mitigations are proposed for routes with existing off-site erosion concerns in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Table 3-73: Total Miles of Routes that Would Be Available for Public Use within 100 feet of Ephemeral and Intermittent Stream Channels in CARs CAR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Baker Creek 1.9 0.5 1.9 0.3 0 1.6 Cottonwood 0.15 0 0.15 0.04 0 0.1 Crooked Creek 0.4 0 0.17 0 0 0 Dry Creek 0.2 0.01 0.03 0 0 0.01 Glass Creek/Deadman/Upper 4.1 3.0 3.1 2.3 0 2.3 Owens Haiwee 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 Little Hot Creek 4.7 2.4 2.6 0.9 0 2.5

Glass/Deadman/Upper Owens and Little Hot Creek contain the most miles of routes within 100 feet of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels. Alternative 1 would result in the greatest number and miles of routes within ephemeral and intermittent RCAs.

Water Resources – 227

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In the Baker Creek, Glass/Deadman/Upper Owens, Dry Creek, and Little Hot Creek CARs, Alternative 1 has the highest likelihood of sediment reaching ephemeral and intermittent stream channels. This is because these areas contain routes with known off-site erosion concerns, and they would not be mitigated under Alternative 1. However, based on field observations and known habitat conditions, the risk of excessive sediment reaching perennial stream channels from ephemeral and intermittent stream channels and adversely affecting aquatic habitat is low, even without mitigation. This is due to the high infiltration rate of soils in these watersheds, which means that any sediment carried in intermittent runoff is often dropped before reaching a perennial stream channel during average weather events. In Little Hot Creek CAR, there is a slightly higher risk given the nature of soils in that area.

Effects of New Facilities on Meadows and Alkali Flats The following table displays the miles of routes available for public use through wet and alkali meadows by alternative. Alkali meadows are mostly found around the Mono Lake area. All of the action alternatives reduce the miles of routes that pass through meadows and alkali flats compared to the No Action alternative.

Table 3-74: Miles of Routes through Wet Meadows and Alkali Flats per Alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 12.1 6.8 9.4 4.6 n/a 6.8

As shown in the table below, there are 11 routes (2.3 miles) with known impacts to hydrologic function in meadows and alkali flats. The remaining routes are stable where they pass through wet meadows or alkali flats. Existing effects of motorized use include route widening as vehicles attempt to avoid seasonally wet areas, rutting, and sediment delivery to stream channels. Effects are considered local to moderate in extent, and range from minor to major in severity. Alternative 6 proposes to add 1.6 miles of the routes listed above to the NFTS, slightly more than Alternative 3 (1.4 miles), Alternative 2 (1.3 miles), Alternative 4 (0.3 miles), and Alternative 5 (0 miles). All of the action alternatives reduce impacts to meadows and alkali flats by: • Eliminating motorized use of some or all of the routes listed above (i.e., not adding the routes to the NFTS); and • Proposing mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate effects to hydrologic function if the route is added to the NFTS.

Proposed mitigations include repairing road drainage, hardening the road surface or creek crossing, and installing barriers to prevent further widening of the route prism. These mitigations would enhance the meadow hydrologic function. For routes not added to the NFTS in the action alternatives, meadow function and condition would slowly improve through passive restoration (natural recovery). Because the net productivity in wet meadows and alkali flats is high compared to upland or dry meadow situations, natural recovery would be expedited in these areas—on the order of 10-20 years—with riparian vegetation growing back and greatly reducing any sedimentation or

Water Resources – 228 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 compaction from these roads. However, in those areas with major effects (Table 3-75), natural recovery of hydrologic function could take many years without active restoration.

Effects of Changing Use on Existing NFTS Roads – All Alternatives For Alternatives 1 and 5, no changes to the class of vehicle or season of use for existing system roads are proposed. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to water resources are expected. As described in Chapter 2, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 propose limited changes to the existing NFTS road network, including managing some as motorized trails rather than roads. For all action alternatives, off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation would decrease slightly given the smaller footprint and/or disturbance when a route is managed as an ATV or motorcycle trail rather than as a road. The effect would be very limited in extent and intensity. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would also close some NFTS roads to public travel. Proposals to close existing NFTS roads to public travel for administrative purposes would not result in a measurable change to water resources because use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns. These roads are currently part of the NFTS and their effects on soil resources have been considered in past management decisions.

Effects of Mitigation Measures Mitigations proposed to reduce or eliminate effects to water resources are analyzed in the Direct and Indirect Effects sections above. This effects determination assumes that all pre- and post- designation mitigations applied to minimize effects on water resources will be completed within the short-term effects timeframe of five years. Routes with pre-designation mitigations are not currently meeting BMPs and have a greater scope and intensity of effect than routes proposed for post- designation mitigation. Routes with pre-designation mitigations were prioritized to ensure mitigations to minimize effects are completed quickly and recreational opportunity restored. For routes with pre-designation mitigations, the effects of motor vehicle use on water resources (e.g., sedimentation at stream crossings) would not be minimized until completion of the prescribed mitigation. Routes proposed for post-designation mitigations have localized, contained effects. Post- designation mitigations provide for continued recreational opportunity while ensuring that effects are mitigated to acceptable levels within the short-term. As stated earlier in the analysis, even when motor vehicle use ceases, impacts will still occur until mitigation is completed. For instance, while motor vehicle induced effects would cease, active erosion and sedimentation to water bodies would continue until mitigation is completed. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on other forest resources are summarized in Chapter 2 and listed by route in Appendix A. Mitigations proposed to reduce effects on other forest resources are analyzed here to assess potential adverse impacts on the water resource. Of those, only proposed reroutes (to a new location), signage, barriers, and weed treatments were identified as having the possibility to affect soil erosion potential and runoff, possibly leading to stream sedimentation.

Water Resources – 229

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Mitigations were reviewed by a combination of field knowledge of the area and GIS analysis. Of all the mitigations, reroutes have the greatest potential to increase soil erosion and increase runoff and stream sedimentation. Proposed reroutes would be engineered with appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) applied (Appendix G). In addition, the old route would be decommissioned by a combination of barriers, signage, and hand and mechanical scarification and revegetation. During implementation, off-site soil erosion would increase on the new route. As the route would be engineered and BMPs applied the effect would be temporary. This would be partially off-set by implementing active restoration of the old route path. In the long term, the old route path would stabilize, essentially eliminating any potential for off-site soil erosion. Sediment is not anticipated to reach any perennial stream channel, as the reroutes are not adjacent to a perennial channel, though localized off-site erosion is likely to occur until the reroute stabilizes. Barriers would consist of rocks and boulders. In some instances, they would be placed outside the existing route footprint. This may crush vegetation, however, the impact to off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation would be negligible. Signage would have similar effects. Weed treatments were analyzed in the Noxious Weed Environmental Assessment (Decision Notice signed in November 2007). No additional effects are anticipated.

Water Resources – 230 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-75: Routes through Meadows and Alkali Flats with Known Impacts to Hydrologic Function Alternatives Route Type of Effect Degree of Effects 1 2 3 4 5 6

Rutting, creek crossing is widening, Available for Not on NFTS. Added to NFTS Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. N2198 sediment input to perennial stream Moderate use. No No mitigation. with mitigation No mitigation. No mitigation. No mitigation. channel mitigation. Approx. 0.03 mi Widening, riparian vegetation, Available for added to NFTS Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Not on NFTS. N1240 sediment delivery to perennial Moderate use. No with mitigation; with mitigation with mitigation with mitigation No mitigation. stream channel mitigation. rest of route not added. Added to NFTS Rutting, mud holes, sediment Available for Added to NFTS Added to NFTS as 4 wheel Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. 08S204 delivery to perennial stream Moderate use. No as an ATV trail, as an ATV trail, drive trail with No mitigation. No mitigation. channels mitigation. with mitigation with mitigation. mitigation Added to NFTS Available for Rilling, sediment delivery to Not on NFTS. as 4 wheel Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. 08S122 Minor use. No perennial stream channel No mitigation. drive trail with No mitigation. No mitigation. No mitigation. mitigation. mitigation Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Available for Added to NFTS as 4 wheel Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. as 4 wheel 08S119 Rutting Minor use. No as an ATV trail, drive trail with No mitigation. No mitigation. drive trail with mitigation. with mitigation mitigation mitigation Available for Rutting, sediment filters out before Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Not on NFTS. Added to NFTS 05S104 Minor use. No main part of meadow with mitigation with mitigation with mitigation No mitigation. with mitigation mitigation. Available for Rilling delivering sediment to Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Not on NFTS. Added to NFTS 03S526 Moderate use. No meadow with mitigation with mitigation with mitigation No mitigation. with mitigation mitigation. Available for Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Added to NFTS Not on NFTS. Added to NFTS 01N167 Rutting Minor use. No with mitigation with mitigation with mitigation No mitigation. with mitigation mitigation.

Mud holes, rutting, stream crossing Available for degraded stream crossing ingress Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. 01N134 Major use. No and egress delivering sediment to No mitigation. No mitigation. No mitigation. No mitigation. No mitigation. mitigation. two perennial stream channels

Available for Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Not on NFTS. Added to NFTS 01N172 Rutting, small mud hole Minor use. No No mitigation No mitigation No mitigation No mitigation with mitigation. Mitigation

Water Resources – 231 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.7.4.3 Cumulative Effects This analysis is designed to identify the potential risk of cumulative effects to beneficial uses and aquatic habitat from the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives combined with effects of other land disturbances such as system roads, fuel reduction projects, livestock grazing, and wildfire.

Definition and Scope of Analysis The analysis of cumulative effects considers all present and foreseeable future land disturbances on the Inyo National Forest (INF). As described in the introduction to Chapter 3, this analysis relies on existing water resource conditions as a proxy for the effects of past actions. The timeframe for the cumulative effects analysis is 20 years. Cumulative watershed effects were assessed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods as described in Section 3.7.4.1. 1. Risk of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) for each 6th field watershed in the water resources analysis area based on a quantitative evaluation of the land disturbances in the watershed using the method of equivalent roaded acres (ERA). The ERA method and assumptions are described in more detail later in this section. 2. Contributing effects to water resources are described qualitatively for watersheds at low risk of CWE (less than 1% of their area covered by roads). This method was used to describe the potential for CWE when a quantitative assessment using the ERA methodology would not result in measurable effects. 3. Finally, overall route density within perennial stream RCAs was used as another indicator of the potential for cumulative watershed effects. Routes near perennial streams are more likely to have an effect on stream function than those outside of RCAs due to their proximity to streams.

Method 1: Analysis of the Risk of Cumulative Effects (Equivalent Roaded Acres or ERA Methodology) The ERA method assesses the risk of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) for an entire watershed. An index is calculated for a watershed that expresses most land use in terms of the percent of the watershed covered by roads. Based on the equivalent roaded acres and a Threshold of Concern (TOC), a given watershed is assigned a relative risk— low, moderate, high, or very high—of CWE. The primary cumulative effect of concern is an increase in the amount of sediment delivery to streams and the resulting degradation of aquatic habitat. Roads, which are considered to have the greatest potential to increase the amount of sediment to streams, are given a value of 1.0 for each acre encumbered by a road. Each land disturbance activity other than roads is assigned a coefficient that calculates its effect relative to an equivalent area dedicated to roads. For example, prescribed burning is assigned a coefficient of 0.20, and urban areas have a coefficient of 0.3. Next, the proportion of the watershed in a roaded condition is calculated by dividing the area covered by roads by the total number of acres in the watershed. The number of acres affected by all other disturbance activities is then multiplied by the coefficient for that activity. The result (for each

Water Resources – 232 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 land disturbance activity) is then divided by the number of acres of the entire watershed to determine the percent ERA in the watershed for each type of land disturbance. All ERA values are summed to determine the percent of the watershed that is covered by the “equivalent” area of roads. The following risk categories were used in the CWE assessment on the INF: • Low risk of CWE - ERA is less than 50% of the Threshold of Concern (TOC) • Moderate risk of CWE - ERA is between 50% and 80% of TOC • High risk of CWE - ERA is between 80% and 100% of TOC • Very high risk of CWE - ERA is greater than TOC

The CWE assessment began with a calculation of Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) for all roads (existing system, unauthorized routes, and roads under other jurisdiction) for each of the 106 6th field watersheds in the analysis area for each alternative. This was used to identify those watersheds with 1% or more of their area covered by roads. Five 6th field watersheds meet the 1% criteria. Unless other risk factors such as urbanization or water quality impairment were identified, watersheds with less than 1% of their area covered by roads were not considered for further quantitative analysis because roads contribute so little of the overall watershed effect that there would be no discernable difference between total ERA for the alternatives. Risk of CWE is considered low for these watersheds. The qualitative analysis includes an assessment of the effects of present and foreseeable future actions within these low risk watersheds. All watersheds were re-examined to identify those with major urban influences (e.g., Mammoth Lakes and June Lake) and water quality concerns (303d listed water bodies). This resulted in a total of seven watersheds considered in a comprehensive CWE analysis. Watersheds with at least 1% ERA for roads are Deadman Creek, Hot Creek, Mammoth Creek, Owens River/Dry Creek, East Craters Sand Flat, and Punch Bowl. The June Lake and Mammoth Creek watersheds include urbanized areas near the communities of June Lake and Mammoth Lakes, respectively. The Mammoth Creek watershed also contains a 303d water quality impaired water body (Mammoth Creek). After the seven watersheds were prioritized, all known past, present, and future disturbances were mapped using GIS. These disturbances included urban development, system and non-system roads, mining, vegetation management activities, wildfires, and prescribed burns. Threshold of Concern can be thought of as the estimated upper limit of a watershed’s ability to tolerate land disturbances without resulting in adverse impacts to beneficial uses. The Forest used a Threshold of Concern (TOC) of 12-18 percent for the seven watersheds in the analysis area where calculations were completed for CWE analysis, with variations based on characteristics such as topography, miles of stream channel, and soil types. That is, when 12-18 percent of a watershed is covered by the equivalent of roads (i.e., ERA value for the watershed is 12-18), there is a very high risk that an increase in the amount of sediment delivered to streams will occur. This does not mean cumulative watershed effects will occur precisely when the ERA reaches or approaches the TOC, or that an increase in sediment delivery to streams will automatically result in a degradation of aquatic habitat and/or water quality. Instead, it is a “yellow flag” that such effects might occur.

Water Resources – 233

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Assumptions and Limitations of the ERA Methodology • The ERA methodology is intended for watersheds between 2,000 and 10,000 acres in size. In this analysis, it was used for 6th field watersheds, which range from 11,000 to 43, 000 acres, with an average size of about 30,000 acres. In most cases, this does not alter the results, since disturbances are often spread evenly throughout watersheds. However, in watersheds with concentrated activity, our analysis may slightly underestimate the effects in some subwatersheds. Because none of the ERA values for the Forest’s 6th order watersheds are anywhere near 50% of their TOCs, completing the analysis by smaller watersheds would not have resulted in different determinations (i.e., would not have caused the risk of CWE to shift from low to moderate). • The ERA calculations do not take into account site-specific Best Management Practices or mitigations. • The ERA and other CWE methodologies cannot quantitatively predict the amount of sediment delivered to streams, the distance downstream that the sediment load will travel, the point in time and the duration when an increase in sediment delivery to aquatic features will occur, and the magnitude and duration of adverse effects to aquatic habitat and species. The reasons for this include the large variability in the magnitude of direct effects from a given land disturbance, inability to predict secondary or indirect effects, lack of data on recovery rates for land disturbances, difficulty of validating predictive models on the ground, and the uncertainty of future events such as the size and timing of large storms. As a result, an assessment of CWE is used as an indicator of the overall risk of cumulative effects occurring in a watershed rather than as an indicator of site-specific effects. • The location of land disturbance activities within a watershed was not considered in the analysis. For example, roads near streams are treated exactly the same as roads that are far from streams. In reality, roads located within or next to riparian areas tend to contribute more sediment to streams than roads in upland areas. To take such differences in effects into account, route density in RCAs is also used to evaluate cumulative effects as described below. • Existing system roads are considered “static” on the landscape, while the number and mileage of unauthorized routes could change between alternatives, thereby changing the risk of cumulative effect. • Recovery of the watershed from land disturbing activities occurs with time depending on the disturbance. This ranges from 5 years for prescribed burns to 30 years for tractor timber harvest.

Results of the CWE Risk Assessment The following table displays the results of the seven 6th field watersheds modeled using the ERA methodology for the No Action Alternative. These seven watersheds have the highest total route density and/or the largest area affected by other disturbances such as urbanization, ski area development, and fuel management activities.

Water Resources – 234 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-76: Results of the ERA Analysis 6th field watershed 5th field Watershed Threshold of ERA Value ERA % of Concern (%) (%) TOC Deadman Creek Upper Owens River 14 -16 2.3 14% Hot Creek Upper Owens River 14-16 1.6 11% Mammoth Creek Upper Owens River 14-16 2.8 20% Owens River/Dry Creek Upper Owens River 16-18 1.8 11% East Craters Sand Flat Mono Lake East Shore 16-18 1 5% June Lake Mono Lake South Shore 14-16 3 20% Punch Bowl Mono Lake South Shore 16-18 2 11%

As shown, ERA for each watershed is less than half of the Threshold of Concern (TOC) assigned to each watershed. The risk of cumulative watershed effects is therefore considered low, as it is for all of the other 6th field watersheds in the analysis area. At the 6th field watershed scale, the risk of cumulative effects is not measurably affected by any of the action alternatives. The risk of CWE is low for every alternative. There are three reasons for this conclusion: • None of the alternatives involve new ground-disturbing activities or the creation of new impervious areas. As a result, the creation of additional equivalent roaded acres (ERA) under all alternatives is zero. • ERA is likely to be less than estimated due to active decommissioning or rehabilitation of routes not added to the NFTS. These activities could not be considered in the CWE analysis because they are not considered part of the foreseeable future because site-specific proposals must be developed and analyzed before any such activities could take place. Although many of these roads will decompact and re-vegetate naturally, this process is highly variable across the Forest and dependent on the current condition of the route. Typically, recovery takes at least 20 years or more. As a result, this analysis assumes that there will be small incremental changes in ERA occurring on a yearly basis. • At the 6th field watershed scale, the acres of unauthorized routes that would be closed under all of the action alternatives would provide little change in percent ERA in the future. The maximum reduction is 0.8% ERA in Alternative 5 for the Deadman Creek watershed, assuming complete re-vegetation of all unauthorized routes at some point in the future. As stated above, this change cannot be measured on a yearly basis. The other action alternatives have 0.3 percent ERA or less change for the individual 6th field watershed.

Method 2: Qualitative Discussion of Past, Present, and Future Actions (For All Watersheds) As described in the introduction to Chapter 3, existing conditions are used as a proxy for the effects of past actions and events. The major anthropogenic land disturbances relevant to water resources include timber harvest, road building, mining, recreation, the building of dams, cross- country vehicle use, human settlement, and the grazing of livestock. In general, the anthropogenic land disturbances have been more intense where commodities have been extracted and/or in meadows where livestock grazing is the heaviest. Natural land disturbances since the late 1800s relevant to the analysis have included large wildfires, flood events, earthquakes, and avalanches.

Water Resources – 235

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Since 2000, approximately 82,439 acres have burned in wildfires on the Forest. This is approximately four times the average acreage burned in previous decades back to the 1950s. A flood event occurred in July 2008 that affected areas around the north and south fork of Oak Creek. Approximately 640 acres were affected by the mudflow. There is currently a large gully on the north fork of Oak Creek with raw unstable banks absent of riparian vegetation. The south fork of Oak Creek is in a new channel with raw, unstable banks and no riparian vegetation. The resulting mud flow and gullies will affect riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and water quality for 20 years or more with a slow return of riparian vegetation. Over the past 20 years road/trail construction, reconstruction, and maintenance has occurred across the Inyo National Forest as vegetation management, mining, special uses, and/or recreation access needs were identified and analyzed on a project by project basis. Projects were designed to minimize soil and water resource impacts, implemented following Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). In the last ten years, known problem areas identified in the Soil Loss monitoring program have been addressed. Projects include re-routing unstable routes such as steep, eroding hillclimbs; hardening stream crossings; and disguising user-created routes to reduce cross-country travel. It is anticipated that all routes monitored under this program will be rated as “green” in the next 1-2 years. These actions have stabilized route tread, decreased soil erosion and stream sedimentation, and improved water quality in localized areas.

Present and Foreseeable Future Actions This analysis includes known on-going and reasonably foreseeable future land disturbances within the analysis area that contribute the same type of effects as the alternatives. These include NFTS roads and motorized trails as well as the activities listed below. Additional details about the current and future actions considered in this analysis are available in Appendix D. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed to ensure compliance with water quality standards and ensure that beneficial uses of water are protected. Annual BMP evaluation of all types of forest activities finds, on average, that 10-15% of BMPs are not fully effective. Those that are non-effective usually pose local, minor, but long-term effects to water quality. Because data collected from past projects indicate that most projects do not affect water quality, none of the identified current or foreseeable future projects on NFS land are expected to pose a risk to cumulative watershed effects if BMPs are implemented and effective.

Fuel and Vegetation Management Projects: Present and foreseeable future projects are expected to occur on 28,853 acres. Vegetation management projects have the potential to affect water resources by removing ground cover, displacing soil, causing compaction, and disturbing the soil hydrologic function causing off-site erosion and stream sedimentation. In addition, these projects can impact riparian vegetation and riparian area duff and litter by either mechanical and/or thermal disturbance. Present and foreseeable future actions in the analysis area include the following projects: • Jeffery Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction project • Arcularius Windmill Project

Water Resources – 236 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• SCALP • June Lake Fuel Break • Tunnel Burn Piles • Dechambeau Ranch Fuels Project • Mammoth Fuel Break • Moraine Fuels Management Project • Doe Ridge Fuels Reduction • June Fire Restoration • Rust II Forest Health and Fuel Reduction Project • Kingfisher Ridge Fuels Reduction Project • Portal Fuels Reduction Project • Crowley Communities Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project • Lee Vining Personal Fuelwood Project • Sherwin to Scenic Loop Hazardous Fuels Reduction

In all cases, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Inyo National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines as amended by the 2004 SNFPA were or are going to be applied to theses projects to protect water quality. In addition, any temporary roads and fire lines associated with project activities would be blocked, disguised, and decommissioned after use to reduce potential effects on soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Temporary roads and fire lines are generally restored to a productive state, with minimal off-site erosion and stream sedimentation within 20 years.

Livestock grazing: Livestock grazing currently occurs on approximately 738,000 acres throughout the Forest. Livestock grazing has similar soil and water resource effects as vegetation management projects. It is important to note that the intensity of grazing impacts varies across an allotment. Generally, impacts are greater in sensitive areas such as wet meadows and riparian areas. Cattle trailing, water placement, and salt placement also affect the intensity and degree of impact to the water resource. The Forest has two projects related to grazing management that are currently in the planning stages: Crowley Lake Watershed Grazing Allotment Analysis and White Mountain Group Allotment Analysis. The analyses will evaluate whether grazing will continue on 17 allotments in the Crowley Lake Basin and White Mountains, and if it is continued, how future grazing will be conducted. Grazing on other allotments in the analysis area in the foreseeable future will continue under existing allotment management plans. Range allotment key area conditions are evaluated using the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 6 (1995). Amendment 6 uses selected soil and vegetation characteristics and Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) evaluations on stream channels to evaluate conditions in key areas. Results of these analyses are used to develop mitigations for grazing

Water Resources – 237

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

management. For instance, identified headcuts and damage to spring areas in the Crowley Lake allotments are proposed for correction in the Environmental Assessment. These actions would improve water quality, riparian vegetation extent and vigor, and aquatic habitat in the long term as sites revegetate and hydrologic function is restored.

Road Stabilization and decommissioning projects (approximately 22 acres of beneficial soil and watershed effect): The Forest has numerous road stabilization or decommissioning projects including: • Lower Wyman Canyon Road and Silver Canyon Road Conservation Project • West Olancha Wilderness Road Restoration • Mammoth Area Road Conservation and Restoration project • Monache Area Conservation and Restoration project • OHV Restoration and Conservation Project

Beneficial effects resulting from road stabilization projects are localized and generally moderate in degree. Benefits to water quality from stabilizing and hardening road-stream crossings include reductions in downstream sediment and possible increases in riparian vegetation vigor and extent. Decommissioning has a major (but localized) positive effect on soil, watershed resource condition as the disturbed area is restored, and vehicle traffic is eliminated. The beneficial effect is immediate; however, it may take several years to a decade for vegetation to reoccupy the site, reducing off-site soil erosion and stream sedimentation. The objectives of these projects are to prevent off-site erosion, improve water quality, and restore site productivity. Monitoring of past road stabilization and decommissioning projects by the Forest watershed staff indicate that objectives are met as sites are recovering and efforts to prevent vehicle incursion are generally successful.

Watershed Restoration Projects The following project would add up to 3 tons of gravel to North Fork Cottonwood Creek to augment spawning habitat for Paiute Cutthroat Trout. It is expected to have a positive effect on stream channel condition regarding aquatic habitat. • North Fork Cottonwood Creek Gravel Augmentation

Road, trail, and ski area development (218 acres): Impacts include soil compaction and top soil displacement, leading to off-site erosion and possible stream sedimentation. BMPs such as silt fences are utilized during construction to effectively limit off-site soil movement.

Mining and Geothermal (affecting approximately 211 acres; 1,000,000 cubic yards): Mining projects, depending on their extent and scope, can negatively affect water quality in the long term by disturbing the top soil, leading to off-site erosion and stream sedimentation. Site

Water Resources – 238 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 rehabilitation can restore a measure of soil function and reduce off-site erosion and stream sedimentation. Depending on the project, site restoration can be 20 years or more in the future. The following mining projects are currently on-going or proposed in the foreseeable future: • U.S. Pumice Mining Operation • Standard Industrial Mineral Kaoline Mine Operation • Standard Industrial Mineral Pacific Sericite Mine • Black Point Cinder Inc. Mining Operation • Rush Creek Gravel Pit (Aggregate Mining) • Mammoth Pacific Geothermal Project • Tom Crosby Silver Load Mine Operation • Lynn Goodfellow Pine Creek Mine • Mineral Exploration Activities Queen Canyon • Escape Gold Drilling Project • Mineral Prospecting Permit to UPX Uranium • Austrailia Too • Underground Mining Exploration

Wildfires: It is anticipated that at least 54,000 acres of wildfires will burn on the Forest over the next 20 years. Wildfires on the Forest typically consume ground and canopy fuels, leaving the soil vulnerable to accelerated wind and water erosion. Adjacent perennial stream channels carry ash and sediment from the initial runoff producing storms. Accelerated erosion greatly diminishes once native vegetation re-occupies the burned areas, generally returning to background levels after 5 years. The size and location of these natural events, as well as the extent and severity of effects from these events to condition of stream sedimentation as well as impacts on riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat cannot be precisely predicted.

Conclusion for Qualitative Discussion of Cumulative Effects (Method 2) The present and reasonably foreseeable future activities occurring throughout the analysis area watersheds could add cumulatively to the potential impacts associated with implementation of one or more of the alternatives. However, the effects of all of the activities listed above cannot be adequately compared between the alternatives in a quantitative fashion due to the following limitations: • Lack of spatial data, which means that the overlapping nature of effects from different projects cannot be determined or assessed (e.g., a fuels reduction project may occupy the same acreage on the ground as a livestock allotment, and a transmission line and associated roads may pass through both projects); and

Water Resources – 239

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Variability of effects within any given present or future project area, ranging from severe soil disturbance and complete removal of native vegetation to no ground disturbance at all. However, because the quantitative analysis conducted for the seven most heavily impacted watersheds (based on roads, urbanization, and impaired water bodies) indicated a low risk of CWE, all other watersheds are also expected to be at a low risk of CWE.

Method 3: CWE Risk Assessment Based on Perennial RCA Route Density The table below displays the 6th field watersheds with a total route density (unauthorized routes and system roads combined) of more than 2.5 mi/mi2 in perennial RCAs. As described in the analysis of direct and indirect effects, watersheds with route density greater than 4.5 miles per square mile are considered to be at high risk of adverse watershed effects, at moderate risk if route density is between 2.5 and 4.5 mi/mi2, and at low risk if routes density is less than 2.5 miles/mi2. The following table also displays the watersheds at moderate to high risk of impaired water quality based on total route density. Of these, only the Owens River/Taboose Creek, Laurel Creek, and Punch Bowl watersheds are at moderate or high risk due to the additive effects of unauthorized routes. All others are at moderate to high risk due to existing system roads. Routes added to the NFTS under the alternatives do not result in an increased risk (i.e., from low to moderate) of impaired water quality in any watershed except Owens River/Taboose Creek, Laurel Creek, and Punch Bowl Watersheds. Therefore, only those watersheds directly and indirectly affected by the alternatives will be considered further in this analysis of cumulative effects. It is important to consider that route density is a screening tool with limitations similar to the ERA methodology. This tool uses RCA route density to assess risk because activities within RCAs are more likely to have an adverse effect on stream function and water quality. Watersheds with high RCA route density that are at high risk should be considered a “yellow flag” indicating that additional quantitative aquatic and hydrologic studies may be necessary to characterize stream channel and watershed condition.

Table 3-77: Watersheds at Moderate to High Risk of Impaired Water Quality Based on Route Density Moderate Risk High Risk (RCAs with total route density greater (RCAs with total route densities 2.5 – 4.5 mi/sq.mi) than 4.5 mi/sq mi) Leidy Creek Pizona Creek Upper Bishop Creek Owens River/Big Pine Lower Middle Fork San Joaquin River Silver Canyon Indian Creek Wyman Creek Upper Rock Creek Upper Pinchot Creek Upper Middle Fork San Joaquin River Rock Creek (Owens River) McGee Creek (Adobe Valley) Jack Springs Canyon Dexter Creek Upper Rock Creek (Fish Lake Valley) Owens River/Dry Creek Upper Cottonwood Creek Upper Spring Canyon Creek Owens River / Taboose Creek Punch Bowl Laurel Creek Note: 5th field watersheds are in parentheses when clarification is needed.

Water Resources – 240 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

A site-specific review of RCAs in the Owens River/Taboose Creek, Punch Bowl, and Laurel Creek watersheds, both on and off Forest, was conducted in order to verify the risk of cumulative effects of the alternatives. Results of that review follow: • Taboose Creek. The high route density in the Taboose Creek watershed is contributed by two unauthorized routes (11S101 and 11S103) located on a bench above the creek , as well as two system routes (11S102 and 11S02) and a county road (11S04). Actual risk of cumulative effects to Taboose Creek are considered to be low under all alternatives because observations of creeks in the watershed indicate aquatic habitat conditions are stable and did not identify any adverse effects to beneficial uses; therefore, the cumulative contribution of the alternatives to CWE is minimal. • Punch Bowl. There are no natural perennial channels in Punch Bowl, but there is a 0.3 mile section of canal that carries water from the Rush Creek drainage into a tunnel, eventually ending up in the Owens River. There are no other routes within RCAs in this watershed. Therefore, the additive effects are the same as the direct/indirect effects. There are no additive effects because there are actually no direct/indirect effects, because the channel is a water conveyance ditch and the route does not provide sediment into the ditch. • Laurel Creek. The high route density in the Laurel Creek watershed is due to one system route (04S86) and two unauthorized routes (04S133 and 04S134). Mitigations are applied to both routes in Alternative 6 to minimize effects to water resources. Actual cumulative effects to Laurel Creek are considered low under all alternatives because aquatic habitat conditions are stable and no adverse effects to beneficial uses have been observed.

3.7.5 Summary of Effects Table 3-78 summarizes the effects of the six alternatives using the measurement indicators described previously.

3.7.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction All action alternatives (2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) would comply with the Forest Plan, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), the Travel Management regulations, and other regulatory direction.

Forest Plan and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 propose routes through wet meadows and alkali flats, however SNFPA Standard and Guideline #70 applies to road construction as defined in the Travel Management Rule, which defines road construction or reconstruction as “Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road.” Adding existing routes to the system is not the equivalent of new road construction, so Standard and Guideline #70 would not apply. However, all routes in meadows have been evaluated and post- designation mitigations proposed as needed to ensure continued hydrologic function and connectivity within the meadow. Consistent with Standard and Guideline #92, all proposed routes within RCAs and CARs have been evaluated for RCO consistency (Appendix B).

Water Resources – 241

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, does not address soil and water concerns such as routes on erosive soils, routes in perennial RCAs, and perennial road-stream crossings. This alternative would not make progress toward desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan and SNFPA for soil and water resources.

Travel Management Rule In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a) and (b), effects to water resources and potential damage to watershed condition were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. The objective was to minimize impacts, as demonstrated by the following: 1. Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of routes causing sedimentation and affecting hydrologic function was used in the development of the alternatives in an interdisciplinary setting to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. The objective was to avoid off-route sedimentation and negative effects to hydrologic function. 2. Where avoidance could not be achieved because of the need to balance resource impacts with recreational access needs and adverse effects were anticipated, mitigations were proposed to minimize effects to acceptable levels. “Acceptable level” means beneficial uses, hydrologic function, and aquatic habitat are enhanced or maintained. 3. Routes with off-site erosion and sedimentation concerns and routes that adversely affect hydrologic function that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. 4. Travel off of designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects to off-site soil erosion, sedimentation, and meadow hydrologic function

Water Resources – 242 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-78: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Prohibition of 15.4 miles currently 8.03 miles added to 10.8 miles added to 5.47 miles added to 0 miles added to 8.2 miles added to cross-country unauthorized routes NFTS within RCAs NFTS within RCAs NFTS within RCAs NFTS within RCAs NFTS within RCAs motorized travel available within RCAs

Three watersheds with Two watersheds with Two watersheds with Two watersheds with No watersheds with Two watersheds with moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high unauth. route density unauth. route unauth. route density unauth. route unauth. route unauth. route density within RCAs. Average density within RCAs within RCAs . density within RCAs. density within RCAs. within RCAs. unauth. route density in Average unauth. Average unauth. Average unauth. Average unauth. Average unauth. RCAs = 0.61 route density in route density in route density in route density in route density in RCAs = 0.38 RCAs = 0.45 RCAs = 0.3 RCAs = 0 RCAs = 0.4

Additions to the No routes with stream 19 routes with 25 routes with 11 routes with 0 routes with stream 21 routes with National Forest crossings added to the stream crossings stream crossings stream crossings crossings added to stream crossings Transportation NFTS, but 37 available added to the NFTS. added to the NFTS. added to the NFTS. the NFTS. added to the NFTS. System: for public use without receiving maintenance or mitigation.

No routes within 7.1 miles of existing 9.7 miles of existing 4.9 miles of existing 0 miles of existing 7.1 miles of existing meadows would be unauthorized routes unauthorized routes unauthorized routes unauthorized routes unauthorized routes added to the NFTS, but would be added to would be added to would be added to would be added to would be added to 12.4 existing the NFTS within the NFTS within the NFTS within the NFTS within the NFTS within unauthorized miles meadows. meadows. meadows. meadows. meadows. would be available to public use, without Mitigations applied to Mitigations applied to Mitigations applied Mitigations applied receiving maintenance minimize effects minimize effects to minimize effects to minimize effects. or mitigation. Changes to No effect to water No effect to water No effect to water No effect to water No effect to water No effect to water Class or Vehicles resources. resources. resources. resources. resources. resources. and/or Season of Use:

Water Resources – 243 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Water Resources – 244 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.8 Botanical Resources

3.8.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences for botanical resources, including fens and sensitive and watch list plant species, collectively referred to in this document as rare plants. It will describe the area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. Measurement indicators are used to describe the existing conditions and to quantify and describe the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on rare plants. There are no unauthorized routes proposed within Research Natural Areas (RNAs), nor within the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Special Interest Area (ABPF); therefore, these areas will not be specifically discussed further in this document. There are seven RNAs on the Inyo National Forest: Harvey Monroe Hall, Indiana Summit, Sentinel Meadow, White Mountain, McAfee, Whippoorwill, and Last Chance Meadow. The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest is the only Botanical Special Interest Area on the Forest. Of the Forest Service Regions, the Pacific Southwest Region contains the largest assemblage of sensitive plant species in comparison to its land base. Of the more than 8,000 vascular plant species occurring in California, well over half are known to occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands. This is due to the same factors that account for the exceptionally high endemic flora of the State, namely topography, geography, geology and soils, climate and vegetation. Over 100 plant species are found only on NFS lands and nowhere else in the world (Powell, 2001). Management of plant and fungi species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of plant communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive species. Sensitive plant species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution, or such low numbers or limited distribution that special management consideration is required to maintain their presence and viability, regardless of current trend (USDA Forest Service FSM 2670.5, USDA Forest Service FSH 2609.25, 1.31). There are more than 425 sensitive plant species listed in the Pacific Southwest Region. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for rare plants and natural communities to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in each Forest’s LRMP. Key components include: developing and implementing management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions; maintaining viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on NFS lands; and developing and implementing management objectives for populations and/or habitats of rare species. In addition to the sensitive plant species, the Inyo National Forest maintains a "watch list" of plants that are of special interest. Watch list plants are species that do not currently meet the criteria

Botanical Resources – 245 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

to be included on the Regional Forester’s sensitive list, but are of sufficient concern that they should be considered in the planning process (Regional Forester letter to Forest Supervisors, 7/27/2006). The watch list may include species that are locally rare, are of special interest, are widely disjunct from the main distribution of the species, are largely endemic to the Forest, and/or species for which very little, if any, information is available but existing information may indicate some cause for concern. Watch list species are typically represented by more individuals, more occurrences, and/or a wider overall distribution than most sensitive species; however, in general, there is less information on specific numbers and locations of occurrences, and on habitat requirements for watch list species than for sensitive species. Management decisions related to motorized travel can affect plant and fungi species, their habitats, and natural communities. Effects include, but are not limited to, death or injury to plants; habitat modification; habitat fragmentation; and reduction in habitat quality including increased risk of weed introduction and spread, change in hydrology, increased erosion, compaction, and sediment, risk to pollinators, loss of vegetation, over collection, or other factors reducing or eliminating plant growth and reproduction (including Trombulek and Frissell, 2000). The Forest Service provides a process and standard to ensure rare plants receive full consideration throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts on species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation by developing and implementing management objectives for populations and/or habitats of sensitive species. It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to soils and vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (USDA Forest Service FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to plant species, fungi species, and their habitats.

3.8.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects botanical resources includes: Endangered Species Act (ESA) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities would not be likely to jeopardize their continued existence, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. There are no federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species in the analysis area, nor is there potential habitat for these species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007); therefore, there will be no further discussion of federally listed or proposed plant species in this document.

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999) To prevent and control the introduction and spread of invasive species.

Botanical Resources – 246 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that plants and animals do not become threatened or endangered and to ensure their continued viability on national forests. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE) and is summarized or referenced in this Section.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following direction applicable to motorized Travel Management and botanical resources: • Noxious weeds management (Management Standard & Guidelines 36-49): See Noxious Weeds Section. • Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 70): See Water Resources Section. • Riparian Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 92): See Water Resources Section. • Bog and Fen Habitat (SNFPA ROD p. 65, Standard & Guideline 118): Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. • Sensitive Plant Surveys (Corrected Errata, April 19, 2005): Conduct field surveys for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive (TEPS) plant species early enough in project planning process that the project can be designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. Conduct surveys according to procedures outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field surveys are to be conducted as part of project implementation, survey results must be documented in the project file. (Management Standard & Guideline 125). The standards and guidelines provide direction for conducting field surveys, minimizing or eliminating direct and indirect impacts from management activities, and adherence to the Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1988) The Inyo National Forest LRMP contains the following management direction applicable to motorized Travel Management and botanical resources: • Sensitive Plants (Chapter 4, p. 92): Allow no new disturbance of identified sensitive plant habitat without direction from Interim Management Guides, Species Management Guides, or an environmental analysis.

Botanical Resources – 247

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Riparian Habitat (Ch. 4, p. 89-91): 1) Protect streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and the plants and animals dependent on these areas. 2) Relocate existing roads, trails, and campsites outside riparian areas where necessary to eliminate or reduce unacceptable deterioration of riparian-dependent resources. 3) Maintain the integrity of desert springs in the White and Inyo Mountains and the South Sierra Eastern Escarpment to conserve plant and wildlife habitat. 4) Recognize the important and distinctive values of riparian areas when implementing management activities. Give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources when conflicts among land use activities occur.

Inyo National Forest Species Management Guides, Conservation Assessments, etc.: The following management direction applicable to motorized Travel Management is outlined in species-specific signed documents: • Dedeckera eurekensis Interim Species Management Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1994): 1) Examine known populations on an annual basis for new disturbances from vehicles, hydroelectric plants, and sheep. 2) Place barriers where needed as deterrents to vehicles and motorcycles driving over plants, especially near DEEU 04-01, 04-04, 04-05, 04-08, and 04- 09. 3) Monitor populations to determine effectiveness of barriers. Where installation of barriers is not an adequate deterrent, evaluate the need to close roads or prohibit motorcycle use. • Draba monoensis Interim Species Management Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1994): 1) Prevent disturbance to existing populations. • Erigeron multiceps Interim Species Management Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1994): 1) Protect the known population on the Forest. • Conservation Strategy for Mono Phacelia - Phacelia monoensis R. Halse (USDA Forest Service, 2001): 1) Restrict road building and maintenance activities in Phacelia monoensis occurrences until after seed set. • Potentilla morefieldii Interim Species Management Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1994): 1) Prevent disturbance to all populations.

3.8.3 Affected Environment The Inyo National Forest encompasses a broad range of habitats and elevations, ranging from desert scrub at 5,000 feet elevation to alpine habitats over 14,000 feet. Geology is varied, and includes granitic, volcanic, and metamorphic types, including rock types with unique chemistry such as limestone that support one or more rare plant species. Three major biotic provinces converge on the Inyo National Forest: Mojave Desert, Great Basin, and Sierra Nevada. All of these conditions contribute to a highly diverse flora, with several endemic species. There are 11 plant species that are entirely endemic to the Inyo National Forest (Abronia alpina, Arabis pinzlae, Draba californica, Draba monoensis, Eriogonum wrightii var. olanchense, Hackelia brevicula, Horkelia hispidula, Lupinus magnificus var. hesperius, Lupinus padre-crowleyi, Potentilla morefieldii, Sedum pinetorum), and an additional 6 species that are endemic to the Inyo National Forest and immediately

Botanical Resources – 248 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 adjacent lands (Astragalus monoensis, Astragalus ravenii, Draba sharsmithii, Draba sierra, Lupinus duranii, and Penstemon papillatus). Many of the rare species require special management attention to ensure their continued viability, and they have been included on either the Inyo National Forest sensitive plant list or watch list. There are 60 sensitive and 87 watch list plant species currently designated on the Inyo National Forest. The majority of these have known occurrences on the Forest; however, some are only suspected to occur at this point, as potential habitat may exist, and occurrences are found nearby. An occurrence refers to a relatively discreet group of individuals, separated from the next nearest group of the same species by at least ¼ mile. There are no federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species in the analysis area, nor is there potential habitat for these species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007); therefore, there will be no further discussion of federally listed or proposed plant species in this document. The analysis area includes all Inyo National Forest lands outside of wilderness areas. Of the 147 species designated on the Forest, 38 sensitive and 70 watch list species (108 total) are known to or could potentially occur in the analysis area. The following sensitive species are included in the analysis: Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) Kern Plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) Scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) Upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens) Common moonwort (Botrychium lunaria) Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) Kern River daisy (Erigeron multiceps) White Mountains horkelia (Horkelia hispidula) Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii)

Botanical Resources – 249

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Hockett Meadows lupine (Lupinus lepidus var. culbertsonii) Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) Nine Mile Canyon phacelia (Phacelia novenmillensis) William’s combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) Masonic Mountain jewel-flower (Strepthanthus oliganthus) Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum spp. grisea) Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) Three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra) Broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa)

The following watch list species are included in the analysis: Ripley’s gilia (Aliciella ripleyi) Dark red onion (Allium atrorubens var. cristatum) Beautiful pussytoes (Antennaria pulchella) Pinyon rockcress (Arabis dispar) Pygmy rockcress (Arabis pygmaea) Green’s rockcress (Arabis repanda var. greenei) Silverleaf milkvetch (Astragalus argophyllus var. argophyllus) Inyo milkvetch (Astragalus inyoensis) Sweetwater Mountains milkvetch (Astragalus kentrophyta var. danaus) Spiny-leaved milkvetch (Astragalus kentrophyta var. elatus) Egg milkvetch (Astragalus oophorus var. oophorus) Tonopah milkvetch (Astragalus pseudiodanthus) Naked milkvetch (Astragalus serenoi var. shockleyi) Monache milkvetch (Astragalus subvestitus) Rabbit ear rockcress (Boechera pendulina) Congdon’s sedge (Carex congdonii) Parry’s sedge (Carex parryana var. hallii) Tahoe sedge (Carex tahoensis) Kern ceanothus (Ceanothus pinetorum) Hall’s Meadow hawksbeard (Crepis runcinata ssp. hallii) Clustered-flower cryptantha (Cryptantha glomeriflora)

Botanical Resources – 250 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

California draba (Draba californica) Sierra draba (Draba sierrae) Cushion daisy (Erigeron compactus var. compactus) Alpine slender buckwheat (Erigeron microthecum var. alpinum) Inyo Mountain buckwheat (Erigeron microthecum var. lapidicola) Nodding buckwheat (Eriogonum nutans var. nutans) Tulare County buckwheat (Eriogonum polypodum) Southern Sierra woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. obovatum) Yellow spinecape (Goodmania luteola) Poison Canyon stickseed (Hackelia brevicula) Inyo hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoense) Nevada sumpweed (Iva nevadensis) Field ivesia (Ivesia campestris) Alkali ivesia (Ivesia kingii var. kingii) Yosemite mousetail (Ivesia unguiculata) Fivepetal cliffbush (Jamesia americana var. rosea) Sierra Nevada linanthus (Leptosiphon oblanceolatus) Inyo lomatium (Lomatium foeniculaceum ssp. inyoense) Stiff lomatium (Lomatium rigidum) Copper flowered birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus oblongifolius var. cupreus) Panamint Mountains lupine (Lupinus magnificus var. glarecola) McGee Meadows lupine (Lupinus magnificus var. hesperius) Mariposa monkeyflower (Mimulus grayi) Cut leaved monkeyflower (Mimulus laciniatus) Annual redspot monkeyflower (Mimulus parryi) Crowned muilla (Muilla coronata) Fragrant evening primrose (Oenothera caespitosa ssp. crinita) Sand cholla (Opuntia pulchella) Blue pendent-pod oxytrope (Oxytropis deflexa var. sericea) Barneby’s beardtongue (Penstemon barnebyi) Inyo beardtongue (Penstemon papillatus) Pinyon beardtongue (Penstemon scapoides) Transverse Range phacelia (Phacelia exilis) Charlotte’s phacelia (Phacelia nashiana) Handsome phacelia (Phacelia peirsoniana) Sierra podistera (Podistera nevadensis) Intermountain milkwort (Polygala intermontana) Narrow leaved cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)

Botanical Resources – 251

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Frog’s-bit buttercup (Ranunculus hydrocharoides) Short fruited willow (Salix brachycarpa ssp. brachycarpa) Snow willow (Salix nivalis) Mojave fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus polyancistrus) Pine City sedum (Sedum pinetorum) Naked catchfly (Silene aperta) Dandelion (Taraxacum ceratophorum) Lake Tahoe serpentweed (Tonestus eximus) Peirson’s serpentweed (Tonestus peirsonii) Cushion Townsend daisy (Townsendia condensata) Meesia moss (Meesia longiseta)

Species that grow only in locations inaccessible to motor vehicles such as cliffs, and species that are known or expected to only occur outside the analysis area are not included in this analysis, and are eliminated from further discussion. The following sensitive species are eliminated from further analysis for those reasons: Abronia alpina, Arabis pinzlae, Botrychium lineare, Carex tiogana, Caulostramina jaegeri, Cryptantha incana, Cryptantha roosiorum, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Draba incrassata, Draba sharsmithii, Erigeron aequifolius, Erigeron uncialis var. uncialis, Eriogonum wrightii var. olanchense, Hulsea brevifolia, Hulsea vestita ssp. pygmaea, Lupinus gracilentus, Monardella beneolens, Petrophyton caespitosum, Polemonium chartaceum, Senecio pattersonensis, Streptanthus gracilis, and Hydrotheria venosa.

The following watch list species are eliminated from further analysis for the reasons stated above: Angelica callii, Astragalus oophorus var. lavinii, Ceanothus fresnensis, Claytonia palustris, Cusickiella quadricostata, Hackelia sharsmithii, Kobresia bellardii, Nemophila parviflora var. quercifolia, Oxytheca caryophylloides, Phlox dispersa, Piperia colemanii, Piperia leptopetala, Poa abbreviata spp. marshii, Scirpus pumilus, Trifolium andersonii var. andersonii and Orthotrichum spjutii.

The following species may have potential habitat, but have no known occurrences within the analysis area: Kern River daisy (Erigeron multiceps), Hockett Meadows lupine (Lupinus lepidus var. culbertsonii), Nine Mile Canyon phacelia (Phacelia novenmillensis), humpmoss species (Meesia spp.), beautiful pussytoes (Antennaria pulchella), pygmy rockcress (Arabis pygmaea), Green’s rockcress (Arabis repanda var. greenei), silverleaf milkvetch (Astragalus argophyllus var. argophyllus), Tonopah milkvetch (Astragalus pseudiodanthus), Tahoe sedge (Carex tahoensis), Kern ceanothus (Ceanothus pinetorum), clustered-flower cryptantha (Cryptantha glomeriflora), alpine slender buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum var. alpinum), Tulare County buckwheat (Eriogonum polypodum), Southern Sierra woolly

Botanical Resources – 252 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. obovatum), Nevada sumpweed (Iva nevadensis), Yosemite mousetail (Ivesia inguiculata), Sierra Nevada linanthus (Leptosiphon oblanceolatus), Inyo lomatium (Lomatium rigidum), copper flowered birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus oblongifolius var. cupreus), Mariposa monkeyflower (Mimulus grayi), cut leaved monkeyflower (Mimulus laciniatus), crowned muilla (Muilla coronata), Transverse Range phacelia (Phacelia exilis), handsome phacelia (Phacelia peirsoniana), frog’s-bit buttercup (Ranunculus hydrocharoides), Pine City sedum (Sedum pinetorum), naked catchfly (Silene aperta), Lake Tahoe serpentweed (Tonestus eximus), and Peirson’s serpentweed (Tonestus peirsonii). Due to the lack of known occurrences, these species will not be analyzed for the number of occurrences. They will be included in the analysis of effects on potential habitat by guild, for all alternatives.

3.8.3.1 Rare Plant Habitat Guilds While the rare plant species known or suspected to occur in the analysis area vary widely in their ecological requirements and life history characteristics, many occur in similar broad habitat types where the effects of motorized vehicle use are comparable. For the purposes of analyzing potential habitat, the rare plant species being considered have been grouped into rare plant habitat guilds, based on these general habitat requirements. A species may occur in one or more guilds. For example, the Mono phacelia occurs in sagebrush scrub (shrub guild), and in pinyon woodlands (pinyon woodland guild). These guilds and the species considered for each are listed in Table 3-79. Each of the guilds are comprised of one or more vegetation types identified in the Existing Vegetation map of the Inyo National Forest, completed by the Remote Sensing Lab (RSL) of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region in 2001 (USDA Forest Service, 2001). The vegetation map is generated from remote sensing imagery, where different imagery signatures are assigned to specific vegetation types using previously collected field data. An accuracy assessment is then conducted by visiting a sample of sites and recording if it is mapped correctly. The accuracy of the 2001 Inyo NF map is highest for conifer types (90%), and somewhat lower for shrub types (76%) and herbaceous types (67%). Overall average accuracy for the 2001 Inyo map is estimated at approximately 80%. A list of specific RSL vegetation types and the guilds to which they are assigned is available in the project record, and is provided in the Biological Evaluation for this project. In addition to the error in the existing vegetation map, in many cases, the habitat requirements for rare plant species are poorly defined, and there are typically several other factors affecting their occurrence other than simply the vegetation community. Often times, the actual potential habitat is at a scale that is too small to be delineated on the GIS layers available for use, including the vegetation map used to identify rare plant habitat guilds. Some species, for example, are found on small rock outcrops within the larger sagebrush scrub community, or within small pockets of a specific substrate type that are not individually mapped out in soils or geology databases; it is difficult to quantify these nuances in habitat preference. As a result, the amount of potential habitat affected and/or available for these species is significantly overestimated for many species. The quantitative use of the guilds is provided for comparative purposes between alternatives, and should not be interpreted as a precise estimate of the amount of habitat available or affected for any particular species within the guild.

Botanical Resources – 253

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following guilds have been selected to represent the species being addressed in the analysis: • Carbonate (C) – includes those species restricted to carbonate substrates. These species are not included in other guilds. • Riparian (R) – includes species found in vegetation types that depend on supplemental moisture such as meadows, fens, seeps, willow communities, cottonwood, etc. • Open (O) – includes those species found in very open, sparsely vegetated and in some cases barren communities, e.g., pumice flats, sandy meadow margins, talus, rock fields, etc. • Alkali Flat (AF) – includes species found in highly alkaline soils. • Shrub (S) – includes species found in Great Basin and montane shrub communities, e.g., sagebrush scrub, montane chaparral, bitterbrush, etc. • Desert shrub (DS) – includes the lower elevation desert shrub types, e.g., Mojave mixed desert scrub, saltbush, spiny menodora, shadscale, etc. • Pinyon woodland (PW) – includes species found in pinyon or pinyon-juniper woodlands. • Forested (F) – includes those species found in lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, mixed conifer, or other forested communities, generally montane or subalpine. • Alpine (ALP) – includes those species found in alpine habitats, e.g., alpine fell-field communities.

Botanical Resources – 254 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-79: Species by Guild Guild Species Carbonate (C) Coville’s abronia, Shockley’s rockcress, inflated milkvetch, July gold, Ripley’s gilia, cushion daisy, Inyo Mtns buckwheat, Inyo lomatium, Barneby’s beardtongue, pinyon beardtongue, handsome phacelia Riparian (R) Lemmon’s milkvetch, Kern Plateau milkvetch, moonwort species, Inyo County star tulip, White Mtns draba, subalpine fireweed, Kern River daisy, Inyo phacelia, grey-leaved violet, Bolanders’ bruchia, Blandow’s bog-moss, hump-moss species, beautiful pussytoes, silverleaf milkvetch, Monache milkvetch, Parry’s sedge, Hall’s Meadow hawksbeard, clustered-flower cryptantha, yellow spinecape, Poison Cyn stickseed, field ivesia, alkali ivesia, Yosemite mousetail, Sierra Nevada linanthus, copper flowered birdsfoot trefoil, Mariposa monkeyflower, cutleaved monkeyflower, blue pendent-pod oxytrope, Transverse Range phacelia, narrow leafed cottonwood, frog’s-bit buttercup, short-fruited willow, snow willow, horned dandelion Open (O) Tiehm’s rockcress, Kern Plateau milkvetch, Mono milkvetch, Raven’s milkvetch, Gilman’s goldenbush, Kern River daisy, Mono Lake lupine, Hockett Meadows lupine, Williams combleaf, Masonic Mountain jewelflower, Dedecker’s clover, grey-leaved violet, pygmy rockcress, Sweetwater Mtns milkvetch, tall spiny milkvetch, Monache milkvetch, Congdon’s sedge, Tahoe sedge, California draba, Sierra draba, Inyo hulsea, field ivesia, fivepetal cliffbush, sand cholla, Transverse Range phacelia, Sierra podistera, Pine City sedum, Peirson’s serpentweed, cushion Townsend daisy Alkali Flat (AF) Lemmon’s milkvetch, Inyo County star tulip, Inyo phacelia, Williams combleaf, silverleaf milkvetch, Tonopah milkvetch, Hall’s Meadow hawksbeard, nodding buckwheat, yellow spinecape, Nevada sumpweed, alkali ivesia Shrub (S) Bodie Hills rockcress, Long Valley milkvetch, Kern Plateau milkvetch, Mono milkvetch, Kern Plateau birds-beak, White Mtns horkelia, Mono Lake lupine, Hockett Meadows lupine, Father Crowley’s lupine, Mono phacelia, Death Valley round-leaved phacelia, grey-leaved violet, darkred onion, pinyon rockcress, Inyo milkvetch, egg milkvetch, Tonopah milkvetch, naked milkvetch, Monache milkvetch, nodding rockcress, alpine slender buckwheat, nodding buckwheat, Poison Cyn stickseed, Inyo hulsea, fivepetal cliffbush, stiff lomatium, Panamint Mtn lupine, McGee Meadows lupine, annual redspot monkeyflower, sand cholla, Inyo beardtongue, Mojave fishhook cactus, Desert shrub Death Valley round-leaved phacelia, pinyon rockcress, naked milkvetch, nodding buckwheat, Inyo hulsea, Panamint Mtn lupine, annual redspot (DS) monkeyflower, crowned muilla, fragrant evening primrose, sand cholla, Charlotte’s phacelia, Mojave fishhook cactus Pinyon Bodie Hills rockcress, Kern Plateau birds-beak, Gilman’s goldenbush, Mono phacelia, Death Valley round-leaved phacelia, Nine Mile Cyn phacelia, woodland Masonic Mtn jewelflower, Dedecker’s clover, darkred onion, pinyon rockcress, Inyo milkvetch, egg milkvetch, naked milkvetch, Monache milkvetch, (PW) McGee Meadows lupine, crowned muilla, fragrant evening primrose, Inyo beardtongue, Charlotte’s phacelia, Intermountain milkwort, Mojave fishhook cactus Forested (F) Kern Plateau milkvetch, Mono milkvetch, Kern Plateau birds-beak, Gilman’s goldenbush, White Mtns horkelia, Mono Lake lupine, Father Crowley’s lupine, Nine Mile Cyn phacelia, Dedecker’s clover, grey-leaved violet, pygmy rockcress, Green’s rockcress, tall spiny milkvetch, egg milkvetch, Monache milkvetch, nodding rockcress, Kern ceanothus, Tulare County buckwheat, Southern Sierra woolly sunflower, fivepetal cliffbush, fragrant evening primrose, Inyo beardtongue, Pine City sedum, naked catchfly, Lake Tahoe serpentweed Alpine (ALP) Bodie Hills rockcress, Tiehm’s rockcress, Raven’s milkvetch, Morefield’s cinquefoil, Sweetwater Mtns milkvetch, Tahoe sedge, California draba, Sierra draba, alpine slender buckwheat, fivepetal cliffbush, Sierra podistera, snow willow, Lake Tahoe serpentweed, Peirson’s serpentweed, cushion Townsend daisy

Botanical Resources – 255 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below lists the species that are considered in this analysis, the number of mapped occurrences within the analysis area, and the habitat guilds in which each species occurs or may occur. Additional information on sensitive species is provided in the Biological Evaluation for sensitive plants completed for this analysis and available in the project file.

Table 3-80: Species Considered in Analysis, Known Occurrences, Guilds Species # Mapped Occurrences Guild(s)1 in Analysis Area Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 2 C Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 3 S, PW, ALP Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 8 C Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 6 O, ALP Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 1 C Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 5 S Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 4 AF, R Kern Plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. 11 O, S, F, R kernensis) Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 26 O, openings in S, F Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 1 O, ALP Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, 13 R B. lunaria, B. minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 4 AF, R (low elev) Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus 3 S, PW, F ssp. kernensis) July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 13 C White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 4 R (high elev) Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 2 R Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 1 O, PW, F Kern River daisy (Erigeron multiceps) - O, R White Mountains horkelia (Horkelia hispidula) 14 S, F Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 44 O, openings in S, F Hockett Meadows lupine (Lupinus lepidus var. - O, S culbertsonii) Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 10 S, F Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 6 AF, R (low to mid elev) Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 7 S, PW Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia 1 S, DS, PW mustelina) Nine Mile Canyon phacelia (Phacelia - PW, F novenmillensis) Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 4 O, AF Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 15 ALP Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus 3 O, PW oliganthus) Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 6 O, PW, F Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 15 O, S, F, R Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 1 R Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 2 R Hump-moss spp (M. triquetra, M. uliginosa) - R Ripleys gilia (Aliciella ripleyi) 1 C

Botanical Resources – 256 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Species # Mapped Occurrences Guild(s)1 in Analysis Area Darkred onion (Allium atrorubens var. cristatum) 13 S, PW Beautiful pussytoes (Antennaria pulchella) - R (high elev) Pinyon rockcress (Arabis dispar) 15 S, DS, PW Pygmy rockcress (Arabis pygmaea) - O, openings in F Green’s rockcress (Arabis repanda var. greenei) - F Silverleaf milkvetch (Astragalus argophyllus var. - AF, R (low elev) argophyllus) Inyo milkvetch (Astragalus inyoensis) 23 S, PW Sweetwater Mountains milkvetch (Astragalus 1 O, ALP kentrophyta var. danaus) Tall spiny milkvetch (Astragalus kentrophyta var. 4 O, F elatus) Egg milkvetch (Astragalus oophorus var. oophorus) 6 S, PW, F Tonopah milkvetch (Astragalus pseudiodanthus) - AF, S Naked milkvetch (Astragalus serenoi var. shockleyi) 5 S, DS, PW Monache milkvetch (Astragalus subvestitus) 6 O, S, PW, F, R Nodding rockcress (Boechera pendulina) 1 S, F Congdon’s sedge (Carex congdonii) 1 O Parry’s sedge (Carex parryana var. hallii) 2 R (high elev) Tahoe sedge (Carex tahoensis) - O, ALP Kern ceanothus (Ceanothus pinetorum) - F Hall’s Meadow hawksbeard (Crepis runciniata ssp. 1 AF, R (low elev) hallii) Clustered-flower cryptantha (Cryptantha glomiflora) - R California draba (Draba californica) 4 O, ALP Sierra draba (Draba sierrae) 5 O, ALP Cushion daisy (Erigeron compactus var. compactus) 14 C Alpine slender buckwheat(Eriogonum microthecum - S, ALP var. alpinum) Inyo Mountains buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum 1 C var. lapidicola) Nodding buckwheat (Eriogonum nutans var. nutans) 1 AF, S, DS Tulare County buckwheat (Eriogonum polypodum) - F Southern Sierra woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum - F lanatum var. obovatum) Yellow spinecape (Goodmania luteola) 3 AF, R Poison Canyon stickseed (Hackelia brevicula) 9 S, R (high elev) Inyo hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoense) 3 O, S, DS Nevada sumpweed (Iva nevadensis) - AF Field ivesia (Ivesia campestris) 1 O, R Alkali ivesia (Ivesia kingii var. kingii) 2 AF, R Yosemite mousetail (Ivesia unguiculata) - R (high elev) Fivepetal cliffbush (Jamesia americana var. rosea) 1 O, S, PW, F, ALP, Sierra Nevada linanthus (Leptosiphon - R oblanceolatus) Inyo lomatium (Lomatium foeniculaceum ssp. - C inyoense)

Botanical Resources – 257

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Species # Mapped Occurrences Guild(s)1 in Analysis Area Stiff lomatium (Lomatium rigidum) 4 S, PW Copper flowered birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus oblongifoius - R var. cupreus) Panamint Mountain lupine (Lupinus magnificus var. 13 S, DS, PW glarecola) McGee Meadows lupine (Lupinus magnificus var. 1 S, PW hesperius) Mariposa monkeyflower (Mimulus grayi) - R Cut leaved monkeyflower (Mimulus laciniatus) - R Annual redspot monkeyflower (Mimulus parryi) 7 S, DS Crowned muilla (Muilla coronata) - DS, PW Fragrant evening primrose (Oenothera caespitosa 1 DS, PW, F ssp. crinita) Sand cholla (Opuntia pulchella) 5 O, S, DS Blue pendent-pod oxytrope (Oxytropis deflexa var. 6 R (high elev) sericea) Barneby’s beardtongue (Penstemon barnebyi) 1 C Inyo beardtongue (Penstemon papillatus) 27 S, PW, F Pinyon beardtongue (Penstemon scapoides) 16 C Transverse Range phacelia (Phacelia exilis) - O, R Charlotte’s phacelia (Phacelia nashiana) 2 DS, PW Handsome phacelia (Phacelia peirsonii) - C Sierra podistera (Podistera nevadensis) 1 O, ALP Intermountain milkwort (Polygala intermontana) 2 PW Narrow leafed cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) 3 R Frog’s-bit buttercup (Ranunculus hydrocharoides) - R (low to mid elev) Short-fruited willow (Salix brachycarpa ssp. 2 R brachycarpa) Snow willow (Salix nivalis) 4 ALP, R Mojave fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus polyancistrus) 24 S, DS, PW Pine City sedum (Sedum pinetorum) - O, F Naked catchfly (Silene aperta) - F Horned dandelion (Taraxacum ceratophorum) 1 R (high elev) Lake Tahoe serpentweed (Tonestus eximius) - F, ALP Peirson’s serpentweed (Tonestus peirsonii) - O, ALP Cushion Townsend daisy (Townsendia condensata) 7 O, ALP Hump-moss (Messia longiseta) - R 1 C – Carbonate; R – Riparian; O – Open; AF – Alkali Flat; S – Shrub; DS – Desert shrub; PW – Pinyon woodland; F – Forested; ALP – Alpine

There are 75 known fens on the Forest, 28 of which are located within the analysis area. Although there are several definitions of fen (Bedford and Godwin, 2003, list eleven), in general fens are wetlands with peat soils supported by groundwater and peat-forming vegetation. Peat accumulation occurs because the rate of organic matter production exceeds the rate of decomposition due to soil waterlogging (Cooper and Wolf, 2005). The histic soils definition (USDA NRCS, 1999) of at least 40 centimeters of peat in the top 80 centimeters of soil was decided as peat depth criterion for Region 5 fen determinations. For hydrology, since fens are systems where an anaerobic

Botanical Resources – 258 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 environment slows decomposition of vegetation and causes peat to build up, soil saturation for most of the year is the criterion. Many of the known fens on the Forest are at high elevations in wilderness meadows, and as such, are not affected by Travel Management. In addition to the 28 confirmed fens within the analysis area, there are an additional 12 wet meadow areas identified to date that could potentially support fens. These are identified as possible fens. One of the confirmed fens and one of the possible fens are within 100 feet of unauthorized routes. For the purposes of this analysis, the possible fen is assumed to be a fen because data are currently unavailable to confirm or deny otherwise. Due to their perennially saturated condition, and typically gentle terrain, fens are particularly vulnerable to damage from motorized vehicle travel, including impacts from changes in hydrologic function. The effects on specific fens varies by alternative, and is discussed in the discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the Environmental Consequences Section of this analysis. See the Water Resources Section for additional discussion of wet meadows in general and the effects of motorized vehicle travel on wet meadows.

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences

3.8.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a three-step process (FSM 2672.43). In the first step, all rare species that are known or are believed to have potential to occur in the analysis area were identified. Existing Forest records, GIS and tabular data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Game, 2008), the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (California Native Plant Society, 2001), and the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993) were reviewed to determine known locations, range, and habitat requirements for each species. The majority of the existing Forest records (approximately 73%) are within the past decade. Approximately 21% are from 1988 to 1997. The remaining few are more historical records from the 1970s and earlier. Aerial photography was also utilized to identify potential fens and rare plant habitat. A list of species to include in the analysis was then compiled using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife List for the Inyo National Forest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007), the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service, 2006), and the Inyo National Forest Watch List (USDA Inyo National Forest, 2006). Species considered in this analysis are listed in the Affected Environment Section below. The second step was field reconnaissance surveys, focused primarily on routes within or adjacent to areas with potential habitat for sensitive plant species or fens. Field surveys have been conducted over the past 4 years on over 1,000 miles of unauthorized routes. Field surveys were conducted at the time of year when plants were evident and identifiable. Additionally, information on rare plants and fens from past field surveys, monitoring, and personal field observations were utilized during the analysis. This included not only location records, but pertinent information on impacts, condition, or other observations. Site-specific studies on the Forest on rare plant occurrences adjacent to existing routes were also reviewed and incorporated. In addition, watershed staff used vegetation maps to identify meadows, then visited routes in meadows to assess the current condition. This watershed data included notes on the moisture status of the meadows (e.g. wet, dry), which was used to

Botanical Resources – 259

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

determine the potential for fens at specific sites. Mapping methodology has varied based on the specific purpose of individual surveys, locations, and available tools and time, and has included use of a Global Positioning System (GPS), topographic maps, and/or aerial photos. All of this information was used in step three of the analysis, where data were imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and used to analyze potential habitat and proximity of known occurrences to routes, as well as to identify effects and develop mitigation measures. For those routes that have not been surveyed, but are proposed for designation in one or more action alternatives, existing information on known occurrences from the Inyo National Forest’s rare plant and fen files and CNDDB records were used to analyze the potential effects to those occurrences. In addition, potential habitat was estimated for each rare species, whether or not occurrences are known to exist near a given route. Habitat requirements and range were determined using existing Forest records, CNDDB records, the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2001), and the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). For unsurveyed routes in close proximity to streams or wet meadows, watershed data was utilized to identify possible fens for field review. For the purpose of quantifying effects on rare plant habitats, the rare plant species being considered in this analysis have been grouped into habitat guilds. The development of these guilds and the species assigned to them are discussed in detail in the Affected Environment Section of this document. While surveys have been conducted on the majority of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, and notations made on apparent impacts, site-specific studies on the Inyo National Forest specifically designed to quantify impacts on rare plants from vehicle use are limited. This analysis relies on peer- reviewed scientific literature, local observations, geographic data regarding proximity of rare plants to routes proposed for designation, and limited local studies to assess the alternatives’ potential effects to botanical resources.

Assumptions Assumptions specific to the botanical resources analysis are as follows: 1. Vehicle use on and off established routes has affected or has the potential to affect rare plant populations, either directly by damage or death to individual plants from motorized vehicles (stem breaking, crushing, etc.), or indirectly by altering the habitat through soil disturbance, changes in hydrologic functioning, or by the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species that can out-compete sensitive species for water, sunlight, and nutrients. 2. Motor vehicle use is unlikely to impact certain rare plant habitats due to the steep or rocky nature of the surrounding terrain; motor vehicle use is more likely to impact other rare plant habitats, such as meadows and lava caps, which exist on gentle slopes or flat terrain with little or no vegetation or natural barriers to motor vehicles. Seven areas on the Inyo NF, referred to as Off Road Travel Concern Areas, or ORTCAs, have been identified as having an ongoing history of cross-country travel. (See assumptions in Chapter 3, Introduction.) 3. Direct effects are most likely to occur within a zone of 30 feet on either side of designated routes, due to the need for parking and pulling off to allow other vehicles to pass, road maintenance activities, and the potential trampling and crushing effects associated with these

Botanical Resources – 260 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

activities. Indirect effects are most likely to occur within a zone of 100 feet on either side of designated routes, and may include erosion, dust, competition from invasive species, etc., as discussed in the Environmental Consequences Section. 4. Without specific prevention and/or control measures, invasive non-native plants (weeds) will continue to spread along and within surfaced (e.g., paved or aggregate) and unsurfaced (e.g., native surface) motorized vehicle roads, trails, and open areas. 5. Motorized vehicle use of unsurfaced roads, trails, and open areas will increase sediment production and erosion. As use increases, sediment production and erosion will increase. 6. Effects from all vehicles are assumed to be equal; therefore, changes in vehicle class will have negligible impacts on rare plants or their associated habitats.

Data Sources The data sources listed below were used to assess the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on botanical resources. The dates of the various sources are provided in relevant citations in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sections of this analysis. 1. Route-specific botanical data (e.g., rare species, meadows, special aquatic features, habitats, etc.), including results of route-specific surveys of rare species. 2. Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data sets. 3. GIS layers and associated tabular data sets of the following data: routes, rare plant occurrences, guilds, plant communities (Remote Sensing Lab existing vegetation, Inyo National Forest potential natural vegetation), geology, fens, meadows, streams, RNA maps, and ABPF map. 4. Forest rare plant files. 5. California Natural Diversity Database records (CDFG, 2008) and CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS, 2008). 6. Scientific literature.

Botanical Resources Indicators and Methodology by Action 1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Short term effects include immediate effects from changes in Travel Management that will be evident within the first year of implementation. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative. These timeframes will apply for each action proposed in all alternatives. Spatial boundary: Inyo National Forest, excluding wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are already closed to cross-country or any other motorized vehicle travel. The remaining areas of the Forest could potentially be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle travel, although it is understood that some areas are less vulnerable to unauthorized vehicle incursions due to terrain and vegetation.

Botanical Resources – 261

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Indicator(s): (1) Number of rare plant occurrences within the analysis area. (2) Acres of potential habitat for rare plant species within the analysis area. (3) Number of fens within the analysis area. These indicators will serve to quantitatively compare the relative amount of botanical resources potentially affected by cross-country travel under each alternative. The number of occurrences and amount of habitat affected is pertinent to the determination of the scope of effects on botanical resources. Methodology: GIS analysis of known rare plant and fen occurrences and habitat guilds on Forest lands outside of wilderness areas.

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system), including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forest lands within 100 feet of routes added to the NFTS, and all area within off-road travel concern areas (ORTCAs). With the exception of ORTCAs, areas further than 100 feet from designated routes are not likely to be affected by dust, erosion, or other indirect effects outlined in the effects discussions (see general effects discussion, below, and assumptions, above), and are therefore excluded from the spatial boundary for the analysis of effects from adding facilities. Indicator(s): (1) Number of rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of routes available for motorized vehicle travel, and within ORTCAs; (2) Number of routes available for motorized vehicle travel within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens; (3) Acres of potential habitat for rare plant species within 100 feet of routes available for motorized vehicle travel; (4) Number of fens or potential fens within 100 feet of routes available for motorized vehicle travel, and within ORTCAs. These indicators will serve to quantitatively compare the relative amount of botanical resources potentially affected by routes added to the NFTS under each alternative. In general, the greater the number of existing occurrences adjacent to routes open for travel, the greater the risk of negative impacts to rare plants and/or fens. The number of occurrences and amount of habitat affected is pertinent to the determination of the scope of effects on botanical resources. Methodology: GIS analysis of unauthorized routes proposed for addition, buffered by appropriate distances, in relation to fen and rare plant occurrences and potential habitat.

3. Changes to the existing NFTS, including changes in vehicle class and closure of roads to public use. The proposed changes include changing existing NFTS roads to NFTS four wheel drive trails, ATV trails, or motorcycle trails. There are no differences in effects on botanical

Botanical Resources – 262 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

resources due to different vehicle classes (see “Assumptions Specific to Botanical Resources”, above). There are no other changes proposed to the existing NFTS, including season of use changes; therefore, this action will not be discussed further in this analysis.

4. Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term timeframe. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Rangewide for rare plants; forestwide for fens. In order to determine whether or not there is a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for a sensitive species, it is useful to consider the entire known distribution and abundance of that species where possible. Where the initial analysis indicates a minimal impact to a rare plant species, additional rangewide analysis is not conducted. Since fens are globally distributed, and not uncommon in some regions of the world, the discussion of the scope of effects on fens and how that affects compliance with the SNFP is best considered at the Forest level. Indicator(s): (1) Proportion of total known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of existing system roads, and proportion of total known rare plant occurrences within 100 feet of both system roads and routes added to the system under each alternative; (2) The number of existing system roads within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences, in comparison to the number of existing system roads and system additions within 100 feet of occurrences; (3) The estimated amount of potential habitat within 100 feet of system roads, and the estimated amount of potential habitat within 100 feet of existing system roads and system additions combined; (4) The number of fens or potential fens within 100 feet of system roads, and the number of fens or potential fens within 100 feet of existing system roads and system additions combined. These indicators will tie to the direct and indirect effects discussion, and allow for a comparative look at the cumulative effects between the alternatives as proposed, and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Methodology: GIS analysis of routes open to motor vehicle use, including system roads, buffered by appropriate distances, in relation to fen and rare plant occurrences and potential habitat.

3.8.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives Several studies have addressed the impacts of roads and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on native vegetation (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; Wilshire et al., 1978a; Ouren et al., 2007). In the context of the following discussion of effects, OHV use, or off-road vehicle use, refers to motorized use on roads as well as cross-country travel. In cases where an unauthorized route bisects a rare plant occurrence, it is assumed that rare plant individuals existed within the roadbed prior to the existence

Botanical Resources – 263

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

of the route, and would likely return, either on their own or through restoration, if the route were not added to the NFTS and designated for public use. Designated routes become dedicated to use by motorized vehicles, and as such, will not support vegetation into the foreseeable future, unless the status of the route were changed through another decision. In addition, as per the assumptions presented at the beginning of this analysis, existing routes, once established, can continue to affect botanical resources through changes in hydrologic function, proliferation of invasive species, erosion, etc. Many studies have been conducted in desert ecosystems, particularly the Mojave Desert; however, similar effects have been noted in subalpine, forested, and Great Basin ecosystems (Kay, 1981; Munger et al., 2003). The effects of off-road vehicle use on vegetation include both the immediate direct effects of running over plants or parts of plants, as well as altering habitat capability in numerous ways. The direct impacts on vegetation caused by vehicles include crushing of the foliage, root systems, and seedlings by the wheels; uprooting; and disruption of root systems of larger plants by shear stresses induced in the soil. As shown in the following photo, root exposure and/or direct root damage may occur due to vehicle passes over vegetation, particularly in loose soils, or in wet soils susceptible to rutting, also affecting plant vigor and survival success. In addition, plant foliage and stems can be damaged and plants uprooted by the overhanging body of vehicles, so that actual plant damage may occur over an area larger than the track width (Wilshire et al., 1978a). Road maintenance activities can also impact vegetation directly and indirectly through removal or crushing of plants, and alteration of habitat, particularly soil conditions. Some plant populations are more susceptible than others to physical damage from vehicle traffic, due to the root structure, life form, soil type, or other factors. Damage to plants from vehicles can potentially lead to reductions in photosynthetic capacity, poor reproduction, mortality, increases in bare ground, diminished litter cover, and a reduction in the overall cover and frequency of plant species, including a loss of biotic crusts (Munger et al., 2003; Kay, 1981; Davidson & Fox, 1974; Lathrop, 1983; Ouren et al., 2007; Kassar, 2005). On the Inyo National Forest, studies were conducted on four sensitive plant species (Mono milkvetch, Mono Lake lupine, Kern Plateau Figure 3-3: Root exposure and mortality of Mono Lake lupine due to cross-country. milkvetch, grey-leaved violet) in 2001-2002. These studies showed fewer plants closer to roads in a majority (69%) of the sites tested. Plant density increased significantly as the distance from the road increased. The sites were along Maintenance Level 2 roads, with varying use levels. In addition, indicators of plant vigor (plant diameter, number of leaves/plant) were measured on a grey-leaved violet occurrence in the Monache area adjacent to a Maintenance Level 2 road. Results indicated a significant increase in plant diameter and number of leaves/plant with increasing distance from the road.

Botanical Resources – 264 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Impacts to native plants and changes in habitat can lead to the eventual replacement of native plant species with non-native species more adapted to frequent disturbances and altered soil conditions, such as invasive non-native species (weeds) (Johnston & Johnston 2004, Parendes & Jones 2000, Munger et al. 2003). Many invasive species have life forms that are adapted to persist in disturbed habitats such as roadsides and areas with frequent vehicle use (Frenkel 1970). All of the effects discussed above are of particular concern with rare plant species, which are typically represented by a limited number of populations and/or individuals. In addition to the impacts discussed above, soil erosion, and alteration of the physical and chemical properties of soils can affect habitat quality for rare plant species, fens, and other native vegetation. Wilshire and Nakata (1976) report that initial use by OHVs results in a loss of cohesion and lateral displacement of soils, while repeated use leads to compaction. Changes in the physical and chemical properties of soil have important implications for the biologic productivity of the land, its vulnerability to erosion, and the spread of damage to areas not directly impacted (Wilshire, 1977). Effects on the soil resource, and hence, rare plant habitat, may include erosion and sedimentation Figure 3-4: Soil erosion and vegetation damage, Crater Flat, Inyo National Forest. (movement of soil off site), increased surface strength, increased bulk density (a measure of compaction), slower water infiltration rates, decreased soil moisture, changes in runoff patterns, extension of diurnal temperature range (which can affect growth of plants and seed germination), reduced litter for incorporation into soil processes, and reduced content of organic carbon of the exposed soil (Davidson and Fox, 1974; Kay, 1981; Griggs and Walsh, 1981; Wilshire, 1977; Wilshire et al., 1978b; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000). Soil compaction and the subsequent decrease in infiltration and distribution of water through the soil profile can lead to decreased moisture available for plant growth (Snyder et al., 1976). This is especially important in arid areas, where soil moisture is frequently a strong limiting factor for plant productivity and reproductive success. Iverson et al. (1981) report that the use of OHVs on arid land, a category portions of the Inyo National Forest fall within, increases the amount and frequency of water runoff and erosion by decreasing soil porosity, infiltration capacity, effectiveness of surface stabilizers, and hydraulic resistance to overland flow, and that the effects may be long-lived and may result even from slight use. Bolling & Walker (2000) and Webb & Wilshire (1983) report that recovery timeframes in desert ecosystems may be on the order of decades, at least, if not centuries or longer. The desert scrub and shrub guilds in particular may have long recovery times. Both studies indicate that the degree of soil compaction may be the most important factor in determining recovery rates and outcomes. Prose et al. (1987) also report long timeframes for recovery from soil compaction. The majority of unauthorized routes on the Forest are not yet heavily compacted, and as such, would likely make significant progress towards recovery within 20 years. There are some

Botanical Resources – 265

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

routes with greater compaction, or with active erosion, that could take much longer, or may not recover without active restoration. See the Soil Resources Section for additional information. The reduced size and depth of soil fractures resulting from compaction can also result in limited root penetration, with a decrease in germination, root growth, and shoot size (Davidson and Fox, 1974; Wilshire et al., 1978b). With repeated vehicular passes, the compressive stresses are generally transmitted to deeper soil layers. Substantial increases in bulk density have been measured to depths of a meter in vehicular trails in central and southern California (Snyder et al., 1976). Meadows, including fens, are particularly susceptible to compaction due to the fact that many meadows remain wet into August, with some staying wet year-round. Compaction by vehicles also contributes to roadside invasions of exotic plant species by reducing native plant vigor and creating areas of competition-free space that are open to invasion (Ouren et al., 2007; Munger et al., 2003; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Wilshire et al., 1978a). Trombulak and Frissell (2000) report the spread of exotics by vehicles through habitat alteration and creation or maintenance of movement corridors. Vehicle use may also result in a reduction in the vigor of native species, which can lead to an increased competitive advantage for exotics. Once established, many invasive plants tend to form monocultures, which exclude native plant species, including sensitive species. For a more detailed discussion of the effects of roads and vehicles on weed invasion, and the effects of weeds on native vegetation, refer to the Noxious Weeds Section of the EIS. Blankets of fugitive dust raised by vehicle traffic can disrupt photosynthetic processes, thereby suppressing plant growth and vigor, especially along more heavily used routes (Ouren et al., 2007). Dust can block photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration, and may even be sufficient in some cases to alter community structure (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). The potential for impacts to vegetation productivity from vehicle-generated dust on the Forest varies widely between routes. Most of the routes included in this analysis receive relatively low use, and as such, are not contributing significant fugitive dust to the surrounding vegetation; however, routes in dry loose soils, such as routes in the pumice areas of the Mammoth and Mono Basin areas, are susceptible to dust movement from a single vehicle pass, and could potentially impact the vigor of nearby vegetation, including sensitive plant species endemic to the pumice flats. All of the impacts discussed above have the potential to affect botanical resources on the Forest, including the long-term viability of rare plant populations, by increasing mortality and decreasing the vigor and productivity of populations. The degree to which this is occurring or may potentially occur varies between specific locations. The alternative-specific analysis of effects below assumes that one or more of the effects discussed above may be impacting botanical resources on or adjacent to routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. The magnitude of the various effects of vehicle use on rare plant species and fens on the Forest is assessed through the use of the indicator measures introduced in the Effects Analysis Methodology Section of this analysis. The number of fens, rare plant populations, and the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by the impacts discussed above are quantified for each alternative below, based on the number and location of routes proposed for designation in each alternative.

Botanical Resources – 266 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.8.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Each Alternative

Effects of Alternative 1 – No action Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: There are 233 sensitive plant and 250 watch list plant occurrences within the analysis area that could potentially be affected by cross-country travel, including the continued use of all unauthorized routes, under this alternative. Table 3-80 in the Affected Environment Section lists the number of mapped occurrences within the analysis area for each species. The number of mapped occurrences in this table is identical to the number of occurrences potentially affected by cross-country travel in this alternative, since the entire analysis area could potentially be affected by cross-country travel, though some areas are more susceptible than others. The ORTCAs in particular would continue to be susceptible to cross-country travel. In the short term, the effects in terms of the number of occurrences and acres of habitat affected would be the same as the current situation as use of existing unauthorized routes would continue. Over the longer term, the potential establishment of new routes through unauthorized cross-country travel could impact an undetermined number of new occurrences, and cause more pervasive and severe impacts to potential habitat. It is impossible to quantify which occurrences would be impacted, or to what degree, so the entire analysis area is assumed to be at risk of impact, at least to some degree. The nature of potential impacts to plants and habitat are discussed in detail under the Effects Common to All Alternatives. There are 1,440,461 acres of potential habitat for rare plant species within the analysis area that could potentially be affected by cross-country travel, including the continued use of all unauthorized routes, under this alternative. These figures are equal to the total amount of potential habitat available in the analysis area, since cross-country motorized vehicle travel could potentially occur throughout the area under this alternative. The table below lists the acres of habitat potentially affected by rare plant habitat guild within the analysis area. As mentioned previously, due to a lack of detailed information for most species, the acres of potential habitat are likely substantially overestimated.

Table 3-81: Acres of Habitat within Analysis Area, Potentially Affected by Cross-country Travel, Alt. 1 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 99,378 24,982 86,422 24,325 584,508 141,765 270,295 192,342 16,444

The open, riparian, alpine, and alkali flat guilds are the most susceptible to cross-country travel, and species that inhabit these guilds would be most at risk under this alternative, particularly where they are in close proximity to existing routes. Cross-country travel, while still possible, is more difficult in those guilds with vegetation of larger stature, and is therefore less common than in the four guilds noted above that are characterized by low growing and/or sparse vegetation. The incidence and severity of the effects of cross-country travel on rare plants and their habitats are likely to worsen over the long-term under this alternative, particularly in the more susceptible habitats. Due to the continued use of all existing routes, potential cross-country travel, and the lack of any mitigation measures, Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for impacts to rare plant species and their habitats over the long term.

Botanical Resources – 267

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

There are 28 confirmed fens within the analysis area, and an additional 12 wet meadows that may support fens. One of the confirmed fens and one of the possible fens are within 100 feet of unauthorized routes. Additional fens may exist within the analysis area greater than 100 feet from unauthorized routes and could be subject to impacts from cross-country motorized vehicle travel under this alternative. Like the open, riparian, alpine, and alkali flat guilds, fens are susceptible to cross-country travel due to the relatively gentle terrain and low growing vegetation. As discussed in the Effects Common to All Alternatives, vehicle travel in wet areas such as fens can result not only in direct impacts to vegetation, but also in soil compaction, erosion, and a loss of hydrologic function critical to maintaining fens. Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: There will be no facilities added under the No Action alternative. Existing unauthorized routes will continue to receive use under this alternative; resulting effects are addressed above in the “Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel” Section. However, for the purposes of comparison to other alternatives, the analysis results for the three measurement indicators for this action are presented in the tables below.

Table 3-82: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 1 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 1 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 3 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0 Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 4 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 2 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 5 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 14 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 3 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 1 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 5 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 1 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 2 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 44 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 4 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 4 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 5 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 1

Botanical Resources – 268 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Species # Mapped Occurrences Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 2 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 1 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 2 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 1 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 2 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0 Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 107 TOTAL Watch List Species 202 Fens 2

Table 3-83: Acres of Habitat within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use, Alternative 1 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 1,959 439 1,330 785 17,413 3,557 3,821 12,937 153 Total Acres 42,394

There are 444 unauthorized routes within 100 feet of sensitive plants, and 343 unauthorized routes within 100 feet of watch list plant species. There are two routes within 100 feet of fens or possible fens. As discussed above, the establishment of new routes through unauthorized cross- country travel under Alternative 1 could result in additional impacts to fens, rare plant occurrences, and their habitat. This alternative would have the greatest impact on botanical resources in the short- term as well as over the long-term.

Effects of Alternative 2 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: Under this and the other action alternatives, fens and rare plant occurrences would be less vulnerable to impacts from cross-country motorized vehicle travel, with the possible exception of the two sensitive and one watch list occurrences within ORTCAs. In the short term, mortality and direct damage to fens or rare plant occurrences would be eliminated, with the exception of those occurrences adjacent to designated routes. Likewise, potential habitat for rare plant species within the analysis area would not be affected by cross-country travel under this alternative, with the exception of approximately 5,000 acres within ORTCAs. Over the long term, habitat quality for fens and rare plant species may improve, as the negative effects of cross-country motorized vehicle travel (e.g., dust, erosion, transport of invasive species, etc.) are eliminated, and the vegetation and soil resources slowly recover in and adjacent to unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS. Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: The results of the three indicators described in the Effects Analysis Methodology for this action are presented below: (1) the number of rare plant occurrences and fens within ORTCAs and within

Botanical Resources – 269

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

100 feet of routes available for motorized use (i.e., added to the NFTS) under this alternative; (2) the number of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens, and (3) the acres of potential habitat by guild within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use.

Table 3-84: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 2 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 0 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 1 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0 Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 1 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 0 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 1 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 7 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 0 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 1 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 0 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 1 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 1 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 24 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 2 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 2 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 2 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 1 Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 2 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 1 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 1 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 0 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 1 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0 Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 49 TOTAL Watch List Species 75 Fens 0

Botanical Resources – 270 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-85: Acres of Habitat within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use, Alternative 2 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 542 234 470 210 9962 1446 1924 8181 53 Total Acres 23,022

There are 162 routes added to the NFTS within 100 feet of sensitive plants, 146 routes added to the NFTS within 100 feet of watch list plant species, and no routes added to the NFTS within 100 feet of fens (this includes possible fens). Approximately 190 routes within potential habitat for sensitive plants have not been surveyed, so additional sensitive or watch list plants may exist within 100 feet of these routes. As seen from the tables above, Alternative 2 would greatly reduce effects on fens and on sensitive and watch list plant species and their habitat compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be 49 sensitive plant occurrences within 100 feet of routes available for public motorized use compared to 107 occurrences in Alternative 1. For watch list species, there would be 75 watch list plant occurrences affected by routes, compared to 202 in Alternative 1. In the short term, there would be an immediate reduction of direct effects along routes that are not added to the NFTS (unauthorized routes) under this alternative, as compared to the No Action alternative. Over the long-term, there will be a very gradual recovery of vegetation and soils, and hence, rare plant habitat, within and adjacent to unauthorized routes. The timeframe for recovery may vary from several years for very lightly used routes in forested areas, to several decades or more in desert scrub habitats (see Effects Common to All Alternatives). Specific routes may be targeted for active restoration, in which case recovery timeframes may be significantly shortened; however, specific routes are not identified at this time, and additional NEPA analysis will be needed prior to conducting any active restoration activities. Fens, rare plant occurrences, and potential habitat within 100 feet of routes added to the NFTS under this alternative will be subject to one or more of the direct and indirect effects discussed in the Effects Common to all Alternatives. As mitigation, signs will be utilized on 38 routes to emphasize the importance of remaining on designated routes in habitats that are vulnerable to cross-country travel, with the intent of preventing additional impacts to rare plant occurrences in those areas. In addition, road maintenance activities will be conducted only after seed set on the two routes with occurrences of the Mono phacelia, in accordance with the conservation strategy for the species. Monitoring has also been identified for several routes to determine whether this alternative, including prescribed mitigations, is effective in reducing impacts to rare plants. Route-specific monitoring and mitigation measures, and species addressed by each mitigation, are provided in Table 3-98 at the end of this Section. This alternative would not impact fens as no routes within 100 feet of fens are proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Botanical Resources – 271

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Alternative 3 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on rare plants and fens are the same as discussed for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: The results of the three indicators for this action described in the Effects Analysis Methodology are presented the following tables.

Table 3-86: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 3 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 1 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 2 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0 Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 2 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 0 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 1 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 10 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 2 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 1 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 1 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 1 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 2 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 26 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 4 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 2 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 3 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 1 Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 2 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 1 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 2 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 1 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 1 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0 Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 66 TOTAL Watch List Species 89 Fens 2

Botanical Resources – 272 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-87: Acres of Habitat within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use, Alternative 3 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 1304 317 669 540 13029 2259 2681 9095 117 Total Acres 30,011

There are 211 routes added to the system within 100 feet of sensitive plants, 206 routes added to the system within 100 feet of watch list plant species, and one route added to the system within 100 feet of a possible fen in this alternative. Approximately 190 routes within potential habitat for sensitive plants have not been surveyed, so additional sensitive or watch list plants may exist within 100 feet of these routes. The effects on fens and rare plants of adding routes to the NFTS in this alternative are similar to those discussed in Alternative 2. The primary difference is in the magnitude of those effects. Due largely to the greater volume of routes added to the system in this alternative, the impacts of this alternative are more severe than the Proposed Action. This alternative does, however, represent an improvement over Alternative 1 in terms of impacts on botanical resources. Route-specific monitoring and mitigation measures, and species addressed by each mitigation, are provided in Table 3-98 at the end of this Section. There would be 42 routes requiring signs as mitigation in this alternative to help protect rare plant resources. Road maintenance activities would be delayed on four routes to minimize impacts to Mono phacelia occurrences. Mitigation of route 06S108, that passes within 100 feet of a fen, would occur under this alternative. Stabilization of the route through the meadow would maintain functional hydrologic processes in the wet meadow areas adjacent to the route, including within the fen. The route is approximately 50 feet from the fen, and does not appear to be directly impacting the fen at this time, based on a site visit by the Forest Watershed Specialist and Forest Botanist. No mitigations are prescribed for route N2198, which is within 100 feet of a possible fen. The route itself is in upland habitat, approximately 80 feet from the possible fen, and is not currently impacting the possible fen. The area was visited by the Forest Watershed Specialist and Forest Botanist, and was determined to have some fen characteristics; however, a final determination would require additional soil testing, and was determined to not be necessary at this time due to the lack of impacts contributed by the route.

Effects of Alternative 4 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel on rare plants and fens is the same across most of the analysis area as discussed above for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. The additional prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel in the Poleta Open Area, as proposed in this alternative, would provide additional protection for one watch list occurrence, though this occurrence is immediately adjacent to a system route, and as such, will remain vulnerable to impacts resulting from use of that system route. There are no fens or sensitive plant occurrences within the Poleta Open Area.

Botanical Resources – 273

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: The results of the three indicators described in the Effects Analysis Methodology for this action are presented below: (1) the number of rare plant occurrences and fens within ORTCAs and within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use under this alternative, (2) the number of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens, and (3) the acres of potential habitat by guild within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use.

Table 3-88: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 4 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 0 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 0 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0 Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 0 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 0 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 1 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 1 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 0 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 0 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 0 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 0 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 0 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 4 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 0 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 1 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 0 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 0 Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 0 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 0 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 0 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 0 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 1 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0 Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 8 TOTAL Watch List Species 67 Fens 0

Botanical Resources – 274 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-89: Acres of Habitat within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use, Alternative 4 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 381 169 322 126 7965 1141 1536 5608 40 Total Acres 17,288

There are 11 routes added to the system within 100 feet of sensitive plants, 125 routes added to the system within 100 feet of watch list plant species, and no routes added to the system within 100 feet of fens or possible fens. Approximately 150 routes within potential habitat for sensitive plants have not been surveyed, so additional sensitive or watch list plants may exist within 100 feet of these routes. With only eight sensitive and 67 watch list occurrences potentially affected by the 694 miles of routes added to the NFTS in this alternative, the effects of motorized travel on rare plants and fens are less than in any other alternative, with the exception of Alternative 5. The nature of effects is similar to that discussed for Alternative 2. Route-specific monitoring and mitigation measures, and species addressed by each mitigation, are provided in Table 3-98 at the end of this Section. The same mitigations apply to routes adjacent to rare plants as described in Alternative 2, though only five routes would require signs as mitigations for rare plant protection under this alternative, and no routes would require delayed maintenance as there would be no routes added to the NFTS adjacent to the Mono phacelia. Since there are no routes added to the system within 100 feet of fens or possible fens, there will be no effect on this resource from this alternative.

Effects of Alternative 5 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on rare plants and fens are the same as discussed for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS. However, for the purposes of comparison to other alternatives, the analysis results for the three indicators for this action are presented below: (1) the number of rare plant occurrences and fens within ORTCAs and within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use under this alternative, (2) the number of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens, and (3) the acres of potential habitat by guild within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use.

Table 3-90: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 5 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 0 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 0 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0

Botanical Resources – 275

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Species # Mapped Occurrences Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 0 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 0 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 1 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 0 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 0 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 0 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 0 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 0 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 0 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 0 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 0 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 0 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 0 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 0 Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 0 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 0 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 0 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 0 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 1 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0 Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 2 TOTAL Watch List Species 1 Fens 0

The three rare plant occurrences in the table above are within ORTCAs, and hence are assumed to be subject to impacts from motorized vehicle travel regardless of whether or not adjacent routes are designated due to anticipated cross-country travel continuing in these areas (see Assumptions Specific to Botanical Resources Analysis). There would be no routes available for use under this alternative that are within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens, and there would be no potential habitat within 100 feet of routes available for use. Since no routes are added to the NFTS under this alternative, no mitigations are necessary to protect rare plants or their habitat. Alternative 5 would have the least impact on fens, rare plants, and their habitat of all the alternatives.

Botanical Resources – 276 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Alternative 6 Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on rare plants and fens are the same as discussed for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class: The results of the three indicators described in the Effects Analysis Methodology for this action are presented below: (1) the number of rare plant occurrences and fens within ORTCAs and within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use under this alternative, (2) the number of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences and fens, and (3) the acres of potential habitat by guild within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use.

Table 3-91: Number of Fens and Mapped Rare Plant Occurrences within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use and within ORTCAs, Alternative 6 Species # Mapped Occurrences Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) 0 Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) 1 Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) 1 Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) 0 Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) 0 Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) 2 Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) 0 Kern plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) 2 Mono milkvetch (Astragalus monoensis) 9 Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) 0 Moonworts (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 0 minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) 1 Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) 0 July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) 0 White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) 0 Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) 0 Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii) 1 White Mountains (Horkelia hispidula) 1 Mono Lake lupine (Lupinus duranii) 25 Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) 2 Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis) 2 Mono phacelia (Phacelia monoensis) 3 Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 1 Williams combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) 2 Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) 1 Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) 1 Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) 1 Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea) 2 Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) 0

Botanical Resources – 277

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Species # Mapped Occurrences Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) 0 TOTAL Sensitive Species 58 TOTAL Watch List Species 76 Fens 1

Table 3-92: Acres of Habitat within 100 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use, Alternative 6 Guild C R O AF S DS PW F ALP Acres 712 250 506 285 11,008 1625 2,098 8,432 74 Total Acres 24,990

There are 180 routes available for motorized use (e.g., added to the NFTS) within 100 feet of sensitive plants, 162 routes within 100 feet of watch list plant species, and one route available for motorized use within 100 feet of a fen. Approximately 230 routes within potential habitat for sensitive plants have not been surveyed, so additional sensitive or watch list plants may exist within 100 feet of these routes. The nature of the direct and indirect effects is the same as discussed for Alternative 2. Mitigations will be applied to routes with sensitive species in vulnerable habitats, as in the other action alternatives. Route-specific monitoring and mitigation measures, and species addressed by each mitigation, are provided in Table 3-98 at the end of this Section. Forty-eight routes would require signs as mitigation for rare plants under this alternative, and four routes in proximity to the Mono phacelia would require maintenance activities to be delayed. Due to the number of rare plant occurrences and potential habitat affected by the designation of 1,005 miles of route, this alternative would have greater potential impacts on rare plants and fens than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, but less impact than Alternatives 1 and 3. Mitigation of the one route (06S108) that passes within 100 feet of a fen would occur under this alternative. Stabilization of the route through the meadow would maintain functional hydrologic processes in the wet meadow areas adjacent to the route, including within the fen. The route is approximately 50 feet from the fen, and does not appear to be directly impacting the fen at this time, based on a site visit by the Forest Watershed Specialist and Forest Botanist.

3.8.4.4 Monitoring A monitoring strategy is outlined in Chapter 2 of this EIS, in the Elements Common to All Action Alternatives. Monitoring has been identified for several unauthorized routes to determine whether the chosen alternative, including prescribed mitigations, is effective in reducing impacts to rare plants and in preventing the spread of invasive plant species. Route-specific monitoring is identified in the description of alternatives, and is provided in Table 3-98.

3.8.4.5 Effects of Mitigation Measures Route-specific monitoring and mitigation measures, and species addressed by each mitigation, are provided in Table 3-98. The mitigation measures prescribed to minimize impacts to rare plants and fens are described under the direct and indirect effects for each alternative. The conclusions in the effects analysis are based on the implementation of prescribed mitigation measures within a five-year

Botanical Resources – 278 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 timeframe, with the exception of the delayed road maintenance mitigation for the Mono phacelia, which will be implemented immediately. Signs are prescribed to emphasize the importance of remaining on designated routes in habitats that are vulnerable to cross-country travel, with the intent of preventing additional impacts to rare plant occurrences in those areas. Stabilization of routes through wet meadow areas supporting fens is prescribed where soil erosion may occur or hydrologic function may be affected. As the primary concern on these routes is the potential long-term impact if left unmitigated (as shown in the effects analysis for Alternative 1), rather than a potentially significant decline over the short-term, all of the signs and fen-meadow stabilizations are proposed as post-designation mitigations. There is no rapid or precipitous decline occurring in sensitive plant populations or in fens that warrants closure of the route over the short-term until mitigations can be implemented. In addition, the resources required to close and re-open the routes would likely detract from resources that could otherwise be aimed at achieving the full implementation of the mitigation measures, thereby slowing the overall implementation of mitigation. .All mitigation measures proposed in the alternatives to reduce effects on other forest resources have been reviewed for potential impacts to botanical resources. The following mitigation measures will have negligible impacts on rare plant resources, due to the lack of new ground disturbance, the confinement of disturbance to the existing road prism, or the very limited scope of ground disturbance: • Signposts • Drainage/waterbars signage • Monitoring • Hardening route surface • Realignment to alternate existing route • Seasonal closure without gate

All weed treatments identified as mitigation for this action have been previously analyzed for impacts to botanical and other resources (USDA Forest Service, 2007), and no significant impacts were identified. The remaining mitigation measures could potentially involve new ground disturbance in sensitive plant habitat: creek crossing hardening, reroute to new location, barrier, seasonal closure with gate, and riparian/meadow stabilization. Survey records were reviewed, and six routes with ground disturbing mitigations are within 100 feet of sensitive plants or fens. Of these, it was determined that barrier mitigations proposed for three of the routes (01N182, 03S510, N483) could potentially impact individual sensitive plants (Mono phacelia, Inyo phacelia, Mono Lake lupine). Forest botany staff will participate in implementation of the barrier placement to minimize those impacts. Based on the small area of ground disturbance anticipated, and the participation of botany staff, the implementation of these mitigation measures will not impact the viability of any sensitive plant species. The mitigations proposed for the other three routes (06S108, N2194, 02S381), while within 100 feet of sensitive plants or fens, are not in the immediate area of the sensitive resource and no impacts are expected (e.g., upland species outside of the area where a creek crossing will be stabilized, or

Botanical Resources – 279

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

meadow stabilization outside of the immediate fen area that will maintain or improve fen condition over the long term). Seven of the routes with potentially ground disturbing impacts have not been surveyed: 02S568, 04S124, 01S191, 01S407, 02S506, 04S116, N1240. As with the barrier mitigations listed above, the area of impact is expected to be relatively small, and Forest botany staff will be involved in the implementation of the mitigations to minimize impacts to any potential sensitive plants or fens. As a result, individual plants may be impacted, but the proposed mitigations will not impact the viability of any sensitive plant species. The relatively small amount of ground disturbance associated with any of the mitigation measures will not have a significant effect on any watch list species, due to their greater abundance and wider distribution relative to the amount of ground disturbance associated with proposed mitigation measures.

3.8.4.6 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives As described in the Introduction to Chapter 3, the additive effects of past actions and events (cross-country vehicle use; livestock use; wildfire; water management such as. reservoirs, ditches, hydroelectric facilities, irrigation, etc.; timber activities; mining; non-native plant introductions; recreation uses; and special uses) have shaped the present landscape and corresponding populations of and habitat for rare plants and fens on the Inyo NF. These activities and others such as development and urbanization may also impact rare plants and/or habitat elsewhere in the species range. Data describing the past distribution and abundance of fens and rare plant species is limited, making it impossible to quantify the effects of historic activities on the resources and conditions that are present today. While the specific amount of habitat reduction or alteration is unknown, it can be presumed that these activities and others have impacted rare species directly, indirectly, and cumulatively by impacting individual plants, affecting hydrologic function, and by reducing the amount of suitable habitat across the Inyo NF and elsewhere throughout a species’ range. In order to account for the contribution of past activities in the cumulative effects of the Travel Management Project, this analysis uses the current abundance and distribution of rare plant species throughout their range, and the current abundance and distribution of fens on the Forest as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. Direct and indirect effects of current and foreseeable future projects are similar in nature to past projects and involve trampling or crushing plants; vegetation removal; soil disturbances; changes in hydrology; and changes in vegetation community composition and/or structure, including the introduction or spread of invasive plant species that may compete with rare plant species. The main difference between historical activities and present and future actions, is that the latter are designed to avoid impacts to fens and rare plant occurrences, where possible. Where avoidance is not practical, mitigations are designed to minimize the number of individuals impacted, the severity of the impact, and the number of occurrences affected. As a result, the long-term impacts of present and future projects, while they may impact individual plants or portions of a fen, generally have design features built in to prevent a loss of hydrologic function within the fen, or a long-term loss of viability or trend to federal listing for sensitive or watch list species. While new ground disturbing projects and repeated disturbance from ongoing activities are factors in the continuing impacts to individual plants, the overall impacts are generally reduced compared to past activities where no mitigation measures were implemented.

Botanical Resources – 280 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The current and reasonably foreseeable future projects on Forest lands in the analysis area, and the nature and extent of their potential effects on botanical resources include: • Hydroelectric projects – removal of vegetation and soil disturbance associated with dam maintenance, facility maintenance, pipeline maintenance, access; changes in habitat due to water management and potential changes in hydrology (14 acres). • Mineral and geothermal exploration and development – removal of vegetation, soil disturbance associated with drilling, excavation, pad construction, access, etc.; impacts to hydrologic function (211 acres). • Timber activities and fuel treatments – effects are variable based on treatment; prescribed burning – partial removal of vegetation in the short term, but retention of seed bank and root crown allowing for recovery; mowing – partial removal of canopy, change in vegetation community structure, low growing plants left intact; thinning – change in vegetation community structure; some crushing of vegetation associated with access and project implementation (28,853 acres). • Wildland fire – effects are similar to those described for prescribed burning, though in general wildland fires burn more intensely, potentially resulting in more severe effects on fens or rare plant species, including a more likely increase in weed abundance (estimated 54,000 acres over the next 20 years). • Livestock grazing – direct trampling of plants; changes in vegetation community dynamics, such as more grazing-resistant species gaining dominance; impacts to soil resource; changes in hydrologic processes (approx. 738,000 acres). • Road and trail development or improvement and urbanization – removal of vegetation; soil disturbance, erosion; impacts to hydrologic function (223 acres). • Ski area development within existing ski areas – removal of vegetation; soil disturbance, erosion (17 acres). • Road rehabilitation and other watershed restoration projects – improvement of soil condition, improvement in vegetation condition; stabilization of hydrologic function (22 acres; acreage not available for some). • Guzzlers – removal and/or crushing of vegetation (3 acres). • Utility, irrigation, and highway easements - removal of vegetation and soil disturbance in immediate vicinity of pipelines, ditches, highways; changes in vegetation condition within the easement due to utility line/highway/ditch maintenance; changes in hydrologic processes (975 acres). • Avalanche control – removal of vegetation and soil disturbance associated with platforms for “guns” and storage tanks (no figure available).

These activities are considered in the cumulative effects analysis for rare plants and fens because they result in similar effects to those described for the alternatives, primarily complete or partial

Botanical Resources – 281

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

removal of vegetation, or habitat alteration. Additional detail on the activities listed above is available in Appendix E. The total area affected by present and future projects on forest lands is approximately 822,318 acres (acres by project type are listed above). The vast majority of acreage with potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is attributed to livestock use, which is discussed below in detail. Not all projects have acres available and many of them do not have spatial data available, so the figures given above can only be considered as general. These impacts could add cumulatively to the potential impacts associated with implementation of one or more of the alternatives, by damaging individual plants, or affecting habitat, including impacts to the soil and/or hydrologic resources integral to habitat suitability. Acreages are not available, but there are a few restoration projects on Inyo NF lands, and conservation easements or wildlife areas on adjacent lands, where habitat conditions would improve over that represented by the current condition. These areas are quite small in comparison to the totals listed above. There are an additional 177,181 acres affected by projects on adjacent non-Forest lands within the analysis area (mining, grazing, resort development, airport expansion, lodging developments, water management, and conservation easements), with similar effects as those noted for the same types of projects on forest lands. The vast majority of these (177,017 acres) are livestock allotments on adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Similar impacts to those discussed above for Forest and adjacent lands, as well as other activities such as urbanization occur in other parts of many species’ ranges more distant from the Forest. Specific information, e.g., acreage or spatial data, is not available for these areas. As stated previously, the effects of past actions are considered to be represented by the current existing condition. The currently extant fens and rare plant populations have persisted through much heavier grazing scenarios than current management on National Forest and BLM lands. On any given allotment, the impacts of livestock use are diffuse and variable, and are based on the suitability of certain areas and the location of facilities (troughs, fences, etc.) and preferred grazing areas. The cumulative impacts of livestock use overall on rare plants and/or fens in the project area are highest in preferred areas of the allotments, and are much less in scope than acres alone indicate. Because allotment acreage alone is not an accurate measure of the intensity and extent of grazing effects on rare plants and fens, acreage will not be used quantitatively to compare the effects of grazing with the effects of the alternatives. Livestock grazing is not the only action where a simple quantitative comparison of “acres affected” would be misleading. The effects of all of the activities listed above cannot be adequately compared between the alternatives in a quantitative fashion due to the following limitations: • Effects are highly variable within any given present or future project area, ranging from complete removal of vegetation to no effect at all on botanical resources. • Spatial data is not available for many projects, and the overlapping nature of effects from different projects cannot be determined or assessed (e.g., a fuels reduction project may occupy the same acreage on the ground as a livestock allotment, and a transmission line and associated roads may pass through both projects).

Botanical Resources – 282 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Cumulative effects of the alternatives can, however, be quantified for those activities with the same effects on rare plants and fens as the alternatives. To do so, this analysis compares the occurrences affected by routes added to the system under each alternative, with the total number of occurrences affected by the Poleta Open Area, existing system roads, and roads under other jurisdiction, including those adjacent to the Forest. Table 3-93 compares the number of system roads that have rare plant occurrences or fens within 100 feet with the total number of system roads and system additions (routes available for motorized use or added to the NFTS) within 100 feet of occurrences for each alternative. Table 3-96 identifies the cumulative effects of system roads and the alternatives on rare plant habitat, by guild. It includes potential habitat that may be affected within 100 feet of all motorized routes. There may be potential for increased impacts to rare plant occurrences and habitat adjacent to existing system routes due to shifts in use patterns, particularly in Alternative 5. The existing system roads may experience heavier use once use of the unauthorized routes is prohibited. It would be speculative to predict which existing routes would or would not experience a significant increase in use if Alternative 5 were implemented, so route-specific cumulative effects from potential changes in traffic volume cannot be meaningfully assessed at this time. Table 3-95 displays the number of occurrences within 100 feet of system roads and system additions for watch list species, fens, and for sensitive plant species with less than 10% of the total known rangewide occurrences potentially affected by any of the action alternatives (see Biological Evaluation for additional detail on individual sensitive species).

Botanical Resources – 283

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-93: Number of Routes Available for Motorized Use within 100 Feet of Sensitive and Watch List Plant Occurrences and Fens, for Existing System Roads and Each Alternative (Routes Added to the System Combined with Existing System Roads) Group Number of Alt 1 + System Alt 2 + System Alt 3 + System Alt 4 + System Alt 5 + System Alt 6 + System system roads Total number Total number of Total number of Total number of Total number Total number of routes routes routes routes of routes of routes Sensitive species 237 673 391 440 240 237 418 Watch list species 180 520 323 383 302 180 335 Fens 0 2 0 2 0 0 1

Table 3-94: Potential Habitat, by Guild, within 100 Feet of Existing System Roads, and within 100 Feet of Existing System Roads Combined with Routes Added to the System for Each Alternative Group Acres within Alt 1 + System Alt 2 + System Alt 3 + System Alt 4 + System Alt 5 + System Alt 6 + System 100 feet of acres acres acres acres acres acres system routes Carbonate 1176 3050 1686 2432 1526 1176 1845 Riparian 1552 1941 1754 1828 1693 1552 1767 Open 1901 3085 2294 2482 2168 1901 2327 Alkali Flat 743 1472 924 1246 842 743 997 Shrub 21565 37550 30676 33618 28808 21565 31674 Desert Scrub 4079 7353 5375 6161 5078 4079 5553 Pinyon Woodland 4132 7741 5950 6686 5577 4132 6122 Forested 9554 21485 17084 17961 14714 9554 17331 Alpine 237 369 277 335 267 237 296

Table 3-95: Number of Rare Plant and Fen Occurrences within 100 Feet of System Roads, and Number within 100 Feet of System Routes for Each Alternative (Total of Routes Added and Existing System Roads) Species Number of Alt 1 + System Alt 2 + System Alt 3 + System Alt 4 + System Alt 5 + System Alt 6 + System occurrences number of number of number of number of number of number of w/in 100 feet of occurrences occurrences occurrences occurrences occurrences occurrences system routes All other sensitive species 55 74 61 68 55 55 66 not listed in Table 3-96 Watch list 123 176 145 158 141 123 145 Fens 0 2 0 2 0 0 1

Botanical Resources – 284 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

For those species included in Table 3-95, the entire occurrence is typically not affected, since direct and indirect effects of the alternatives are confined to the area within 100 feet of routes, rather than the entire occurrence. Even within 100 feet of either side of roads and motorized trails, effects are sometimes confined to the existing roadbed (12 feet for most unauthorized routes) rather than the entire 200-foot corridor. This is particularly the case on stable routes in difficult terrain and routes that receive only light or low use, which constitutes a large majority of the routes proposed for addition to the system. The following species are included in Table 3-95: Coville’s abronia (Abronia nana ssp. covillei) Bodie Hills rockcress (Arabis bodiensis) Shockley’s rockcress (Arabis shockleyi) Tiehm’s rockcress (Arabis tiehmii) Inflated milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. sufflatus) Long Valley milkvetch (Astragalus johannis-howellii) Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) Kern Plateau milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis) Raven’s milkvetch (Astragalus ravenii) Scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) Upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens) Common moonwort (Botrychium lunaria) Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense) Inyo County star tulip (Calochortus excavatus) Kern Plateau birds-beak (Cordylanthus eremicus ssp. kernensis) July gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) White Mountains draba (Draba monoensis) Subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii) Kern River daisy (Erigeron multiceps) Hockett Meadows lupine (Lupinus lepidus var. culbertsonii) Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) Nine Mile Canyon phacelia (Phacelia novenmillensis) William’s combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae) Morefield’s cinquefoil (Potentilla morefieldii) Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) Grey-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum spp. grisea) Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) Blandow’s bog-moss (Helodium blandowii) Three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra) Broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa)

Botanical Resources – 285 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Given the limited effect of the action alternatives on these species compared to the magnitude of effects from past, present, and future actions discussed above, the cumulative effect is not significant for any of the action alternatives. As seen in Tables 3-95 and 3-96, Alternative 5 has no cumulative effect with regard to the number of rare plant occurrences or fens affected, since there are no direct or indirect effects for this alternative. Cumulative effects are expected under Alternative 1 due to the number of routes that will continue to receive use, the potential for continued cross-country travel, and the lack of protective mitigation measures. Effects that do not result in actual mortality to plants are more difficult to measure and therefore more difficult to assess; however, given the small proportion of occurrences of these species affected by the alternatives, indirect effects are not likely to be significant, even when the effects of this project are cumulatively added to others. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effect on fens, rare plants, and potential habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative. This project will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for any of the species included in Table 3-95 and listed above. However, for those species with less than 10% of known occurrences affected and species with no known occurrences adjacent to system and/or unauthorized routes, some individual plants may be affected.

Species with More Than 10 Percent of Rangewide Occurrences Potentially Affected Table 3-96 displays cumulative effects for those sensitive species with more than 10% of known rangewide occurrences affected by one or more action alternatives. The table displays: (1) the total acres of occupied habitat on and adjacent to the Forest, (2) the acres of occupied habitat affected by system roads alone, (3) the acres of occupied habitat affected by the existing road system and each alternative combined (the cumulative effect), and (4) the percentage of total occupied habitat cumulatively affected by each alternative. For four of the species (White Mountains horkelia, Father Crowley’s lupine, Inyo phacelia, and Masonic Mountain jewelflower) listed in Table 3-96, less than 10% of occupied habitat (as opposed to rangewide occurrences) is actually cumulatively affected by any of the alternatives. Because currently occupied habitat is used in this assessment it includes the effects of any other past actions (e.g., mining, utility corridors, etc.) which may have resulted in the loss or reduction in size of occurrences in addition to the effects of system roads. As stated previously, for present and future actions, actual removal of occurrences or portions of occurrences is typically avoided or mitigated to minor levels. Given the small effect of the action alternatives on these four species compared to the magnitude of effects from past, present, and future actions discussed above, the cumulative effect is not significant for any of these alternatives. Alternative 5 has no cumulative effect with regard to the number of rare plant occurrences or fens affected, since there are no direct or indirect effects for this alternative. Cumulative effects are expected under Alternative 1 due to the number of routes that will continue to receive use, the potential for continued cross-country travel, and the lack of protective mitigation measures.

Botanical Resources – 286 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-96: Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Species with More than 10 Percent of Known Rangewide Occurrences Affected by the Action Alternatives Species Acres of Acres of Alt 1 + System Alt 2 + Alt 3 + Alt 4 + System Alt 5 + Alt 6 + occupied occupied acres / System acres System acres acres / percent System System habitat on habitat w/in 100 percent of / percent of / percent of of total acres / acres / and feet of system total occupied total total occupied percent of percent of adjacent to routes / percent habitat occupied occupied habitat total total Forest of total habitat habitat occupied occupied occupied habitat habitat habitat Mono milkvetch 1982 224 / 11% 437 / 22% 247 / 13% 266 / 13% 230 / 12% 224 / 11% 246 / 12% Gilman’s goldenbush 34 1 / 3% 10 / 30% 8 / 24% 8 / 24% 1 / 3% 1 / 3% 8 / 24% White Mtns horkelia 1089 54 / 5% 76 / 7% 56 / 5% 76 / 7% 54 / 5% 54 / 5% 56 / 5% Mono Lake lupine 9759 636 / 7% 1521 / 16% 943 / 10% 1044 / 11% 665 / 7% 636 / 7% 931 / 10% Father Crowley’s lupine 3352 23 / 1% 39 / 1% 29 / 1% 37 / 1% 23 / 1% 23 / 1% 31 / 1% Inyo phacelia 10844 314 / 3% 506 / 5% 406 / 4% 406 / 4% 316 / 3% 314 / 3% 393 / 4% Mono phacelia 31 12 / 39% 22 / 71% 15 / 48% 21 / 68% 12 / 39% 12 / 39% 21 / 68% Masonic Mountain 780 0 / 0% 3 / 0.4% 2 / 0.3% 2 / 0.3% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 2 / 0.3% jewelflower Those action alternatives and species with greater than 10% of the known occupied habitat affected are highlighted.

Botanical Resources – 287 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects that do not result in actual mortality to plants are more difficult to measure and therefore more difficult to assess; however, given the small amount of occupied habitat of these species actually affected by the alternatives, indirect effects are not likely to be significant, even when the effects of this project are cumulatively added to others. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effect on fens, rare plants, and potential habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative. Though some impacts may occur to individual White Mountains horkelia (Horkelia hispidula), Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi), Inyo phacelia (Phacelia inyoensis), and Masonic Mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus oliganthus) (i.e., the four species with more than 10% of known occurrences affected but less than 10% of occupied habitat affected), this project will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Species with More Than 10% of Occupied Habitat Potentially Affected The following four species have more than 10% of occupied habitat potentially affected in one or more of the action alternatives when the effects of each alternative are combined with the effects from the existing system: Mono milkvetch, Mono Lake lupine, Gilman’s goldenbush, and Mono phacelia (refer to Table 3-96). For the pumice flat species, Mono Lake lupine and Mono milkvetch, the action alternatives cause a relatively small change from the effects of the existing system. These species occupy vulnerable habitats with regard to cross-country travel, as the pumice flats are flat and very sparsely vegetated, and therefore easily driven across. Mitigations are included in the action alternatives to encourage compliance with the prohibition on cross-country travel where the Mono Lake lupine and Mono milkvetch occur. In addition, these species are monitored periodically as part of the Forest’s sensitive plant program and additional monitoring is identified for all action alternatives. Monitoring is used to detect unacceptable impacts and to confirm that sensitive species are not in decline. For all action alternatives, the project may impact individual Mono Lake lupine or Mono milkvetch plants, but is not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability, based on the following: (1) mitigation measures will reduce the amount of occupied habitat actually affected by confining the primary direct impacts to the actual roadbed, rather than the entire 200 foot corridor of potential effect, (2) monitoring will help detect significant declines in either species, and (3) each of the action alternatives represents an improvement over the current situation (No Action alternative). Gilman’s goldenbush is described from granitic and carbonate substrates in subalpine and montane coniferous forests. There is much unsurveyed suitable habitat on the Forest and elsewhere. The single occurrence on the Forest grows on limestone cliffs in Marble Canyon in the Inyo Mountains, and is not actually subject to any direct impacts from the adjacent route, which is in the wash at the base of the cliffs. Since the route is below the cliffs, and receives little use, indirect effects are also minor. Though up to 24% of this single Forest occurrence, depending on the alternative, is within 100 feet of the proposed route, the actual effect on the occurrence is slight, if any at all, based on the factors just described. Again, each of the action alternatives represents a reduction in impacts from the current situation, since less potential habitat is affected, including areas that are not as inaccessible to vehicles as the single known occurrence. Based on this information, the project is not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for Gilman’s goldenbush.

Botanical Resources – 288 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The Mono phacelia has the highest percentage of occupied habitat affected of any species, with up to 68% of the known occupied habitat on and adjacent to the Forest within 100 feet of system and proposed routes. This is because the Mono phacelia is an annual disturbance-oriented species. Its primary habitat is in areas with infrequent or low intensity disturbance on shrink-swell clays of mostly andesitic origin, in sagebrush scrub and pinyon woodlands in the White Mountains and Pizona focus areas. It is found most often on road berms, or even in the center of very lightly used roads, but is not seen in heavily tracked or compacted areas. Road construction has potentially provided new habitat for this species and the distribution of the plant may have expanded to take advantage of the new habitat provided; however, no information is available on the distribution or abundance of the species prior to mining activities and associated road building (USDA Inyo NF, 2001). Management direction in the conservation strategy for the Mono phacelia is to restrict road building and maintenance activities in occurrences until after seed set, to avoid removal of the entire year’s reproductive output for this species that only reproduces by seed. Mitigation to implement this direction is included in the action alternatives for routes with Mono phacelia occurrences. Invasive species and their potential dominance in the habitats that the Mono phacelia prefers are likely the greatest threat to this species. All of the routes with Mono phacelia occurrences currently receive light use, so the potential for weed introduction due to route designation is low, but possible. Monitoring is in place and periodically conducted to track the population trend and the abundance of invasive species. Given the preference of the species for roadside habitats, the mitigation to delay maintenance activity until after seed set, the light use level of adjacent routes, and the ongoing monitoring to detect population declines and/or weed invasion, the action alternatives may impact individual Mono phacelia plants, but are not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability.

Fens There are no fens identified within 100 feet of system routes, nor within ORTCAs or the Poleta Open Area, so there is no quantifiable cumulative effect on fens from this project. However, other projects have the potential to impact fens. Many of the known fens on the Forest are located in high elevation areas, with uses limited to pack stock and hikers. Use levels are controlled, and backcountry grazing recommendations were recently developed to include adequate protection for fens (USDA Inyo NF, 2005, Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses). There are no significant cumulative effects on fens from any of the action alternatives, due to the implementation of mitigation measures as needed for all fens or potential fens.

3.8.5 Summary of Effects for All Alternatives Effects of the alternatives on rare plants and their habitats are summarized in the table below using the three indicators identified for the analysis.

Botanical Resources – 289

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-97: Comparison of Alternatives by Indicator Comparison of Alternatives for Each Indicator Indicator – Botanical Resources Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Number of sensitive / watch list occurrences / fens within 100 feet of 107 / 202 / 2 49 / 75 / 0 66 / 89 / 2 8 / 67 / 0 2 / 1 / 0 58 / 76 / 1 routes available for motorized use Number of routes available for motorized 444 / 343 / 2 162 / 146 /0 211 / 206 /2 11 / 125 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 180 / 162 /1 use within 100 feet of sensitive/watch list/fens Acres of potential habitat within 100 feet 42,394 23,022 30,011 17,288 0 24,990 of routes available for motorized use

3.8.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Alternative 1 has the greatest impact on rare plant occurrences, fens, and potential habitat for rare plant species. Use would continue on all existing unauthorized routes, some degree of cross-country travel may continue, with further route proliferation, and no mitigations are included for the reduction or prevention of impacts to fens, vulnerable rare plant occurrences, or their potential habitat. As such, it does not protect sensitive species as needed to maintain viability (FSM 2670), nor does it provide protection to fens, as per SNFPA. The five action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan and other direction, including individual species management guides and conservation strategies, with regard to rare plants and their habitats. Under these alternatives, rare plant species are protected (albeit to differing degrees) as needed to maintain viability. The five action alternatives are consistent with management direction pertaining to fens in the SNFPA. There are no fens within 100 feet of proposed routes in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Alternatives 3 and 6 are consistent with management direction pertaining to fens, due to the mitigation measures providing for maintenance of hydrologic function where routes are adjacent to and potentially impacting fens or possible fens. In compliance with the Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on botanical resources (rare plants, fens) were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in each of the action alternatives. This determination is based on the following: 1. Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of sensitive and watch list plants and fens was used in the development of the alternatives to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. 2. Routes with botanical concerns that could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. For the purposes of this analysis, “acceptable level” means that each alternative provides for the viability of all sensitive and watch list plant species, and for the maintenance of hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on those ecosystems.

Botanical Resources – 290 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(b), effects on damage to botanical resources were considered in the development of the trail additions proposed in each of the action alternatives. The objective was to minimize impacts, as demonstrated by the following: 1. The alternatives were developed in an interdisciplinary setting, with the objective of avoiding damage to sensitive and watch list plants and fens. 2. Where avoidance could not be achieved because of the need to balance resource impacts with recreational access, and adverse effects were anticipated, mitigations were proposed to minimize effects to acceptable levels [as defined in #2 above, for 36 CFR 212.55(a)]. 3. Routes with botanical concerns, which could not be mitigated, to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. 4. Travel off of designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects to botanical resources.

Botanical Resources – 291

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS - August 2009

Route Number Species Mitigation Alt. 2 Mitigation Alt. 3 Mitigation Alt. 4 Mitigation Alt. 6 N727 Arabis bodiensis na Monitor na Monitor N3080 Arabis dispar Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor N2344 Arabis dispar, Astragalus inyoensis Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 09S168 Arabis shockleyi Monitor Monitor na Monitor 11S148 Astragalus inyoensis Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor N2955 Astragalus inyoensis Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 02S573 Astragalus johannis-howellii na Monitor na Monitor 03S545 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S547 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S548 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S549 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S556 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S557 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S559 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S562 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S572 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S573 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S576 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S576 Astragalus johannis-howellii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2474 Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S187 Astragalus monoensis Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S321 Astragalus monoensis na Sign na Sign 03S203 Astragalus monoensis Sign Sign na Sign 03S204 Astragalus monoensis Sign Sign Sign Sign 03S409 Astragalus monoensis Sign Sign na Sign 03S522 Astragalus monoensis Monitor Monitor na Monitor N1297 Astragalus monoensis Sign Sign na Sign 03S438 Astragalus monoensis, Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 03S439 Astragalus monoensis, Lupinus duranii Sign Sign Sign Sign N379 Astragalus monoensis, Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign N1874 Dedeckera eurekensis na Monitor na na N1874 Dedeckera eurekensis na Monitor na na 10S206 Ericameria gilmanii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2128 Erigeron compactus, Mimulus parryi Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Erigeron compactus, Mimulus parryi, Arabis N2130 dispar Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor

Botanical Resources - 292 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS - August 2009

Route Number Species Mitigation Alt. 2 Mitigation Alt. 3 Mitigation Alt. 4 Mitigation Alt. 6 Meadow Meadow stabilization; creek stabilization; 06S108 Fen na crossing na creek crossing N1883 Horkelia hispidula Sign Sign na Sign 01N167 Ivesia kingii var. kingii Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 01N168 Ivesia kingii var. kingii Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 01N146 Lupinus duranii na Sign na Sign 01N150 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S148 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S149 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S150 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S151 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S160 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S182 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S269 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S294 Lupinus duranii na Sign Sign Sign 01S304 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S310 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S311 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S313 Lupinus duranii na na na Sign 01S314 Lupinus duranii na na na Sign 01S316 Lupinus duranii na na na Sign 01S318 Lupinus duranii na na na Sign 01S331 Lupinus duranii na Sign na Sign 01S332 Lupinus duranii na Sign na Sign 01S333 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S339 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S343 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S356 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S359 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S361 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S362 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S367 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S368 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S370 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S374 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign

Botanical Resources - 293 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS - August 2009

Route Number Species Mitigation Alt. 2 Mitigation Alt. 3 Mitigation Alt. 4 Mitigation Alt. 6 01S378 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S385 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S387 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S390 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 01S396 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S412 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S413 Lupinus duranii na Monitor na Monitor 01S414 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01S427 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 02S162 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 02S186 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 02S237 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 02S283 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 02S295 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 02S308 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 02S316 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 02S320 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign 02S385 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor 03S358 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N1182 Lupinus duranii Sign na Sign Sign N1182 Lupinus duranii Sign na Sign Sign N1184 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor N2735 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2821 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign Monitor Sign N2991 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N315 Lupinus duranii na Sign na Sign N335 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N360 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign N364 Lupinus duranii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N469 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign N780 Lupinus duranii Sign Sign na Sign N2209 Lupinus padre-crowleyi Monitor Monitor na na N2211 Lupinus padre-crowleyi Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2179 Mimulus parryi Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 02S452 Phacelia inyoensis Monitor Monitor na Monitor 02S518 Phacelia inyoensis Monitor Monitor na Monitor

Botanical Resources - 294 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS - August 2009

Route Number Species Mitigation Alt. 2 Mitigation Alt. 3 Mitigation Alt. 4 Mitigation Alt. 6 03S510 Phacelia inyoensis Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Delay Delay 01N181 Phacelia monoensis na maintenance na maintenance Delay Delay 01N182 Phacelia monoensis na maintenance na maintenance Monitor; delay Monitor; delay Monitor; delay 01N185 Phacelia monoensis mntnce mntnce na mntnce Monitor; delay Monitor; delay Monitor; delay 01N281 Phacelia monoensis, Streptanthus oliganthus mntnce mntnce na mntnce 10S193 Phacelia mustelina Monitor Monitor na Monitor 08S128 Potentilla morefieldii Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2194 Potentilla morefieldii Monitor Monitor na na N2238 Sclerocactus polyancistrus na Monitor na na N2245 Sclerocactus polyancistrus Monitor Monitor na Monitor N2247 Sclerocactus polyancistrus Monitor Monitor na Monitor 01N282 Streptanthus oliganthus Monitor Monitor na Monitor

Botanical Resources - 295 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Botanical Resources – 296 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.9 Noxious Weeds

3.9.1 Introduction In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service identified invasive weed species (noxious weeds) as one of four critical threats to the nation’s ecosystems. The goal for invasive species, as stated in the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA Forest Service, 2004a) is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships. Invasive species can be aggressive invaders of native plant communities and are capable of dominating native habitat types, excluding native vegetation and reducing site diversity and productivity. On National Forest System lands as of 1999, an estimated 6-7 million acres were infested with weeds, with infestations potentially increasing at a rate of 8-12% per year (USDA Forest Service, 1999). Similar trends have been observed on the Inyo National Forest, as the number of locations and extent of existing populations of species such as tamarisk, white sweet clover, bouncing bet, and others has increased on the Forest over the past several years. Currently, over 2,500 acres of habitat are affected by weed infestations on the Forest. Motorized vehicles contribute to the introduction and spread of noxious weed species by creating suitable environmental conditions for establishment and by acting as a major vector for spread (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences for invasive plant species (weeds). It will describe the area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. Measurement indicators are used to describe the existing conditions for the forest. The measurement indicators will be used in the analysis to quantify effects and describe how well the proposed action and alternatives meet the project objectives and address resource concerns.

3.9.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Management direction related to the management and prevention of noxious weeds includes: FSM 2081.03 Requires that a weed risk assessment be conducted when any ground disturbing activity is proposed. Determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the proposed action. Projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation.

Executive Order 13112 of Feb. 3, 1999 Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control such species, not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused

Noxious Weeds – 297 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified standards and guidelines applicable to motorized Travel Management and noxious weeds, which will be considered during the analysis process. The following are those standards and guidelines that may specifically pertain to Travel Management: 1. Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups, and organizations in communities near national forests about noxious weed prevention and management. 2. As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessment to determine risks for weed spread (high, moderate, or low) associated with different types of proposed management activities. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy to develop mitigation measures for high and moderate risk activities. 3. When recommended in project-level noxious weed risk assessments, consider requiring off- road equipment and vehicles (both Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation to be weed-free. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 4. Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed prevention and control measures into ongoing management or maintenance activities that involve ground disturbance or the possibility of spreading weeds. Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 5. Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing activities to ensure adherence to the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy.

Inyo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Strategy The following guidelines for prevention of weed spread or new introductions are provided in the Inyo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service, 2005): 1. Clean equipment used for new construction and maintenance. 2. Prevent and control roadside sources of weeds.

3.9.3 Affected Environment There are 24 weed species known to occur on the Forest. These species, and treatments for known occurrences, are addressed in detail in the Environmental Assessment for Weed Eradication and Control on the Inyo National Forest (the Weed EA) (USDA Forest Service, 2007). The environmental effects of the treatments were analyzed for all resources, and no significant adverse effects were identified. As part of the Weed EA, weed occurrences are monitored for size, density, and treatment effectiveness. In addition, water quality monitoring is prescribed to detect and measure concentrations of the active and associate herbicide ingredients during treatments.

Noxious Weeds – 298 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Of the 24 species in the Weed EA, 22 species are currently known to occur within the analysis area. The species and the known number of occurrences within the analysis area are shown in the table below. Weed species rated high for this analysis, as per the criteria outlined in Section 3.9.4.1, are noted with an ‘H’ following the species name. There are 559 weed occurrences within the analysis area, 62 of which are occurrences of high priority species. The figures provided in the following table are based on currently mapped occurrences, and for the medium and low priority species in particular, the figures likely underestimate the abundance of these species, as there are many unmapped occurrences at this time. More detailed information on each individual weed species can be found in the Weed EA.

Table 3-99: Known Weed Species in the Analysis Area Weed Species Common Name # Occurrences within Focus Areas Lepidium latifolium – H Perennial pepperweed 3 Tamarix spp. - H Salt cedar 31 Saponaria officinale - H Bouncing bet 1 Cardaria spp. - H Hoary cress 5 Acroptilon repens - H Russian knapweed 1 Centaurea maculosa -H Spotted knapweed 0 Spartium junceum - H Spanish broom 1 Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica - H Dalmatian toadflax 1 Halogeton glomeratus - H Halogeton 19 Lotus corniculatus Birdfoot trefoil 1 Melilotus alba White sweet clover 16 Elaeagnus angustifolius Russian olive 0 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven 1 Ulmus pumila Elm 1 Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 5 Verbascum thapsus Common mullein 23 Bassia hyssopifolia Bassia 1 Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass 174 Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome 115 Salsola spp. Russian thistle 94 Taraxacum officinale Dandelion 15 Descurainia, Sisymbrium spp. Mustards 46 Trifolium repens White clover 1 Ranunculus testiculatus Bur buttercup 4 TOTAL 559

As noted for rare plants, a weed occurrence refers to a relatively discreet group of individuals, separated from the next nearest group of the same species by at least ¼ mile. Many of the weed occurrences are immediately adjacent to existing travel routes, due to the disturbed habitat available along the road edges, and the effect of vehicles acting as vectors for weed seeds or other propagules. They are found in many different habitat types, e.g. riparian, sagebrush scrub, pinyon woodland, etc., most commonly in disturbed areas within these habitats.

Noxious Weeds – 299

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

All of the known Forest occurrences were analyzed for treatment in the 2007 Weed EA. Species and occurrences have been prioritized for treatment as described in the Decision Notice for the Weed EA, with treatment of a limited number of occurrences each year. The need for treatment far surpasses available resources (funding, personnel) to conduct treatment activities. Progress is slowly being made on selected high priority populations. Many known occurrences will continue to go untreated for an indefinite period of time, potentially allowing additional spread of known infestations, particularly for lower priority species.

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on noxious weeds on the Forest. This analysis is focused on the effects of three actions: (1) the prohibition of cross- country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS), and (3) changes to the use of existing NFTS.

3.9.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology Noxious weed species considered in this analysis are listed in Table 3-99 in the ‘Affected Environment’ Section. The species being considered are invasive non-native plants that possess one or more of the characteristics of an invasive weed and are undesirable on Inyo National Forest lands. Based on Executive Order 13112, issued in 1999, a species is considered invasive if it: a) is non- native to the ecosystem under consideration, and b) its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (USDA Forest Service, 2004b). This analysis addresses invasive plant species from the California and Nevada state agriculture department lists of noxious weeds (CDFA, NDA), and the California Invasive Plant Council list of invasive plants (CalIPC). Known locations of weeds were identified using existing Forest records, including the Forest GIS layer of weed occurrences, and the Forest Weed EA. In addition, field reconnaissance surveys were conducted over the past 4 years on over 1,000 miles of unauthorized routes. The surveys were focused on routes that were within or adjacent to areas with potential habitat for sensitive plant species or fens; weed inventories were completed in conjunction with the rare plant surveys. All of the weed species identified on the Forest are of concern with regard to their potential to spread and threaten native ecosystems; however, the Forest has prioritized the currently known weed infestations for treatment in the Weed EA, based on the aggressiveness of the weed species, the degree of regional concern, cooperative efforts within the local Weed Management Area, and the feasibility of control. Species that are rated ‘A’ or ‘B’ by CDFA or NDA, or CalIPC species rated as high priority in the Weed EA, are rated as high priority species for the purposes of this analysis. The potential spread of these species would constitute a moderate or high risk with regard to the requirements of FSM 2081.03. Treatment of high priority species adjacent to designated routes is required, and is included in the route-specific description of alternatives in this EIS. While some of the species (cheatgrass, red brome, others) are not identified as high priority for control efforts, it remains a Forest goal to prevent further spread of these species via management activities, such as addition of roads and trails to the NFTS. Control treatments are prescribed for some of these occurrences where such activities are worthwhile, such as small isolated occurrences with no other occurrences in the area, but these are a

Noxious Weeds – 300 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 lower priority. Control of all known infestations of these “lower priority” species is not currently feasible, and they are likely to persist throughout the life of this project.

Assumptions Assumptions specific to noxious weed assessment: 1. This project is a ground-disturbing activity requiring a weed risk assessment. This analysis constitutes the risk assessment. 2. Without specific prevention and/or control measures, existing noxious weed infestations will likely spread and the rate of spread will be increased by vehicular activity. Infestations located along routes with motorized use may spread further along the route. Motorized vehicles may bring weed seeds and propagules from outside the Inyo NF. 3. When completing this risk assessment, the following categories were assigned to individual routes to compare the effects of noxious weed spread or introduction from this project: high, medium, or low. These categories were assigned based on the following factors: • The risk of spread or introduction on a particular route was considered high if the species is rated high priority (see “Invasive species considered”, above), the infestation is on a route that receives high use (more than 500 vehicle trips per week), or route surveys are lacking or incomplete. Low, medium, and high use levels are defined in the Programmatic Agreement for Heritage Resources for this project. Use levels are identified for each unauthorized route in the alternative descriptions. Assuming a high risk of spread for unsurveyed routes likely overestimates the number of routes that are truly high risk, as at least some of those routes may not have weed occurrences. The number of high risk routes is calculated separately for routes known to be high risk due to existing occurrences and routes that are high risk due to a lack of survey data. • The risk of spread or introduction was classified as medium if weed infestations occurred on a route with low or medium use, and the species is not listed as high priority (this includes species with lower ratings on CalIPC and state lists, or species that are already fairly well distributed). The medium classification for an individual route does not equate with an overall moderate rating in a risk assessment, as it includes many low priority species that would typically not be mitigated in a risk assessment for other projects. Rather, the medium risk rating in this analysis is used to display the magnitude of effects from these lower priority species, and to compare these effects across the alternatives. • The risk of introduction or spread from this project was considered low if existing inventories demonstrated that weed populations are not present along the route, or infestations are present, but the route is not proposed for designation. 4. In general, attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. However, there are several areas (referred to as off- road travel concern areas

Noxious Weeds – 301

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

or ORTCAs; see Chapter 3 introduction for definition) with documented histories of repeated cross country travel due to terrain and lack of natural barriers.

Data Sources The data sources listed below were used to assess the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on noxious weeds. The dates of the various data sources are provided in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Section of this document where the references are specifically cited. 1. Route inventories collected in Step 1 of Travel Management and associated tabular data. 2. Route specific weed data, including results of route-specific surveys for invasive species. 3. GIS layers and associated tabular data sets of the following data: routes, surveys, invasive species. 4. Forest invasive plant files. 5. Scientific literature.

Noxious Weeds Indicators and Methodology by Action 1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Short-term effects include immediate effects from changes in Travel Management that will be evident within the first year of implementation. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative. These timeframes will apply for each action throughout the alternatives. Spatial boundary: Inyo National Forest, excluding wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are already closed to cross-country or any other motorized vehicle travel. The remaining areas of the Forest, i.e., all the Inyo NF lands within the analysis area, could potentially be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle travel although it is understood that some areas are less vulnerable to unauthorized vehicle incursions due to terrain and vegetation. Indicator(s): (1) Number of weed occurrences within the analysis area susceptible to spread by cross-country travel. (2) Number of high rated weed occurrences within the analysis area susceptible to spread by cross-country travel. • These indicators address the potential for additional weed spread from existing propagule sources being transported by motorized vehicles traveling cross-country, and will serve to quantitatively compare the risk of each alternative. Methodology: GIS analysis of known weed occurrences on Forest lands outside of Wilderness Areas.

Noxious Weeds – 302 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

2. Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized roads, trails, and/or areas) to the NFTS. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forest lands within 100 feet of unauthorized routes, and all area within off-road travel concern areas (ORTCAs). The distance where the effects of vehicle travel may occur is estimated to be approximately 100 feet from existing routes. This includes effects that could potentially promote invasive species and/or affect habitat, such as erosion, sedimentation, dust, etc. In addition, weed seeds or other propagules can be transported up to 100 feet away from the immediate road area by wind, gravity, water, etc. Weed occurrences further than 100 feet from designated routes are not likely to be spread by vehicles, nor will suitable weed habitat be created further than 100 feet from designated routes; these areas are therefore excluded from the spatial boundary for the analysis of effects of adding facilities. Indicator(s): (1) Number of weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes open for motorized vehicle use, and within ORTCAs. (2) Number of high rated weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes open for motorized vehicle use, and within ORTCAs. (3) Number of routes open for motorized vehicle use rated high, medium, and low risk for weed spread. • Indicators 1 and 2 address the potential for additional weed spread from existing propagule sources. The greater the number of existing occurrences adjacent to routes open for travel, particularly routes rated as high risk (see assumptions, above), the greater the risk of weed infestations spreading further throughout the Forest. • Indicator 3 addresses the potential for the continued spread of existing weed populations and establishment of new occurrences of existing species, as well as the potential for introductions of new invasive species. The more routes that are open, the higher the risk of new introductions. The more high and medium risk routes that are open, the greater the risk of weed infestations spreading further throughout the Forest. Methodology: GIS analysis of weed occurrences and unauthorized routes proposed for addition, buffered by appropriate distances.

3. Direct/Indirect effects of changing vehicle class and season of use on the NFTS. It is assumed that one vehicle is as likely as another to pick up weed propagules and spread them to other localities when traveling on existing roads and trails; therefore, there are no differences in effects on invasive species due to changes in vehicle class on the existing NFTS. There are no other changes proposed to the existing NFTS under any of the alternatives that may affect noxious weeds; therefore, this action will not be discussed further in this analysis.

Noxious Weeds – 303

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

4. Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term time frame. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forestwide. The primary area of concern with regard to the introduction of new species or the spread of existing weeds is the Forest, as addressed by existing management direction. All of the weed species considered in this analysis occur elsewhere beyond the Forest; however, if the entire range of each species (excluding their natural ranges) were included, it would dwarf the effects at the Forest scale, as some areas are much more heavily infested than the Forest. The Forest goal is to remain as weed free as possible, regardless of the level of infestation on surrounding lands and in other regions. Indicator(s): (1) Number of weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes open for motorized vehicle use, and within ORTCAs. (1) Number of high rated weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes open for motorized vehicle use, and within ORTCAs. (3) Number of routes open for motorized vehicle use rated high, medium, and low. • The rationale for these indicators is the same as discussed above, under the indicators for direct and indirect effects. For cumulative effects, these figures will include existing system roads, roads under other jurisdictions, and the Poleta Open Area. Cumulative effects will be assessed by comparing the combined effects of the existing system roads and routes designated under each alternative. Methodology: GIS analysis of weed occurrences, existing system roads, and unauthorized routes proposed for addition, buffered by appropriate distances.

3.9.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects Common to All Alternatives As stated in the Affected Environment Section, invasive non-native plants have taken over or severely impaired millions of acres of western Federal lands. Weeds are a threat to the biodiversity and productivity of the public lands administered by the Inyo National Forest. In heavily infested areas, weeds directly compete with native plants and can cause their local displacement. In addition, weeds can have a number of indirect effects. Potential impacts include alteration of disturbance regimes (including wildfire), loss of biodiversity, changes in the food base for wildlife species, soil erosion and loss of soil carbon storage, changes in soil moisture patterns, decreases in range or forest productivity, and altered recreational or aesthetic values (Mack et al., 2000; Di Antonio et al., 2004, Sheley & Petroff, 1999; Belcher & Wilson, 1989). Weeds may also hybridize with native species altering native plant genetics. When native plants are replaced by weeds, the entire ecosystem can be impacted, including microbial flora and fauna and insect pollinators, all of which contribute to normal ecosystem function. Motor vehicle use is known to enhance weed introduction and establishment in a number of ways, including transportation of weed propagules (seeds, root fragments, shoot fragments) as well as alteration of soil conditions and other habitat factors. Motor vehicles can carry weed seed and plant parts from place-to-place on their tires, and/or on the vehicle body, providing a continuous source of

Noxious Weeds – 304 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 introduction (Sheley and Petroff, 1999; Von der Lippe & Kowarik, 2007; Schmidt, 1989). A study in Kakadu National Park in Australia found that weed seed was transported into the park on tourist vehicles and was more likely to be transported by four-wheel-drive vehicles that had been driven cross-country (Lonsdale and Lane, 1994). In addition to seed, vegetative propagules such as plant root fragments, stolons (runners), and stem fragments can spread weed infestations. Plant parts moved about during road maintenance can spread weed infestations nearly as effectively as seed (Ferguson et al., 2003). Road corridors can be prolific sources of weed seeds that may be carried to other locations, or that may colonize adjacent vulnerable habitats (Tyser and Worley, 1992; Frenkel, 1970). Vehicles and construction and maintenance operations transport exotic plant seeds into uninfested areas, and provide safe sites for seed germination and seedling establishment (Schmidt, 1989; Greenberg et al., 1997; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Jensen (1995) reports that road maintenance activities may enhance germination of weed seeds by increasing the exposure of weed seeds to sunlight. Clearing of vegetation and soils during construction, addition of road-fill (imported soil or other materials), and grading of native surface roads create areas of bare and deeper soil that allow exotic seeds to become established. Compaction by vehicles contributes to roadside invasions by altering soil moisture patterns, reducing native plant vigor and creating areas of competition-free space that are open to invasion (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Ouren et al., 2007; Wilshire et al., 1978). In addition, road maintenance activities mix soil layers, increasing soil microbial activity. Weeds exploit these newly available nutrients efficiently. Parendes and Jones (2000) found that the presence of exotic plant species was highly correlated with sunlit soil and frequent, severe disturbances, such as those resulting from road traffic and road maintenance activities. In addition, these disturbed areas create edges within the various plant communities where they are located (Pauchard and Alaback, 2006). Edges are recognized as potential starting points for invasions of weeds into the less disturbed areas of the plant community (Gucinski et al., 2001). The number of non-native species has been shown to significantly increase with increasing road density (Dark, 2004). A review of literature also shows that native plant cover and species diversity increase with increasing distance from routes, while the presence of exotic species declines with increased distance from roads across many different parts of the world, including California (Gelbard and Harrison, 2003; Tyser & Worley, 1992; Pauchard & Alaback, 2006). Frenkel (1970) reported this effect was more pronounced in closed, e.g. forested, plant communities than in open communities. That is, in closed plant communities, the proportion of exotic species tended to decrease more strongly in relation to distance from the road than in more open plant communities. This could be related to the amount of naturally occurring bare ground and subsequent susceptibility of open plant communities to invasion by exotics. Effects from invasive species will continue to occur under all alternatives. Alternatives with fewer routes open for public wheeled motorized vehicle use, especially those that exclude routes that are currently weed infested, provide a reduced risk for vectoring of seeds by motorized vehicles, a reduction in habitats susceptible to weed invasion, and a reduced opportunity for the spread of weeds to uninfested areas of the forest.

Noxious Weeds – 305

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Effects of Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: The number of high rated (62) and other (497) weed occurrences that could potentially be affected by cross-country motorized vehicle travel under this alternative is the same as displayed in the Affected Environment discussion (Table 3-99). The entire analysis area could potentially be affected by cross-country travel, though some areas are more susceptible than others. Under this alternative, all existing weed occurrences within the analysis area may be susceptible to being spread further both within and beyond the analysis area. In addition, soil disturbance from motorized vehicles could become more widespread throughout the area in places where cross-country travel occurs, enhancing conditions for the establishment of new weed occurrences. Continued weed spread and the introduction of new invasive species is most likely in those areas adjacent to or near existing unauthorized routes, as they will all continue to receive use, and in areas that are most susceptible to cross-country travel, e.g., those areas with sparse and/or low growing vegetation, or more gentle topography. The ORTCAs in particular would continue to be susceptible to cross-country travel. Twenty of the 62 high priority weed occurrences are within 100 feet of unauthorized routes, and 468 of the 497 lower priority occurrences are within 100 feet of unauthorized routes. There are no additional weed occurrences within ORTCAs that are beyond 100 feet from an unauthorized route. While all of the unauthorized routes would continue to receive use, none of them are proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative.

Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: There will be no facilities added under the No Action alternative. Existing unauthorized routes will continue to receive use under this alternative; resulting effects are addressed by the management indicators above in the “Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel” Section. However, the following figures regarding unauthorized routes in this alternative are presented for the purpose of comparison to other alternatives. There are 20 high priority and 468 lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes available for motorized use under this alternative. Assuming that all unauthorized routes will continue to receive use under this alternative, the table below presents the number of routes that are high, medium, and low risk based on the criteria presented in the Effects Analysis Methodology. The total number of high risk routes based on survey status is likely overstated, as many of the unsurveyed routes are in areas of the Forest with low weed density, and may indeed be low rather than high risk.

Table 3-100: Risk Ratings, Number of Unauthorized Routes within 100 feet, Alternative 1 Number of Unauthorized Routes Present High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk based on known occurrences and 43 943 2,911 route use levels on surveyed routes Risk based on survey status: 1,552 - - unsurveyed = high Total, based on all routes 1,595 943 2,911

Noxious Weeds – 306 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

There is no mitigation recommended under the No Action alternative, so the only weed control that would occur would be completed under other program objectives, and not according to any timeline associated with Travel Management. As a result, over the long-term, existing weed infestations in the analysis area are more likely to continue to spread via motorized vehicle use, and new weeds are more likely to be introduced to the area under this alternative, as compared to any of the action alternatives. In the short-term, the effects of this alternative are similar to the condition described in the Affected Environment Section of this document. With all routes remaining open under this alternative, vehicle access to survey for and/or treat weeds would not change from the current situation.

Effects of Alternative 2 Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: Compared to the No Action alternative, the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel under this alternative would result in a reduced incidence of weed introductions and a reduced risk of the spread of weed propagules from existing weed occurrences in areas that are not within 100 feet of routes available for public use. Occurrences that are not within 100 feet of routes available for use would no longer be encouraged by motorized vehicle travel through the transport of weed propagules and corresponding expansion of populations, and creation of suitable weed habitat. This would result in an equivalent reduction in the potential impact to native ecosystems over the long-term compared to the No Action alternative. Short-term effects include an immediate reduced risk of introducing new and/or spreading existing weed occurrences. Under this and the other action alternatives, there would be no weed occurrences in the analysis area that are susceptible to spread by cross-country motorized vehicle travel, with the exception of a single lower priority occurrence in the Poleta Open Area, which will remain open for use under this alternative, as per existing direction. There are no documented weed occurrences within ORTCAs that are not within 100 feet of unauthorized routes. Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: There are six high priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes that would be added to the NFTS under this alternative, and 316 lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of those routes. The table below shows the number of routes, by risk rating (high, medium, low), that would be added to the NFTS under this alternative. One of the medium risk routes proposed for designation in this alternative receives heavy use; all others receive low or medium use. The weed species on this route (cheatgrass) is common in the surrounding area, and a paved highway with heavier use runs parallel to this route less than 150 feet away. Due to these factors, this route will be considered medium rather than high risk.

Table 3-101: Risk Ratings, Number of Designated Routes within 100 feet, Alternative 2 Number of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Designation High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk based on known occurrences and 11 489 1,523 route use levels on surveyed routes Risk based on survey status 702 - - (unsurveyed = high) Total (based on all routes) 713 489 1,523

Noxious Weeds – 307

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In the short-term, routes rated high risk with known weed infestations and added to the NFTS in this alternative pose the greatest threat from the continued spread of the most invasive species; however, known occurrences on all of these routes have mitigation (weed treatment) identified as part of this proposal. Proposed weed treatments for this alternative are listed by route in the ‘Effects of Mitigation Measures’ Section of this analysis. Designation of routes is not contingent upon completion of mitigation prior to designating a route; however, control measures will be implemented on high risk routes within 5 years of designating routes. Mitigation in this case refers to the removal of the occurrence via the most effective means, as per the 2007 Weed EA. This may include hand- pulling and/or the use of herbicides. Over the long-term, the risk of continued spread of the current high priority infestations would be eliminated, or at least reduced significantly if attempts to completely eliminate the populations are unsuccessful. Mitigation measures are also identified for selected lower priority infestations; however, they are not required as part of this decision, and no implementation timeframe is identified, so there is a lower likelihood that they would be successfully implemented in a timely manner. Many of the medium and low priority infestations have no mitigation proposed, particularly those occurrences that are in areas where the species is already somewhat well-distributed, with other propagule sources nearby Justin addition to the route. Routes with weed infestations and no mitigation would continue to be a contributing factor in the spread of existing weeds, and all designated routes (929 miles in this alternative) will provide an avenue for the introduction of new invasive species, and the dispersal of any newly established infestations along those routes. All unauthorized routes proposed for designation will have the following mitigation applied in all action alternatives: Clean all road maintenance equipment prior to beginning and after completing ground disturbing activities, e.g., road grading, in a new area. Ensure equipment is free of mud and plant parts by completing a thorough visual inspection of tires, tracks, and underbody. Forest botany staff will work with the engineering department to determine the most effective way to implement this mitigation. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce the risk of introduction of new invasive species and the translocation of species between separate areas of the Forest by road maintenance activities. The closure of specific unauthorized routes under this alternative would change access to nine high priority infestations. Access to treat these infestations would not be significantly affected because designated NFTS routes will provide vehicle access to within approximately ¼ mile or less of each infestation. The Forest will continue to conduct surveys and complete weed treatments adjacent to as well as several miles from roads.

Effects of Alternative 3 Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on the establishment and spread of weed infestations are the same as discussed above for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: There are 11 high priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes that would be added to the NFTS in this alternative, and 360 lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of those routes.

Noxious Weeds – 308 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below shows the number of routes, by risk rating (high, medium, low), that would be designated under this alternative. There is only one route proposed for addition to the NFTS in this alternative that receives heavy use. This is the same heavily used route discussed in Alternative 2, and is considered to be at medium rather than high risk of weed spread, as in Alternative 2.

Table 3-102: Risk Ratings, Number of Designated Routes within 100 feet, Alternative 3 Number of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Designation High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk based on known occurrences and 18 578 1,784 route use levels on surveyed routes Risk based on survey status 859 - - (unsurveyed = high) Total (based on all routes) 877 578 1,784

As in the Proposed Action, routes rated high with known weed infestations pose the greatest threat from the continued spread of the most invasive species in the short-term; however, all occurrences on these routes have mitigation (weed treatment) identified as part of this proposal. Proposed weed treatments for this alternative are listed by route in the ‘Effects of Mitigation Measures’ Section of this analysis. Refer to the discussion in Alternative 2 for more detail on the implementation of weed mitigation measures. As in Alternative 2, over the long-term, the risk of continued spread of the current high priority infestations would be eliminated, or at least reduced significantly if attempts to completely eliminate the populations are unsuccessful. Again, as in the Proposed Action, control efforts would be aimed at selected occurrences along medium risk designated routes, but there would be no planned timeframe for these, and a lower likelihood that they would be successfully implemented in a timely manner. Many of the medium and low priority infestations have no mitigation proposed. Routes with weed infestations and no mitigation would continue to be a contributing factor in the spread of existing weeds, and all designated routes (1,171 miles in this alternative) will provide an avenue for the introduction of new invasive species, and the dispersal of any newly established infestations along those routes. Alternative 3 has the highest potential for the introduction of new weed species and the spread of existing infestations to uninfested areas of the Forest of all the action alternatives. This is due to: • The number of routes proposed for addition to the NFTS and their susceptibility to the introduction of new infestations, and • The correspondingly high number of weed infestations adjacent to new NFTS routes and therefore susceptible to further spread.

The closure of specific unauthorized routes under this alternative would change access to seven high priority infestations. Access to treat these infestations would not be significantly affected because designated NFTS routes will provide vehicle access to within approximately ¼ mile or less

Noxious Weeds – 309

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

of each infestation. The Forest will continue to conduct surveys and complete weed treatments adjacent to as well as several miles from roads.

Effects of Alternative 4 Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel on the establishment and spread of weed infestations is the same across most of the analysis area as discussed above for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. The additional prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel in the Poleta Open Area, as proposed in this alternative, would prevent the spread by vehicles of one weed occurrence in Poleta. This occurrence is not adjacent to any designated routes, and so will be removed from the effects of vehicle travel if cross-country travel is prohibited in Poleta. Closing Poleta to cross-country travel would also protect the entire area (approximately 1,100 acres) from potential introduction and subsequent spread of invasives by cross-country motor vehicle travel.

Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: There are 3 high priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes that would be added to the NFTS in this alternative, and 292 lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of those routes. The following table shows the number of routes, by risk rating (high, medium, low), that would be added to the NFTS in this alternative. The same heavily used route discussed in Alternative 2 and 3 is proposed for designation in this alternative, and, as in the previous alternatives, will be considered medium rather than high risk.

Table 3-103: Risk Ratings, Number of Designated Routes within 100 feet, Alternative 4 Number of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Designation High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk based on known occurrences and 5 432 1,114 route use levels on surveyed routes Risk based on survey status 529 - - (unsurveyed = high) Total (based on all routes) 534 432 1,114

Proposed weed treatments for this alternative are listed by route in the ‘Effects of Mitigation Measures’ Section of this analysis. The discussion presented for Alternatives 2 and 3 regarding the prioritization of mitigation and the short and long-term effects of designating routes pertains to this alternative as well; however, one route, 01N196, requires mitigation to be completed prior to designation under this alternative. The 694 miles of route proposed to be designated in this alternative will continue to provide an avenue for the introduction of new invasive species and the dispersal of any newly established infestations along those routes, though to a lesser degree than in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6. The closure of specific unauthorized routes under this alternative would change access to thirteen high priority infestations. Access to treat these infestations would not be significantly affected because designated NFTS routes will provide vehicle access to within approximately ¼ mile or less

Noxious Weeds – 310 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 of each infestation. The Forest will continue to conduct surveys and complete weed treatments adjacent to as well as several miles from roads.

Effects of Alternative 5 Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on the establishment and spread of weed infestations are the same as discussed above for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: None of the existing unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in Alternative 5. As a result, there would be no weed occurrences along any of the existing unauthorized routes that would be subject to further spread by motorized vehicles. At the same time, there could possibly be less progress on controlling selected weed occurrences than under the other action alternatives, as no weed treatments are required under this alternative, though some progress would continue to be made as authorized by the 2007 Weed EA. However, as motorized vehicles would no longer act as vectors for these occurrences, the rate of spread may be less than under any other alternative, and would not be attributable to motorized vehicles. In summary, Alternative 5 would not contribute to the introduction of new infestations by vehicles, or further spread of existing infestations by vehicles, since no unauthorized routes would be designated. Alternative 5 has the highest potential to prevent additional weed introductions and further spread of existing infestations of all of the action alternatives. The closure of all unauthorized routes under this alternative would change access to seventeen high priority infestations. Access to treat these infestations would not be significantly affected. Designated NFTS routes would provide vehicle access to within approximately ¼ mile or less of thirteen of the infestations. Four of the infestations would be within ½ mile of designated NFTS routes. The cost of the treatments may be slightly higher under this alternative, but given the relatively close proximity of routes remaining open, the difference will be negligible. The Forest will continue to conduct surveys and complete treatments adjacent to as well as several miles from roads.

Effects of Alternative 6 Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel: The effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel on the establishment and spread of weed infestations is the same as discussed above for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

Direct/indirect effects of adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS: There are 8 high priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes added to the NFTS in this alternative, and 327 lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of those routes. The table below shows the number of routes, by risk rating (high, medium, low), that would be added to the NFTS in this alternative.

Noxious Weeds – 311

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The same heavily used route discussed in Alternative 2, 3, and 4 is proposed for designation in this alternative, and, as in the previous alternatives, will be considered medium rather than high risk.

Table 3-104: Risk Ratings, Number of Designated Routes within 100 feet, Alternative 6 Number of Unauthorized Routes Proposed for Designation High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk based on known occurrences and 13 510 1,591 route use levels on surveyed routes Risk based on survey status 738 - - (unsurveyed = high) Total (based on all routes) 751 510 1,591

Proposed weed treatments for this alternative are listed by route in the ‘Effects of Mitigation Measures’ Section of this analysis. The discussion presented for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 regarding the prioritization of mitigation and the short and long-term effects of designating routes pertains to this alternative as well. The 1,005 miles of route added to the NFTS in this alternative will continue to provide an avenue for the introduction of new invasive species, and the dispersal of any newly established infestations along those routes. With 1,005 miles of designated routes, and a correspondingly high number of weed occurrences adjacent to those routes and therefore susceptible to further spread, this alternative is second to Alternative 3 among the action alternatives in terms of the potential for the introduction of new weed species and the spread of existing infestations to uninfested areas of the Forest. The closure of specific unauthorized routes under this alternative would change access to eight high priority infestations. Access to treat these infestations would not be significantly affected because designated NFTS routes will provide vehicle access to within approximately ¼ mile or less of each infestation. The Forest will continue to conduct surveys and complete weed treatments adjacent to as well as several miles from roads

Monitoring A monitoring strategy is outlined in Chapter 2 of this EIS, in the Elements Common to All Action Alternatives. Monitoring is not specifically prescribed for weed occurrences under this EIS; however, the monitoring plan included in the forestwide Weed EA will be followed when weed treatments are conducted, as per that EA. Elements of the Weed EA monitoring plan are briefly described in the Affected Environment Section of this EIS. All monitoring that is needed to mitigate unacceptable impacts from this Travel Management decision is already required under the Weed EA, and will be implemented as per that decision. No additional monitoring is needed as part of this Travel Management decision.

Effects of Mitigation Measures High priority weed infestations on routes added to the NFTS are identified for treatment in each action alternative. The conclusions of the effects analysis are based on a 5-year timeframe for implementation of the weed treatments, with the exception of one route in Alternative 4 that requires treatment prior to designation. Mitigations for equipment cleaning are expected to be applied

Noxious Weeds – 312 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 immediately upon implementation of the project decision. No routes are proposed for addition to the NFTS in Alternative 5; therefore no route-specific mitigations are proposed. The greatest concern with the high priority infestations is the ongoing risk of spread by vehicles over the long-term, which will be alleviated over the short-term as treatments are completed. Some risk of spread will still exist over the short-term until treatments are implemented; however, the degree of short-term risk does not warrant closing routes until mitigations are completed, with the exception of the single route where pre-designation mitigation is required. Treatments could potentially take up to 5 years to be considered complete, as repeat treatments may be required. Leaving these routes open until mitigated will also facilitate access to complete the treatments as efficiently as possible. The following table lists the specific routes, with the target species and mitigation, by alternative.

Table 3-105: Route-Specific Mitigations for Treatment of Noxious Weeds, by Alternative Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 6 Route Number Species Mitigations Mitigations Mitigations Mitigations Treat Halogeton Treat Treat Treat 01N196 population glomeratus population population population pre-designation Halogeton Treat Treat Treat 01N198 na* glomeratus population population population Halogeton Treat Treat Treat 07S155 na glomeratus population population population Halogeton Treat 09S122 na na na glomeratus population Halogeton Treat 09S122 na na na glomeratus population Halogeton Treat Treat Treat 09S125 na glomeratus population population population Halogeton Treat Treat Treat 09S125 na glomeratus population population population Treat Treat Treat 12S155 Tamarix ramosissima na population population population Treat Treat Treat 12S157 Tamarix ramosissima na population population population Treat Treat Treat Treat N2321 Spartium junceum population population population population Treat Treat Treat Treat N2322 Spartium junceum population population population population *na - refers to routes that are not proposed for designation in that particular alternative

None of the mitigation measures proposed in the alternatives for protection of other resources are anticipated to have a significant effect on the distribution or abundance of invasive plant species. The mitigations are relatively limited in scope, and standard weed prevention measures (e.g., equipment cleaning) will be applied during the implementation of mitigation measures where appropriate to prevent additional weed introduction or spread.

Noxious Weeds – 313

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives Past actions and events (off-highway vehicle use, livestock use, wildfire, water management, e.g. reservoirs, ditches, hydroelectric facilities, irrigation, etc., timber activities, mining, recreation uses, special uses) have shaped the present landscape with regard to the abundance and distribution of invasive plant species, by creating suitable habitats for the establishment of weeds, and by introducing weed propagules to the Forest. Data describing the initial establishment and subsequent rate of expansion of weed species on the Forest is largely unavailable, though historical records have helped to identify the arrival of most species to the western United States in the late 19th or early 20th century (Bossard, et. al. 2000). Some species were intentionally introduced for ornamental or agricultural purposes, while others “snuck in” hidden in livestock hides, hay bales, ship ballast, or similar places. The rate of spread of a newly introduced species is often quite slow initially, followed by a rapid expansion a few to several years later. There is no quantifiable record of Inyo NF acreage infested by invasive species at different points in time over the past several decades. In order to account for the contribution of past activities into the cumulative effects of the proposed route designation project, this analysis uses the current abundance (559 known occurrences) and distribution (2,500 acres) of invasive species as described in the Affected Environment Section as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. Direct and indirect effects of current and foreseeable future projects are similar in nature to the effects of past projects: soil disturbance from various causes creating favorable germination sites for invasive species, and animals, vehicles, and equipment transporting seeds or other weed propagules to new areas. The main difference between historical activities and present and foreseeable future actions is that present and future actions are designed to minimize ground disturbance, prevent new introductions, and control new or existing project-induced infestations whenever possible. Cleaning equipment prior to implementing ground-disturbing projects and monitoring for post-project invasions are used to reduce negative effects from weeds when implementing new projects. As a result, while new ground-disturbing projects and repeated disturbance from ongoing projects are factors in the continuing expansion of weeds on and off the Forest, the impacts are generally reduced compared to past activities where no mitigative measures were implemented. The nature and extent of the potential effects of current and reasonably foreseeable future projects on Forest lands in the analysis area on the introduction or spread of weeds are listed below. The potential for invasive species to be introduced and/or spread by project-related equipment (e.g., graders, dozers, etc.) is a factor considered when evaluating impacts of all of the projects listed below, and is not repeated separately for each one. 1. Hydroelectric projects – removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance associated with dam maintenance, facility maintenance, pipeline maintenance, and access, creating weed germination sites; water transport of seeds or other propagules from infestations adjacent to ditches, ponds, etc. (14 acres) 2. Mineral and geothermal exploration and development – removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance associated with drilling, excavation, pad construction, access, etc. can create suitable sites for weed establishment; (211 acres) 3. Timber activities and fuel treatments (27,653 acres) – effects are variable based on treatment:

Noxious Weeds – 314 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Prescribed burning – results of burning tend to vary according to vegetation on site prior to burning, i.e., “clean” (non-weed infested) sites most often recover well, with a healthy native vegetation community, while sites with weeds in the pre-burn vegetation community may become more heavily infested post-burn, as many weeds respond favorably to the effects of fire; • Mowing – partial removal of canopy can “release” weed species already present on site, resulting in a more dense infestation; • Thinning – change in vegetation community structure may create opportunities for weed establishment. 4. Wildland fire – effects are similar to those described for prescribed burning, though in general wildland fires burn more intensely and may result in a higher rate of weed infestation, particularly where weeds are already present. In addition, suppression equipment often comes from out of the area for wildland fires, potentially bringing new invasive species to the Forest. (estimated 54,000 acres over the next 20 years) 5. Livestock grazing – transport of weed propagules by livestock to and throughout allotments; trampling of native vegetation and soil disturbance, particularly in heavily used areas, creating favorable germination sites (approx. 738,000 acres) 6. Road and trail development or improvement, and urbanization – removal of native vegetation, and soil disturbance and erosion creating suitable germination sites for weeds (213 acres) 7. Ski area development within existing ski areas – removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance and erosion creating suitable germination sites for weeds; non-native species introduced to site through contaminated straw mulch (17 acres) 8. Road rehabilitation and other watershed restoration projects – improvement of soil and vegetation condition may decrease the likelihood of weeds becoming established (long-term); temporary ground disturbance and equipment associated with projects could introduce weed species and create favorable sites (short-term) (>10 acres; acreage not available for some) 9. Guzzlers – removal and/or crushing of native vegetation may provide competitive advantage for weed species (3 acres) 10. Utility, irrigation, and highway easements - removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance in immediate vicinity of pipelines, ditches, highways, creating suitable weed habitat; changes in vegetation condition within the easement due to utility line/highway/ditch maintenance, potentially creating competitive advantage for invasive species (975 acres) 11. Avalanche control – removal of native vegetation and soil disturbance associated with platforms for “guns” and storage tanks can create suitable weed habitat (no acreage figure available)

A complete list of activities and projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis for weeds is available in Appendix D. The total area occupied by present and future projects listed above on Forest lands is approximately 821,086 acres (acres by project type are listed above). Additional

Noxious Weeds – 315

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

potential vectors for weeds on the Forest include wildlife, streams, and recreationists (hikers, equestrian users, etc.). In addition to using constructed trails (#6, above), these vectors move throughout the Forest, and as such cannot be accurately quantified, and are not included on the list above as discreet projects. The vast majority of acreage with potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is attributed to livestock use. On any given allotment, the impacts of livestock use are diffuse and variable based on the suitability of certain areas and the location of facilities (troughs, fences, etc.) and preferred grazing areas. Weed propagules can be transported by livestock throughout the areas in use. However, those sites that receive the heaviest livestock use are most susceptible to weed propagules taking hold, due to the creation of suitable habitat for weed establishment and persistence. The impacts of livestock use on weed establishment and spread in the project area are highest in preferred areas of the allotments, meaning that allotment acreage alone is not an accurate measure of the intensity and extent of grazing effects on weeds. As a result, acreage will not be used quantitatively to compare the effects of grazing with the effects of designating routes. Not all projects have acres available, so the figures given above can only be considered approximate. These impacts could add cumulatively to the potential impacts associated with implementation of one or more of the alternatives by creating additional acreage susceptible to weed invasion, and introducing additional weed vectors. Total acreages are not available, but there are a few restoration projects on Inyo NF lands, and conservation easements or wildlife areas on adjacent lands, where habitat conditions have or will improve over time. By maintaining healthy native vegetation communities and ecosystem processes, these areas are more resistant to invasion by non-native species. These areas are quite small in comparison to the total area affected by the activities listed above. There are an additional 177,181 acres affected by projects on adjacent off-Forest lands (mining, grazing, resort development, airport expansion, lodging developments, water management, and conservation easements), with similar effects as those noted for the same types of projects on Forest lands. The majority of these (177,017 acres) are livestock allotments on adjacent Bureau of Land Management lands. Livestock grazing is not the only action where a simple quantitative comparison of “acres affected” would be misleading. The effects of all of the activities listed above cannot be adequately compared between the alternatives in a quantitative fashion due to the following limitations: • Effects are highly variable within any given present or future project area, ranging from severe soil disturbance and complete removal of native vegetation to no ground disturbance at all. • Spatial data is not available for many projects, and the overlapping nature of effects from different projects cannot be determined or assessed (e.g., a fuels reduction project may occupy the same acreage on the ground as a livestock allotment, and a transmission line and associated roads may pass through both projects). Cumulative effects of the alternatives can, however, be quantified for those activities contributing the same effects as the alternatives. To do so, this analysis compares the total area affected by routes added to the system under each alternative, with area affected by the Poleta Open Area, system roads, and roads under other jurisdiction, including some that are adjacent to the Forest.

Noxious Weeds – 316 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below lists the number of high priority and medium and low priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of system roads and roads under other jurisdiction (hereafter collectively referred to as system), occurrences within 100 feet of unauthorized routes available for motorized use, and the number of occurrences affected cumulatively under each alternative. These figures include weed occurrences within ORTCAs. Figures for the alternatives alone are derived from the direct/indirect effects discussion. The cumulative effect (total occurrences affected by alternative and system roads combined) is not just the additive numbers from the figures for the system alone and alternative alone, as there is overlap between these routes, and a single weed occurrence may be within 100 feet of both a system route and an unauthorized route.

Table 3-106: High Priority/Lower Priority Weed Occurrences Adjacent to Unauthorized Designated Routes and in ORTCAs Alternative Occurrences within Occurrences within Cumulative Effect 100 feet of 100 feet of Routes Added Total Occurrences Affected System Roads to System by Alternative + System in Alternative 1 27 / 466 20/ 468 39 / 616 2 27 / 466 6 / 316 31 / 559 3 27 / 466 11 / 360 33 / 582 4 27 / 465 3 / 292 29 / 547 5 27 / 466 0 / 0 27 / 466 6 27 / 466 8 / 327 33 / 567

The table below presents the number of high, medium, and low risk routes for the system (including Poleta, with the exception of Alternative 4), each alternative, and the system and alternatives cumulatively. As in the direct and indirect effects discussion, the total number of high risk routes is very likely overstated, as many of the unsurveyed routes may have no weed occurrences. There may be potential for an increase in impacts from noxious weeds (i.e., more high or medium risk routes) along existing system routes in Alternative 5. System routes may experience heavier use once motorized use of all unauthorized routes is prohibited. It would be speculative to predict which existing routes may or may not experience a significant increase in use, so route-specific cumulative effects from changes in traffic volume cannot be meaningfully assessed at this time.

Table 3-107: Number of High, Medium, and Low Risk Routes, Cumulatively, by Alternative Alternative Number of System Roads Number of Routes Added Cumulative Effect at H/M/L Risk to System at H/M/L Risk Total Number of Routes at H/M/L Risk for Alternative + System 1 1126 / 673 / 727 1,595 / 943 / 2,911 2,721 / 1,616 / 3,638 2 1126 / 673 / 727 713 / 489 / 1,523 1,839 / 1,162 / 2,250 3 1126 / 673 / 727 877 / 578 / 1,784 2,003 / 1,251 / 2,511 4 1126 / 673 / 727 534 / 432 / 1,114 1,660 / 1,105 / 1,841 5 1126 / 673 / 727 0 / 0 / 0 1,126 / 673 / 727 6 1126 / 673 / 727 751 / 510 / 1,591 1,877 / 1,183 / 2,318

Noxious Weeds – 317

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following table shows the cumulative effects for high risk routes, based on known high priority occurrences. Unsurveyed routes are not included in order to focus on routes that are known to be high risk. Table 3-108: Number of Known High Risk Routes Cumulatively by Alternative Alternative Number of High Risk Number of High Risk Cumulative Effect System Roads Routes Added to System Number of High Risk Routes in Alternatives Alternative + System 1 38 43 81 2 38 11 49 3 38 18 56 4 38 5 43 5 38 0 38 6 38 13 51

Of the treatments proposed in the Forestwide Weed EA, those weed occurrences, particularly high priority species, that are adjacent to unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS will likely be the highest priority for control over the next 3 years. Treatment of other high priority occurrences, including those adjacent to system roads, will occur as funding is available. As a result, high priority weed occurrences along system roads may continue to exist and be vulnerable to further expansion, at least in the short-term. Though the table above shows a cumulative increase in high risk routes, none of the action alternatives contribute to a cumulative effect for high priority invasive plant species, due to the treatment of all high risk unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS. All known lower priority occurrences along system routes are identified for treatment in the Weed EA as well, but again, are dependent on funding and staffing. The budget for the Forest weed program for the 2009 fiscal year was approximately $25,000. There are currently far more weed occurrences on the Forest, including those adjacent to system roads and unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, than there are resources to treat them. As a result, many of the lower priority occurrences are likely to persist for longer periods of time than high priority occurrences, and will likely continue to spread, at least over the next 3-5 years. This spread is exacerbated by road maintenance and vehicle use along system and other routes. Mitigation to clean road maintenance equipment, as described in the discussion of effects for Alternative 2, will help to prevent introduction of weeds to new areas. There are no established thresholds for invasive species. While many studies have been conducted on the causes of introduction and the effects of invasive species once established, there are no set thresholds that indicate when invasive species infestations will cause native plant communities and processes to begin to unwind, or the point at which the health of the community will be irreversibly affected. The number of high and medium risk routes available for use under each alternative does significantly increase over the number of existing high and medium risk system routes, with the exception of Alternative 5. However, mitigations for the highest risk routes proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 significantly lessen this threat over the long-term, bringing the cumulative effect close to the level of impact of the existing system for high priority species. There would be no cumulative effect from Alternative 5, since no unauthorized routes would be added to the system, and hence, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the alternative.

Noxious Weeds – 318 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

As stated previously, mitigations are applied during the planning and implementation of present and future Forest Service actions to help reduce the introduction or spread of invasive species. Control or at least containment measures are included for existing highly rated species that could be spread by planned activities, such as livestock grazing, fuel treatments, and mineral development. Where feasible, mitigations are also applied to reduce the continued spread of lower priority species. Complete elimination of the lower priority species is generally not feasible because they are already well-established in several places on the Forest. Complete removal of all lower priority species would require a substantial investment of resources. As stated above, current funding is well below the level that would be required for such an undertaking. In summary, the cumulative risk from high priority weed species, which pose the greatest threat to ecosystem health, will not increase significantly from this project compared to the risk from past, present, and foreseeable future projects, primarily due to the application of mitigation measures in all action alternatives. The cumulative effects of the continued spread of lower priority species, which are less aggressive, or already somewhat well established, will increase with the implementation of any of the alternatives except Alternative 5. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would represent a decrease in the negative cumulative effects of invasive plants as compared to Alternative 1, the current condition. The degree of cumulative effect would be greatest in Alternative 1 and least in Alternative 5, with Alternatives 3, 6, 2, and 4 ranging in between, from greatest to least effect.

3.9.5 Summary of Effects For All Alternatives The effects of the alternatives on noxious weeds are summarized in the table below using the measurement indicators outlined in the ‘Effects Analysis Methodology’ Section. The figures used in the table for the number of high risk routes are based on those routes with confirmed high risk infestations, and does not include unsurveyed routes with an assumed high risk of infestation. High risk routes including both confirmed occurrences and unsurveyed routes can be seen in Table 3-107.

Table 3-109: Summary of Effects of the Alternatives by Indicator Measure Comparison of Alternatives for Each Indicator Indicator – Noxious Weeds Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Number of high priority/lower priority weed occurrences 20 / 468 6 / 316 11 / 360 3 / 292 0 / 0 8 / 327 within 100 feet of routes available for public use

Number of high/medium/low 43 / 943 / 11 / 489 / 18 / 578 / 5 / 432 / 13 / 510 / risk routes available for 0 / 0 / 0 2,911 1,523 1,784 1,114 1,591 public use

3.9.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Alternative 1 will result in the continued use of all unauthorized routes as well as some degree of cross-country travel, and includes no mitigation; it therefore carries a high risk of spreading and/or introducing invasive plant species. This alternative is not consistent with Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2081.03), which requires the identification of noxious weed control measures in areas of high risk.

Noxious Weeds – 319

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The Proposed Action and alternatives to that action are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction. The need for recreational access is balanced against the need to prevent the spread or introduction of noxious weeds in each of the action alternatives. As explained in the preamble to the national Travel Management regulations, “an extreme interpretation of minimize would preclude any use at all…such an interpretation would not reflect the full context of E.O. 11644, or other laws and policies related to multiple use of NFS lands.” Feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk from noxious weeds have been included in the action alternatives. All high risk routes that have known high priority weeds within 100 feet will be treated in the early stages of project implementation, as per the SNFPA requirement to mitigate high risk actions. This analysis constitutes the weed risk assessment, as required (FSM 2081.03 and SNFPA 2004b). In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on the spread of invasive species were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in the action alternatives. This determination is based on the following: 1. Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of weeds was used in the development of the alternatives to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. 2. Routes with weed concerns, which could not be mitigated, to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. “Acceptable level” means that high risk activities are mitigated to reduce the level of weed risk to low or none.

The objective was to minimize impacts in the development of trail additions, as demonstrated by the following: 1. The alternatives were developed in an interdisciplinary setting, with the objective of avoiding designations that posed a high level of risk with regard to noxious weeds. 2. Where avoidance could not be achieved because of the need to balance resource impacts with recreational access and adverse effects were anticipated, mitigations were proposed to minimize effects to acceptable levels, as defined above, in #2 under 36 CFR 212.55(a). 3. Routes with weed concerns, which could not be mitigated, to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Noxious Weeds – 320 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Chapter 3: 3.10 Terrestrial Biota

3.10.1 Introduction Management of terrestrial species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal communities, are important components of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands are planned and implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive species. In addition, management activities are designed to maintain or improve habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS) to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in each Forest LRMP. Management decisions related to motorized travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al., 2003; Trombulek and Frissell, 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2000). It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motorized use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to motorized travel on NFS lands must consider effects to wildlife and their habitat.

3.10.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects terrestrial biota includes: Endangered Species Act (ESA) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities are not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project Biological Assessment (BA) (USDA Forest Service, 2009a) which is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized or referenced in this section.

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on national forests. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This

Terrestrial Biota – 321 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

assessment is documented in the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project Biological Evaluation (BE) (USDA Forest Service, 2009b) which is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Management Indicator Species (36 CFR 219) Management indicator species are animal species identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forest MIS Amendment Record of Decision, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the Inyo NF LRMP as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a) directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at the project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor population and/or habitat trends of MIS. This assessment is documented in the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project Management Indicator Species Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009c) which is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following standards and guidelines applicable to motorized Travel Management and terrestrial biota, which will be considered during the analysis process: • Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 70): See Water Resources Section. • California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest sites (Management Standard & Guideline 82). • Fisher and Marten: Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites (Management Standard & Guidelines 87 and 89). • Riparian Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 92): See Water Resources Section.

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (1988) The LRMP contains the following management direction applicable to motorized Travel Management and terrestrial biota: • Riparian Habitat (Ch.4, p.89-91): 1) Protect streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and the plants and animals dependent on these areas. 2) Relocate existing roads, trails, and campsites outside riparian areas where necessary to eliminate or reduce unacceptable deterioration of riparian-dependent resources. 3) Maintain the integrity of desert springs in the White and Inyo Mountains and the South Sierra Eastern Escarpment to conserve plant and wildlife habitat. 4) Recognize the important and distinctive values of

Terrestrial Biota – 322 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

riparian areas when implementing management activities. Give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources when conflicts among land use activities occur. • Threatened or Endangered Species (Ch.4, p.98): Consider threatened and endangered species as below viability until recovery is achieved. Emphasize the protection and improvement of habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife. Manage for the protection and enhancement of all historically and potential threatened or endangered species habitat as necessary to meet recovery levels. • Sensitive Species (Ch.4, p.98): Develop and implement a consistent, systematic, biologically sound strategy to manage sensitive species and their habitats so that federal listing does not occur. • State-Listed or Sensitive Carnivores (Ch.4, p.98): Maintain the integrity of habitats required by these species. Manage known habitats to ensure that breeding and adjacent foraging habitats are maintained. • Mule Deer (Ch.4, p.98-99): 1) Maintain or enhance the integrity of key winter ranges, holding areas, migration routes and fawning areas for mule deer. 2) Recognize the sensitivity of infringement on known key mule deer fawning areas during the critical fawning period from June 15 to July 15. Resolve conflicts in favor of fawning areas. • Bald Eagle (CH.4, p.99): Maintain the integrity of existing wintering areas. Do not establish new winter uses or recreation developments within one-quarter mile of such areas. • Sage-Grouse (Ch.4, p. 101): Recognize the sensitivity of sage-grouse leks during the period from March 1 and April 30. Resolve conflicts in favor or sage-grouse. • Mountain Sheep Habitat, LRMP Prescription #3 (Ch. 4, p. 106) Establish no roads or heliports where they would conflict with mountain sheep habitat. Allow for the dispersed recreation activities appropriate in Primitive and Semi-Primitive ROS classes. Allow no motorized use.

3.10.2.1 Effects Analysis Methodology For terrestrial wildlife, two levels of analysis have been conducted: 1) species-specific analysis for proposed routes, and 2) analysis of each alternative as a whole, across the Inyo NF. Site-specific analysis has been done on individual routes proposed for addition. Generally, this analysis considered the proximity of each route to known locations of special-status species. The detailed analysis, by proposed routes, is presented in the individual species accounts presented later in this section. The analysis of each alternative as a whole has been informed by the site-specific route analysis and other supplemental information. A discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative is provided in a summary form. The effects of each action alternative are described for three discreet actions which are: 1) prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel, 2) addition of unauthorized roads and trails to the national forest transportation system (NFTS or system), and 3) changes to the existing NFTS such as seasons of use on open maintenance level (ML) 2 roads or motorized NFS trails.

Terrestrial Biota – 323

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This assessment consists of four steps: 1) identify wildlife species and groups, 2) identify road- and trail-associated factors for each group, 3) develop and apply assessment processes and GIS models to evaluate the influence of road- and trail-associated factors on each group, and 4) analyze the effects of the alternatives based on the model outputs and analyses.

Step 1: Identify Wildlife Species and Groups for Assessment Existing information and knowledge about the distribution of the terrestrial species on the Inyo NF were utilized to identify terrestrial animal species potentially affected by motorized travel. Species considered in this analysis fall into four categories: Federally listed threatened, endangered and proposed species, Pacific Southwest Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species, management indicator species (MIS) identified in the 2008 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007), and species of local interest identified during the scoping period. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided a list of threatened, endangered and proposed species potentially occurring within the analysis area (USFWS 2007). The list identified one terrestrial animal (Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep) that may be present within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. The Regional Forester’s list of sensitive species (FSM 2672, Region-5 supplement 2600-92-3) identified a total of fifteen terrestrial animal species which may occur within the analysis area. The following table identifies these species and their status.

Table 3-110: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in the Analysis Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis sierrae Endangered Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FS sensitive Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis FS sensitive Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus FS sensitive Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii FS sensitive Western red bat Lasiurus blossevilii FS sensitive California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus FS sensitive Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator FS sensitive American marten Martes americana FS sensitive Panamint alligator lizard Elgaria panamintina FS sensitive Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni FS sensitive Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FS sensitive Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii FS sensitive Great gray owl Strix nebulosa FS sensitive California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis FS sensitive Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus FS sensitive

Seven of these sensitive species do not occur within the 11 focus areas or would not be affected by project implementation. These seven species include the western red bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, California wolverine, Swainson’s hawk, western yellow-billed cuckoo, great gray owl and California spotted owl. These seven species will not be discussed further in this document.

Terrestrial Biota – 324 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service recently released a Record of Decision which amended the Forest Plans of ten Sierran National Forests and established a new list of MIS (USDA Forest Service 2007). The new list of MIS and the habitats they represent is presented in the table below.

Table 3-111: Terrestrial Management Indicator Species Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area Habitat or Ecosystem Management Indicator Species Scientific Name Component Sagebrush Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Riparian Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Early Seral Coniferous Forest Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Late Seral Open Canopy Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus Coniferous Forest Martes americana, Strix Late Seral Closed Canopy American marten, California occidentalis occidentalis, Coniferous Forest spotted owl, northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Snags in Green Forest Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Snags in Burned Forest Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Habitat for two of the MIS identified above does not occur within the planning area or would not be affected by project implementation. These species include blue (sooty) grouse and California spotted owl. In addition, the ecosystem component for black-backed woodpecker, snags in burned forest, is not affected by project implementation. The focus of the MIS ecosystem component of snags in burned forest is to track burned forest and the management activities that affect snags in burned forests, particularly fire salvage and restoration. However, the effects of the Inyo National Forest Travel Management project on snags in general are disclosed below, in the Cavity-Dependent Species Section. Comments received during the scoping period for this project suggested that various individuals were concerned with the status of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) within the analysis area. As this species does not fall into any of the categories identified above, it is analyzed as a “local interest” species. Literature describing the effects of motorized roads and trails upon wildlife have grouped or categorized species in various ways to describe effects (Knight and Gutzwiller, ed. 1995; Gaines et al., 2003; Wisdom et al., 2000). Gaines et al. (2003) categorized species into the following six groups based upon a combination of their biology and interactions with road- and motorized trail associated factors: (1) late-successional forest (interior forest) associated species; (2) wide-ranging carnivores; (3) ungulates; (4) riparian- associated species; (5) cavity dependent species; and (6) waterfowl. Two additional categories are identified for species found on the Inyo NF: (1) sagebrush obligates; and (2) early and mid-successional forest species. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service designated “sensitive species” (TES), Inyo NF MIS and local interest species potentially affected by motorized road or trail use, fall into these categories as shown the table below.

Terrestrial Biota – 325

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-112: Wildlife Groups and Species Represented within Groups Wildlife Group Species Late-successional forest American marten, northern flying squirrel, northern goshawk Wide-ranging carnivores Sierra Nevada red fox Ungulates Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, mule deer Bald eagle, willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, Panamint alligator Riparian-associated species lizard Cavity dependent species Hairy woodpecker, pallid bat Waterfowl None identified Sagebrush obligates Sage-grouse Early and mid-successional forest species Mountain quail

Step 2: Identify Road- and Trail-Associated Risk Factors As described in Gaines et al. (2003), road- and trail-associated risk factors are identified for each species under a three-tiered classification of disturbance. Disturbance type 1, referred to hereafter as site disturbance, includes risk factors such as displacement or avoidance behavior, disturbance at specific sites such as breeding sites, and physiological stress responses. Site disturbance to an individual animal occurs when an animal sees, hears, smells, or otherwise perceives the presence of a human but no contact is made. Site disturbance may or may not alter an animal’s behavior. Disturbance type 2, referred to hereafter as habitat modification, occurs when habitat is modified through creation of a path, presence of food, or removal of vegetation. Risk factors include creation of movement barriers or filters, displacement or avoidance of habitat near roads, habitat loss in quality or quantity, decreased habitat connectivity or increased fragmentation, and pathways or vectors for competitors, predators, or disease which affect survivorship. Disturbance type 3, referred to hereafter as human-caused mortality, includes mortality or take of individual animals. Risk factors include hunting, trapping, collecting, poaching, malicious shooting or chasing, and accidental vehicle collision. Based on a review of literature and local knowledge of selected species on Inyo NF, disturbance factors were used for the assessment of each species group. The following table lists the road and trail associated risk factors associated with each disturbance type.

Terrestrial Biota – 326 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-113: Road- and Trail-Associated Factors with Documented Effects on Habitat or Populations of Wildlife Species Road- and Trail- Effects of the Factors Disturbance Associated Type2 Factors1 Death or injury from a motorized vehicle running over Collisions Disturbance type 3 or hitting an animal. Mortality from hunting or trapping as facilitated by Hunting/trapping Disturbance type 3 road and trail access. Increased illegal take of animals as facilitated by Poaching Disturbance type 3 trails and roads. Increased mortality of animals resulting from Negative human increased contacts with humans, as facilitated by Disturbance type 3 interactions roads and trail access

Human-Caused Mortality Collection of live animals (e.g. falconry) as facilitated Collection Disturbance type 3 by road or trail access. Displacement or Spatial shifts in populations or individual animals Disturbance type 1 Avoidance away from human activities on or near roads or trails. Displacement of individual animals from a specific Disturbance at a location that is being used fro reproduction and Disturbance type 1 specific location rearing of young. Physiological Increase in heart rate or stress hormone production Disturbance type 1 Site Disturbance Disturbance Site response when near a road or trail. Loss and resulting fragmentation of habitat due to the Habitat loss and establishment or use of roads or trails and associated Disturbance type 2 fragmentation human activities. Changes to habitat microclimates associated with the Edge effects Disturbance type 2 edge induced by roads or trails. Reduction in density of large snags and downed logs Snag or down log owing to their removal near roads to remove hazards Disturbance type 2 reduction and as fuelwood. Route for Providing access or greater hunting success for competitors and competitors or predators that would not have existed Disturbance type 2

Habitat Modification Modification Habitat predators otherwise. Interference with dispersal or other movements due Movement barrier to either the road itself or by human activities on or Disturbance type 2 near roads or trails. 1 Based in part on Wisdom et al. 2000 In: Gaines et al. 2003 2 Disturbance type 1 occurs when an animal sees, hears, smells, or otherwise perceives the presence of a human but no contact is made and it may or may not alter its behavior. Disturbance type 2 is when habitat is changed in some way. Disturbance type 3 involves human actions in which there is direct and damaging contact with the animal.

Step 3: Processes and Models The assessment process to analyze the effects of motorized travel routes on the Inyo NF consisted of four primary steps: 1) habitat models were derived for each species analyzed based on California Wildlife Habitat Relationships, existing vegetation information and past field surveys and data validation, 2) metrics describing motorized travel routes in and adjacent to specific wildlife habitats were calculated, 3) direct, indirect and cumulative effects of travel routes on species or species groups were assessed based on a similar process completed by Gaines et al. (2003), and 4) the relative environmental risk of motorized travel routes to terrestrial habitats was determined.

Terrestrial Biota – 327

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Assumptions Specific to the Terrestrial Biota Analysis: 1. All vehicle types or classes result in the same amount of disturbance effect to wildlife. 2. The location of an unauthorized route or motorized NFTS route is equal to disturbance effects from that route. All routes (i.e., roads and motorized trails) experiencing public motorized use are assumed to contribute the same level of disturbance unless local data or knowledge indicated otherwise. 3. The road-effect zone (zone of influence) of any given route is equal distance on either side from center. 4. Unauthorized routes which are added to the NFTS for limited administrative use and are closed to general motorized access are assumed to have no measurable adverse effect to terrestrial biota because (1) use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns, and/or (2) these roads currently receive little to no use by the public. 5. Habitat is already impacted in the short-term due to current and past use of existing unauthorized routes and cross-country travel. In the long-term, habitat will remain the same when associated with added routes. However, habitat will increase in quantity and/or quality from passive restoration in areas where cross-country travel is prohibited and unauthorized routes are not added to the NFTS or open roads and areas are removed and/or administratively closed to public access. 6. Harvest, legal or illegal, of individuals is likely to be higher with greater opportunity for human-animal encounters in areas with higher road density, increased access into remote areas, or concentrated recreational use (USDA Forest Service, 2001).

Data Sources 1. Geographic Information System (GIS) layers containing the following information: route location, wildlife habitats and designated or important wildlife areas (e.g. Protected Activity Centers (PACs), bald eagle nests, sage grouse leks, mule deer concentration areas). 2. Site-specific surveys/assessments of any localized sensitive wildlife habitats associated with routes proposed to be added to the NFTS. 3. Route inventories collected during Step 1 of the Travel Management process and associated tabular data sets. 4. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship habitat models for specific species derived from the 2001 forest vegetation data. 5. Published literature. 6. Local studies or monitoring results in the wildlife program files.

Step 4: Effects Analysis The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts were measured for each alternative as they pertain to terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat. The timeframes, spatial boundaries, and measurement indicators used in the analysis of the alternatives are described below.

Terrestrial Biota – 328 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

1. Direct/indirect effects of the prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle travel. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Inyo National Forest, excluding designated wilderness (11 focus areas). Indicator(s): Acres of terrestrial biota habitat without a regulatory prohibition on cross- country travel. Methodology: GIS analysis of existing unauthorized routes in relation to habitat. Rationale: Studies have documented that motorized travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). This indicator includes any area where cross-country motorized travel would not be permanently prohibited by regulation and addresses the potential for habitat modification and/or disturbance of individual animals.

2. Direct/indirect effects of adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS, including identifying seasons of use and vehicle class. Short-term timeframe: 1 year. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forest. Indicator(s): (1) Miles of motorized routes available for public use within terrestrial biota habitat; (2) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., protected activity centers (PACs), nest sites, leks) within ¼ mile of an added route or area; (3) The proportion of a species (or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes, (4) Acres of habitat encumbered by routes. Methodology: GIS analysis of added routes in relation to habitat and important/sensitive terrestrial biota areas. For the No Action alternative, the term “routes available for public motorized use” includes all existing unauthorized routes, even though those routes will not be added to the NFTS. For the action alternatives, the term includes only those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in that alternative. Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). Rationale for the use of each indicator is provided below: • Indicator 1. Miles of routes within terrestrial biota habitat. Use of motorized routes has the potential to affect wildlife in a number of ways. Effects to wildlife may range from behavioral changes, increased stress or changes in reproductive success, as described previously. The number of miles of motorized routes is used to measure relative disturbance potential to terrestrial wildlife species on the Inyo NF.

Terrestrial Biota – 329

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Indicator 2. Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, nests, leks) within ¼-mile of an added route or area. The number of sensitive sites within a particular distance from a motorized travel route can be used to determine the potential disturbance to wildlife species. Species-specific disturbance potential of motorized routes is compared by alternative for northern goshawk, bald eagle, sage grouse and willow flycatcher. • Indicator 3. The proportion of a species’ (or species group’s) habitat that lies within a zone of influence of motorized routes. Motorized routes have a “zone of influence” within which habitat effectiveness or suitability is reduced and wildlife population densities are lower (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Gaines, et al., 2003). The effects to wildlife extend beyond the immediate road prism itself, into what can be referred to as a “zone of influence” adjacent to motorized roads and trails. The degree of effect of the various factors associated with roads and trails can be evaluated more effectively when considering the proportion of a given species habitat that occurs within this “zone of influence” of motorized routes. Wildlife species behaviors and habitats are modified within various distances from motorized routes. The “zone of influence” distances for individual species that are used in the analysis of effects is based upon the best available science in the literature. Because there is limited data and studies for many species, assumptions and generalizations were made for some species where no data were available. • Indicator 4. Acres of habitat encumbered by motorized routes. In certain habitat types, the development and use of a route has removed vegetation and the route prism no longer provides habitat. This area is considered unsuitable or “encumbered” by the route. This indicator is applied primarily for species which utilize habitat types dominated by close growing, continuous vegetation such as early seral coniferous forest, shrub communities, riparian areas, and meadows.

3. Changes to the existing NFTS. This action is not analyzed in the Terrestrial Biota Section of this document. The proposed changes to the NFTS described in Chapter 2 will not be considered further in this analysis. This is because: • Proposed limited changes to the existing NFTS road network include managing existing system roads as motorized trails. This would likely result in a change in type of vehicle utilizing these routes. An assumption in this analysis is that all vehicle types or classes result in the same amount of disturbance effect to wildlife (see “Assumptions specific to the terrestrial biota analysis” above). Therefore, conversion of system routes to motorized trails would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wildlife species or their habitat. • Proposals to close existing NFTS roads to public travel for administrative purposes would not result in a measurable change to wildlife because use by administrative vehicles would result in the same or less effect than current use patterns. These roads

Terrestrial Biota – 330 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

are currently part of the NFTS and their effects on wildlife have been considered in past management decisions

4. Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term time frame. Long-term timeframe: 20 years. Spatial boundary: Forest. The approximately 1,960,000 acres of NFS land within the Inyo National Forest boundary represents a reasonable area within which to evaluate and describe cumulative effects associated with the project, since the area is sufficiently large to encompass wildlife habitats, movement corridors and complete home ranges of even the widest ranging species. Indicator(s): (1) Miles of motorized routes; (2) Number of sensitive sites for TES species (e.g., PACs, nest sites, leks) within ¼ mile of an added route or area; (3) The proportion of a species’ (or species group’s) habitat that is affected by motorized routes. Methodology: GIS analysis of past/current, added, and future routes in relation to habitat and important/sensitive terrestrial areas and in context of other past/current and future management actions affecting terrestrial habitat. Rationale: Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect terrestrial species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al., 2003; Trombulek and Frissell, 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2000).

3.10.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The following section begins with a general discussion of the affected environment and the types of impacts identified in available literature as being associated with motor vehicle use of roads. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects that are common to all alternatives are included in this discussion. More specific information about existing conditions and impacts are then addressed for each of the animal species that make up the eight species groups identified in Step 1 (see Table 3- 112).

3.10.3.1 Affected Environment – General The Inyo National Forest is located at the junction of three floristic provinces (Sierra Nevada, Great Basin and Northern Mojave Desert). The forest contains a wide variety of vegetation types and covers a wide range of topography and micro-climates. Due to this diversity of vegetation types, the Inyo National Forest provides habitat for approximately 400 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles (LRMP, 1988). There is currently one terrestrial wildlife species listed as Endangered under the ESA and 14 species listed as Forest Service Sensitive (Table 3-110). In addition, there are nine Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Inyo National Forest (Table 3-111). These species and their habitats are described in detail in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service, 2008).

Terrestrial Biota – 331

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences – General

Direct and Indirect Effects Public wheeled motor vehicle use of roads and trails affects wildlife, directly and indirectly, in a wide variety of ways that can generally be placed into three categories: effects resulting from human- caused mortality, effects resulting from changes in behavior (site disturbance), and effects resulting from habitat modification. Relying on a review of available literature, Gaines et al. (2003) summarized road- and motorized trail-associated factors and their effects upon groups of wildlife species as shown in Table 3-113. The following is a general discussion of these road- and motorized trail-associated factors and their effects to wildlife.

Human-caused Mortality (collisions, hunting, trapping, poaching, negative human interactions, and collection): Death or injury from a vehicle hitting or running over an animal is well documented and affects the vast majority of terrestrial species, though to varying degrees (Trombulak and Frissell ,2000). In general, road mortality increases with traffic volume and speed, and road kill on native surface forest roads is generally not significant for large mammals (USDA Forest Service, 1998). Small mammals and herptiles are more vulnerable, however, since individuals are inconspicuous and slow-moving. Amphibians may be especially vulnerable to road mortality because their life histories often involve migration between wetland and upland habitats (Trombulak and Frissel, 2000; USDA Forest Service, 1998). Raptors may also be vulnerable to collisions on forest roads due to their foraging behaviors (Loos and Kerlinger, 1993), but the most substantial documented mortality has been along highways. Road kill evidence from the Inyo NF in recent years has documented mortality of sensitive species, such as American marten. Roads and motorized trails facilitate poaching or illegal shooting and contribute to losses from incidental trapping. These factors can be substantial for species with low population numbers for which even low rates of additive mortality may affect population stability. In the southern Sierra Nevada fisher population, for example, 2 of 14 losses were suspected of being the result of poaching, and an additional two losses resulted from vehicle collisions (USFWS, 2004). The likelihood for negative human interactions with wildlife (including encounters leading to issuance of depredation permits for bears or mountain lions) also increases as greater human access is provided by roads and motorized trails (Wisdom et al., 2000).

Changes in Behavior or Site Disturbance (displacement or avoidance, impacts on breeding behavior, and physiological impacts): Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed literature on road- and trail- associated effects upon wildlife and found that alteration of use of habitats in response to roads or road networks was the most common interaction reported. Fifty to 60 percent of the 29 focal species reviewed were impacted in this manner (Gaines et al., 2003). Studies have documented shifts in an animal’s home range area, shifts in foraging patterns, and disturbance of nesting or breeding behaviors resulting from motorized road or trail use (Hutto, 1995; Foppen and Reijnen, 1994; Johnson et al., 2000; Rost and Bailey, 1979). Many species avoid areas in proximity to roads or trails, or exhibit flight behavior within a certain distance of route use, though studies documenting the magnitude and duration of behavioral

Terrestrial Biota – 332 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 responses are limited. Road usage by vehicles has a significant role in determining animal’s road avoidance behavior. Black bear, for example, crossed roads with low traffic volume more frequently than roads with high traffic volume, and almost never crossed interstate highways (Brody and Pelton, 1989). Perry and Overly (1977) documented displacement of deer up to 800 meters (2,624 feet) from major roads, and from 200 to 400 meters (656 to 1,312 feet) from secondary and primitive roads. Van Dyke et al. (1986) documented that mountain lions avoided improved native surface roads and surfaced roads, and selected home range areas with lower road densities than the study area average. Studies of the effects of human disturbance upon wildlife have revealed that the immediate postnatal period in mammals and the breeding period in birds are periods when individuals are most vulnerable to disturbance. Intrusion-induced behaviors such as nest abandonment and decreased nest attentiveness have led to reduced reproduction and survival in species that are intolerant of intrusion (Knight and Gutzwiller, 1995). Foppen and Reijnen (1994), for example, found that the reproductive success of forest bird species declined in areas fragmented by roads. Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found that the mean productivity of bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads, and the most recently used nests were located in areas farther from all types of roads and recreational facilities when compared to older nests in the same territory. Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress hormone levels were significantly higher in male northern spotted owls (but not females) when they were located less than 0.41 km (0.25 miles) from a major logging road compared to spotted owls in areas greater than 0.41 km from a major logging road. Chronic high levels of stress hormones may have negative consequences on reproduction or physical condition of birds, though these effects are not well understood.

Habitat Modification (habitat loss, fragmentation, edge effects, snag and down log reduction, routes for competitors, movement barriers): Road and trail networks remove habitat but also have a broader effect than just the conversion of a small area of land to route surfaces. Andren (1994) suggested that as landscapes become fragmented; the combination of increasing isolation and decreasing patch size of suitable habitat is negatively synergistic, compounding the effects of simple habitat loss. In particular, species associated with old forest habitats may be impacted by such effects. One study determined that the total landscape area affected by roads was 2.5 to 3.5 times the actual area occupied by the road feature, assuming a 50 meter (164 foot) zone of influence along the road’s edge (Reed et al. 1996). A decrease in interior forest patch size results in habitat loss and greater distance between suitable interior forest patches for sensitive species like the California spotted owl and American marten. As roads and trails break up forest patches, this may increase nest predation and parasitism rates by species such as jays or cowbirds (Miller et al., 1998), or provide increased access for generalist competitors or predators, such as coyotes (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). As discussed in the Botanical Resources Section of this Chapter, motor vehicle use of roads has the potential to impact vegetation up to 100 feet from the route. Direct impacts such as crushing or uprooting individual plants generally occur within the first 30 feet adjacent to a road when vehicles park or pull off to allow others to pass. Additional direct impacts can include soil compaction, root system damage, soil erosion and introduction of non-native species. The direct impacts to plants can potentially lead to reductions in photosynthetic capacity, poor reproduction, mortality, increases in

Terrestrial Biota – 333

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

bare ground, diminished litter cover, and a reduction in the overall cover and frequency of plant species. Indirect impacts can result from changes in drainage patterns as water is either captured or re- directed or from fugitive dust as it affects a plant’s photosynthetic processes. These indirect impacts may be present at distances up to 100 feet from a route and may be sufficient in some cases to alter community structure (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000). Additional habitat modification occurs as an indirect effect of managing roads or trails for public motor vehicle use. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are removed along roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy may result in a “snag free” zone of up to 200 feet (60 meters) from a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large down wood within this zone. The Inyo National Forest Danger Tree Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) recommends removal of hazard trees adjacent to Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads. The guide does not contain specific direction regarding Maintenance Level 2 routes. Major highways are known to create movement barriers for a number of wildlife species, particularly wide-ranging carnivores and ungulates, and are suspected of being a major factor in the decline of some forest carnivores, such as fisher and marten (Brody and Pelton, 1989; USDA Forest Service, 2001a). The slower speed and lower traffic volume unauthorized routes that are being evaluated in the project alternatives are less likely to create barriers to movement. However, the extent to which denser networks of such routes might hinder movement for some wildlife species is unknown (USDA Forest Service, 2001a). For each of the three categories of potential effects discussed above, available literature indicates that road width and traffic volume are directly correlated with the intensity of the effect. Wider roads encumber more potential habitat, fragment habitat to a greater degree, create greater barriers to movement and provide more opportunities for mortality from collisions with vehicles. Similarly, roads which experience higher traffic volume are more likely to result in displacement/avoidance behavior by resident wildlife species, mortality from collisions with vehicles and greater human access to adjacent, un-roaded areas. The unauthorized routes considered in this analysis are generally narrow (less than or equal to 12 feet wide) and experience low levels of vehicular traffic. The following table displays the miles of existing unauthorized route for four use levels. These use levels are estimates developed by Inyo National Forest recreation personnel (see Introduction in this Chapter).

Table 3-114: Miles of Existing Unauthorized Routes in Each Estimated Use Level Use Level Light Low Medium High Vehicle Trips Per <25 25-100 101-500 >500 Week Miles 1,637 53 5 <1

Existing unauthorized routes are encumbering a small amount of the vegetation or habitat type they pass through. In this analysis, routes are assumed to be 12 feet wide. For every mile of route, approximately 1.5 acres of habitat are encumbered. If a route is not added to the NFTS, vegetation will gradually become re-established within the road prism, increasing the amount of habitat available

Terrestrial Biota – 334 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 for any given species. Passive restoration of habitat would occur more rapidly in riparian areas than at xeric sites. Passive restoration would have more of a positive impact within habitat types dominated by close growing, continuous vegetation (e.g., early seral coniferous forest, shrubs communities, meadows). Late-seral forests would experience only minor changes in habitat quality, generally associated with a slight increase in understory vegetative cover or seedling establishment. The effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are described below under individual species accounts using the measurement indicators listed above. Vehicle use is currently restricted or prohibited in designated wilderness areas, Research Natural Areas and the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Special Interest Area. A temporary Forest Order was established on March 2, 2007 that prohibits cross-country travel on the remainder of the INF (approximately 1 million acres). The temporary Order will expire in June 2010; no regulatory prohibition on cross-country travel will be in place after that time. The INF LRMP states that “Poleta Canyon will be the only open OHV area on the Forest. All other OHV use will be restricted to designated routes.” (LRMP ROD, p.2). Without regulations restricting use to designated routes, however, prosecution of persons traveling cross-country is only possible if it can be proven that wildlife or vegetative resources are damaged or unreasonably disturbed (36 CFR 261.15(h)). In general, attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur. However, there are several areas (referred to as off road travel concern areas or ORTCAs; see Chapter 3 Introduction for definition) with documented histories of repeated cross-country travel. The following table displays the acres of NFS land where cross-country travel would not be prohibited by regulation for each alternative.

Table 3-115: Acres of National Forest System Land Not Protected from Cross-Country Travel by Regulation Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acres Not Protected by 1 million 1,100 1,100 0 1,100 1,100 Regulation

Under Alternative 1 approximately 1 million acres of NFS land would not be covered by a permanent Forest Order prohibiting cross-country travel. It is anticipated that some level of motorized vehicle use would continue to occur off of existing routes. Without a permanent order prohibition on cross-country travel, the ability of law enforcement personnel to successfully prosecute persons using a motor vehicle off of existing roads would be limited to cases where resource damage could be proven. In the short term, the acres of terrestrial biota habitat affected would be similar to the existing situation as use of existing unauthorized routes would continue. Over the longer term, the amount of habitat affected could increase if new routes become established as a result of cross- country travel. It is impossible to quantify the amount or location of habitat affected in this manner, so all habitats in the area not protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel are assumed to be at risk of impact, at least to some degree. The impacts of cross-country travel are expected to be

Terrestrial Biota – 335

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

similar to those described above and could include crushing or uprooting of vegetation, soil compaction, root system damage, soil erosion, and introduction of non-native species. Under Alternatives 2, 3, 5 and 6, cross-country travel off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas would be prohibited by regulation. This, in conjunction with a clearly defined NFTS, would clarify enforcement of existing LRMP direction and eliminate confusion regarding what constitutes cross-country travel. Instances of cross-country travel would likely decrease and only terrestrial biota habitat within the designated 1,100 acre Poleta Canyon OHV area would continue to experience the effects of cross-country vehicle use. Under Alternative 4, cross-country travel would be prohibited everywhere on the forest, including the Poleta Canyon OHV area. The 1,100 acre Poleta OHV area contains habitat for five of the terrestrial animal species analyzed in this document: northern goshawk, yellow warbler, Panamint alligator lizard, hairy woodpecker and pallid bat. The impacts of prohibiting cross-country travel in the Poleta area under Alternative 4 are discussed below in the individual environmental consequences narratives for the five species potentially affected. Under Alternative 1 no unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS, the public would not be restricted to NFTS roads and trails, and public motorized use of all unauthorized routes (1,695 miles, 27 miles of which are in newly designated wilderness) would continue. Motorized travel off the NFTS is reflected in the individual species narratives that follow in the direct, indirect and cumulative impact analysis discussions of Alternative 1.

Effects of Mitigation Measures Mitigations proposed to reduce or eliminate effects to terrestrial biota are analyzed in the species- specific Direct and Indirect Effects Sections below. The effects determinations for terrestrial biota assume that mitigation measures applied to minimize effects on wildlife will be initiated or completed within five years. This is a reasonable assumption, as only six physical mitigations are identified (3 seasonal route closures and 3 stream crossing repairs). Under current management conditions (Alternative 1), harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitat is minor at these six sites and poses no risk to species viability. Once the six mitigations are implemented, it is expected that impacts would be further reduced to negligible levels. Given that effects are considered to be minor in the existing condition, it is not anticipated that harassment of wildlife would reach unacceptable levels during this five-year period. The remaining mitigation measures identified to minimize harassment of wildlife or disruption of wildlife habitat are primarily prophylactic in nature and consist of monitoring routes within close proximity of important wildlife habitats. Under existing conditions and use patterns, no conflicts were identified in these areas and monitoring would allow Forest personnel to confirm that these conditions persist in the future. The mitigation measures proposed for all resources have been assessed for potential impacts on terrestrial biota or their habitats. The number of mitigation measures proposed varies by alternative. Alternative 3 identifies some form of mitigation on 315 routes or route segments. The number of proposed mitigations decreases progressively under Alternative 6 (285), Alternative 2 (209) and Alternative 4 (80). Alternatives 1 and 5 do not propose any mitigation measures. A variety of mitigation measure are proposed, including barrier installation, creek crossing stabilization, drainage and waterbars, hardening of a route surface, monitoring, realignment to an

Terrestrial Biota – 336 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 alternate existing route, re-routing to a new location, riparian/meadow stabilization, signage, and weed removal. The majority of these mitigation measures would have no or negligible impacts on terrestrial species, as work would occur in or immediately adjacent to the route prism and ground disturbance would be minimal, or, in the case of monitoring, non-existent. The impacts of weed treatments identified as mitigation have been previously analyzed for impacts to terrestrial biota, and no significant impacts were identified (USDA Forest Service, 2007b). Re-routing a route in a new location has the greatest potential to affect terrestrial animal species or their habitat. A total of four re-routes are proposed as mitigations in the action alternatives. This includes routes 03S521, N1406, N2156 and N2694. Routes N2156 and N2694 are not within the habitat types identified for any of the terrestrial species analyzed in this document and no adverse impacts are anticipated. Route 03S521 passes through habitat potentially suitable for northern goshawk, hairy woodpecker and mountain quail. It is not anticipated that this re-route would affect habitat components required by these species as no trees or snags would need to be removed. Route N1406 is within suitable mule deer winter range. Some minor short-term loss of winter range habitat is expected to occur as a result of relocating this route. This route totals approximately 1 mile, therefore approximately 1.5 acres of winter range may be affected. This habitat loss would be offset by the eventual passive restoration expected to occur on the portions of the routes no longer experiencing motor vehicle use.

Cumulative Effects As described in the Analysis Methodology Section above, the cumulative effects analysis area includes all National Forest System (NFS) land within the boundary of the Inyo National Forest. The cumulative effects analysis includes assessment of wildlife habitats in proximity to all routes; existing system roads and trails as well as inventoried unauthorized routes. Within the cumulative effects boundary, cumulative effects are analyzed on the accumulation of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the existence and use of previously designated system routes, unauthorized routes, and any future predictable disturbances or activities that would occur within the next 20 years. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Direct and indirect effects of current and future projects are expected to be similar in nature to past projects; vegetation will be removed through timber sales, fuels reduction projects, domestic livestock grazing, road maintenance and resort maintenance and development. Vegetation reduction may directly or indirectly affect either the quantity or quality of habitat for wildlife species associated with that vegetation type. Indirect impacts of vegetation removal can include soil disturbance and compaction and changes in hydrologic flow which can alter the structure and composition within a habitat type. Foreseeable future actions may also facilitate the introduction or spread of invasive plant species, which can out-compete native species and alter habitat quality and sustainability.

Terrestrial Biota – 337

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Vegetation removal and other uses of National Forest System lands may also disturb resident wildlife species causing a variety of responses including flight, avoidance or abandonment of areas within suitable habitat. The primary difference between historical activities and present and future actions is that the latter are designed to minimize loss of important wildlife habitat and disturbance of resident wildlife species. As a result, present and future projects may affect individual animals and their habitat, but not to a degree that population viability is threatened. A complete list of present and reasonably foreseeable future projects is available in Appendix D. Ongoing and future activities include domestic livestock grazing, hydroelectric projects, mineral and geothermal exploration and development, vegetation management, road and trail use and maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation, wildlife habitat enhancement and utility, irrigation and highway easements. All of these projects are likely to have some impact on wildlife habitat and may result in some level of disturbance of animals. The total area expected to be affected by these activities on NFS lands is approximately 821,086 acres. There are an additional 177,181 acres affected by projects and activities on adjacent lands (e.g. mining, grazing, resort development, airport expansion, water management, recreation). The effects on wildlife habitat are expected to be similar to those occurring on NFS lands. Specific effects of these projects are discussed for each species in the sections below. Wildland fire is likely having a greater effect on wildlife habitats than all of the previously discussed activities combined. Although fire is a natural disturbance element in local ecosystems and existing vegetative communities have evolved in the presence of fire, current fire frequency and intensity appears to exceed historical levels. As shown in the table below, approximately 62 percent of the area consumed by wildfire during the past 48 years has burned since 2000. Fires within conifer types on the Inyo National Forest generally burn at low to moderate intensity. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the area burned within coniferous forests experiences sufficiently high intensity fire to kill most or all the trees. Within shrub dominated communities, fire intensity is generally higher and up to 80 percent of the shrub species experience mortality. It is not possible to predict when or where a fire will occur, or how many acres will burn during the next 20 years, but it is likely the acreage burned will not decrease substantially relative to current levels. The following table displays acres of vegetation types consumed by wildfire since 1960.

Table 3-116: Acres of Vegetation Types Consumed by Wildfire Since 1960 Decade Total Coniferous Lower Meadow Great Desert Chaparral Riparian Other Acreage Forest Montane Basin Shrub Burned Forest Shrub 1960 10,977 1,171 530 32 6,840 852 1,339 144 70 1970 5,499 1,735 305 101 2,233 390 225 142 368 1980 14,551 2,072 437 958 7,544 2,163 735 414 227 1990 19,117 4,699 426 2,484 4,390 2,931 3,206 253 728 2000 82,439 24,733 7,055 1,656 23,788 14,315 6,233 1,411 3,249 Total 132,739 34,440 8,752 5,260 44,795 20,652 11,806 2,364 4,670

The individual species accounts which follow will include more detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts of those present and foreseeable future actions which affect that species or its

Terrestrial Biota – 338 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 habitat. The individual cumulative effects analyses will focus on the added influence of motorized use of system (Forest, County, and State) roads within and adjacent to wildlife habitats.

3.10.3.3 Late-Successional Forest Associated Species

Introduction The late-successional forest group is comprised of northern goshawk, American marten and northern flying squirrel. These species are associated with late-successional forests that can be impacted by activities associated with routes. Gaines et al. (2003) conducted a literature review of 71 late-successional-forest-associated wildlife species and showed these species to be affected by a wide variety of road- and trail-associated factors including collisions, trapping, collection, displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific site, edge effects, habitat loss and fragmentation, movement barrier or filter, and routes for competitors or predators. These factors will be discussed as they apply to the various species analyzed within this group. Wildlife species within this group are often vulnerable to the effects of forest fragmentation and increased edge, where changes in predator occurrence or predator success may affect populations. Late-successional forests are recognized as one of three Sierra Nevada ecosystems having suffered greatest reductions in extent, integrity and biodiversity (Graber, 1996). Forest ecologists estimate that old forest conditions have declined by approximately 50 to 90 percent in the Sierra Nevada, depending on forest type, when compared to the range of historical conditions (USDA Forest Service, 2001a). Present forests differ from those pre-1850 conditions most significantly by: (1) a reduction of large trees and structural diversity within patches (local homogenization); (2) a loss of diversity among patches (landscape homogenization and simplification); and (3) a loss of continuity and distribution of old forests across the landscape (landscape gaps) (USDA Forest Service, 1998b). Land and Resource Management Plans for 11 national forests in the Sierra Nevada were amended in 2001 and 2004 with an objective to protect, increase, and perpetuate old forest ecosystems and provide for the viability of native plant and animal species associated with old forest ecosystems. Old Forest Emphasis Areas, spotted owl and northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers, and spotted owl Home Range Core Areas are land allocations with specified “desired conditions” on the Inyo NF, designed to improve and restore old forest habitats and species.

Northern Goshawk - Affected Environment The northern goshawk is designated as a sensitive species in the Pacific Southwest Region. In the Sierra Nevada goshawks breed from the mixed conifer forests at low elevations up to and including high elevation lodgepole pine forests (Verner and Boss, 1982). On the Inyo National Forest this includes primarily Jeffrey/eastside pine, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer and red fir habitats; however territories can occur in riparian associated quaking aspen stands and cottonwood habitats. The Inyo National Forest contains approximately 426,300 acres of potentially suitable goshawk habitat, primarily in the Sierra Nevada, Glass and White Mountains. Approximately 205,050 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Thirty-nine nesting territories containing 77 existing nests are currently known to exist on the Inyo NF. The majority of the territories (29) are located on the northern one-third of the Forest,

Terrestrial Biota – 339

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

largely restricted to the Sierra escarpment and associated conifer habitats. The remaining eight territories are scattered throughout the southern portion of the Forest in both the Sierra Nevada and White Mountains. Several other nesting territories are suspected to exist in wilderness areas due to reports of birds; however no nests have been discovered. Multiple nests are often found in a single territory. The same nest may be used for several successive years. Conversely, a nest may be used one time and then never re-occupied. Northern goshawk protected activity centers (PACs) are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories detected on National Forest System lands. Northern goshawk PACs are designated based upon the latest documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the PAC is designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks during the fledging dependency period. PACs are delineated to: 1) include known and suspected nest stands and 2) encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible. Goshawk surveys and monitoring have been ongoing since the early 1980s. The SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2004) requires that goshawk surveys be conducted for any new vegetation management activities. Specifically, Standard and Guideline #34 requires the Forest Service to “conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols during the planning process when proposed vegetation treatments that are likely to reduce habitat quality are proposed in suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat that is not within an existing California spotted owl or northern goshawk PAC. Suitable northern goshawk habitat is defined based on the survey protocol” (USDA Forest Service, 2004). On the Inyo NF, all high quality goshawk nesting habitat outside of designated wilderness areas has been surveyed at least once in the last 15 years. Collection, disturbance at a specific site, habitat loss or fragmentation and edge effects were described by Gaines et al. (2003) as being road-associated factors that potentially affect the northern goshawk. These factors are described in more detail below: Collection: • The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service, 2001) cited that northern goshawks were harassed and shot in areas where human recreation was concentrated. Additionally, the Forest Service identified that illegal harvest may pose a risk to local populations in certain areas. Both illegal and legal harvest has the potential to affect local individual territories that receive repeated visits and harvesting. Illegal harvest (shooting of an individual) and falconry take have been documented on the Inyo National Forest. A female and juvenile goshawk were found deceased below a nest in the Glass Mountain focus area, determined to be the victims of gunshot wounds. Legal and illegal take of juvenile birds for falconry has been documented at twelve of the thirty-nine known nesting territories on the Forest. • The potential for collection or other harvest of goshawks is likely to be higher with greater opportunity for human-animal encounters in areas with higher road density or concentrated recreational use. Miles of routes available for public motorized use within suitable goshawk habitat is used as a relative index to measure the potential for human-animal encounters. There are currently 531 miles of unauthorized routes within suitable habitat.

Terrestrial Biota – 340 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Disturbance at a Specific Site: • Human disturbance has the potential to cause goshawk to abandon nesting during the nesting and post-fledging period (February 15 through September 15). Goshawks initiate breeding when the ground is still covered in snow and sometimes nests are located along roads and trails when they are not yet in use. Additionally, roads and trails provide flight access for goshawk. When the snow melts, these sites can potentially be areas of conflict as these roads and trails are used by people. Joslin and Youmans (1999) recommends maintaining low road densities to minimize disturbance to goshawk. Grubb et al. (1998) reported that vehicle traffic on roads more than 400 meters (0.25 miles) from nests did not elicit any discernable behavioral response from goshawks. • To ascertain the potential for disturbance of goshawks, each alternative is compared in terms of the miles of routes available for public use within Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and the number of nests within 1/4-mile of routes available for public use. There are currently approximately 19 miles of unauthorized routes within established PACs. Forty-one nests within 16 territories are located within 1/4-mile of unauthorized routes.

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Edge Effects: • A network of roads can fragment goshawk habitat by reducing canopy closure (Beier and Drennan, 1997; Daw and DeStefano, 2001) and by reducing forest interior patch size. However, how habitat fragmentation from roads affects goshawk habitat suitability is not well understood. Generally, the wider the road, the more it can fragment habitat. Native surface roads or trails probably do not pose as much risk of habitat fragmentation compared to smooth surfaced roads due to their narrow width relative to the natural tree spacing in late- seral forests. State and federal highways create the greatest habitat fragmentation due to the width of the road and associated edge effects. • To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to goshawk habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within three distances (30 feet, 100 feet and 200 feet) of unauthorized routes was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall goshawk habitat that is potentially being impacted by unauthorized routes.

Table 3-117: Northern Goshawk Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Habitat Within 200 Feet Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total 3,870 0.9% 13,082 3.1% 25,395 6%

Northern Goshawk – Direct and Indirect Effects The major threat to northern goshawks at the present time involves the effects of vegetation management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels treatments, etc.) and wildfire on the amount, distribution and quality of habitat (DeStefano, 1998). Little published information exists regarding the sensitivity of northern goshawks to nest site disturbances from human activities, either recreational or related to vegetation management.

Terrestrial Biota – 341

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Tables 3-118 through 3-121 display the measurement indicators which describe the differences between alternatives for the three types of potential effects identified above (collection, disturbance at a specific site, habitat modification). Throughout this section, direct and indirect effects focus on the routes available for public motorized use in the alternatives. For the no action alternative, this includes all existing unauthorized routes, even though those routes will not be added to the NFTS. For the action alternatives, it includes only those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in that alternative.

Table 3-118: Miles of Route Available for Public Motorized Use in Suitable Northern Goshawk Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 531 326 364 221 0 337 1Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use. Alternative 1 would allow travel on the greatest mileage (531) of unauthorized routes within suitable northern goshawk habitat. This would result in the highest probability for human-goshawk encounters and a greater possibility of negative impacts to individual birds. Birds may be killed by collisions with vehicles, shot or collected for falconry. Each of these actions effectively reduces population size and removes potentially reproductive individuals. These potential impacts are reduced incrementally in Alternatives 3 (364 miles), 6 (337 miles), 2 (326 miles), and 4 (221 miles), respectively. Under Alternative 5, no potential impacts would occur as no unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS.

Table 3-119: Miles of Routes within Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers and Number of Nests within 1/4-Mile of Routes Available for Public Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 19 10 11 2 0 10 Nests1 41 (16) 25 (12) 25 (12) 16 (8) 0 (0) 25 (12) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates the number of individual breeding territories affected. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use. Potential disturbance from human recreational activities has impacts at the scale of individual territories located in areas that receive recreational use or at sub-regional scales, such as the Lake Tahoe Basin, that receive extensive human recreational use (USDA Forest Service, 2001). The problem appears most acute where active northern goshawks nests are located along non-motorized trails and in areas that receive heavy foot traffic. Table 3-119 displays the differences between alternatives for the two metrics that address potential for disturbance of northern goshawks during the nesting and post-fledging period. Miles of routes within PACs allows a relative comparison of both the potential for vehicle noise to disturb nesting birds and humans to access the nest stand. Goshawks display a variety of responses to humans and vehicles. During the nest establishment period (March – April), repeated perturbations may cause individuals to abandon nest building. Once the female has begun incubating eggs, she is less likely to display any overt response when people or vehicles approach the nest. Observations of nests on the Inyo National Forest suggest that both the male and female adults become more aggressive shortly after juveniles hatch and will actively defend the nest by “dive bombing” approaching humans. This behavior results in an energetic cost to the adults and may also detract from their ability to tend to young or forage. This aggressive behavior declines significantly once juveniles are capable of independent flight (mid-August) and by the end of August human disturbance in the vicinity of nests does not appear to negatively affect juvenile survival.

Terrestrial Biota – 342 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Under Alternative 1, motor vehicle use would continue on the greatest mileage (19) of routes within PACs. There is little difference between Alternatives 2, 3 and 6, each of which would add approximately 10 miles of unauthorized routes in PACs to the NFTS. Alternatives 4 and 5 would add the least mileage within PACs. Use levels on routes which would be open under any alternative are classified as either light (<25 vehicles/week) or low (25 – 100 vehicles/week). The table below displays the mileage of route by use level that would remain open under each alternative. Based on the low levels of vehicle traffic identified, none of the alternatives are anticipated to result in substantial disturbance to nesting goshawks.

Table 3-120: Mile of Routes Available for Motorized Use in PACs under Each Alternative by Use Level Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 Miles of 17 9 9 2 0 9 “light” use Miles of 2 1 1 0 0 1 “low” use 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under the No Action alternative, approximately 41 percent of goshawk nesting territories (PACs) forestwide could experience some minor level of disturbance from routes within 1/4-mile of nest locations. The percent of nesting territories potentially affected decreases to 31 (Alternatives 2, 3 and 6), 21 (Alternative 4) and 0 under Alternative 5. Two existing unauthorized routes (02S602 and 03S156) are immediately adjacent to goshawk nests and pose the greatest risk of disturbance to nesting goshawks under Alternative 1. Route 02S602 would be added to the NFTS under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. In order to minimize disturbance to nesting goshawks, a seasonal closure would be established prohibiting use of the route between May 1 and August 30 each year. Prior to May 1, route 02S602 is inaccessible due to snow. Route 03S156 is not added to the NFTS under any action alternative. Goshawk nests do not necessarily remain in the same location over time. New nests may be built annually or once every several years. New nests are generally built in relatively close proximity to existing or deteriorating nests and are almost always located within the core nest stand. It is possible that the number of nests identified in Table 3-119 will vary over time. To address the potential for future impacts to nesting goshawks, monitoring is identified as a mitigation measure. Under any alternative that adds routes in PACs, annual monitoring would occur to determine whether new nests have been built in close proximity to roads. At that time, remedial actions (e.g., seasonal closure) would be identified if it is determined that road use is causing excessive disturbance to nesting birds.

Table 3-121: Acres of Suitable Northern Goshawk Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 3,870 2,394 2,672 1,630 0 2,475 Buffer1 (0.9%) (0.6%) (0.6%) (0.4%) (0) (0.6%) 100 Foot 13,082 8,243 9,186 5,658 0 8,519 Buffer (3.1%) (1.9%) (2.2%) (1.3%) (0) (2.0%) 200 Foot 25,395 16,393 18,252 11,373 0 16,935 Buffer (6.0%) (3.8%) (4.3%) (2.7%) (0) (4.0%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total northern goshawk habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 343

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-121 displays the acreage of suitable northern goshawk habitat which occurs within three distances from roads available for public motorized use under each alternative. Limited direct impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park or pass other vehicles. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in habitat for forest birds and rodents which constitute the majority of prey items for northern goshawks. At most, 0.9 percent of available northern goshawk habitat could be affected in this manner; however the actual amount would likely be much lower. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 13,082 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (9,186 acres), 6 (8,519 acres), 2 (8,243 acres), 4 (5,658 acres) and 5 (0 acres). Effects to habitat could extend up to 200 feet from a road prism. Large snags are an important habitat component for goshawks. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are often removed along roads and motorized trails. These trees are typically snags that are within a tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy results in a “snag free” zone of up to 200 feet from a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large down wood within this zone. Downed logs provide habitat for goshawk prey and are utilized by goshawks as “plucking posts” where captured prey items are processed. The annual harvest of fuelwood by the public averages approximately 3,500 cords (Kusumoto, pers. com.). Holders of valid firewood permits are allowed to cut and remove downed logs less than 30-inches diameter in areas identified as “open” for firewood collection. Cutting of all standing snags or portions of downed logs greater than 30-inches diameter is prohibited. Logs easily accessible by road and closest to roads tend to be removed more rapidly than those in areas with limited motor vehicle access. This habitat effect would be greatest under Alternative 1 with up to 25,395 acres being affected. These potential impacts are reduced incrementally in Alternatives 3 (18,252 acres), 6 (16,935 acres), 2 (16,393 acres), and 4 (11,373 acres), respectively. Under Alternative 5, no potential impacts would occur associated with adding routes to the NFTS. Under Alternative 1, approximately 158,254 acres of suitable northern goshawk habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Seven additional acres of goshawk foraging habitat occur in the Poleta Open Area along the riparian zone in Redding Canyon. Alternative 4 would protect this habitat from direct and indirect impacts associated with motor vehicle use by prohibiting cross-country travel. The habitat would remain open to cross-country motor vehicle use under all other alternatives.

Northern Goshawk – Cumulative Effects As stated previously, the major threats to northern goshawks at the present time involve the effects of vegetation management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels treatments, etc.) and wildfire on the amount, distribution and quality of habitat (DeStefano, 1998). Since 2001, at least 20,000 acres of suitable goshawk habitat on the Inyo National Forest have been affected by wildland fire. Low

Terrestrial Biota – 344 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 intensity, understory fire does not necessarily render habitat unsuitable, but may affect habitat components such as snags and down logs which provide habitat for goshawk prey species. Approximately 3,855 acres of goshawk habitat are within identified vegetation management areas associated with the Jeffrey Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project. Project implementation is not expected to decrease the quantity of habitat; however habitat quality may be reduced from high to moderate on approximately 45 acres (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Two future projects (Portal and Kingfisher Ridge fuels reduction) are likely to affect the quality of goshawk habitat by reducing canopy closure and the loss of near ground cover associated with thinning and prescribed fire. These two projects may affect 300 – 500 acres of goshawk habitat. Design features will be included in these future projects to avoid high quality goshawk reproductive habitat and not reduce habitat quantity. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area has identified three projects which will eliminate approximately 12 acres of suitable goshawk habitat. Other activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock, have negligible impacts on either the quantity or quality of northern goshawk habitat. There are 397 miles of NFTS roads in suitable northern goshawk habitat, 18 miles of which occur within Protected Activity Centers. The table below presents the total mileage of routes which will be available for public motorized use (existing system and added routes) in suitable habitat for each alternative as a means to compare the potential for human-goshawk encounters. Alternative 1 poses the highest risk for negative encounters between humans and goshawks by allowing public motorized use on 928 miles of route within suitable northern goshawk habitat. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would allow motorized use on 723, 761, and 734 miles of routes, respectively, reducing the risk by approximately 20 percent relative to Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, the risk is reduced 33 and 57 percent, respectively, relative to Alternative 1.

Table 3-122: Total Miles of Routes (Roads and Trails) in Suitable Northern Goshawk Habitat Available for Public Motorized Use (Including Existing NFTS Roads and Routes Added Under Each Alternative) Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 928 723 761 618 397 734 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

As shown in the table below, Alternative 1 would allow motor vehicle travel within ¼-mile of 54 goshawk nests, affecting 62 percent of territories (PACs) (n=24) on the Inyo National Forest. All action alternatives would slightly reduce the number of individual nests within ¼-mile of open routes, but there would be little difference in the number of territories affected.

Table 3-123: Total Miles of routes within Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers and Number of Nests within 1/4-Mile of all Routes Available for Public Motorized Use (Including Existing System Roads and Routes Added Under Each Alternative) Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 37 28 29 20 18 28 Nests1 54 (24) 50 (24) 50 (24) 49 (23) 49 (23) 49 (23) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates the number of individual breeding territories (PACs) affected. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The total amount of goshawk habitat potentially affected by all routes available for motorized use is presented in the table below.

Terrestrial Biota – 345

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-124: Acres of Suitable Northern Goshawk Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from All Routes (Existing System and Added Routes) Available for Public Motorized Use under Each Alternative Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 6,669 5,234 5,507 4,488 2,902 5,314 Buffer1 (1.6%) (1.2%) (1.3%) (1.1%) (0.7%) (1.2%) 100 Foot 22,289 17,918 18,800 15,553 10,439 18,188 Buffer (5.2%) (4.2%) (4.4%) (3.6%) (2.4%) (4.3%) 200 Foot 40,220 32,978 34,584 28,823 19,694 33,495 Buffer (9.4%) (7.7%) (8.1%) (6.8%) (4.6%) (7.9%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total northern goshawk habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Gaines et al. (2003) developed an index to assess habitat effectiveness for late-successional forest associated species. The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road-associated factors. Using this index, habitat influence from roads is considered low if less than 30 percent of late successional habitats are within a 200 foot habitat influence buffer, moderate if 30 to 50 percent of habitats are within that buffer and high if greater than 50 percent of habitats are within that zone. Based on this index, all alternatives result in a low level of habitat influence and high habitat effectiveness for northern goshawks. The following table presents a summary of the cumulative past, present, and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to northern goshawk habitat. Approximately 2,012 acres of habitat are expected to be unsuitable for northern goshawks during the next 20 years. This represents a 0.5 percent reduction in available suitable habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality is expected to be reduced slightly on up to 66,645 acres or 16 percent of available suitable habitat. This habitat loss and reduction in quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to goshawk populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-125: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Northern Goshawk Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Wildfire (low and 18,000 Habitat quality reduction 0 acres moderate intensity) through removal of understory vegetation, snags and down logs. Wildfire (high intensity) 2,000 Habitat loss. -2000 acres Fuels reduction and 545 Slight habitat quality 0 acres forest health thinning reduction through change in CWHR density. Ski area projects 12 Habitat loss. -12 acres Habitat affected within Up to 48,100 Slight habitat quality 0 acres 200 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of understory vehicle use vegetation, snags and down logs. Cumulative loss of habitat -2,012 acres

Terrestrial Biota – 346 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual northern goshawks but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel everywhere except the Poleta Canyon OHV area. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS within all but seven acres of suitable northern goshawk habitat. Under Alternative 4, a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would apply to all suitable northern goshawk habitat on the Inyo National Forest. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to northern goshawk habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 2,672 acres (0.6 percent) of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 6 (2,475 acres, 0.6 percent), Alternative 2 (2,394 acres, 0.6 percent), Alternative 4 (1,630 acres, 0.4 percent) and Alternative 5 (0 acres, 0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of northern goshawks and would pose a low risk of impacting northern goshawk viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable northern goshawk habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative.

American Marten – Affected Environment The marten is a Forest Service sensitive species and a MIS representing late-seral closed canopy coniferous forest. Martens are closely associated with relatively mesic, late successional coniferous forests, although they may occur in other vegetation types. Complex physical structures (large snags, large down woody material, and debris piles), especially near the ground, appear to provide protection from predators, prey sources, access to subnivean (below snow) spaces, and protective thermal microenvironments, especially in the winter (Buskirk and Powell, 1994; Spencer et al., 1983; Thompson and Harestad, 1994). Spencer et al. (1983) found that martens selected stands with 40 to 60 percent canopy closure for both resting and foraging and avoided stands with less than 30 percent canopy closure. Martens generally avoid habitats that lack overhead cover, presumably because these areas do not provide protection from avian predators (Bissonette et al., 1988; Buskirk and Powell, 1994; Spencer et al., 1983). Approximately 248,500 acres of American marten habitat are present on the Inyo National Forest, exclusively west of U. S. 395 in the Sierra Nevada range. Approximately 67,090 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Local marten surveys have been conducted at differing intensities since 1978. Researchers have utilized a variety of methodologies to detect martens, including track surveys, hair snares and remote camera stations. Since 1978, over 350 marten occurrences, including incidental sightings, have been documented on the Inyo National Forest. Motorized routes can impact martens in a number of ways. The EIS for the SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2001a) and Gaines et al. (2003) found that martens were likely to be affected by the following road- and motorized trail-associated factors: trapping, collisions, displacement or avoidance, habitat loss or fragmentation, snag reduction, down log reduction, edge effects, movement barrier or filter, and route for competitors.

Terrestrial Biota – 347

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Trapping: • Marten are known for their vulnerability to trapping throughout many parts of their range. However, California Code of Regulations Title 14 prohibits the take of martens. Incidental take of martens may occur as a result of trappers attempting to capture legal furbearing species. In California, steel-jawed leg-hold traps are prohibited (CCR Title 14, Section 458.1) and, as a result, the likelihood of incidental mortality of marten due to legal fur trapping is low.

Collisions: • Buskirk and Ruggerio (1994) identified collisions with motor vehicles as a source of marten mortality. One instance of this occurring has been documented on the INF. A radio-collared female marten was found deceased adjacent to Highway 203 near the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. Evidence suggested that death resulted from a collision with a motor vehicle. Highway 203 is a paved, high-traffic road. Collisions are much less likely to occur along the slower-speed, native surface routes that are being evaluated for addition to the NFTS in this project.

Displacement or Avoidance: • Available literature is conflicting regarding the extent to which motor vehicle use causes martens to avoid an area. Robitaille and Aurry (2000) studied marten in areas of low road density and found that marten use of habitat was measurably less within 984 to 1,312 feet of active traffic roads than use of habitat 2,296 to 2,624 feet from these roads. A more recent study that directly addressed the effects of off-highway vehicle use on martens failed to detect any impacts (Zielinski et al., 2008). Zielinski et al. compared marten occupancy rates, sex ratios and circadian activity patterns between wilderness areas and areas where recreational vehicle use is encouraged. No difference between areas for any of the three metrics was documented. The disparity between these two studies may be due to the study area and design. Robitaille and Aurry (2000) conducted their study in Ontario, Canada along routes ranging in width from 66 feet to 164 feet. Zielinski et al. chose two study sites in the Sierra Nevada where OHV roads and trails were narrower. • Based on the work of Zielinski et al. (2008), it is anticipated that martens are not being displaced or exhibiting avoidance behavior on the Inyo National Forest. The two areas they studied are similar to the roaded portion of the Inyo National Forest in terms of both vegetative characteristics and proximity to non-roaded areas. Use levels by OHVs averaged approximately 2.5 vehicles per hour during spring through fall months. The majority of unauthorized routes analyzed in this document experience similar or lesser vehicle use than that described by Zielinski et al. (See Table 3-114.)

Terrestrial Biota – 348 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Edge Effects: • Martens are known to be sensitive to changes in overhead cover, which can result from construction and maintenance of roads or trails (Hargis and McCullough, 1984; Buskirk and Powell, 1994). Roads and motorized trails can fragment habitat, thus affecting the ability of marten to use otherwise suitable habitat on either side of the route. • At a landscape scale, patches of preferred habitat and the distribution of openings with respect to habitat patches may be critical to the distribution and abundance of martens (Buskirk and Powell, 1994). While marten use small openings, particularly meadows, for foraging, these openings must occupy a small percent of the landscape. Martens have not been found in landscapes with greater than 25 percent of the area composed of openings (Hargis and Bissonette, 1997; Potvin et al., 2000). As landscapes become fragmented, the combination of increasing isolation and decreasing patch size of suitable habitat compounds the results of simple habitat loss (Andren, 1994). For species like marten, this is likely to result in a decrease of habitat effectiveness of greater magnitude than can be explained solely by the loss of suitable habitat. Marten may be a species that demonstrate exponential population declines at relatively low levels of fragmentation (Bisonette et al., 1997). • A high level of coarse woody debris (snags, downed logs, root masses, large branches) is an essential component of marten habitat, especially during the winter months when marten require subnivean structures for cover and hunting opportunities. In addition, large logs with cavities provide rest and den sites for marten. Activities that remove coarse woody debris are therefore likely to degrade marten habitat (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). As previously described, hazard tree removal along roads will reduce numbers of snags and, in turn, down logs within a distance of about 200 feet alongside roads. Motorized routes provide access to woodcutters, also reducing amounts of down wood within roadside corridors. • To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to marten habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within three distances (30 feet, 100 feet and 200 feet) of existing unauthorized routes was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall marten habitat that is potentially being impacted by use of existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-126: American Marten Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Habitat Within 200 Feet Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total 705 0.3% 2,352 0.9% 4,560 2%

Routes for Competitors: • Marten have unique morphologies that allow them to occupy deep snow habitats where they have a competitive advantage over other carnivores, such as coyotes and bobcats. Roads that are driven during the winter months may allow coyotes to enter into marten winter habitat, affecting marten through competition or direct mortality from predation. These effects are expected to be negligible because the routes considered for addition to the NFTS in suitable marten habitat are generally not accessible to wheeled motor vehicle traffic during the winter

Terrestrial Biota – 349

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

months when predator access would be most detrimental. The use of roads during winter months by non-wheeled motorized vehicles is outside the scope of this analysis.

American Marten – Direct and Indirect Effects Based on the discussion above, habitat modification resulting from the removal of near ground vegetation and coarse woody material appears to be the primary potential effect of adding routes to the NFTS.

Table 3-127: Acres of Suitable American Marten Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 705 412 507 277 0 429 Buffer1 (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0) (0.2%) 100 Foot 2,352 1,408 1,730 955 0 1,473 Buffer (0.9%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (0.4%) (0) (0.6%) 200 Foot 4,560 2,828 3,456 1,950 0 2,957 Buffer (1.8%) (1.1%) (1.4%) (0.8%) (0) (1.2%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total American marten habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table above displays the acreage of suitable American marten habitat which occurs within three distances from roads proposed to be added to the NFTS under each action alternative. Minor direct impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park or pass other vehicles. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in habitat for forest birds and rodents which constitute the majority of prey items for American martens. At most, 0.3 percent of available American marten habitat could be affected in this manner; however, the actual amount would likely be much lower. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 2,352 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (1,730 acres), 6 (1,473 acres), 2 (1,408 acres), 4 (955 acres), and 5 (0 acres). Effects to habitat could extend up to 200 feet from a road prism. Large snags are an important habitat component for martens. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are often removed along roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy results in a “snag free” zone of up to 200 feet from a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large down wood within this zone. Downed logs provide habitat for marten prey and are utilized by martens for cover or natal and maternal dens. The annual harvest of fuelwood by the public averages approximately 3,500 cords annually (Kusumoto, pers. com.). Logs easily accessible by road and closest to roads tend to be removed more rapidly than those in areas with limited motor vehicle access. This habitat effect would be greatest under Alternative 1 with up to 4,560 acres being affected. These potential impacts are reduced incrementally in alternatives 3

Terrestrial Biota – 350 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

(3,456 acres), 6 (2,957 acres), 2 (2,828 acres), and 4 (1,950 acres), respectively. Under Alternative 5, no potential impacts would occur associated with adding routes to the NFTS. Under Alternative 1, approximately 45,705 acres of suitable American marten habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all suitable marten habitat.

American Marten – Cumulative Effects As with the northern goshawk, vegetation management and wildland fire have the greatest potential to modify American marten habitat. Since 2001, approximately 20,000 acres of American marten habitat has been affected by wildland fire. Approximately 547 acres of marten habitat are within identified vegetation management areas associated with the Jeffrey Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project. Project implementation is not expected to decrease the quantity of habitat; however habitat quality may be reduced from high to moderate on approximately 11 acres (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Two future projects (Portal and Kingfisher Ridge fuels reduction) are likely to affect the quality of marten habitat through the loss of near ground cover associated with thinning and prescribed fire. These two projects may affect 300 – 500 acres of marten habitat. Design features are included in these future projects to avoid marten den sites and not reduce habitat quantity in the immediate vicinity. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area has identified three projects which will eliminate approximately 12 acres of suitable marten habitat. Other activities, such as grazing by domestic livestock may impact marten foraging habitat in montane meadows by decreasing habitat for prey species. The cumulative acreage of marten habitat potentially affected by all routes (existing system roads and routes added to the NFTS under each alternative) is presented in the table below.

Table 3-128: Acres of Suitable American Marten Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from All Routes Available for Motorized Use (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) in Each Alternative Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 1,442 1,158 1,252 1,026 158 1,175 Buffer1 (0.6%) (0.5%) (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.5%) 100 Foot 4,836 3,975 4,286 3,565 2,714 4,046 Buffer (1.9%) (1.6%) (1.7%) (1.4%) (1.1%) (1.6%) 200 Foot 8,645 7,221 7,808 6,506 4,958 7,350 Buffer (3.5%) (2.9%) (3.1%) (2.6%) (2.0%) (3.0%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total American marten habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Gaines et al. (2003) developed an index to assess habitat effectiveness for late-successional forest associated species. The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road-associated factors. Using this index, habitat influence from roads is considered low if less than 30 percent of late successional habitats are within a 200 foot habitat influence buffer, moderate if 30 to 50 percent of habitats are within that buffer, and high if greater than 50 percent of habitats are within that zone. Based on this

Terrestrial Biota – 351

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

index, all alternatives result in a low level of habitat influence and high habitat effectiveness for American marten. The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to American marten habitat. Approximately 2,012 acres of habitat are expected to be unsuitable for American martens during the next 20 years. This represents a 0.8 percent reduction in available suitable habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality is expected to be reduced slightly on up to 27,156 acres or less than 11 percent of available suitable habitat. This habitat loss and reduction in quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to American marten populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-129: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within American Marten Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Wildfire (low and 18,000 Habitat quality reduction 0 acres moderate intensity) through removal of understory vegetation, snags and down logs. Wildfire (high intensity) 2,000 Habitat loss. -2000 acres Fuels reduction and 511 Slight habitat quality 0 acres forest health thinning reduction through change in CWHR density. Ski area projects 12 Habitat loss. -12 acres Habitat affected within Up to 8,645 Slight habitat quality 0 acres 200 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of understory vehicle use vegetation, snags and down logs. Cumulative loss of habitat -2,012 acres

Management Indicator Species Summary - Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale American marten Trend: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the American marten; hence, the late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat effects analysis for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population bioregional-scale monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for American marten. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2008a), which is hereby incorporated by reference. There are currently 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is slightly increasing (from 7% to 9% within the last decade on National Forest System lands). American marten has been monitored throughout the Sierra Nevada as part of general surveys and studies from 1996-2002 (Zielinski et al., 2005). Since 2002, the American marten has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Terrestrial Biota – 352 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

(SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005, 2006, 2007b). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although marten appear to be distributed throughout their historic range, their distribution has become fragmented in the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada, particularly in Plumas County. The distribution appears to be continuous across high-elevation forests from Placer County south through the southern end of the Sierra Nevada. The Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project may affect up to 4,560 acres of late-seral coniferous forest habitat important to American marten. This represents 0.5 percent of American marten habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced slightly under all action alternatives as the road-associated impacts described above would not occur along routes not added to the NFTS. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project will not alter the existing trend in late seral coniferous habitats, nor lead to a change in the distribution of American martens across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual American martens but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel within all suitable habitat present on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to American marten habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.2 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 6 (0.2 percent), Alternative 2 (0.2 percent), Alternative 4 (0.1 percent) and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of American martens and would pose a low risk of impacting marten viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable marten habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative.

Northern Flying Squirrel – Affected Environment The northern flying squirrel is an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. The northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in mature, dense conifer habitats intermixed with various riparian habitats, using cavities in mature trees, snags, or logs for cover. Northern flying squirrels forage in trees and are omnivorous, eating seeds, nuts, and fruits of conifers, oaks, other trees, and shrubs, as well as lichens, fungi, arthropods, eggs, and birds (CDFG, 2005).

Terrestrial Biota – 353

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Northern flying squirrels play important ecological roles in late successional forests (Carey, 1995). This species is active throughout the year and serves as the primary winter prey species for several late-successional forest obligates, including the American marten. On the Inyo NF, northern flying squirrels and American martens are sympatric, occupying the same range and habitat types. Approximately 248,500 acres of northern flying squirrel habitat are present on the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 67,090 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Wisdom et al. (2000) identified snag and downed log reduction, edge effects, and habitat loss or fragmentation as road-associated factors affecting northern flying squirrels. Several studies have shown that forest management can influence den site availability (Carey et al., 1997), food abundance (Carey et al. 2002), and squirrel density (Carey 2000). Because of their dependence on snags and downed logs for cover and denning, the removal of these habitat elements is probably having the greatest route-associated impact on habitat for this species. Because of the similarity between both range and habitat requirements of American martens and northern flying squirrels, it is reasonable to conclude that the two species are affected in a similar fashion by activities occurring in their habitat. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to northern flying squirrel habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within three distances (30 feet, 100 feet, and 200 feet) of all existing unauthorized routes was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall northern flying squirrel habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-130: Northern Flying Squirrel Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Habitat Within 200 Feet Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total 705 0.3% 2,352 0.9% 4,560 2%

Northern Flying Squirrel – Direct and Indirect Effects Because the two species occupy the same area and have similar habitat requirements, the direct and indirect effects for northern flying squirrels are expected to be the same as those described previously for American martens. The following table displays the acreage of suitable northern flying squirrel habitat which occurs within three distances from routes available for motorized use under each alternative.

Table 3-131: Acres of Suitable Northern Flying Squirrel Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 705 412 507 277 0 429 Buffer1 (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0) (0.2%) 100 Foot 2,352 1,408 1,730 955 0 1,473 Buffer (0.9%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (0.4%) (0) (0.6%) 200 Foot 4,560 2,828 3,456 1,950 0 2,957 Buffer (1.8%) (1.1%) (1.4%) (0.8%) (0) (1.2%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total northern flying squirrel habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 354 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Northern Flying Squirrel – Cumulative Effects Because the two species occupy the same area and have similar habitat requirements, the cumulative effects for northern flying squirrels are expected to be the same as those described previously for American marten. Management Indicator Species Summary - Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Northern Flying Squirrel Trend: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the northern flying squirrel; hence, the late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat effects analysis for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population bioregional-scale monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for northern flying squirrel. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008a). There are currently 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is slightly increasing (from 7% to 9% within the last decade on National Forest System lands). The northern flying squirrel has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by live-trapping, ear-tagging, camera surveys, snap-trapping, and radio telemetry: 2002 - present on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center, 2007), and 1958-2004 throughout the Sierra Nevada in various monitoring efforts and studies (see USDA Forest Service, 2008, Table NOFLS-IV-1). These data indicate that northern flying squirrels continue to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of northern flying squirrel populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. The Inyo NF Travel Management Project may affect up to 4,560 acres of late-coniferous forest habitat important to northern flying squirrels. This represents 0.5 percent of northern flying squirrel habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced slightly under all action alternatives as the route-associated impacts described above would not occur along routes not added to the NFTS. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Travel Management Project will not alter the existing trend in late-seral coniferous habitats, nor lead to a change in the distribution of northern flying squirrels across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.10.3.4 Wide-Ranging Carnivores

Introduction The wide-ranging carnivore group is represented by the Sierra Nevada red fox. Large and mid- sized carnivores are unique in their response to human-induced habitat changes due to their large spatial habitat needs and their sensitivity to landscape patterns, including road edge effects and road density (Buskirk and Zielinski, 2003 in Zabel et al., 2003). The Sierra Nevada red fox is considered to be sensitive to the presence of humans and human activities (Claar et al., 1999; Grinnell et al., 1937). Gaines et al. (2003) conducted a literature review of nine wide-ranging carnivores including red fox and showed these species to be sensitive to an array of road- and trail-associated factors including

Terrestrial Biota – 355

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

collisions, trapping, displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific site, down log reduction, and negative human interactions. These factors will be discussed as they apply to the Sierra Nevada red fox.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox – Affected Environment The Sierra Nevada red fox (red fox) is designated by the Regional Forester in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service as Sensitive. The red fox is a wide-ranging carnivore that uses a variety of vegetation types; red foxes are known to use dense forest cover for travel and rest, though they use openings to a greater extent than marten or fisher (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Red fox appear to select high elevation areas that are relatively free from human disturbance. The current distribution and population status of the Sierra Nevada red fox is uncertain (CDFG, 2004). The Sierra Nevada red fox has not been verified to occur on the Inyo NF, though habitat for this species occurs within subalpine conifer habitats interspersed with meadows. Red fox require a composite of habitat that includes open forest, montane meadows, fell field/talus slopes, and riparian areas in a conifer forest matrix. They use log or rock structures adjacent to meadows as denning habitat. At high elevations, historic and present domestic livestock grazing has affected fox foraging habitat. Low prey availability is thought to increase territory size, reduce density distribution, reduce reproductive success and reduce survival rates (USDA Forest Service, 2001). The nearest known population of the native Sierra Nevada red fox is a small population located in the Lassen Peak vicinity (Lassen National Park and Lassen National Forest), which represents the only verified detections of the subspecies in recent years (Perrine, 2005; Perrine et al., 2007). There are currently approximately 228,600 acres of potentially suitable red fox habitat on the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 73,105 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. No red fox specific studies or surveys have been conducted on the Inyo NF; however all of the survey efforts described previously for American martens would likely have detected red fox if they were present. Road construction and increased human settlement in the Sierra Nevada has the potential to facilitate the dispersal of non-native red foxes into the historic range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, by providing access to areas previously unavailable to the exotic foxes. Routes provide a potential travel corridor for valley foxes to move into Sierra Nevada red fox habitat. Such conditions are also thought to favor coyote expansion into remote areas. Although the tolerance of Sierra Nevada red fox to the presence of humans is an unknown, it is evident that the non-native red foxes thrive in human-altered environments (Lewis et al., 1999; Kamler and Ballard, 2002). In addition, urban development within the range of Sierra Nevada red fox may pose a risk to the species through an increased risk of predation from domestic pets, disease transmission, automobile collisions, and other human-wildlife conflicts. Risks from recreation are associated primarily with any increase in trash or scrap food which could cause foxes to develop begging behavior, increasing the possibility of negative human encounters. Two measurement indicators are used in this analysis to compare the effects on red fox of adding routes to the NFTS. Miles of routes available for motorized use within red fox habitat is used to measure potential for other canids (e.g., non-native red fox, coyote) to expand into red fox habitat. This metric also reflects

Terrestrial Biota – 356 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the potential for negative human encounters, disturbance and collisions with vehicles. There are currently 32 miles of unauthorized routes within red fox habitat. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to red fox habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within three distances (30 feet, 100 feet and 200 feet) of routes available for motorized use was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall Sierra Nevada red fox habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-132: Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Habitat Within 200 Feet Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total 235 0.1% 782 0.3% 1,539 0.7%

Sierra Nevada Red Fox – Direct and Indirect Effects Sierra Nevada red fox are not currently known to occur on the Inyo National Forest; however the existence of suitable habitat suggests that they may be present. It is evident from the existing situation described above that even if present, unauthorized routes are not substantially impacting red fox individuals or their habitat. This can be explained by the species’ preference for remote areas and habitats associated with rugged wilderness areas where motorized use is low or non-existent. The table below compares the miles of unauthorized roads that would be added to the NFTS between action alternatives.

Table 3-133: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use in Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 32 9 19 5 0 14 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Alternative 1 would allow travel on the greatest mileage (32) of unauthorized routes within suitable red fox habitat. This would result in the highest probability for intrusion into red fox habitat by other canid species. This also suggests the highest possibility for negative human-fox encounters and a greater possibility of negative impacts to individuals. These potential impacts are reduced incrementally in Alternatives 3 (19 miles), 6 (14 miles), 2 (9 miles), and 4 (5 miles), respectively. Under Alternative 5, no potential impacts would occur as no unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS. Use levels on roads which would be added to the NFTS under any action alternative are generally classified as either light (<25 vehicles/week) or low (25 – 100 vehicles/week). There are three routes in red fox habitat totaling 0.19 miles which would be added to the NFTS under all alternatives which receive “medium” use (101 – 500 vehicles/week). These three routes (N52, N2747 and N2748) are located at the outlet of Saddlebag Lake. The following table displays the mileage of route by use level that would be added to the NFTS under each action alternative. Based on the low levels of vehicle traffic identified, none of the alternatives are anticipated to result in substantial disturbance to red fox or result in negative human-fox encounters.

Terrestrial Biota – 357

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-134: Miles of Route in Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Available for Motorized Use under Each Alternative by Use Level Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 Miles of 31 8 19 4 0 13 “light” use Miles of 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 “low” use Miles of “medium” 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.19 0 0.19 use 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below displays the acreage of suitable red fox habitat which occurs within three distances from roads proposed to be added to the NFTS under each action alternative. Minor direct impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park or pass other vehicles. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in habitat for forest birds and rodents which are prey items utilized by red fox. Low growing vegetation also provides thermal protection and hiding cover for foxes. At most, 0.1 percent of available red fox habitat could be affected in this manner; however the actual amount would likely be much lower. For all alternatives, the results presented in the following table represent the maximum amount of area potentially impacted. Actual impacts are expected to be less as disturbance of vegetation adjacent to roads is generally highly localized and would not occur across the entire area within 30 feet of routes added to the NFTS. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 782 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (483 acres), 6 (344 acres), 2 (228 acres), 4 (124 acres), and 5 (0 acres).

Table 3-135: Acres of Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 235 67 143 37 0 102 Buffer1 (0.1%) (0.03%) (0.06%) (0.02%) (0) (0.04%) 100 Foot 782 228 483 124 0 344 Buffer (0.3%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.05%) (0) (0.2%) 200 Foot 1,529 452 960 253 0 678 Buffer (0.7%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.1%) (0) (0.3%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada red fox habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

As described previously for goshawks and martens, effects to habitat could extend up to 200 feet from a road prism. These effects include removal of snags and downed logs within this 200 foot zone of influence. Downed logs provide habitat for red fox prey and are utilized by red fox for denning. This habitat effect would be greatest under Alternative 1, with up to 1,539 acres being affected. These potential impacts are reduced progressively in Alternatives 3 (960 acres), 6 (678 acres), 2 (452

Terrestrial Biota – 358 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 acres), and 4 (253 acres), respectively. Under Alternative 5, no potential impacts would occur associated with adding routes to the NFTS. Under Alternative 1, approximately 32,542 acres of suitable Sierra Nevada red fox habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all suitable red fox habitat.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox – Cumulative Effects Approximately 97,095 acres (42 percent) of suitable Sierra Nevada red fox habitat is contained within active grazing allotments. The majority of the habitat within allotments consists of sub-alpine conifer, which is generally not affected by livestock grazing. Approximately 8,087 acres of wet meadow vegetation is present within the allotments, which could be impacted by the presence of domestic livestock. These wet meadows provide foraging habitat for red fox. Livestock grazing reduces total herbaceous cover within meadow types and could reduce habitat for red fox prey species (e.g., voles, pocket gophers, mice and ground squirrels). Grazing permits require adherence to range readiness and utilization standards for montane meadows and riparian areas. These standards are designed to retain adequate residual forage to meet the habitat needs of rodents relying on these vegetation types. The grazing seasons range from June 15 to October 31, which is outside the breeding season of red foxes. Disturbance during the reproductive period, when foxes would be most sensitive, is likely not occurring as a result of domestic grazing. Since 2001, approximately 3,500 acres of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat have been affected by wildfire. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of this area (350 acres) is no longer suitable red fox habitat. Approximately 43 miles of NFTS routes exist within suitable Sierra Nevada red fox habitat. Alternative 1 would allow motor vehicle use to continue on an additional 32 miles of unauthorized routes, an increase of approximately 74 percent (see table below). Alternative 1 provides the highest potential for intrusion into red fox habitat by other canid species. This also suggests the highest possibility for negative human-fox encounters and a greater possibility of negative impacts to individuals. Alternative 3 would allow motor vehicle use on 17 percent fewer routes than Alternative 1, reducing the risk of intrusion and negative encounters. The risks are progressively reduced relative to Alternative 1 in Alternatives 6 (24 percent), 2 (31 percent), 4 (36 percent), and 5 (43 percent).

Table 3-136: Total Miles of Routes Available for Motorized Use (Existing System Plus Proposed Additions) in Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 75 52 62 48 43 57 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The proportion of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat potentially affected by all routes (existing system plus alternative proposals) open under each alternative is displayed in the table below. All alternatives pose a low risk of decreasing habitat effectiveness for Sierra Nevada red fox. At most, 1.4 percent of suitable red fox habitat is within the zone of influence of routes available for motor vehicle use.

Terrestrial Biota – 359

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-137: Acres of Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat within Three Buffer Distances from All Routes Available for Motorized Use (Existing System Plus Proposed Additions) under Each Alternative Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 538 373 447 343 308 406 Buffer1 (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) 100 Foot 1,799 1,267 1,515 1,169 1068 1,379 Buffer (0.8%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (0.5%) (0.5%) (0.6%) 200 Foot 3,313 2,325 2,800 2,130 1,953 2,534 Buffer (1.4%) (1.0%) (1.2%) (0.9%) (0.9%) (1.1%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada red fox habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat. Approximately 350 acres of habitat are expected to be unsuitable for red fox during the next 20 years. This represents a 0.2 percent reduction in available suitable habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality is expected to be reduced slightly on up to 14,550 acres or approximately 6 percent of available suitable habitat. This habitat loss and reduction in quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to Sierra Nevada red fox populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-138: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Wildfire (low and 3,150 Habitat quality reduction 0 acres moderate intensity) through removal of understory vegetation, snags and down logs. Wildfire (high intensity) 350 Habitat loss. -350 acres Meadows within livestock 8,087 Slight habitat quality 0 acres allotments reduction through removal of meadow vegetation Habitat affected within Up to 3,313 Slight habitat quality 0 acres 200 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of understory vehicle use vegetation, snags and down logs. Cumulative loss of habitat -350 acres

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual Sierra Nevada red fox but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would establish a permanent Forest Order prohibiting cross-country travel within all suitable habitat present on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to red fox habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.06 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 6 (0.04 percent), Alternative 2 (0.03 percent), Alternative 4 (0.02 percent) and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat

Terrestrial Biota – 360 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 which should not affect distribution or abundance of Sierra Nevada red foxes and would pose a low risk of impacting red fox viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable red fox habitat when compared to the existing condition in the no action alternative.

3.10.3.5 Ungulates

Introduction The ungulate group is represented by Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (bighorn) and mule deer. Gaines et al (2003) conducted a literature review of six ungulate species and showed these species to be affected by a variety of road- and trail-associated factors, including hunting, poaching, collisions, displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific site, and physiological response. In general, ungulates respond to recreational activities by avoiding areas near roads, recreation trails, and other types of human activities (Cassier et al., 1992; Ferguson and Keith, 1982; Freddy et al., 1986; Leslie and Douglas, 1980; MacArthur et al., 1982; Papouchis et al., 2001; Rowland et al., 2000). Human activities may have the greatest impact on ungulates when they occur on their winter ranges or where young are reared (Canfield et al., 1999).

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep – Affected Environment The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was listed as an endangered species in 1999. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) range from high-elevation alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada south to the low-elevation desert mountain ranges in the southwest United States and northern Mexico (Shackelton, 1985). The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (O. c. sierrae) is one of three subspecies of bighorn sheep found in the State of California (CWHR, 2005). The historical range of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep includes the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, and, for at least one subpopulation, a portion of the western slope, from Sonora Pass in Mono County south to Walker Pass in Kern County. Bighorn sheep select open habitats that allow detection of predators at sufficient distances to allow adequate lead-time to reach the safety of precipitous terrain. Optimal bighorn sheep habitat is visually open and contains steep, generally rocky, slopes. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep avoid forests and thick brush, but will use open woodland habitats on rocky slopes. Bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada utilize a wide range of elevations, from alpine peaks in excess of 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) to the base of the eastern escarpment as low as 1,450 meters (4,760 feet) (Wehausen, 1980). Within this elevational range, there is a wide variety of vegetation communities, including (from lowest to highest): (1) Great Basin sagebrush-bitterbrush-bunchgrass scrub; (2) pinyon-juniper woodland and mountain mahogany scrub; (3) mid-elevation and subalpine forests, woodlands, and meadows; and (4) alpine meadows and other alpine habitats varying from cliffs to plateaus. On August 5, 2008, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated approximately 417,577 acres of critical habitat for this species in Tuolumne, Mono, Fresno, Inyo, and Tulare Counties. Approximately 272,000 acres of designated critical habitat are within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 62,100 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. In this analysis, suitable habitat is considered to be synonymous with areas designated as

Terrestrial Biota – 361

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

critical habitat by the USFWS. A total of 12 critical habitat units were designated, 10 of which overlap the Inyo National Forest. These include, from north to south: 1) Mount Warren, 2) Mount Gibbs, 3) Convict Creek, 4) Wheeler Ridge, 5) Taboose Creek, 6) Sawmill Canyon, 7) Mount Baxter, 8) Mount Williamson, 9) Mount Langley, and 10) Olancha Peak. At present, all but the Convict Creek, Taboose Creek, and Olancha Peak Units are occupied. The USFWS also identified primary constituent elements (PCEs), which are physical or biological features considered essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The PCEs identified for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep include: 1. Non-forested habitats or forest opening within the Sierra Nevada from 4,000 feet to 14,500 feet in elevation with steep (greater than or equal to 60 percent slope), rocky slopes that provide for foraging, mating, lambing, predator avoidance, and bedding as well as seasonal elevational movements between these areas. 2. Presence of a variety of forage plants, as indicated by the presence of grasses (e.g., Achnanthera spp.; Elymus spp.) and browse (e.g., Purshia spp.) in winter, and grasses, browse, sedges (e.g.. Carex spp.) and forbs (e.g., Eriogonum spp.) in summer. 3. Presence of granite outcroppings containing minerals such as sodium, calcium, iron, and phosphorus that could be used as mineral licks in order to meet nutritional needs.

The Inyo National Forest LRMP designates approximately 73,263 acres as Management Prescription #3, Mountain Sheep Habitat. Approximately 47,862 acres of Management Prescription #3 are spatially coincident with critical habitat designated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Studies reviewed by Gaines et al. (2003) indicated that bighorn sheep were likely to be affected by the following road- and motorized trail-associated factors: hunting, poaching, disturbance at a specific site, collisions, displacement/avoidance, and physiological response. Hunting and Poaching: • Hunting of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is not allowed and is not likely to be legal until after the species is de-listed. Continued human access facilitated by unauthorized routes has the potential to provide opportunities for illegal take of individuals; however no instances of poaching have been documented on the Inyo National Forest.

Collisions: • An adult male bighorn sheep was hit by a car while crossing US 395 near Conway Summit in 2004. The individual later died from the injuries it sustained. Collisions are much less likely to occur along the slower-speed, native surface routes that are being evaluated for addition to the NFTS in this project. Adding unauthorized routes to the NFTS or continued use of existing routes is not expected to increase the risk of vehicle collisions.

Terrestrial Biota – 362 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Disturbance at a Specific site, Displacement/avoidance, Physiological Response: • Bighorn sheep have been reported to respond to human disturbance (Hicks and Elder, 1979; MacArthur et al., 1979; King and Workman, 1986; Papouchis et al., 2001). A variety of sheep responses have been observed depending on the degree of disturbance. Upon detection of humans, sheep have been observed to stop whatever activity they are engaged in, continue with their activity while observing the disturbance, move varying distances in a slow flight response, or flee rapidly (Hicks and Elder, 1979). The degree of effect appears dependent on a variety of factors, such as herd size, the distance sheep are to the human encounter, the degree of habituation sheep have developed to human presence, time of year of disturbance, distance of sheep from escape terrain, whether sheep encounter humans approaching from above or below, and whether humans have dogs with them (Hicks and Elder, 1979; MacArthur et al., 1982; Wehausen, 1979) Sheep, particularly ewes with lambs, can exhibit strong flight responses when humans approach them from above or if they come between sheep and escape terrain (Wehausen, 1979). • MacArthur et al. (1979) showed that the heart rate of bighorn sheep varies inversely with distance from a road. MacArthur et al. (1982) reported that sheep are affected by a human approaching within 50 meters (164 feet), and Papouchis et al. (2001) found that bighorn sheep respond to hikers at an average distance of 200 meters (656 feet). They also showed that avoidance of roads is greater for high-use (5 to 13 vehicles per hour) versus low-use (1 vehicle per hour) roads. On average, radio collared sheep were 490 meters (1,607 feet) from high-use roads compared to 350 meters (1,148 feet) from low-use roads (Papouchis et al., 2001). • To ascertain the potential for disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, the number of miles of existing unauthorized routes within critical habitat and the number of acres of critical habitat within 1,148 feet of those routes was determined. There are currently approximately 6.8 miles of unauthorized routes within critical habitat in the Mount Warren, Convict Creek, Wheeler Ridge, Sawmill Canyon, Mount Baxter, Taboose Creek, and Mount Langley Units. Approximately 3,440 acres of critical habitat are within 1,148 feet of these routes, which constitutes one percent of the designated critical habitat on the Inyo National Forest.

Of the three primary constituent elements identified by the USFWS, only one may be directly or indirectly affected by motor vehicle use of roads and trails. Grasses, shrubs, forbs and sedges growing along the edge of roads may be directly impacted (e.g., crushed, uprooted) if vehicles pull of the road to park. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat, the acreage of critical habitat within two distances (30 feet and 100 feet) of existing unauthorized routes was determined. The following table displays the current proportion of overall critical habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-139: Acres of Designated Critical Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Acres Percent of Total Acres Percent of Total 50 0.02% 172 0.06%

Terrestrial Biota – 363

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep – Direct and Indirect Effects It remains unclear how significantly Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep may be affected by human disturbance. Increases in human uses of bighorn sheep habitat, including recreational activities such as rock and ice climbing, mountaineering, ski touring, hiking, camping, pack station establishment, snowmobiling, and off-road vehicle use, may disturb Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in key areas. This could result in abandonment of these areas or disruption of feeding, resulting in reduced nutrient intake. A cost in biological energetics could also occur due to flight responses. These losses could translate into reduced reproductive success. Impacts to habitat could occur through trampling and reduced vegetation structure due to vehicles driving or parking adjacent to routes. The presence of dogs accompanying recreationists is also a concern in bighorn sheep habitat, as dogs may cause strong alarm reactions by bighorn sheep. The table below displays the two measurement indicators utilized to assess potential disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Table 3-140: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use within Designated Critical Habitat and Acres of Critical Habitat within 1,148 Feet of These Routes Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 6.8 0.45 6.3 0 0 4.2 Acres1 3,440 715 3,044 344 0 2,263 (1.3%) (0.3%) (1.1%) (0.1%) (0 %) (0.8%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, 6.8 miles (34 routes or route segments) of existing unauthorized routes would continue to experience motor vehicle use. The majority of these routes (31) are short spurs or the termini of routes located mostly outside of designated critical habitat. The longest route (05S127) totals approximately 2.5 miles and accesses the northern portion of Wheeler Ridge. All of the routes are classified as receiving “light” use (fewer than 25 motor vehicles per week). Alternative 3 would add all but 0.5 miles of these routes to the NFTS as 4x4 trails or low standard roads. Two routes in Armstrong Canyon (11S122 and N2331) would be seasonally closed during the period bighorn sheep are generally in the vicinity (November to June). Thirteen routes occur in unoccupied portions of designated critical habitat. These routes (2N135, 2N136, 4S134, 4S135, 4S185, N2448 – N2455) would be monitored if bighorn sheep begin to occupy the area to determine whether seasonal closures would be merited. The remaining routes are located either on Wheeler Ridge (05S127) or are short spurs off the main Pine Creek road. These latter two locations are in portions of the Wheeler Ridge Critical Habitat Unit known to receive use by bighorn sheep. Alternative 6 would add 3.8 miles of 4x4 trail and 0.4 miles of road in designated critical habitat to the NFTS. Two routes (2N135 and 11S122) would be seasonally closed between November to July and November to June, respectively. Eleven routes in currently unoccupied portions of designated critical habitat are added and would be monitored to determine whether seasonal closures become necessary at a later date. None of the spurs off the main Pine Creek road are added under this alternative. A portion of 05S127 (2.4 miles) that accesses the northern portion of the Wheeler Ridge Critical Habitat Unit and one short spur (0.2 miles) are added as 4x4 trail.

Terrestrial Biota – 364 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Alternative 2 would add eight routes totaling less than ½-mile to the NFTS within designated critical habitat. These routes (N2448 – N2455) are short spurs off of County Road 17S01 near Cottonwood Creek in an unoccupied portion of the Mount Langley Critical Habitat Unit. No roads or trails in designated critical habitat would be added to the NFTS under either Alternative 4 or Alternative 5. Gaines et al. (2003) developed a habitat disturbance index to assess the effects of road- and recreational trail-associated factors on bighorn sheep. They buffered roads with a 1,148 foot zone of influence and calculated the proportion of bighorn habitat within the buffer. The relative effects of motorized activities were then rated using the following scale: greater than 70 percent of the habitat outside the buffer rates as low level of human influence on habitat, 50 to 70 percent outside the buffer is classified as moderate level of human disturbance and less than 50 percent of the habitat outside the buffer was considered a high level of human disturbance. As shown in Table 3-140, at least 98.7 percent of available habitat is outside the zone of influence of roads or trails which would be available for motor vehicle use under all alternatives. Utilizing the scale developed by Gaines et al. (2003), all alternatives would result in a “low” disturbance index. The table below displays the measurement indicators utilized to determine potential direct and indirect impacts to designated critical habitat.

Table 3-141: Acres of Suitable Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Designated Critical Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 50 4 46 0.03 0 31 Buffer1 (0.02%) (<0.01%) (0.02%) (<0.01%) (0) (0.01%) 100 Foot 172 15 158 0.6 0 109 Buffer (0.06%) (<0.01%) (0.06%) (<0.01%) (0) (0.04%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

It is evident from the information displayed in the table above that direct and indirect impacts to habitat are negligible under all alternatives. Limited direct impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in shrub, grass, and forb density, which provide forage for sheep. At most, 50 acres or less than 0.1 percent of available suitable habitat could be directly impacted in this manner. This is likely an overestimation of the amount potentially impacted, as many of the roads or trails in designated critical habitat traverse steep, rocky areas where such travel is not feasible. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 172 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (158 acres), 6 (109 acres), 2 (15 acres), 4 (0.6 acres), and 5 (0 acres).

Terrestrial Biota – 365

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Under Alternative 1, approximately 14,786 acres of suitable Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited in all suitable bighorn sheep habitat. During 2006, in an effort to streamline the motorized travel management process, the U. S. Forest Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed Route Designation Project Design Criteria for threatened and endangered species (USDA Forest Service, 2006). The USFWS concurred that implementation of route designation activities as described in the Design Criteria would have no effect on or would not be likely to adversely affect the distinct population segment of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep on the Inyo National Forest; when the Design Criteria are used, no further USFWS consultation is needed (USFWS, 2006). If the Design Criteria are not utilized, additional consultation with USFWS is necessary. The Design Criteria for this species include: 1. On the Inyo National Forest, no route or area is in draft Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep recovery units and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat, including winter range. 2. On the Inyo National Forest, recreational vehicle users within California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Areas will follow Forest Order No. 04-81-03 that prohibits possession, transportation, or allowing entrance of dogs. 3. On the Inyo National Forest, recreational vehicle users within Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat will follow Forest Order No. 04-02-08 which states: “dogs must be under immediate verbal or physical control of their owners at all times.

All Alternatives utilize Design Criteria 2 and 3. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would add routes in designated critical habitat; therefore, these alternatives do not utilize Design Criterion 1 and require additional consultation with the USFWS. Alternatives 4 and 5 utilize the Design Criteria and do not require additional consultation. Alternative 1 would not implement a permanent prohibition on cross- country travel and would allow use of all unauthorized routes in Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep critical habitat units to continue. Alternatives 3 and 6 would add approximately 2.6 miles of routes to the NFTS in portions of Management Prescription #3 that are spatially coincident with designated critical habitat. A Forest Plan Amendment would be required to allow motorized use in this area. The effects of this Forest Plan Amendment are the same as those described above for Alternative 6. Addition of unauthorized routes in the areas identified as Management Prescription #3 but not within designated critical habitat would have no impact on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep – Cumulative Effects The species was emergency listed in 1999 as endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of the dramatic population decline in the late 1990s attributable to predation by mountain lions, failure of sheep to utilize favorable low elevation winter range habitat because of the presence of mountain lions, and the threat of large-scale mortality that could occur if domestic sheep transmitted disease to a bighorn population. The inability of existing regulatory mechanisms to deal

Terrestrial Biota – 366 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 with the issues of lion predation and disease transmission was also noted as a major reason for the listing of the species. Domestic sheep grazing has already been eliminated on all or portions of four allotments that abut designated critical habitat. The Forest is currently analyzing domestic sheep grazing within the final two allotments in proximity to critical habitat. The proposed action for both allotments is to eliminate domestic sheep use west of US 395 to reduce the risk of disease transmission. Domestic grazing by cattle is expected to have negligible impacts on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or designated critical habitat as wild sheep tend to inhabit areas unsuitable for cattle use. The Inyo National Forest is currently analyzing habitat enhancement projects within designated critical habitat. Approximately 5,200 acres of prescribed burning is proposed to reduce conifer cover, improve forage production and allow more security on winter range. No other projects or activities are identified in designated critical habitat with the potential to affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or PCEs of critical habitat. Twenty-two NFTS routes totaling approximately 22 miles exist within designated critical habitat. Several of these routes are the primary means of accessing popular recreation sites, including Lundy Canyon, Pine Creek, Laurel Lakes, Onion Valley, and Horseshoe Meadow. Such primary access roads account for 14 of the 22 miles. The following table presents the cumulative miles of routes that would be available for motor vehicle use in designated critical habitat for each alternative. Alternatives 1 and 3 pose approximately the same level of risk for disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep by allowing vehicle traffic on 28.5 miles of routes in designated critical habitat. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are the least likely to disturb sheep by allowing motor vehicle use on the fewest miles of road and motorized trails in suitable habitat. Alternative 6 reduces the total mileage of existing routes by 9 percent relative to Alternative 1. The reduction in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 is approximately 23 percent. Utilizing the habitat disturbance index developed by Gaines et al., all alternatives would result in a low level of human influence on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat as greater than 70 percent of the habitat is outside a 1,148 foot zone of influence.

Table 3-142: Total Miles of Road (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) within Designated Critical Habitat and Acres of Critical Habitat within 1,148 Feet of Those Roads Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 28.5 22 28.5 22 22 26 Acres 8,862 7,484 8,768 7,450 7,420 8,636 Within 1,148 (3.3%) (2.8%) (3.2%) (2.7%) (2.7 %) (3.2%) Feet1 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat available forestwide.

None of the alternatives pose a substantial risk of cumulative impacts to designated critical habitat (see table below). Alternative 1 potentially affects the greatest amount of habitat (672 acres). This is likely an overestimation of the amount potentially impacted, as many of the roads or trails in designated critical habitat traverse steep, rocky areas where travel adjacent to routes is not feasible. The area potentially impacted is reduced by approximately 2 percent under Alternative 3. Further reductions in the extent of area affected would occur under Alternative 6 (7 percent), Alternative 2 (20 percent), and Alternatives 4 and 5 (22 percent). At most, 0.2 percent of designated critical habitat

Terrestrial Biota – 367

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

occurring on the Inyo National Forest would be impacted, which would not affect habitat effectiveness for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Table 3-143: Acres of Suitable Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Designated Critical Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from All Routes (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) Available for Motor Vehicle Use in Each Alternative Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 208 161 205 158 158 188 Buffer1 (0.08%) (0.06%) (0.08%) (0.06%) (0.06%) (0.07%) 100 Foot 672 534 659 526 526 623 Buffer (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat. Approximately 5,200 acres of habitat improvement projects are expected to be implemented in the foreseeable future. This represents a 2 percent increase in available suitable habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality is expected to be reduced slightly on up to 672 acres or less than 0.2 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-144: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Habitat improvement 5,200 Suitable habitat created +5,200 acres projects Habitat affected within Up to 672 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of shrubs and vehicle use reduced productivity. Cumulative change in habitat +5,200 acres

Endangered Species Determination: The biological assessment for this project determined that all action alternatives may affect, but would not adversely affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or designated critical habitat (USDA Forest Service, 2009a). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel within all suitable habitat present on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to designated critical habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.02 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 6 (0.01 percent), Alternative 2 (<0.01 percent), Alternative 4 (<0.01 percent) and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of designated critical habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and would pose a low risk of impacting species viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in

Terrestrial Biota – 368 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the total cumulative effects within designated critical habitat when compared to the existing condition in the no action alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would add routes in designated critical habitat; therefore, these alternatives do not utilize Design Criterion 1 and require additional consultation with the USFWS (USDA Forest Service, 2006). Alternatives 4 and 5 utilize the Design Criteria and do not require additional consultation.

Mule Deer – Affected Environment Mule deer occur from southeastern Alaska south through Canada and most of the western U.S. and Great Plains, to Baja California and the southern end of the Mexican Plateau (NatureServe, 2005). Mule deer are widely distributed throughout most of California, except in deserts and intensively farmed areas without cover, and are a common to abundant yearlong resident or elevational migrant (CWHR, 2005). Mule deer range and habitat includes coniferous forest, foothill woodland, shrubland, grassland, agricultural fields, and suburban environments. Suitable habitat is composed of four distinctly different elements: fawning, foraging, cover, and winter range. Hiding and thermal cover is typically close to the ground and thick enough to camouflage the outline of the deer, without being so dense as to obscure the approach of potential predators. Thermal cover is similar and generally thought to be denser, with the additional property of sheltering deer from the elements. Winter range tends to be lower elevation habitats that meet the requirements for forage, hiding, and thermal cover described above. Mule deer migrate seasonally between higher elevation summer range and low elevation winter range. Mule deer are found throughout the Inyo National Forest. Eight herds spend at least part of the year on National Forest System lands (Monache, Inyo/White Mountains, Gooddale, Round Valley, Casa Diablo, Mono, and East Walker). Most of the deer on the forest are migratory. They winter primarily in the Owens Valley, Pizona Hills, or Walker River drainage on Bureau of Land Management lands and spend the summers at higher elevations, both on the Inyo and west of the Sierra crest. Deer densities on winter range are considerably higher (up to 120 deer per square mile) than on the summer range. Deer winter range covers approximately 415,000 acres of forest land; however, much of the area is lightly used. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recognizes seven “winter concentration areas” with a combined area of approximately 33,750 acres. Holding or staging areas are another important component of deer habitat. Holding areas are locations where deer congregate annually during spring migration until snow melts at higher elevations, allowing them access to summer range. These areas are important as they provide an opportunity for deer to replenish fat reserves depleted during the winter. Holding areas account for approximately 11,275 acres of NFS land in the vicinity of Sherwin Creek and the upper Owens River. These areas are used by the Round Valley and Casa Diablo herds, respectively. Winter concentration areas, holding areas, and limited summer concentration areas are identified as “key areas” by CDFG and cover approximately 57,665 acres within the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 392,860 acres of winter range and 43,625 acres of key areas occur within the 11 focus areas.

Terrestrial Biota – 369

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Management and monitoring of deer on the Inyo NF is accomplished in cooperation with the State fish and wildlife agency, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), as directed in 26 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). As part of California Deer Management Program, CDFG tracks the status and trend of deer populations, including deer herds on the Inyo NF. Deer numbers are monitored by Hunt Zones and Deer Assessment Units (DAUs) (CDFG, 1998; CDFG, 2004). Deer Assessment Unit #11 covers the Forest, which includes deer hunt zones X-9A, X9B, X10 and X12. These population data indicate that deer populations in the Sierra Nevada peaked in the 1960s, with numbers above the carrying capacity of the available habitat, and have subsequently declined to be more in line with habitat conditions (CDFG, 1998). Deer populations are now stable or increasing throughout most of the Sierra Nevada (CDFG, 2004). In 2003, CDFG determined that the population trend in DAU 11, which includes the Inyo NF, is stable to increasing (CDFG, 2004). The distribution of deer within the unit has remained unchanged. Population data gathered by CDFG on the deer herds present on the Inyo NF, which include herds in Inyo and Mono Counties, indicate a stable to increasing population trend (Alisa Ellsworth, CDFG Biologist, personal communication, 2006). These data, in combination with general presence data collected on the Inyo NF, indicate no change in the distribution of the deer population on the Forest. Gaines et al. (2003) identified the following road- and motorized trail-associated factors as having an effect on mule deer: hunting, poaching, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and disturbance at a specific site. Hunting and poaching: • Greater human access can increase opportunities for hunting as well as poaching of deer. During the hunting season, deer may become more wary of humans, and disturbance to deer is greater when being hunted. In New York State, antlered deer were found to have longer flight distances than deer than were not hunted (Jalkotzky et al., 1997). Hunted deer populations tend to have stronger reactions to people on foot than motorized vehicles. This may be due to the fact that deer can detect a vehicle from greater distances than if surprised by quieter humans on foot. Roads and trails can increase deer harvest success. A study using 143 radio-collared deer in Minnesota revealed that deer mortality during the hunting season was 2-4 times higher for deer that lived 0.2 km from a road versus those that were at >0.3 km from a road. Major access routes radiating from urban centers into deer range provide increased opportunities for hunters. • Since hunting levels for deer are controlled through hunting zone quotas and tag limits established by the California Department of Fish and Game, an increase in hunting opportunity or hunter success is unlikely to impact deer populations (deVos, 2003). Hunting limits also take into account estimates of the amount of illegal kill and road kill occurring. Levels of illegal harvest are not presently considered to be a significant source of mortality for deer herds on the Inyo NF.

Terrestrial Biota – 370 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Collisions: • Vehicle collisions with deer can contribute considerably to direct deer mortality. Deer are probably the most frequently-killed large mammal along North America’s roads. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety commissioned a study which estimated that more than 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions occur annually, resulting in more than 29,000 human injuries and 150 deaths. Romin and Bissonette (1996) conservatively estimated that the U.S. national deer road kill in 1991 totaled at least 500,000 deer. Deer road kills vary considerably by region and by season. In California, mule deer road kill along a 3 mile stretch of secondary highway was estimated at 6.0 and 7.7 per mile per year during spring and fall migrations, respectively (Jalkotzy et al., 1997). • The majority of deer-vehicle collisions occur in the early morning or late afternoon and evening hours, around dawn and sunset, when the deer are most active and when visibility is poor. More deer-vehicle collisions occur during the spring and fall, when deer are migrating. In the fall, hunting may cause deer to be more wary and active. In the spring, vegetation tends to green-up along roadsides and attract deer to roads. The frequency of deer and vehicle collisions differs by road type. Paved highways which experience high volume of traffic account for the vast majority of automobile associated mortality. There are little to no data on deer road kills along Forest roads; however, roads maintained at a higher standard for passenger vehicle (Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5), where vehicle speeds are greatest, have the most potential to contribute to deer-vehicle collisions. Deer-vehicle collisions on motorized trails and roads maintained for high clearance vehicles (Maintenance Level 2 roads) are probably not appreciable in number due to the lower speeds and the amount of use received by these roads.

Displacement or avoidance and disturbance at a specific site: • In general, mule deer will move away, or flush, from an approaching person and will usually allow a person in or on a vehicle to get closer than a person on foot (Freddy et al., 1986; Wisdom et al., 2004). Wisdom et al. (2004) found that mule deer showed little measurable flight response to experimental OHV treatments, but cautioned that deer may well be responding with fine-scale changes in habitat use (i.e., avoidance), rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight responses. Several studies have found that mule deer avoid areas in proximity to roads. Deer avoid primary roads more than secondary or tertiary roads and also avoid roads more in open habitats as opposed to areas with vegetative or topographic cover (deVos et al., 2003). Primary roads include paved highways which experience high traffic volume. Secondary roads are also paved, but traffic volume and speed tends to be lower. Tertiary roads include native surface Maintenance Level 2 roads, such as the routes considered in this analysis. • Various studies have shown that mule deer have displacement distances that vary between 200 and 800 meters (656 and 2,624 feet), depending upon the road type and traffic level, and the surrounding habitat (Perry and Overly, 1977; Rost and Bailey, 1979; Johnson et al., 2000). One study found that if habitat was available away from a linear road or trail, then

Terrestrial Biota – 371

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

deer avoided the disturbance corridor (Jalkotzy et al., 1997). However, when no suitable deer habitat was available away from the road or trail, then deer used the habitat adjacent to the road or trail. Rost and Bailey (1979) reported that deer and elk in Colorado avoided roads, especially within 200 meters (656 feet) of a road. Perry and Overly (1977) reported that deer were displaced up to 800 meters (2,624 feet) from roads. • Deer use was found to be reduced within 0.5 miles (800 m) of primary roads, whereas secondary and tertiary roads reduced deer densities from between 200 to 400 meters (656 to 1,312 feet) in these studies. Additional variables, such as the amount and frequency of traffic and the spatial distribution of roads in relation to deer use, influence the degree of negative effects that roads have on deer use in forested habitats (Perry and Overly, 1977; Johnson et al., 2000; deVos et al., 2003). Where disturbance causes deer to avoid areas within preferred habitats, animals may be forced into less preferred or lower quality habitats. Such shifts, particularly if repeated, can result in adverse impacts to the energy balance of individual deer and ultimately can decrease population productivity, especially on winter ranges (deVos et al., 2003). • Based upon Rost and Bailey’s 1979 study in Colorado, which indicated that deer were displaced within a 656 foot distance of secondary roads, a distance of 656 feet was applied to represent the Zone of Influence related to motorized routes, since the majority of Inyo NF roads and trails are likely most similar to those roads addressed in the Colorado study area. In order to assess the potential for disturbance and displacement of mule deer, the amount of habitat within 656 feet of routes available for motorized use was calculated. This metric was applied to overall winter range and “key areas”. Key areas consist of the seven winter concentration areas and two holding areas on the Forest. There are currently 58,067 acres of winter range and 8,952 acres of key areas within 656 feet of unauthorized routes. • Motor vehicle use of roads is not considered to be a disturbance factor for deer on their summer ranges, where the majority of fawning occurs. Summer range tends to be in relatively remote areas, primarily in the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Golden Trout wilderness areas. Effects of the alternatives on summer range will not be considered further in this analysis.

Mule Deer – Direct and Indirect Effects The table below presents the amount of deer winter range and key areas that are within 656 feet of routes available for motorized use.

Table 3-145: Acres of Mule Deer Winter Range and Key Areas within 656 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Winter 58,067 32,771 43,898 28,242 0 36,699 Range1 (14%) (8%) (11%) (7%) (0) (9%) Key Areas 8,952 5,543 7,426 4,960 0 6,363 (16%) (10%) (13%) (9%) (0) (11%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total winter range or key area available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 372 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The figures displayed in the table above represent the amount of habitat where some level of disturbance or avoidance may be occurring. In contrast to these route-effect zones, areas less influenced by motorized route effects are considered “security habitat”. For alternative comparison purposes, a habitat disturbance index is described in Gaines et al. (2003), where: 1) greater than 70 percent of winter range outside the zone has a low level of influence; 2) 50 to 70 percent of winter range outside the zone has a moderate level of influence; and 3) less than 50 percent of winter range outside the zone would constitute a high level of influence. Utilizing the index developed by Gaines et al., all alternatives would result in a low level of habitat disturbance. Continued use of unauthorized routes under Alternative 1 would result in the highest level of disturbance (14 percent of winter range and 16 percent of key areas affected) relative to the other alternatives. Routes added to the NFTS under Alternative 3 would continue to affect 11 percent and 13 percent of deer winter range and key areas, respectively. This represents a reduction in the proportion of deer habitat affected relative to Alternative 1. The proportion of both winter range and key areas affected is progressively less under Alternatives 6 (9 and 11 percent), 2 (8 and 10 percent), 4 (7 and 9 percent), and 5 (0 percent). Under Alternative 1, approximately 346,973 acres winter range and 37,892 acres of key areas would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all suitable winter range and key areas.

Mule Deer – Cumulative Effects Past and current cumulative effects to deer include current and historic grazing of deer habitat; loss or creation of habitat through catastrophic wildfires; loss of hiding cover from timber and fuels projects, along with an increase in forage; urban expansion around the Town of Mammoth Lakes and in the Owens Valley; and a general increase in noise and sight disturbance from recreational activities such as hunting, camping, and pleasure driving, including all forms of motor vehicle use. Deer mortality from collisions with vehicles is expected to continue on high-speed paved routes such as US395, SR203, SR157, SR167 and SR168. Between 1965 and 2001, deer mortality on a 40 mile stretch of US395 ranged from 5 – 56 deaths per year (EMA 2003). Bleich et al. (2006) reported that road-kills accounted for 27 percent of deer mortality investigated during their study and suggest “…the proportion of deaths attributable to anthropogenic causes among deer in Round Valley can only be expected to increase with destruction of winter ranges and constriction of migration corridors, both of which will increase vehicle traffic.” The Inyo NF currently has 45 active cattle and sheep grazing allotments. These allotments contain 231,835 acres of winter range and 26,983 acres of key areas (both winter concentration sites and holding areas). Deer and cattle generally do not overlap temporally in these areas and the risk of deer being disturbed by activities associated with domestic livestock grazing is low. Deer and livestock may compete for forage. The Inyo National Forest LRMP was amended to include utilization standards for livestock grazing. These standards are based on vegetation type, vegetation condition and watershed condition. The standards dictate the maximum amount of annual plant

Terrestrial Biota – 373

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

growth that can be removed by all grazing animals (domestic and wild) to maintain or enhance the productivity of vegetation communities. Implementation of these standards insures that adequate forage is available on wintering grounds and within holding areas. A query of suitable CWHR habitat types from the 2001 RSL vegetation layer identified approximately 1,577,439 acres of suitable mule deer habitat on the INF. Currently, there are at least 1,508,805 acres of suitable habitat. Since 2001, approximately 68,635 acres (4.4%) of this habitat have been affected by large perturbations, such as the McNally, Summit, Dexter, and Gooddale fires. More recently, the Inyo Complex of fires consumed approximately 21,735 acres of winter range west of Independence. Habitat burned by wildfire does not necessarily become unsuitable for mule deer, but may change from hiding or thermal cover to foraging habitat. In other cases, when invasive plant species colonize the site post-fire, habitat quality is reduced. Only when a complete type conversion (e.g., sagebrush/bitterbrush to cheat grass) occurs would the habitat become unsuitable. There are currently no areas identified on the Inyo National Forest where invasive plant colonization has created unsuitable mule deer habitat. A slight decline in habitat quality may result with the gradual spread of cheatgrass, Russian thistle, and tumbling mustards, as well as other non-native plant species into areas affected by these large landscape wildfires. These species have the ability to dominate the biomass of the plant associations of some portions of burned areas depending on slope, aspect, and soil type. Normally, the fires would be highly beneficial to deer, since native grasses, forbs and shrubs would be regenerated and become more palatable; however, cheatgrass, Russian thistle and tumbling mustards are largely unpalatable to deer and reduce the quality of the foraging habitat. In July of 2008, approximately 650 acres within the Inyo Complex fires experienced an overland mud flow as a result of summer thunderstorms. This area is currently un-vegetated and is no longer suitable winter habitat. It is unknown to what degree the soil productivity and available seed bed was altered by the mud flow or how long the site will remain devoid of vegetation (Ellsworth, pers. com.). Deer population distribution on the Forest has remained stable since 1988, according to CDFG Deer Analysis Unit 11 data that includes all herds found on the INF. The table below presents the proportion of winter range and key areas cumulatively affected by roads and motorized trails within the project area for all alternatives. Utilizing the index developed by Gaines et al., all alternatives would result in a low level of habitat disturbance within overall winter range and key areas, as more than 70 percent of winter range and key areas are outside the zone of influence of all routes (existing system plus proposed additions) available for motorized use and is available as security habitat.

Table 3-146: Acres of Mule Deer Winter Range and Key Areas within 656 Feet of All Roads (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) Open to Motor Vehicle Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Winter 106,606 89,673 98,665 86,346 70,296 93,220 Range1 (26%) (22%) (24%) (21%) (17%) (22%) Key Areas 17,071 14,808 16,214 14,595 12,540 15,526 (29%) (26%) (28%) (25%) (22) (27%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total winter range or key area available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 374 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to mule deer habitat. Approximately 650 acres of winter range are expected to be unsuitable for mule deer for some unknown period. This represents a 0.2 percent reduction in available winter range across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality is expected to be reduced slightly on up to 88,736 acres or less than 22 percent of available winter range. This habitat loss and reduction in quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to mule deer populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-147: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Mule Deer Winter Range Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Wildfire 68,635 Short term habitat quality 0 acres reduction due to loss of forage or cover. Recovery expected within one year. Mud Flow 650 Habitat loss. -650 acres Domestic livestock 231,835 Negligible habitat quality 0 acres allotments in deer winter reduction due to removal range. of forage Habitat affected within Up to 20,101 Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction due to reduced available for motor productivity of forage vehicle use plants Cumulative loss of habitat -650 acres

3.10.3.6 Riparian-Associated Species

Introduction The riparian-associated species group includes bald eagle, willow flycatcher, yellow warbler and Panamint alligator lizard. Wildlife species associated with riparian habitats are particularly vulnerable to the effects of recreation activities on their habitat because of the concentration of these activities in riparian areas. Riparian habitats occur in narrow, linear configurations that are often traversed by roads and trails. Because of the availability of open water, cover, and concentrated food sources, these habitats are used by wildlife disproportionately to their availability (Gaines et al., 2003; SNEP, 1996).

Bald Eagle – Affected Environment On July 9, 2007, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Final Rule that removed (delisted) the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 states. Official delisting of the bald eagle occurred 30 days from the date of the final rule. Bald eagles continue to receive federal protective status under statues of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Upon delisting, the bald eagle was placed on the Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Species.

Terrestrial Biota – 375

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The bald eagle occurs widely in North America, breeding from central Alaska and Canada, south locally to the Commander and Aleutian Islands, southern Alaska, Baja California (both coasts), Sonora, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas Gulf Coast, and Florida (including the Keys) and very locally in Great Basin and prairie and plains regions in interior North America; it winters generally throughout the breeding range except in the far north (NatureServe, 2005). The bald eagle winters throughout most of California at lakes, reservoirs, river systems, and some rangelands and coastal wetlands, and breeds mainly in the northern two-thirds of the State, mostly in mountainous habitats near reservoirs, lakes and rivers, in the Central Coast Range, and on Santa Catalina Island (CDFG, 2006). There are two known recently discovered bald eagle nesting territories on the INF, one at June Lake, and the other in the Upper Owens River watershed. Both territories contain a single nest, located within Jeffrey pine forests. The territories were discovered in 2004 and 2005, respectively. These recent territories may be the result of an expanding regional population of eagles that are now beginning to colonize formerly unoccupied suitable habitats. Surveys for bald eagle nests occur whenever bald eagles are detected during the spring and summer months. At present, the two nests identified above are the only two known to occur on the Inyo National Forest. Suitable summer perching and foraging habitat occurs throughout the analysis area, particularly around forest-edged lakes and rivers with fish or waterfowl populations. As an example, bald eagles have been observed on the Inyo NF in summer months at Saddlebag Lake, June Lake, Grant Lake, Convict Lake, Lake Mary, the Upper Owens River, and Davis Lake in the John Muir Wilderness. Larger trees with heavy, horizontal branches and overhead canopy cover provide roosting and resting habitat. Large trees such as old growth Jeffrey pine near (within approximately 1 mile) lakes, reservoirs, or rivers with dependable food supplies of fish and waterfowl can provide nesting habitat as evidenced by the new nest locations found at June Lake and the Upper Owens River. Eagles usually begin territorial establishment and nesting in mountain habitats in early spring. This species is also present on the INF during winter months, roosting in large conifers near open water. Data from mid-winter counts indicate that fewer than 50 individuals winter in the eastern Sierra region between Mono Lake and Lone Pine. Birds begin to arrive in November, as they vacate breeding grounds located further to the north. They tend to remain on or near the Forest until April or May, at which time they begin their northward migration. During mid-winter months, eagles concentrate near open water (both streams and lakes), where they forage on trout and waterfowl. Roosting areas are usually found adjacent to open water in conifer stands with large diameter trees present. Known winter use areas include the June Lake Loop, Upper Owens River, and Crowley Lake. Overall, approximately 9,526 acres of potential bald eagle winter roosting and nesting habitat occur on lands administered by the Inyo National Forest. Bald eagle surveys are conducted annually to determine mid-winter population status in the eastern Sierra. Permanent transects between Mono Lake and Haiwee Reservoir are traversed during a single day in January and all eagles are recorded. Results of these surveys suggest that the mid- winter bald eagle population has increased by approximately 1.2 percent in California since 1986. Gaines et al. (2003) identified the following road- and motorized trail-associated factors as potentially affecting the bald eagle: poaching, disturbance at a specific site and displacement/avoidance.

Terrestrial Biota – 376 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Poaching: • No instances of poaching have been documented on the Inyo National Forest. This activity is not considered a potential threat to local populations and will not be considered further in this analysis.

Disturbance at a Specific Site and Displacement or Avoidance: • Reported responses of bald eagles to human activities have included spatial avoidance of human activity and reproductive failure (Anthony et al., 1995). Bald eagles seem to be more sensitive to humans on foot than to vehicular traffic (Grubb and King, 1991; Hamann, 1999). Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found that the mean productivity of bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads, and the most recently used nests were located in areas farther from all types of roads and recreational facilities when compared to older nests in the same territory. Grubb and King (1991) evaluated the influence of vehicle traffic on bald eagle nesting activities and recommended buffers of 450 meters (1,476 feet) for vehicles. Nest site protection through seasonal area closures is one of the primary ways that the Forest Service and other land management agencies have implemented measures to avoid the potential for nest failures due to human disturbance (USFWS, 1986). • To determine the potential for disturbance of bald eagles, the number of miles of routes available for motorized travel within ¼-mile (400 meters) of bald eagle nests was calculated. There are currently approximately 1.7 miles of unauthorized routes within a ¼-mile radius of the eagle nest located in the Upper Owens River watershed and 0 miles in the area surrounding the nest located adjacent to June Lake. Disturbance of wintering bald eagles is not a factor associated with wheeled motor vehicle use of roads. Existing roads within suitable winter roosting areas are generally snow-covered during late-December through March when bald eagles are present.

Bald eagle habitat modification is not a factor associated with motor vehicle use of roads. Large conifers in proximity to areas of open water are the primary elements that define high quality bald eagle habitat. Neither of these elements is affected by the low standard routes (i.e., equivalent of Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails) considered in this document.

Bald Eagle – Direct and Indirect Effects Numerous studies have reported that eagles avoid or are adversely affected by human disturbance during the breeding period, which may result in nest abandonment and reproductive failure (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978; Andrew and Mosher, 1982; Fraser et al., 1985; Knight and Skagen, 1988; Buehler et al., 1991; Grubb and King, 1991; Chandler et al., 1995; Grubb et al., 1998). The response of bald eagles to human activities is variable. Individual bald eagles show different thresholds of tolerance for disturbance. Also, the distance at which a disturbance causes modified behavior is influenced by terrain, vegetation cover, line of sight, and prevailing winds. Forested habitats can mute noise generated by vehicles and screen the vehicle from sight. Some studies report that bald eagles may be more sensitive to foot traffic than vehicle traffic (Grubb and King, 1991;

Terrestrial Biota – 377

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Hammon, 1999). Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found that the productivity of bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads; more recent nest sites were located farther from roads and recreational facilities when compared to older nest sites in the same territory. The bald eagle nesting period consists of five phases: courtship and nest building, egg laying, incubation and hatching, early nestling period, and late nestling period. Eagle sensitivity to humans varies among these five phases, with eagles being most sensitive to human disturbance during the courtship and nest building phase. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act continues to protect the bald eagle following delisting under the Endangered Species Act. Originally passed in 1940 to protect bald eagles, the Eagle Act was amended in 1962 to protect golden eagles as well, by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C 668(a); 50 CFR 22). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). On July 5, 2007 the USFWS published a final rule which defined “disturb” to encompass effects to individual birds that are likely to result in an adverse biological impact:

“Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”

The following table displays the miles of route that would be available for motor vehicle use within ¼-mile of a known bald eagle nest by alternative.

Table 3-148: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use within ¼-mile of a Bald Eagle Nest Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 1.7 0.08 0.08 0 0 0.003 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The USFWS recently published national bald eagle management guidelines (USFWS, 2007). In order to avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles, the guidelines recommend: (1) keeping a distance between various activities and the nest (distance buffers), (2) maintaining preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest trees (landscape buffers), and (3) avoiding certain activities during the breeding season. The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory impacts associated with human activities near nest sites. Ideally, buffers would be large enough to protect existing nest trees and provide for alternative or replacement nest trees. The national guidelines recommend the following with regards to motor vehicle use: 1) no buffer is necessary around nest sites outside the breeding season, and, 2) during the breeding season, do not operate off-road vehicles within 330 feet of the nest. In open areas, where there is increased visibility and exposure to noise, this distance should be extended to 660 feet (USFWS, 2007).

Terrestrial Biota – 378 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Under Alternative 1, nine routes or route segments (02S432, 02S447, 02S448, 02S546 - 02S549, N3034 and N947) would be open to motorized use within ¼-mile of a bald eagle nest. Two of these routes (02S448 and 02S546) are within 200 feet of a nest and vehicle use on these routes could disturb eagles. During the nest building period, disturbance may cause eagles to inadequately construct or repair their nest, or abandon the nest, both of which can lead to failed nesting attempts. During the incubation and hatching period, human activities may startle adults or cause them to flush from the nest. Startling can damage eggs or injure young when the adults abruptly leave the nest. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, two route segments (02S432 and N3034) totaling 0.08 miles would be added to the NFTS within ¼-mile of a bald eagle nest. Both routes are greater than 1,000 feet from the nest, outside both buffer distances recommended by USFWS. In addition, forested habitat is present between the two routes and the nest which effectively screens vehicle visibility and noise from detection by eagles. Vehicle use on either route is not likely to disturb nesting bald eagles. In Alternative 6, one route segment (N3034) totaling 0.003 miles (approximately 18 feet) would be added to the NFTS within ¼-mile of a bald eagle nest. As described above, this short segment is greater than 1,000 feet from the nest and effectively screened by forested habitat. Vehicle use of this route is not likely to disturb nesting bald eagles. Alternatives 4 and 5 do not add any routes to the NFTS within ¼-mile of a bald eagle nest. Neither alternative would result in disturbance of nesting bald eagles. Under Alternative 1, approximately 250 acres within ¼-miles of a known bald eagle nest would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all habitat within ¼-mile of a nest.

Bald Eagle – Cumulative Effects The majority of past and present activities on the Inyo National Forest have had little impact on bald eagles or their habitat. Disturbances such as mining, geothermal development, livestock grazing, ski area development, and wildfire have not appreciably affected the availability or quality of habitat. Past and on-going activities that have affected bald eagle habitat are chiefly associated with development of reservoirs and water transportation out of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley. Reservoir development created eagle foraging habitat at Ellery, Tioga, Waugh, Gem, and Agnew lakes, and Tinemaha and Haiwee reservoirs. Conversely, the de-watering of portions of the lower Owens River and Owens Dry Lake reduced available foraging habitat. Potential bald eagle nesting habitat is relatively un-altered relative to its historic condition. Eagle nesting habitat tends to be in close proximity to rivers and lakes in stands of timber containing large, old trees. Vegetation treatments on the Inyo have historically avoided lake shores and river systems. Recreation and urban development are the primary factors that have affected potential bald eagle nesting areas. The June Lake nest is situated within a residential development adjacent to the community of June Lake. The effects of continued use within the residential tract were analyzed in 2004 during the permit re- issuance process. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with a local determination that bald eagles were not likely to be adversely affected by activities within the tract. Bald eagles appear to be able to adapt to a certain amount of human disturbance and appear to be increasing on the Forest.

Terrestrial Biota – 379

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

A habitat improvement project was implemented in 2006 to protect the Owens River nest and adjacent old-growth Jeffrey pines. Approximately five acres around the nest were treated by removing small diameter Jeffrey pines to eliminate ladder fuels and reduce competition with mature trees. Approximately 1.2 miles of NFTS routes are present within ¼-mile of the two known bald eagle nests. Approximately 0.5 miles are within ¼-mile of the June Lake nest, associated with the residential tract and the community of June Lake. Approximately 0.7 miles of authorized system road are within ¼-mile of the Owens River nest, including Forest Roads 02S08 and 02S90. The table below presents the total miles of routes available for motor vehicle traffic for each alternative. Alternative 1 poses the highest risk of disturbance to nesting bald eagles by allowing motor vehicle use to continue on 2.9 miles of routes within ¼-mile of a nest. Existing unauthorized routes account for 59 percent of the mileage within the identified nest buffer. Without a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel, these routes would remain available for motor vehicle use under Alternative 1. This represents a 142 percent increase relative to all other alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would have negligible cumulative impacts on nesting bald eagles, as less than 0.1 mile of routes would be added to the existing system within ¼-mile of a nest. Alternatives 4 and 5 would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

Table 3-149: Cumulative Miles of Roads and Trails Available for Motorized Use within ¼-mile of Bald Eagle Nests Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 June Lake 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Nest Owens River 2.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 Nest

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual bald eagles but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel within ¼-mile of all bald eagle nests on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS within ¼-mile of a nest has the potential to result in disturbance of bald eagles during the nesting season. Alternatives 2 and 3 would add two route segments (approximately 0.08 miles) to the NFTS within ¼-mile of the Owens River nest. Alternative 6 would add one of these route segments totaling approximately 18 feet within ¼-mile of the Owens River nest. Both route segments are outside both the 330 foot and 660 foot buffer recommended by the USFWS national bald eagle management guidelines, and disturbance from motor vehicle use of these routes is expected to be negligible. The negligible disturbance associated with these routes is not expected to affect bald eagle abundance or distribution and poses a low risk of impacting bald eagle viability on the Inyo National Forest. No routes would be added to the NFTS within ¼-mile of a bald eagle nest under Alternatives 4 or 5. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within close proximity of bald eagle nests when compared to the existing condition in the no action alternative.

Terrestrial Biota – 380 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Willow Flycatcher – Affected Environment Three willow flycatcher subspecies occur in California. The southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies (Empidonax trailii extimus) is a federally listed endangered species that occurs as far north as the head of the Owens River Valley, north of Bishop. The presence of this subspecies has not been confirmed in the Sierra Nevada, but rather the valleys to the south and east (Green et al., 2003). Subspecies brewsterii and adastus are Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species. E. t. brewsterii appears to occur in the Sierra Nevada primarily west of the Sierra crest, while E. t. adastus appears to occur primarily east of the Sierra crest into the Great Basin to the east. Green et al. (2003) noted that adastus and brewsterii ranges overlap and intergradation could occur in this overlap zone. They cited other researchers as suggesting that the two subspecies may be synonymous, and that, from a practical management standpoint, it probably does not matter which subspecies it is. Willow flycatcher habitat found on the Inyo National Forest could potentially be suitable for all three subspecies, or intergrades (Green et al., 2003); however the USFWS did not identify E. t. extimus as being present on the Inyo National Forest (USFWS, 2007). Ranges for all three subspecies east of the Sierra Nevada crest appear to meet where the Mojave Desert, Sierra, and Great Basin ecoregions meet in Inyo and Mono Counties. The zone of separation for the three subspecies on the Inyo National Forest is confounded by limited subspecific genetic and range identification work. Subspecies adastus and brewsterii breed in shrubby vegetation in meadow and riparian communities. There is usually some surface water or saturated soil within defended territories during the early part of the breeding season. The shrub layer is typically 6 to 12 feet high, with the lower 6 feet comprised of dense woody vegetation. Other features of sites occupied by willow flycatchers, such as dominant plant species, sizes and shapes of vegetation patches, as well as amount and source of water (streams, oxbows, lake margins. springs and seeps), vary widely among sites (Green et al., 2003). The Inyo National Forest contains approximately 850 acres of potentially suitable willow flycatcher habitat. Approximately 440 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. The Inyo National Forest has completed two year protocol surveys per SNFPA direction in all occupied and historically occupied habitats, as well as suitable emphasis habitats within a 5-mile radius of the occupied and historically occupied sites (USDA Forest Service, 2001 and 2004). The only detections of willow flycatcher that occurred during the breeding season in occupied, historically occupied, or emphasis habitats within the 5 mile radius from 2001 through 2008 were at Rush Creek; a tributary of Mono Lake. Willow flycatcher monitoring efforts at Rush Creek on the Inyo NF from 2000 through 2008 have been conducted in partnership with Point Reyes Bird Observatory. The surveys have identified a significant population of nesting willow flycatchers that has persisted throughout the study period. The number of territorial individuals increased annually from 2001 to 2004, but has decreased each year since then (McCreedy, 2008). In 2008, the Rush Creek population experienced total breeding failure for the first time during the study. Breeding failure was attributed to predation and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds.

Terrestrial Biota – 381

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The lower Rush Creek population appears to select nest site and territory habitat attributes differently from other willow flycatcher populations in California. These attributes include utilizing Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii) as opposed to willow and a lack of territory and nest site correlation to surface water (McCreedy and Heath, 2004). Gaines et al. (2003) identified collisions and edge effects as road- and motorized trail-associated factors potentially impacting willow flycatchers. Two measurement indicators are used in this analysis to assess the effects on willow flycatchers of adding routes to the NFTS. Miles of routes available for motorized use within willow flycatcher habitat is used to measure potential for collisions between birds and vehicles. There are currently 0.035 miles of existing unauthorized routes within willow flycatcher habitat. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to willow flycatcher habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within two distances (30 feet and 100 feet, respectively) of routes available for motorized use was determined. The following table displays the current proportion of overall willow flycatcher habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-150: Acres of Willow Flycatcher Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Acres Percent of Total Acres Percent of Total 0.13 0.02% 2.5 0.3%

Noise disturbance was not identified as a risk factor for willow flycatchers (USDA Forest Service, 2001; Green et al,. 2003). It is unlikely that noise associated with motor vehicle use of roads is affecting willow flycatchers on the Inyo National Forest and will not be considered further in this analysis.

Willow Flycatcher – Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, one route segment (04S124) in unoccupied willow flycatcher habitat totaling 0.003 miles would continue to experience motor vehicle use (see table below). This is a short segment of a longer route that abuts the periphery of willow flycatcher habitat. The portion of route 04S124 in willow flycatcher habitat measures approximately 16 feet in length and is the terminus of this route. This route is rated as receiving “light” use (less than 25 vehicles/week) and vehicle speed on the route is expected to be low based on terrain. It is unlikely that this route is contributing to collisions between motor vehicles and willow flycatchers. This route segment would be added to the NFTS under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. No route segments in willow flycatcher habitat would be added in Alternatives 4 or 5.

Table 3-151: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use within Willow Flycatcher Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 0.003 0.003 0.003 0 0 0.003 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The Willow Flycatcher Conservation Assessment (Green et al., 2003) identified roads as a factor responsible for the loss and degradation of willow flycatcher habitat. Specifically, roads (dirt-surfaced

Terrestrial Biota – 382 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 or paved) intercept surface and subsurface hydrological flow. Road impacts are increased especially when the road prism bisects a meadow and the road has associated drainage structures to maintain road conditions. Meadow desiccation occurs when hydrological flows are intercepted and redirected, which may result in long-term habitat loss or degradation. On the Inyo National Forest, there are no unauthorized routes in meadow-associated willow flycatcher habitat (see previous discussion). Direct and indirect habitat impacts associated with motor vehicle use of routes are therefore limited to physical modification or reduced productivity of riparian vegetation. The following table displays the results for the measurement indicators utilized to determine potential direct and indirect impacts to willow flycatcher habitat.

Table 3-152: Acres of Suitable Willow Flycatcher Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 0.13 0.12 0.12 0 0 0.12 Buffer1 (0.02%) (0.01%) (0.01%) (0%) (0%) (0.01%) 100 Foot 2.5 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.0 Buffer (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0%) (0%) (0.2%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total willow flycatcher habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, approximately 0.13 acres of willow flycatcher habitat may be directly affected by continued motor vehicle use of routes 04S117 and 04S124 (Mammoth Creek) and N2959 and N2960 (South Fork Bishop Creek). Impacts at these sites could include physical crushing or uprooting of vegetation if vehicles pull off the roads to park. Indirect impacts, such as reduced productivity within the riparian community or loss of habitat structure, could occur on 2.5 acres adjacent to the routes listed above and 01N134 (Bohler Canyon), 04S116, and 04S118 (Mammoth Creek). Potential direct and indirect impacts are reduced under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 to 0.12 and 0.2 acres, respectively. The reduction is attributable to not adding 01N134 and a portion of N2959 to the NFTS. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 a barrier would be constructed near the terminus of route 04S124 where it enters the riparian vegetation associated with Mammoth Creek (see Appendix A). This would eliminate the potential for future habitat loss at this site and allow for passive recovery of a small area (< 50 square feet) where willows have been impacted by vehicles parking. Alternatives 4 and 5 do not add any routes in or within 100 feet of willow flycatcher habitat and no direct or indirect impacts would result. Under Alternative 1, approximately 426 acres of suitable willow flycatcher habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all suitable willow flycatcher habitat. All action alternatives would result in negligible direct or indirect impacts to willow flycatcher habitat and would not result in a loss of viability for local populations or a trend towards federal listing. The maximum amount of habitat potentially impacted would be 2.5 acres or 0.3 percent of habitat available on the Inyo National Forest.

Terrestrial Biota – 383

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Willow Flycatcher – Cumulative Effects During the twentieth century, willow flycatchers have experienced precipitous declines across California, particularly in the Sierra Nevada and along the Colorado River (Craig and Williams, 1998; Serena, 1982). The primary activity occurring within meadows and riparian areas on national forest system lands used by willow flycatchers—historically and currently— is livestock grazing. Livestock grazing can impact the types of meadows and riparian areas used by willow flycatchers by: browsing and grazing vegetation that provides cover for willow flycatcher nests and habitat for insect prey, altering hydrology through soil compaction and streambank erosion, and ultimately by affecting the composition and structure of plant communities in riparian a meadow areas (USDA Forest Service, 2001). At present, approximately 379 acres (44 percent) of willow flycatcher habitat on the Inyo National Forest is within open grazing allotments. The majority of this habitat (286 acres) is located on the Kern Plateau. Although not currently reasonably foreseeable, revision of the management plans for allotments on the Kern Plateau should be completed by 2011 and are expected to contain site-specific measures to protect willow flycatcher habitat. In the interim, implementation of forestwide standards and guidelines for utilization levels on riparian vegetation should serve to maintain or enhance willow flycatcher habitat within the allotments. Water diversions have also impacted willow flycatchers, especially those populations using streamside riparian zones. In the Owens Valley, riparian vegetation downstream of the intake to the Los Angeles aqueduct has dramatically changed to a more xeric condition due to the lack of water (Brothers, 1984) and no longer provides habitat for nesting willow flycatchers. Recent re-watering of portions of the lower Owens River should reverse this earlier loss of habitat. Stine et al. (1984) documented the destruction of the riparian systems (e.g., Lee Vining and Rush Creeks) draining into Mono Lake due to water diversion to Los Angeles. Several hundred acres of willow-dominated habitat was either inundated by impoundments or dried up from diversions. Today, these riparian zones support eight territories (C. McCreedy, pers. comm.), as a result of recent restoration activities. Recent re-watering efforts in both the Owens Valley and the Mono Basin have resulted in the restoration of the majority of potential willow flycatcher habitat. Approximately 0.46 miles of NFTS routes exist within identified willow flycatcher habitat. The table below presents the total miles of routes available for motor vehicle traffic (existing system plus proposed additions) for each alternative. All alternatives pose a low risk for collisions between willow flycatchers and vehicles, due to the low mileage of routes within suitable habitat. The incremental contribution of adding routes to the NFTS is 0.7 percent under Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 and 0 percent under Alternatives 4 and 5.

Table 3-153: Miles of Route Available for Motor Vehicle Use (Existing System plus Additions) within Willow Flycatcher Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The following table presents the proportion of willow flycatcher habitat potentially affected by routes available for motor vehicle traffic. All alternatives pose a low risk for cumulative loss of habitat associated with motor vehicle use of roads. Cumulative direct and indirect impacts are expected on less than 0.02 and 0.5 percent of available habitat under all alternatives.

Terrestrial Biota – 384 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-154: Acres of Suitable Willow Flycatcher Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from All Roads Open to Motor Vehicle Use Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.14 Buffer1 (0.02%) (0.02%) (0.02%) (0%) (0%) (0.02%) 100 Foot 4.1 3.6 3.6 1.8 1.8 3.6 Buffer (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.4%) 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to willow flycatcher habitat. No present or future activities are anticipated to change the amount of available willow flycatcher habitat. Habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 4.8 acres or approximately 0.6 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to willow flycatcher populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-155: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Willow Flycatcher Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Domestic livestock 379 Negligible reduction in 0 acres grazing habitat quality Habitat affected within Up to 4.8 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of riparian vehicle use vegetation and/or reduced productivity. Cumulative loss of habitat 0 acres

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual willow flycatchers, but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel within all suitable habitat present on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to willow flycatcher habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.01 percent of available habitat under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. No direct impacts are anticipated under Alternatives 4 or 5 as no routes would be added to the NFTS within 30 feet of suitable habitat. All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of willow flycatchers and would pose a low risk of impacting willow flycatcher viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative.

Terrestrial Biota – 385

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Yellow Warbler – Affected Environment The yellow warbler is a management indicator species representing riparian habitats. Suitable yellow warbler habitat includes CWHR types MRI (montane riparian) and VRI (valley foothill riparian). In California, the yellow warbler breeds from the coast range in Del Norte county, east to Modoc plateau, south along the coast range to Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, and along the western slope of Sierra Nevada south to Kern County; it also breeds along the eastern side of California, from the Lake Tahoe area south through Inyo County and in several southern California mountain ranges and throughout most of San Diego County (CWHR, 2005). This species is usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CWHR, 2005). It also breeds in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. During migration, it visits woodland, forest, and shrub habitats. Approximately 6,430 acres of potentially suitable yellow warbler habitat have been identified on the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 2,780 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Between May 1, 1998, and August 15, 2003, Point Reyes Bird Observatory personnel conducted riparian songbird monitoring in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Their monitoring consisted of point count transects, searching for nests and mist netting along selected streams in the Owens River, Hammil Valley, and Mono Lake watersheds. During the study period, yellow warblers were detected at 10 of 16 sites in the Owens River and Hammil Valley watersheds, and at all 12 of the sites surveyed in the Mono Lake watershed (PRBO, 2004). Gaines et al. (2003) found that yellow warblers were likely to be affected by the following road- and motorized trail-associated factors: edge effects and collisions. Two measurement indicators were used in this analysis to assess the effects on yellow warbler habitat associated with adding routes to the NFTS. The actual acreage of habitat encumbered within a road prism was calculated by determining the number of miles of routes located in yellow warbler habitat and multiplying by the width of the route. Route width is assumed to be a maximum of 12 feet. In some cases, route width may be less; therefore impacts may be over estimated. There are currently 2 miles of unauthorized routes in identified yellow warbler habitat. This equates to a maximum of 2.9 acres of habitat encumbered by routes. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to yellow warbler habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within two distances (30 feet and 100 feet) of routes available for motorized use was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall yellow warbler habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-156: Acres of Yellow Warbler Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Acres Percent of Total Acres Percent of Total 16 0.2% 69 1.1%

Terrestrial Biota – 386 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Yellow Warbler – Direct and Indirect Effects The following two tables display the measurement indicators used to identify potential direct and indirect impacts to yellow warbler habitat resulting from addition of routes to the NFTS.

Table 3-157: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use within Yellow Warbler Habitat and Acres of Habitat Encumbered by These Routes Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 2.0 1.3 1.9 0.9 0 1.1 Acres1 2.9 1.9 2.8 1.3 0 1.6 (0.05%) (0.03%) (0.04%) (0.02%) (0 %) (0.02%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total yellow warbler habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Table 3-158: Acres of Suitable Yellow Warbler Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 16 11 15 8 0 9 Buffer1 (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0%) (0.1%) 100 Foot 69 49 62 35 0 41 Buffer (1.1%) (0.8%) (1.0%) (0.5%) (0%) (0.6%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total yellow warbler habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, forty routes or route segments totaling two miles in yellow warbler habitat would continue to experience motor vehicle use. Most of these routes are at the periphery of the riparian vegetation and are not resulting in a loss of yellow warbler habitat. The longest route (06S101 – 0.31 miles) traverses the ecotone between montane riparian habitat along Pine Creek and sage-scrub vegetation, and is not actually encumbering yellow warbler habitat. On 36 of the 40 routes or route segments, less than 0.1 mile of the route actually passes through or adjacent to yellow warbler habitat. At most, these 40 routes encumber 2.9 acres of yellow warbler habitat, or approximately 0.05 percent of yellow warbler habitat available forestwide. Alternative 3 adds all but 0.1 mile of unauthorized routes which currently exist in yellow warbler habitat to the NFTS. Approximately 2.8 acres of potential yellow warbler habitat would continue to be encumbered by these routes. Over time, 0.1 acre of habitat would likely recover through passive restoration. The miles of route in yellow warbler habitat added to the NFTS and the acreage of habitat encumbered by these routes decreases incrementally under Alternatives 2 (1.3 miles/1.9 acres), 6 (1.1 miles/1.6 acres), and 4 (0.9 miles/1.3 acres). Under Alternatives 2, 6, and 4, passive restoration would likely occur where routes are not added to the NFTS. No routes in yellow warbler habitat would be added to the NFTS in Alternative 5. Additional direct and indirect impacts may occur associated with routes within 30 feet and 100 feet of yellow warbler habitat, respectively. Approximately 16 acres of suitable habitat are within 30 feet of unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. Within this zone, habitat quality may be directly affected by vehicles parking adjacent to the roadway. The area potentially affected is progressively reduced under Alternatives 3 (15 acres), 2 (11 acres), 6 (9 acres), 4 (8 acres), and 5 (0 acres). Sixty-nine acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1.

Terrestrial Biota – 387

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Indirect impacts would be similar to those described for willow flycatcher, including reduced productivity within the riparian community or loss of habitat structure. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (62 acres), 2 (49 acres), 6 (41 acres), 4 (35 acres), and 5 (0 acres). Under Alternative 1, approximately 1,916 acres of suitable yellow warbler habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Seven additional acres of yellow warbler habitat occur in the Poleta Open Area along the riparian zone in Redding Canyon. Alternative 4 would protect this habitat from direct and indirect impacts associated with motor vehicle use by prohibiting cross-country travel. The habitat would remain open to cross-country motor vehicle use under all other alternatives. All action alternatives would result in negligible direct and indirect impacts to yellow warbler habitat. The maximum amount of habitat potentially impacted would be 69 acres (62 acres within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes available for motor vehicle use under Alternative 3 plus 7 acres in Redding Canyon) or 1.1 percent of habitat available on the Inyo National Forest (Table 3-158). However, this would only occur if all vegetation within 100 feet of each route and all 7 acres in Redding Canyon was affected, which is not happening under current management or anticipated to occur under any of the alternatives.

Yellow Warbler – Cumulative Effects Livestock grazing and water diversions are the primary historic and on-going activities that affect yellow warbler habitat. The impacts to yellow warbler habitat associated with these activities are the same as those described for willow flycatcher. Approximately 2,564 acres (40 percent) of yellow warbler habitat are contained within active grazing allotments. The majority of this habitat (2,007 acres) is located on the Kern Plateau and in the White Mountains. Revision of the management plans for allotments on the Kern Plateau and in the White Mountains should be completed by 2011 and 2010, respectively, and are expected to contain site-specific measures to protect the riparian areas that provide yellow warbler habitat. In the interim, implementation of forestwide standards and guidelines for utilization levels on riparian vegetation should serve to maintain or enhance yellow warbler habitat within the allotments. Approximately 10 miles of NFTS routes exist within identified yellow warbler habitat. The table below presents the total miles of road available for motor vehicle traffic for each alternative (existing system plus additions) and the acreage of yellow warbler habitat encumbered by these routes. The following table displays the proportion of yellow warbler habitat potentially affected by all routes available for motor vehicle traffic.

Table 3-159: Total Miles of Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use within Yellow Warbler Habitat and Acres of Habitat Encumbered by These Routes Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 12.0 11.3 11.9 10.9 10 11.1 Acres1 17.4 16.4 17.3 15.8 14.5 16.1 (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2 %) (0.3%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total yellow warbler habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 388 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

All alternatives would result in negligible cumulative impacts to yellow warbler habitat. The maximum amount of habitat potentially impacted would be 83 acres (76 acres within 100 feet of all routes available for motor vehicle use under Alternative 1 plus 7 acres in Redding Canyon) or 1.3 percent of habitat available on the Inyo National Forest. The acres of habitat identified in the table below represent the maximum area potentially cumulatively impacted under each alternative. However, this would only occur if all vegetation within 100 feet of each route was affected, which is not happening under current management or anticipated to occur under any alternative. Under all alternatives, road density within suitable yellow warbler habitat would be low.

Table 3-160: Acres of Suitable Yellow Warbler Habitat within Two Buffer Distances of All Roads Available for Motor Vehicle Use (Existing System plus Additions) Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 20 15 19 12 4 13 Buffer1 (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) 100 Foot 76 58 70 45 16 50 Buffer (1.1%) (0.9%) (1.1%) (0.7%) (0.3%) (0.8%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total yellow warbler habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to yellow warbler habitat. No present or future activities are anticipated to change the amount of available yellow warbler habitat. Habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 83 acres or approximately 1.3 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to yellow warbler populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-161: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Yellow Warbler Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Domestic livestock 2,564 Negligible reduction in 0 acres grazing habitat quality Habitat affected within Up to 76 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of riparian vehicle use vegetation and/or reduced productivity. Habitat potentially Up to 7 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres affected in Poleta Open (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5 reduction through Area and 6) removal of riparian vegetation and/or reduced productivity. Cumulative loss of habitat 0 acres

Management Indicator Species Summary: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Yellow Warbler Trends: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the yellow warbler; hence, the riparian habitat effects analysis for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population bioregional-scale monitoring

Terrestrial Biota – 389

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the yellow warbler. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2008a). There are currently 29,000 acres of riparian habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend is stable. The yellow warbler has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including Lassen NF (Burnett and Humple, 2003; Burnett et al., 2005) and Inyo NF (Heath and Ballard, 2003) point counts; on-going California Partners in Flight monitoring and studies (CPIF, 2004); 1992 to 2005 – Sierra Nevada Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations (Siegel and Kaschube, 2007); and 1968 to present – Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al., 2007). These data indicate that yellow warblers continue to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. The Inyo NF Travel Management Project may affect up to 76 acres of riparian habitat important to yellow warbler. This represents 0.3 percent of yellow warbler habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced incrementally under all action alternatives through passive restoration of currently encumbered habitat. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Travel Management Project will not alter the existing trend in riparian habitats, nor lead to a change in the distribution of yellow warbler across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Panamint Alligator Lizard – Affected Environment The Panamint alligator lizard is designated as a sensitive species in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service. Panamint alligator lizards occur only in the Argus, Inyo, Nelson, Panamint, and White Mountains of Inyo and Mono Counties at elevations between 2,280 and 6,200 feet. Occurrence in talus habitat suggested to Banta et al. (1996) that the geographic range may be much broader than is now known. Little is known about the life history of this species or the status of historic populations. All specimens have been recorded near permanent water sources in canyons or in talus near dense vegetation. This species appears to occupy a habitat that is relictual from former wetter times. As the desert has dried out, it has been restricted to a few moist mountain localities. It is known from the Inyo Mountains (Daisy Canyon, Lime Hill, Long John Canyon, French Spring), White Mountains (Batchelder Spring, Westgard Pass, Marble Canyon, Tollhouse Spring, Black Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, Silver Creek Canyon, Coldwater Creek, above Chalfant and Hammil Valleys), eastern Argus Mountains, and Cosos Mountains (Banta et al., 1996). Habitat for this species was identified as all habitat types within 100 feet of dense riparian vegetation in the White and Inyo Mountains below 7,000 feet. Approximately 1,450 acres of potential habitat are identified on the Inyo National Forest. All 1,450 acres are within the 11 focus areas. Preliminary inventories for this species began in 2000. Pilot studies were conducted during 2000 and 2001 by Dr. Morafka of California State University to assess presence/absence in selected areas of the White and Inyo Mountains. Non-lethal pit-fall and funnel traps combined with drift fences were installed at various locations and specimens were collected, marked and released. Panamint

Terrestrial Biota – 390 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 alligator lizards were detected in an un-roaded area of Coldwater Canyon; in Silver Canyon along County Road 6S02 in proximity to unauthorized route N2664; in Black Canyon along Forest Road 7S16; and in an un-roaded section of Marble Canyon. No specific literature is available that documents the specific road or motorized trail-associated impacts on this species, however Gaines et al. (2003) lists the following potential factors for a similar species (the northern alligator lizard): collisions and habitat loss/fragmentation. Collisions: • Panamint alligator lizards have been observed basking on rocks, talus slopes, and roadways in riparian canyons on the western slopes of the White Mountains (Milano, pers com.). This behavior makes them susceptible to being run over by motorized vehicle use of these roads.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: • Stream crossings remove a segment of riparian vegetation and fragment riparian corridors. Additional habitat may be affected within roadside corridors through loss of vegetation or decreased productivity.

Two measurement indicators are used in this analysis to assess the effects on Panamint alligator lizards associated with adding routes to the NFTS. Miles of routes available for motorized use within Panamint alligator lizard habitat is used to measure potential for collisions between lizards and vehicles. There are currently 2 miles of unauthorized routes within Panamint alligator lizard habitat. To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to Panamint alligator lizard habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within two distances (30 feet and 100 feet) of routes available for motorized use was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall Panamint alligator lizard habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-162: Acres of Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Acres Percent of Total Acres Percent of Total 15 1% 48 3.3%

Panamint Alligator Lizard – Direct and Indirect Effects The two tables below display the measurement indicators used to identify potential direct and indirect impacts to Panamint alligator lizards resulting from addition of routes to the NFTS.

Table 3-163: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use within Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat Alt 11 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 2 1.2 1.7 1.2 0 0.9 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 391

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-164: Acres of Suitable Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 15.0 9.1 12.8 8.7 0 6.4 Buffer1 (1.0%) (0.6%) (0.9%) (0.6%) (0%) (0.4%) 100 Foot 48 29 39 28 0 21 Buffer (3.3%) (2.0%) (2.7%) (1.9%) (0%) (1.4%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Panamint alligator lizard habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, 15 routes or route segments totaling 2 miles in Panamint alligator lizard habitat would continue to experience motor vehicle use. Mortality of individual lizards may occur as vehicles travel these routes. The likelihood for vehicle-lizard encounters would decrease with a reduction in mileage within suitable habitat. Alternative 3 would add twelve routes totaling 1.7 miles in Panamint alligator lizard habitat to the NFTS. This would eliminate 0.3 miles where vehicle-lizard encounters could occur under Alternative 1. The mileage of routes added to the NFTS decreases sequentially in Alternatives 2 and 4 (1.2 miles), 6 (0.9 miles) and 5 (0 miles). Alternatives 4 and 6 add the same number of routes, but Alternative 6 does not add approximately ¼-mile of route N2098 in Redding Canyon. None of the action alternatives would add unauthorized route N2664, which is closest to a documented sighting of an individual Panamint alligator lizard. Direct and indirect impacts may occur associated with routes within 30 feet and 100 feet of Panamint alligator lizard habitat, respectively. Approximately 15 acres of suitable habitat are within 30 feet of unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. Within this zone, habitat quality may be directly affected by vehicles parking adjacent to the roadway. Forty-eight acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of these routes. Indirect impacts would be similar to those described for willow flycatcher, including reduced productivity within the riparian community or loss of habitat structure. The area potentially directly and indirectly impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (12.8/39 acres), 2 (9.1/29 acres), 4 (8.7/28 acres), 6 (7.0/23 acres), and 5 (0 acres). Three routes (N1892, N1894 and N1918) cross perennial streams within Panamint alligator lizard habitat. At each crossing, approximately 0.01 acres of suitable habitat is encumbered by the route. All three routes would be added to the NFTS under all alternatives except Alternative 5. For all action alternatives where these routes remain open, a mitigation measure has been identified to harden the stream crossing to prevent road widening, sedimentation in the stream, and degradation of riparian habitat. These measures will serve to protect existing Panamint alligator lizard habitat. Under Alternative 1, approximately 599 acres of suitable Panamint alligator lizard habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Fifty-one additional acres of Panamint alligator lizard habitat occur in the Poleta Canyon Open Area along the riparian zone in Redding Canyon. Alternative 4 would protect this habitat from direct and indirect impacts associated with motor vehicle use by prohibiting cross-country travel and would reduce the potential for vehicle-lizard encounters. The habitat would remain open to cross-country motor vehicle use under all other alternatives.

Terrestrial Biota – 392 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

All action alternatives could result in minor impacts to Panamint alligator lizard individuals or their habitat. The maximum amount of habitat potentially directly impacted would be 63.8 acres (12.8 acres within 30 feet of existing unauthorized routes available for motor vehicle use under Alternative 3 plus 51 acres in Redding Canyon) or 4.4 percent of habitat available on the Inyo National Forest. The acres of habitat identified in Table 3-164 in conjunction with suitable habitat within the Poleta Canyon OHV area represent the maximum area potentially directly and indirectly impacted under each alternative. This would only occur if all vegetation within 100 feet of each route and throughout Poleta Canyon was affected, which is not happening under current management or anticipated to occur under any of the alternatives.

Panamint Alligator Lizard – Cumulative Effects Historic livestock grazing and, to a lesser degree, water diversion have likely affected the quality and extent of Panamint alligator lizard habitat. In recent times, Panamint alligator lizards have only been documented in riparian areas on the western slopes of the White Mountains. These areas are not within active grazing allotments. Approximately 733 acres (50 percent) of suitable habitat are within grazing allotments along the eastern escarpment of the White Mountains. Revision of the management plans for allotments in the White Mountains should be completed by 2010 and is expected to contain site-specific measures to protect the riparian areas that provide Panamint alligator lizard habitat. In the interim, implementation of forestwide standards and guidelines for utilization levels should serve to maintain or enhance Panamint alligator lizard habitat within the allotments. Approximately 7.6 miles of NFTS roads exist within Panamint alligator lizard habitat. The table below presents the total miles of routes available for motor vehicle use for each alternative (existing system plus proposed additions). Cumulatively, all alternatives pose a moderate risk for collisions between motor vehicles and alligator lizards, based on the low mileage of routes within suitable habitat.

Table 3-165: Total Miles of Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use within Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat and Total Road Density Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 9.6 8.8 9.3 8.8 7.6 8.5 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The following table displays the proportion of Panamint alligator lizard habitat potentially affected by all routes open to motor vehicle traffic. All alternatives pose a low risk for direct or indirect loss of habitat associated with motor vehicle use of all motorized routes (existing system plus proposed additions). Cumulative direct and indirect impacts are expected on less than 4.7 and 14 percent, respectively, of available habitat under all alternatives.

Terrestrial Biota – 393

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-166: Acres of Suitable Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from All Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 68 63 66 62 54 59 Buffer1 (4.7%) (4.3%) (4.6%) (4.3%) (3.7%) (4.1%) 100 Foot 203 185 195 184 164 177 Buffer (14%) (13%) (13%) (13%) (11%) (12%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total Panamint alligator lizard habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to Panamint alligator lizard habitat. No present or future activities are anticipated to change the amount of available Panamint alligator lizard habitat. Habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 254 acres, or approximately 18 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to Panamint alligator lizard populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-167: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Panamint Alligator Lizard Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Domestic livestock 733 Negligible reduction in 0 acres grazing habitat quality Habitat affected within Up to 203 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of riparian vehicle use vegetation and/or reduced productivity. Habitat potentially Up to 51 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres affected in Poleta Open (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5 reduction through Area and 6) removal of riparian vegetation and/or reduced productivity. Cumulative loss of habitat 0 acres

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual Panamint alligator lizards but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel everywhere except the Poleta Canyon OHV area. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS within all but 51 acres of suitable alligator lizard habitat. Under Alternative 4, a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would apply to all suitable Panamint alligator lizard habitat on the Inyo National Forest. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to suitable habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.9 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 2 (0.6 percent), Alternative 4 (0.6 percent), Alternative 6 (0.4 percent), and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of Panamint alligator lizards and would pose a low risk of impacting this species’ viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation

Terrestrial Biota – 394 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable Panamint alligator lizard habitat when compared to the existing condition in the no action alternative.

3.10.3.7 Cavity Dependent Species

Introduction Many wildlife species depend on snags or dead trees for nesting, roosting, denning, foraging, resting, or shelter. Snag-associated species in this group include both primary and secondary excavators. The hairy woodpecker and pallid bat are species chosen to represent this group, although many other species are snag-dependent species, including pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, red-breasted nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, and others. Snags are the result of tree mortality that can result from insect outbreaks, diseases, fire, drought, senescence, and flooding. Such events maintain the snag resource through time, though snag numbers may fluctuate as forests undergo cycles of drought accompanied by higher tree mortality, followed by lower tree mortality after stands have thinned (Bull et al., 1997). Sierra Nevada-wide snag data for forest types present on the Inyo National Forest by size class and decay class are presented in the table below.

Table 3-168: Current Snags per Acre by Size Class1 and Decay Class2 by Regional Forest Type for the 10 Sierra Nevada Forests Forest Type M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 TOTAL White fir 2.9 1.9 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 8.3 Red fir 1.2 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 6.1 Alpine 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.2 Lodgepole pine 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.8 Jeffrey pine 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 3.5 Mountain 10.4 3.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 hemlock Eastside mixed 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 5.8 conifer Eastside pine 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 Pinyon-Juniper 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1 M = Medium Snag Size Class, 15-29.9 inches Diameter at Breast Height; L =Large Snag Size Class, 30 + inches Diameter at Breast Height. 2 Snag Decay Classes 1 to 5 (Cline et al. 1980, USDA Forest Service 2007b).

Inyo NF management direction for snags and down woody material includes: 1. Determine down woody material retention levels on an individual project basis, based on desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fire in achieving desired down woody material retention levels. 2. Determine snag retention levels on an individual project basis for vegetation treatments. Design projects to implement and sustain a generally continuous supply of snags and live

Terrestrial Biota – 395

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a landscape. General guidelines for large snag retention are: • Red fir forest type – six of the largest snags per acre • Eastside pine and eastside mixed conifer forest types – three of the largest snags per acre.

Use snags larger than 15 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) to meet this guideline. Snags should be clumped and distributed irregularly across the treatment units. Consider leaving fewer snags strategically located in treatment areas within the wildland urban intermix. When some snags are expected to be lost due to hazard removal of the effects of prescribed fire, consider the potential losses during project planning to achieve desired snag retention levels.

Hairy Woodpecker – Affected Environment The hairy woodpecker is a MIS for the ecosystem component snags (dead trees) in un-burned forests. Medium (diameter breast height between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter breast height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important. The hairy woodpecker breeds from western and central Alaska to northern Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, south to northern Baja California, highlands of Middle America, Gulf Coast, southern Florida, and Bahamas; it generally winters throughout the breeding range, with more northern populations partially migratory (NatureServe, 2006). In California, the hairy woodpecker is a fairly common, permanent resident of mixed conifer and riparian deciduous habitats from sea level to 2,700 m (0-9,000 ft) elevation throughout much of the State, but is very scarce in portions of coastal southern California, Central Valley, Salinas Valley, Mojave and Colorado deserts, and Great Basin (CDFG, 2005). The hairy woodpecker uses stands of large, mature trees and snags of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree cavities (CDFG, 2005). Mature timber and dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and DeSante, 1999). Medium and large snags are most important. Approximately 411,900 acres of potentially suitable hairy woodpecker habitat is present within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 198,880 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Gaines et al. (2003) identified snag reduction and edge effects as the only road and motorized trail associated factors potentially affecting the majority of woodpecker species. Available literature does not suggest that recreation road- and trail-associated disturbances present a problem for primary cavity excavators (Hamann et al., 1999). Snag Reduction and Edge Effects: • The road-associated factors include the negative edge effects of roads on primary cavity excavator (PCE) habitat and snag and down log reduction resulting from wood cutting and safety practices along roads (Bull and Holthausen, 1993; Hutto, 1995). Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are removed along roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy may result in a “snag free” zone of up to 200 feet from a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large down wood within this zone. To determine the potential for modification of hairy woodpecker habitat, the acres of habitat within 200 feet of routes available for motorized use

Terrestrial Biota – 396 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

was calculated. On the Inyo National Forest, approximately 25,135 acres are within 200 feet of existing unauthorized routes.

Pallid Bat – Affected Environment The pallid bat is designated as a sensitive species in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service. Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats below 6,000 feet elevation throughout California, but have been recorded up to 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. On the Sierra NF, they can be associated with oak woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, rock crevices, and giant sequoia habitats. On the Inyo National Forest, they have not been found above approximately 5,800 feet in the White and Inyo Mountains (Szewczak et al., 1998). Little is known about the species in the eastern Sierra. On the west side of the Sierra, roosting has been documented in large conifer snags (e.g., ponderosa pine), inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole cavities in oaks (Sherwin, 1998). Pallid bats commonly roost under bridges at night, but can also use caves and mines. Day roosts are more varied and include rock outcrops, tree hollows, buildings, bridges, caves, and mines. Roost temperatures are important and must be below 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The pallid bat forages close to the ground, preying on large, ground dwelling arthropods such as beetles, scorpions, and Jerusalem crickets. The pallid bat is a species associated with snags in coniferous forests below 7,000 feet. Approximately 8,745 acres of potentially suitable pallid bat habitat are present within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 2,030 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. The pallid bat is likely to be affected by reduction of snags adjacent to roads or trails. Other road and motorized trail-associated factors are not likely to affect this species. To determine the potential for modification of pallid bat habitat, the acres of habitat within 200 feet of routes available for motor vehicle use was calculated. On the Inyo National Forest, approximately 181 acres are within 200 feet of existing unauthorized routes.

Hairy Woodpecker and Pallid Bat – Direct and Indirect Effects The table below presents the acreage of habitat for snag-dependent species (hairy woodpecker and pallid bat) that may be affected by motorized use of routes under each alternative.

Table 3-169: Acres of Snag-Dependent Species Habitat within 200 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Hairy 25,135 16,230 18,058 11,239 0 16,765 woodpecker1 (6%) (3.9%) (4.4%) (2.7%) (0%) (4.1%) 181 99 104 88 0 94 Pallid bat (2.1%) (1.1%) (1.2%) (1.0%) (0%) (1.1%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Snag and log reduction occurs as an indirect effect of managing roads or trails for public use. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are often removed along roads open for public use, as well as roads receiving concentrated use during implementation of a specific project. Hazard trees are typically dead or dying trees that occur within a tree-height distance from the road. This

Terrestrial Biota – 397

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

safety policy results in a reduction in snags within a zone of about 200 feet from a road’s edge. This, in turn, reduces habitat quality and availability for cavity nesting birds and other snag-dependent species within these roadside corridors. Studies have shown cavity-nesting birds to decline 53 to 77 percent after snag removal (Scott and Oldenmeyer, 1983; Raphael and White, 1984; Hejl, 1994). Hazard tree removal adjacent to lower standard roads (e.g., Maintenance Level 2) or motorized trails is not as common as it is adjacent to more heavily traveled routes (e.g., paved roads). The Inyo National Forest Danger Tree Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) recommends removal of hazard trees adjacent to Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads. The guide does not contain specific direction regarding Maintenance Level 2 routes. The amount of down wood is also influenced within this zone, both by the removal of hazard trees that would become future down wood, and by the access provided for woodcutters. Down wood is important as a foraging substrate, providing insects required by many snag-dependent species. The cutting of snags for firewood is generally not allowed on the Inyo National Forest. Rare exceptions to this occur when insect outbreaks or disease kill small (generally less than one acre) pockets of trees and the dead trees are removed to prevent future spread of the pathogen. Illegal cutting of snags by the public has been documented throughout the Forest. This activity generally occurs adjacent to roads in more remote locations on the Forest, where detection is less likely. Wisdom and Bate (2008) found that mean snag density was 40% lower within 50 meters (164 feet) of roads compared to density greater than 50 meters from roads in areas where snag cutting was legal. Gaines et al. (2003) developed a primary cavity excavator (PCE) habitat influence index to assess the effects of road-associated factors on snag-dependent species habitat. They buffered roads with a 200 foot zone of influence and calculated the proportion of forested habitats within the buffer. The relative effects of motorized activities were then rated using the following scale: greater than 70 percent of the habitat outside the buffer rates as low level of human influence on habitat, 50 to 70 percent outside the buffer is classified as moderate level of human influence and less than 50 percent of the habitat outside the buffer was considered a high level of human influence. Utilizing this ranking system, all alternatives would result in a low level of human influence within habitats of the cavity dependent species group. Under Alternative 1, the highest proportion of hairy woodpecker and pallid bat habitats would potentially experience some level of snag reduction. The proportion of habitat affected is progressively lower under Alternatives 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5. Since the pallid bat tends to be a roosting habitat generalist, using many different natural and man-made structures, the magnitude of effect may be negligible for this species. Under Alternative 1, approximately 154,200 acres of suitable hairy woodpecker habitat and 1,729 acres of pallid bat habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Seven additional acres of hairy woodpecker and pallid bat habitat occur in the Poleta Open Area along the riparian zone in Redding Canyon. Alternative 4 would protect this habitat from direct and indirect impacts associated with motor vehicle use by prohibiting cross-country travel. The habitat would remain open to motor vehicle use under all other alternatives.

Terrestrial Biota – 398 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Hairy Woodpecker and Pallid Bat – Cumulative Effects Legal and illegal cutting of standing dead trees is the primary historic and on-going activity affecting habitat for hairy woodpecker and pallid bat. Hazard tree removal generally occurs along roads and adjacent to developed recreation sites. To determine the area where hazard tree reduction would be most likely to occur, a 200 foot buffer was delineated around all developed recreation sites on the Inyo National Forest. The acreage of coniferous forest within this buffer was considered to be the maximum extent of snag-dependent species habitat affected. The table below presents the amount of habitat potentially affected for the two species that make up the snag-dependent species group.

Table 3-170: Acres of Hairy Woodpecker and Pallid Bat Habitat within 200 Feet of Developed Recreation Sites Hairy Woodpecker Pallid Bat Acres 1,256 38 Percent of Total Habitat 0.3% 0.4%

A fuels reduction and revegetation project has been identified as a reasonably foreseeable project within the area burned by the 2007 June Fire. Along road corridors, all snags within one tree height of a road would be removed. Within the area, outside road corridors, 2 – 5 of the largest snags would be retained. The remainder would be felled, piled, and burned on site. The following table presents the acreage of habitat within 200 feet of all routes available for motor vehicle use (existing system plus proposed additions) within habitat of two snag-dependent species. For hairy woodpecker and pallid bat, all alternatives would result in a low level of human influence according to the index developed by Gaines et al. (2003).

Table 3-171: Acres of Snag-Dependent Species Habitat within 200 Feet of All Roads Open for Motor Vehicle Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Hairy 40,713 33,112 34,784 28,920 19,501 33,627 woodpecker1 (10%) (8%) (8%) (7%) (5%) (8%) 404 338 343 334 264 342 Pallid bat (5%) (4%) (4%) (4%) (3%) (4%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use. The table below presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to snag-dependent species habitat. For hairy woodpecker and pallid bat, habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to populations of either species on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-172: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Snag- Dependent Species Habitat Acres of habitat Total acres of habitat Acres of habitat within within 200 feet of potentially affected Species 200 feet of developed routes available for (percent of total recreation sites motorized use available) Hairy woodpecker 40,713 1,256 41,969 (10%) Pallid bat 404 38 442 (5%)

Terrestrial Biota – 399

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Management Indicator Species Summary: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trends: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the hairy woodpecker; hence, the snag effects analysis for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population bioregional-scale monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the hairy woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and distribution population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2008a), The current (based on 2001-2004 inventory sources) average number of medium- and large-sized snags (greater than 15 inches dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service, 2008). These data include snags in both green forest and burned forest. The Sierra Nevada range supports approximately 4,381,000 acres of green forest. Data from the mid- to-late 1990s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in total snags per acre by forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests. These data indicate that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.80), white fir (+1.98), and red fir (+0.68) and decreased within ponderosa pine (-0.17), productive hardwoods (-0.17), and eastside pine (-0.16). The hairy woodpecker has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including on the Lassen National Forest from 1997 to present (Burnett and Humple, 2003; Burnett et al., 2005); the Plumas and Lassen National Forests from 2002 to (Sierra Nevada Research Center, 2007); the Sierra Nevada Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations from 1992 to 2005 (Siegel and Kaschube, 2007); and BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada from 1968 to present (Sauer et al., 2007). These data indicate that the hairy woodpecker continues to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of hairy woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. The Inyo NF Travel Management Project may affect up to 25,135 acres of snags in green forest habitat important to hairy woodpecker. This represents 0.6 percent of hairy woodpecker habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced slightly under all action alternatives as hazard tree management would not occur along routes not added to the NFTS. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Travel Management Project will not alter the existing trend in snags in green forests, nor lead to a change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual pallid bats but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel everywhere except the Poleta Canyon OHV area. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential minor habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS within all but 7 acres of suitable pallid bat habitat. Under Alternative 4, a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would apply to all suitable habitat for this species on the Inyo National Forest.

Terrestrial Biota – 400 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in minor direct impacts to suitable habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 1.2 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 2 (1.1 percent), Alternative 6 (1.1 percent), Alternative 4 (1.0 percent), and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than two percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of pallid bats and would pose a low risk of impacting this species’ viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable pallid bat habitat when compared to the existing condition in the No Action alternative.

3.10.3.8 Sagebrush Obligates

Sage-Grouse – Affected Environment The sage-grouse is both a Forest Service sensitive species and a MIS representing sagebrush habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is found in parts of eleven western states, including California. The sage-grouse is a permanent resident in northeastern California, ranging from the Oregon border along the east side of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada to northern Inyo County. The species was formerly an abundant resident in northeastern California, and east of the Sierra Nevada as far as Big Pine in the Owens Valley. By the 1940s, however, numbers had been greatly reduced and populations fragmented. Because the greater sage-grouse has experienced significant range and population reductions in many areas of the state, it is designated as a (third priority) California Species of Special Concern in its nesting and lek (breeding) grounds and a sensitive species in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service. Sage-grouse are habitat obligates of western United States sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) shrub steppe plant communities (Connelly et al., 2000). Year-round habitat consists of sagebrush- dominated shrub communities, including associated shrub dominants such as bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp). Approximately 306,550 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur on lands administered by the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 301,320 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. Sage-grouse are known to occur in four areas on the Inyo National Forest: Mono Basin, Adobe Valley, Long Valley, and the White Mountains. One sage-grouse strutting ground (lek) is located on National Forest System lands in Long Valley near Forest Road 03S01A. At least two leks are thought to exist in the White Mountains; however, the area is generally inaccessible during the breeding season and the current status of the White Mountain leks is unknown. The effects of roads have not been widely studied with regard to sage-grouse populations. Gaines et al. (2003) identify disturbance at a specific site as the only road or motorized trail associated factor potentially affecting this species. Other authors suggest that collisions with vehicles are a risk factor for greater sage grouse (Connelly et al., 2004). Collisions: • Several instances of sage-grouse flushing into the path of oncoming vehicles and being struck have been recorded in the Long Valley area of Mono County. These events have generally been associated with higher speed paved roads (e.g., Benton Crossing Road). In Wyoming,

Terrestrial Biota – 401

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

sage-grouse were most susceptible to death from collisions during summer (June to August), when movements of hens with broods increased and grouse were attracted to relatively moist roadside vegetation (Patterson, 1952). Miles of routes available for motorized use within sage-grouse habitat is the measurement indicator used to assess potential for collisions between birds and vehicles for the alternatives. There are currently 375 miles of unauthorized routes within sage-grouse habitat.

Disturbance at a Specific Site: • Vehicle traffic on roads, along with the increased access that roads provide to recreational users of rangelands, may lead to increased disturbance of grouse on leks or during nesting or brood rearing (Braun, 1998). In Wyoming, successful hens nested farther from roads than did unsuccessful hens (Lyon and Anderson, 2003). Data collected by the United States Geological Survey in Long Valley and the Mono Basin suggest that females chose nest sites greater than 164 feet from a road. To ascertain the potential for disturbance of sage- grouse, the acres of habitat within 164 feet of routes available for motorized use was calculated. There are currently 14,340 acres of sage-grouse habitat within 164 feet of existing unauthorized routes on the Inyo National Forest. There are no known leks within ¼-mile of any existing unauthorized routes.

To estimate the potential direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat, the acreage of suitable habitat within two distances (30 feet and 100 feet) of routes available for motorized use was determined. The table below displays the current proportion of overall sage-grouse habitat that is potentially being impacted by existing unauthorized routes.

Table 3-173: Acres of Sage-Grouse Habitat Potentially Being Impacted by Existing Unauthorized Routes Habitat Within 30 Feet Habitat Within 100 Feet Acres Percent of Total Acres Percent of Total 2,709 0.9% 8,873 2.9%

Sage-Grouse – Direct and Indirect Effects The potential for collisions between sage-grouse and vehicles is expected to be correlated with the miles of route available for motorized use in sage-grouse habitat, speed of vehicles traveling the routes, and the level of vehicle use. The table below presents the miles of routes available for motorized in sage-grouse habitat by use level. Alternative 1 would allow continued motor vehicle use on 365 miles of unauthorized routes within sage grouse habitat. Overall, vehicle use of these roads is light, with over 96 percent of the roads experiencing fewer than 25 vehicle trips per week. Similarly, the average vehicle speed along these routes is expected to be low due to the rough character of the route surfaces. Alternative 3 would add 277 miles of route to the NFTS in sage-grouse habitat. This would be a net reduction of approximately 100 miles relative to the existing condition and would reduce the likelihood of vehicle-grouse collisions by 35 percent. The miles of road added to the NFTS is progressively less in Alternatives 6 (248 miles), 2 (219 miles), 4 (184 miles), and 5 (0 miles) with a commensurate reduction in likelihood of collisions. Based on the low number of vehicles

Terrestrial Biota – 402 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 traveling these routes and low speed of travel, all alternatives pose a low risk of vehicle-grouse collisions.

Table 3-174: Miles of Route Available for Motorized Use in Sage-Grouse Habitat Displayed by Use Level Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 Light use 361 208 266 175 0 237 Low use 14 11 11 9 0 11 Medium use 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 Total 375 219 277 184 0 248 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Most scientific literature regarding road-related disturbance of sage grouse has focused on the breeding season, primarily effects at or near leks. Disturbances within 200 m of lek sites resulted in reduced attendance at sage-grouse leks (Braun et al., 2002). Female sage-grouse moved greater distances from leks and had lower rates of nest initiation in areas disturbed by vehicle traffic (1-12 vehicles/day) (Lyon and Anderson, 2003). It is unlikely that current use of unauthorized routes is having any effect on sage-grouse lek utilization. There are no unauthorized routes within ¼-mile of any of the three leks known to exist on the Inyo National Forest. Alternatives 1 – 6 would not result in disturbance at sage-grouse leks. Little information is available regarding road-associated disturbance of sage-grouse during non- breeding periods. Radio telemetry tracking of grouse in Long Valley and the Mono Basin located an equal number of grouse between 0 to 164 feet and 164 to 328 feet from roads. There is some indication that females chose nest sites greater than 164 feet from roads in Long Valley, California (USGS, unpublished data). Between 2003 and 2005, only 2 nests were located within 164 feet of a road. Five nests were found between 164 feet and 328 feet from the nearest road. This suggests a slight level of road-avoidance during nest site selection. The table below presents the acres of sage-grouse habitat within 164 feet of routes available for motorized use under each alternative. Under Alternative 1, continued motor vehicle use of existing unauthorized routes could lead to some level of avoidance within 14,340 acres of suitable habitat or 4.7 percent of all sage-grouse habitat found on the Inyo National Forest. Routes added to the NFTS under Alternative 3 could lead to minor avoidance behavior on 10,658 acres of habitat, reducing the area affected by 3,682 acres (26%) relative to Alternative 1. The amount of habitat where slight avoidance behavior might occur is reduced progressively under Alternative 6 (9,555 acres), Alternative 2 (8,394 acres), Alternative 4 (7,098 acres) and Alternative 5 (0 acres.) Under Alternatives 6, 2, 4, and 5, the area potentially affected would be reduced by 34 percent, 41 percent, 51 percent and 100 percent, respectively, relative to the existing situation

Table 3-175: Acres of Suitable Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within 164 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Acres1 14,340 8,394 10,658 7,098 0 9,555 (4.7%) (2.7%) (3.5%) (2.3%) (0%) (3.1%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 403

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following table presents the acres of sage-grouse habitat within two buffer distances of routes available for motorized use under each alternative. Limited direct impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in sagebrush and grass and forb density, which provide both food and cover for grouse. Under Alternative 1, these direct impacts could occur on up to 2,709 acres or 0.9 percent of sage-grouse habitat. Routes added to the NFTS under Alternative 3 could result in direct impacts on a maximum of 2,004 acres, 705 acres fewer than under Alternative 1. The maximum area potentially impacted decreases progressively in Alternatives 6 (1,795 acres), 2 (1,586 acres), 4 (1,330 acres), and 5 (0 acres). Areas where vegetation is disturbed adjacent to routes would likely be highly localized and not occur across the entire area within 30 feet of routes added to the NFTS. As a result, the acreage presented in the table below is likely an overestimation of the potentially affected area. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 8,873 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of existing unauthorized routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (6,573 acres), 6 (5,892 acres), 2 (5,187 acres), 4 (4,370 acres), and 5 (0 acres).

Table 3-176: Acres of Suitable Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 2,709 1,586 2,004 1,330 0 1,795 Buffer1 (0.9%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (0.4%) (0%) (0.6%) 100 Foot 8,873 5,187 6,573 4,370 0 5,892 Buffer (2.9%) (1.7%) (2.1%) (1.4%) (0%) (1.9%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, approximately 229,935 acres of suitable greater sage-grouse habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of disturbance and minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited in all suitable grouse habitat.

Sage-Grouse – Cumulative Effects A variety of factors have influenced sage grouse and their habitat throughout the western states. High-intensity livestock grazing, hunting, oil and gas exploration, agricultural conversion, urban development, predation, non-native plant species, pinyon-juniper encroachment, wildfire, fences, powerlines, roads, military training, feral horses, and disease have all had direct and indirect impacts on regional sage-grouse populations or the quantity and quality of sage-grouse habitat (Connelly et al., 2004). On the Inyo National Forest, wildfire, conifer encroachment and livestock grazing are the primary elements expected to impact sage-grouse habitat during the next 20 years.

Terrestrial Biota – 404 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Two wildfires (June and McLaughlin) consumed approximately 2,250 acres of sagebrush between 2001 and 2008. Fire generally kills sagebrush plants, and passive restoration may require 15 to 20 years before sagebrush becomes re-established. It is impossible to predict how much sage- grouse habitat will experience fire during the next 20 years. Approximately 202,649 acres (66 percent) of sage-grouse habitat are within open grazing allotments. Approximately 75,000 acres of suitable habitat is within a group of allotments in Long Valley for which management plans were recently updated. The remaining habitat contained within grazing allotments is in the White Mountains and the Mono Basin. Sage-grouse habitat in the Long Valley allotments was protected by delaying livestock use until after the breeding season and establishing utilization standards to protect sagebrush and wet meadow vegetation types. Allotment management planning for the White Mountains and Mono Basin allotments should be completed by 2010 and is expected to contain similar protective measures. In the interim, application of forestwide utilization standards should maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitat within these allotments. The extent to which conifers have encroached into sage-grouse habitat has not been determined. However, encroachment is a relatively slow process and it is unlikely that a substantial number of acres will be affected during the next 20 years. In 2008, approximately 40 acres of encroaching conifers were removed in the Long Valley area. It is anticipated that 200 additional acres will be treated by 2010 to improve sage-grouse habitat in Long Valley. There are currently approximately 470 miles of NFTS routes within suitable greater sage-grouse habitat. The table below presents the total miles of routes available for motor vehicle use in sage- grouse habitat for each alternative (existing system plus proposed additions) to compare the cumulative potential for collisions. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk for collisions between vehicles and grouse with 845 miles of routes available for motor vehicle use in sage-grouse habitat. The cumulative miles of routes available for motor vehicle use decreases incrementally under Alternative 3 (747 miles), Alternative 6 (714 miles), Alternative 2 (689 miles), Alternative 4 (654 miles), and Alternative 5 (470 miles). The risk of collisions is reduced relative to the No Action alternative by 12 percent under Alternative 3 and progressively more under Alternatives 6 (16 percent), 2 (18 percent), 4 (23 percent), and 5 (44 percent). The contribution of routes added to the NFTS under action alternatives to the cumulative total ranges from 0 percent (Alternative 5) to 37 percent (Alternative 3).

Table 3-177: Total Miles of All Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use (Existing System plus Additions) in Sage-Grouse Habitat Alternative 11 2 3 4 5 6 Total 845 689 747 654 470 714 1 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents the acres of sage-grouse habitat within 164 feet of all roads available for motor vehicle use under each alternative (existing system plus proposed additions) to compare the cumulative area where some minor avoidance behavior may occur. Under Alternative 1, motor vehicle use of roads could lead to some slight level of avoidance within 31,614 acres of suitable habitat or 10 percent of all sage-grouse habitat found on the Inyo National Forest. Routes available for motorized use under Alternative 3 could result in some minor avoidance on 28,472 acres of

Terrestrial Biota – 405

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

habitat, reducing the area affected by 3,142 acres (10%) relative to Alternative 1. The area where some minor avoidance may occur is reduced sequentially under Alternative 6 (27,453 acres), Alternative 2 (26,362 acres), Alternative 4 (25,181 acres), and Alternative 5 (18,883 acres). The amount of habitat where slight avoidance behavior might occur is reduced by 13 percent, 17 percent, 20 percent, and 40 percent relative to the existing situation in Alternatives 6, 2, 4, and 5, respectively.

Table 3-178: Acres of Suitable Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within 164 Feet of All Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Acres1 31,614 26,362 28,472 25,181 18,883 27,453 (10%) (9%) (9%) (8%) (6%) (9%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

The table below presents the acres of sage-grouse habitat within two buffer distances of all routes available for motor vehicle use under each alternative. Limited cumulative impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within the area immediately adjacent to the road prism (within 30 feet) if vehicles pull off the road to park. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in sagebrush, grass and forb density, which provide both food and cover for grouse. Under Alternative 1, these cumulative impacts could occur on up to 6,083 acres or 2.0 percent of sage-grouse habitat available forestwide. Routes available for motorized use under Alternative 3 could cumulatively impact up to 5,396 acres, reducing the area potentially affected by 687 acres (11 percent) relative to Alternative 1. The area where cumulative direct impacts could occur is reduced sequentially under Alternative 6 (5,190 acres), Alternative 2 (4,983 acres), Alternative 4 (4,732 acres), and Alternative 5 (3,427 acres). The cumulative area of habitat where some vegetation disturbance might occur is reduced by 15 percent, 18 percent, 22 percent, and 44 percent relative to the existing situation in Alternatives 6, 2, 4, and 5, respectively. Areas where vegetation is disturbed adjacent to routes would likely be highly localized and not occur across the entire area within 30 feet of routes available for motorized use. As a result, the acreage presented in the following table is likely an overestimation of the potentially affected area. Habitat quality within 100 feet of a route may be indirectly impacted from altered drainage patterns associated with the route or decreased photosynthetic activity resulting from fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling the route. Approximately 20,132 acres of suitable habitat are within 100 feet of all routes which would continue to receive motorized use under Alternative 1. The area potentially impacted in this fashion is reduced sequentially in Alternatives 3 (18,046 acres), 6 (17,395 acres), 2 (16,715 acres), 4 (15,945 acres), and 5 (11,872 acres).

Table 3-179: Acres of Suitable Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within Two Buffer Distances from All Routes Available for Motor Vehicle Use (Existing System plus Proposed Additions) Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 30 Foot 6,083 4,983 5,396 4,732 3,427 5,190 Buffer1 (2.0%) (1.6%) (1.8%) (1.5%) (1.1%) (1.7%) 100 Foot 20,132 16,715 18,046 15,945 11,872 17,395 Buffer (6.6%) (5.5%) (5.9%) (5.2%) (3.9%) (5.7%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Terrestrial Biota – 406 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following table presents a summary of the cumulative past, present and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to sage-grouse habitat. Approximately 2,250 acres of potential habitat are expected to be unsuitable for sage-grouse for some unknown period. This represents a 0.7 percent reduction in available habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 20,132 acres or less than 7 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat availability and quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to sage-grouse populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Table 3-180: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Sage-Grouse Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Domestic livestock 202,649 Negligible reduction in 0 acres grazing habitat quality Wildfire 2,250 Habitat loss -2,250 acres Removal of encroaching 240 Habitat gain +240 acres conifers Habitat affected within Up to 20,132 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres 100 feet of routes (Alternative 1) reduction through available for motor removal of sagebrush, vehicle use forbs and grasses and/or reduced productivity. Cumulative loss of habitat - 2,010 acres

Management Indicator Species Summary: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trend: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat monitoring for the greater sage-grouse; hence, the sagebrush effects analysis for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Project must be informed by bioregional-scale habitat monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat status and trend data for the greater sage-grouse. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2008a). There are currently 998,000 acres of sagebrush habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. The quality and quantity of sagebrush habitat have declined for at least the last 50 years throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse, (Connelly et al., 2000). However, within the last decade in the Sierra Nevada, the habitat quantity trend is essentially stable (within the last decade, only changing from 8% to 9% of the acres on National Forest System lands). Current data from California and the Sierra Nevada indicate that, although habitat quantity and quality has decreased historically, the current habitat trend for greater sage-grouse in the Sierra Nevada is stable. The Inyo NF Travel Management Project may directly affect up to 2,709 acres of sagebrush habitat important to sage-grouse. This represents 0.3 percent of sage-grouse habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced slightly under all action alternatives through passive restoration of currently encumbered habitat. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Travel Management Project will not alter the existing trend in sagebrush

Terrestrial Biota – 407

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

habitats, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sage-grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Sensitive Species Determination: All action alternatives may impact individual greater sage- grouse but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would establish a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel within all suitable habitat present on the Inyo National Forest. This would have a beneficial impact by eliminating potential disturbance and habitat modification associated with motorized use off the NFTS. Motor vehicle use of routes added to the NFTS has the potential to result in limited direct impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat. Direct impacts could occur on up to 0.7 percent of available habitat under Alternative 3. The area potentially affected in this manner decreases sequentially under Alternative 6 (0.6 percent), Alternative 2 (0.5 percent), Alternative 4 (0.4 percent), and Alternative 5 (0 percent). All action alternatives would result in direct impacts to less than one percent of available habitat which should not affect distribution or abundance of greater sage-grouse and would pose a low risk of impacting grouse viability on the Inyo National Forest. In addition, the implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in a reduction in the total cumulative effects within suitable grouse habitat when compared to the existing condition in the no action alternative.

3.10.3.9 Early and Mid-Successional Forest Species

Mountain Quail – Affected Environment The mountain quail is the MIS for early and mid-seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Early seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of seedlings (less than 1 inch diameter at breast height (dbh)), saplings (1 inch - 5.9 inches dbh), and pole-sized trees (6 inches - 10.9 inches dbh). Mid-seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees (11 inches - 23.9 inches dbh). The mountain quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of conifer and deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, and broods are seldom found more that 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water (CDFG 2005). Although mountain quail are found in a wide variety of habitat types, only those identified above are analyzed in this assessment. Forestwide, there are approximately 117,063 acres of early and mid- seral conifer vegetation that are potentially suitable mountain quail habitat. Approximately 86,995 acres of potentially suitable habitat occur within the 11 focus areas. The following habitat factors are identified to assess project level direct, indirect and cumulative effects: 1) acres with changes in CWHR tree size class; 2) acres with changes in tree canopy closure; 3) acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure. Two measurement indicators are used to address these habitat factors. Comparing the acres of habitat encumbered by routes between alternatives addresses the potential for change in tree size class and canopy closure. There are currently 375 miles of existing unauthorized routes in mountain quail habitat which are encumbering approximately 544 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest.

Terrestrial Biota – 408 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Comparing the number of acres of habitat within 30 feet of a motorized route addresses the potential for change in understory shrub canopy closure. There are currently 2,737 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat within 30 feet of unauthorized routes.

Mountain Quail – Direct and Indirect Effects Table 3-181 presents the two measurement indicators used to display the effects of each alternative on mountain quail habitat. Under Alternative 1, 544 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forests would continue to be encumbered by existing unauthorized routes. Vehicle travel on these routes would likely keep seedlings from becoming established and creating an early seral forest within the road prism. Alternative 3 would add 265 miles of routes in mountain quail habitat to the NFTS. The 384 acres of potential habitat encumbered by these routes would continue to remain unsuitable for quail as no conifers would be likely to grow in the road prisms. Unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS under Alternative 3 (currently encumbering 160 acres) have the potential to become colonized by pine or fir seedlings over time and become suitable mountain quail habitat. The degree to which re-colonization occurs would depend on the existing level of soil compaction, available seed source and potential of the site. Alternative 3 would reduce encumbrance by 29 percent relative to Alternative 1 and would reduce the forestwide habitat effects by 0.2 percent. Alternatives 6 and 2 would add 253 miles and 250 miles, respectively, of routes in mountain quail habitat to the NFTS. Alternatives 6 and 2 would result in similar levels of passive restoration over time. Unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS under Alternatives 6 and 2 would no longer encumber 176 acres and 181 acres, respectively, reducing the forestwide habitat effects by 0.2 percent relative to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, 174 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS in mountain quail habitat; 292 acres would no longer be disturbed by vehicle traffic and would eventually recover through passive restoration. This represents a 54 percent reduction relative to Alternative 1 and would reduce the forestwide habitat effects by an additional 0.1 percent relative to Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. Under Alternative 5 all potential habitat currently encumbered by existing unauthorized routes would have the potential for passive restoration. Changes in understory shrub canopy closure could occur on up to 2,737 acres of habitat within 30 feet of routes available for motorized use under Alternative 1. This represents 2.3 percent of the early and mid-seral coniferous forest on the Inyo NF. Shrub canopy closure would be lower where vehicles leave the roadway to park and crush or uproot woody vegetation. There are 1,946 acres of suitable mountain quail habitat within 30 feet of routes added to the NFTS under Alternative 3. This would reduce the portion of forestwide mountain quail habitat potentially affected by 0.6 percent relative to Alternative 1. The acreage of habitat potentially affected is progressively less in Alternatives 6 (1,862 acres), 2 (1,837), 4 (1,282 acres), and 5 (0 acres). For all alternatives, the results displayed in the table below overestimate potential effects because disturbance of vegetation adjacent to routes is expected to be localized and would not occur across the entire area within 30 feet of routes added to the NFTS. Based on the low proportion of habitat affected, all alternatives would have negligible impacts on mountain quail habitat.

Terrestrial Biota – 409

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-181: Acres of Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Encumbered by and within 30 Feet of Routes Available for Motorized Use Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Acres 544 363 384 252 0 368 Encumbered1 (0.5%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0%) (0.3%) Acres Within 2,737 1,837 1,946 1,282 0 1,862 30 Feet (2.3%) (1.6%) (1.7%) (1.1%) (0%) (1.6%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Under Alternative 1, approximately 81,760 acres of suitable mountain quail habitat would not be protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of reducing habitat effectiveness as a result of minor habitat modification associated with cross-country motor vehicle use. Under all action alternatives, motorized travel off the NFTS would be prohibited by regulation in all suitable mountain quail habitat.

Mountain Quail – Cumulative Effects Wildland fire and timber harvest are the primary factors affecting habitat for mountain quail. Since 2001, approximately 11,037 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest has been burned by wildfire. The majority of this area remains suitable mountain quail habitat, as the overstory trees often survived; however, habitat quality may have declined as a result of reduced understory shrub canopy closure. Approximately 1,500 acres within the June and Crater fires were burned at sufficient intensity to render the habitat unsuitable for mountain quail. Localized torching and high intensity fire within the remainder of the burned habitat likely rendered additional habitat unsuitable. In total, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 acres of mountain quail habitat has been lost to wildfire since 2001. Until the mid-1990s, timber harvest on the Inyo National Forest focused on removing large, overstory trees and planting seedlings in their place. This effectively increased the amount of mountain quail habitat across approximately 60,000 acres. Approximately 3,281 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest are within identified vegetation management areas associated with the Jeffrey Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project. These areas will likely be treated by 2014. Treatments will consist of thinning from below (removing the smallest trees) to reduce the basal area within timber stands. Post-treatment, the stands will be underburned to reduce activity-generated fuels. Project implementation is not expected to decrease the quantity of habitat as the CWHR size class would not change. Habitat quality may decline initially if prescribed burning reduces understory shrub canopy closure. This decline in quality should be offset within 10 years as a more open canopy within the stands would allow more light to reach the ground and improve the growth rate of understory shrubs. The table below presents the total miles of routes available for motor vehicle use for each alternative, the proportion of mountain quail habitat encumbered by these routes and the acres of habitat within 30 feet of these routes.

Terrestrial Biota – 410 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-182: Miles of All Routes (Existing System Plus Proposed Additions) Available for Motor Vehicle Use, Acres of Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Encumbered by and within 30 Feet of These Routes Alternative 12 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 629 504 519 428 254 507 Acres 912 731 753 621 368 736 Encumbered1 (0.8%) (0.6%) (0.6%) (0.5%) (0.3%) (0.6%) Acres Within 4,542 3,661 3,769 3,118 1,862 3,686 30 Feet (3.9%) (3.1%) (3.2%) (2.7%) (1.6%) (3.1%) 1 Number in parenthesis indicates percent of total species’ habitat available forestwide. 2 Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS, but would remain available for public motorized use.

Approximately 254 miles of NFTS routes exist within early and mid-seral coniferous forest. These routes, in combination with existing unauthorized routes, are encumbering up to 912 acres (0.8 percent) of mountain quail habitat across the Forest. All action alternatives would reduce the miles of routes and the acres of habitat encumbered. Approximately 4,542 acres (3.9 percent) of early and mid-seral coniferous forest are within 30 feet of routes available for motorized use under Alternative 1. Limited cumulative impacts to habitat are most likely to occur within this distance from a road. Localized areas of low growing native vegetation may be modified (e.g., crushed or uprooted). This could result in a minor reduction in understory shrub cover. The cumulative area potentially affected is reduced progressively under Alternatives 3 (3,769 acres), 6 (3,686 acres), 2 (3,661 acres), 4 (3,118 acres), and 5 (1,862 acres). Based on the low percentage of overall forestwide habitat potentially affected, all alternatives are expected to result in negligible cumulative impacts to mountain quail habitat. The following table presents a summary of the cumulative past, present, and reasonably foreseeable disturbances to mountain quail habitat. Approximately 2,000 acres of potential habitat are expected to be unsuitable for mountain quail for some unknown period. This represents a less than 2 percent reduction in available habitat across the Inyo National Forest. Habitat quality may be reduced slightly on up to 16,860 acres or approximately 14 percent of available suitable habitat. This slight reduction in habitat availability and quality is not expected to pose a substantial cumulative risk to mountain quail populations on the Inyo National Forest.

Terrestrial Biota – 411

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-183: Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Disturbances within Early- and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat Disturbance Acres Affected Direct and Indirect Change in Amount of Effects Habitat Wildland fire (low and 9,037 Slight habitat quality 0 acres moderate intensity) reduction through removal of understory vegetation, snags and down logs. Wildfire (high intensity) 2,000 Habitat loss -2,000 acres Fuels reduction projects 3,281 Slight habitat quality 0 acres reduction through removal of understory vegetation, snags and down logs. Habitat affected within 30 Up to 4,542 acres Slight habitat quality 0 acres feet of routes available for (Alternative 1) reduction through motor vehicle use removal of sagebrush, forbs and grasses and/or reduced productivity. Cumulative loss of habitat - 2,000 acres

Management Indicator Species Summary: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mountain Quail Trend: The Inyo NF LRMP (as amended) requires bioregional- scale habitat and population distribution monitoring for mountain quail; therefore the early and mid- seral coniferous forest effects analysis for the Inyo NF Travel Management Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population bioregional-scale monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the mountain quail. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service. 2008a). There are currently 546,000 acres of early seral and 2,766,000 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend for early seral is slightly decreasing (from 9% to 5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid-seral is slightly increasing (from 21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands). The mountain quail has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department of Fish and Game hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG, 2004a; CDFG, 2004b) and 1968 to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al., 2007). These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. The Inyo NF Travel Management Project may affect up to 2,737 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat important to mountain quail. This represents 0.08 percent of mountain quail habitat available across the Sierra Nevada. Over time, this percentage would be reduced slightly under all action alternatives through passive restoration of currently encumbered habitat. Based on the low amount of habitat affected, the Inyo NF Travel Management Project will not alter the existing

Terrestrial Biota – 412 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 trend in early and mid-seral coniferous habitats, nor lead to a change in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

3.10.4 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Forest Plan Alternative 1 has the greatest potential to impact terrestrial biota and their habitats. Use would continue on all existing unauthorized routes and motorized use off the NFTS would not be permanently prohibited. Some degree of cross-country travel is expected to continue, with associated route proliferation and an increase in the amount of terrestrial biota habitats affected. No mitigations measures are included to minimize or eliminate conflicts between motor vehicle use of unauthorized routes and terrestrial animals. As such, it does not adequately protect sensitive species viability, riparian habitats, key mule deer winter ranges, sage grouse leks, and mountain sheep habitat and conflicts with Forest Plan direction for these resources. Alternatives 4 and 5 are consistent with all aspects of the Forest Plan and other direction. Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 are consistent with Forest Plan and other direction for all terrestrial biota requirements except those identified for mountain sheep habitat. These three alternatives add routes to the NFTS in mountain sheep habitat (LRMP Prescription #3). Selection of any of these three alternatives would require an amendment to clarify the intent of the Forest Plan direction. Management direction for recreation within the Mountain Sheep Habitat prescription specifies (1988 LRMP, p. 116, as amended in 1993): “Allow for the dispersed recreation activities appropriate in Primitive and Semi-Primitive ROS classes. Allow no motorized use.” Management direction for Rx #3 (p. 116) would be amended as follows: “Allow for the dispersed recreation activities appropriate in Primitive and Semi-Primitive ROS classes. Allow no motorized use off of designated NFTS roads and trails.” The purpose of Rx 3 is to provide high quality habitat for mountain (i.e., bighorn) sheep to maintain or enhance existing population levels (LRMP, p. 116). Despite the existence of many long- standing roads and motorized routes, such as 8.6 miles of State Highway 120 (Tioga Pass Road; completed in 1915) and the Wheeler Ridge route, in use since the 1940s, Rx 3 contains conflicting direction that both allows and disallows motorized use. That is, management direction specifies both “Establish no roads or heliports where they would conflict with mountain sheep”, and “Allow no motorized use”. Amendment #17 would eliminate this contradiction while maintaining high quality bighorn sheep habitat. The LRMP FEIS used two indicators to compare the consequences of the plan alternatives on bighorn sheep: habitat capability and animal population numbers. The LRMP preferred alternative identified a target of 550 sheep and a 22% increase in habitat capability by the end of the 5th decade (2038). According to the LRMP FEIS, there were approximately 300 Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep on the Forest in 1982. The current population estimate is approximately 350 sheep with an upward trend. At the time the LRMP was published, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep were classified as a Management Indicator Species representing Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region sensitive

Terrestrial Biota – 413

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

species. In 1999, the species was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). A recovery plan for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was approved in September 2007. This plan is currently considered to be the guiding document for management of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep on the Inyo National Forest. The recovery plan set a goal of a minimum of 520 sheep across the species’ range, with specific population goals for each of the four Recovery Units. The recovery plan identifies the two primary reasons Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep were listed as endangered: potential for the transfer of virulent disease from domestic sheep and predation by mountain lions. The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range was not considered to be a concern. Habitat throughout the historic range of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is considered to be essentially intact; it is neither fragmented nor degraded (Recovery Plan, p. 21). This proposed amendment is considered a minor change in LMP direction because: • It would not significantly increase motorized use in Rx #3 beyond levels occurring at the time of LRMP or recovery plan development. Motorized use was occurring within Rx #3 at the time of Forest Plan development. The prescription includes long-standing NFTS and other public roads, including more than 8 miles of the Tioga Pass Road (State Highway 120). Rx #3 includes long-standing motorized routes used to conduct Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep research and management, such as the Wheeler Ridge route. • Management direction for Facilities within Rx #3 states: “Locate trails and manage their use so they do not conflict with mountain sheep. Establish no roads or heliports where they would conflict with mountain sheep.” This language clearly establishes that motorized use was considered acceptable within Rx# 3 provided the use did not represent irresolvable conflicts with bighorn sheep management objectives. • The 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan (which was incorporated by the Forest Plan) identifies all parts of Rx #3 that contain motorized routes as “Limited use. Motorized use allowed on all routes not designated closed.” None of the unauthorized routes within Rx #3 are designated closed on the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan map. • The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep recovery plan, completed almost twenty years after the LRMP in September 2007, does not identify recreational or vehicle use as a threat to recovery. The recovery plan states that any actions limiting recreational use will take place only if research results in a recommendation to limit human use in some areas (p. 52). At present, there appear to be few locations where recreational disturbance has the potential to significantly affect sheep (Recovery Plan, p. 52). • Habitat throughout the historic range of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep remains essentially intact; it is neither fragmented nor degraded (Recovery Plan, p. 21). The action alternatives would affect no more than 0.2% of designated critical habitat, and would not compromise habitat effectiveness.

Travel Management Rule In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a) and (b), effects on terrestrial biota were considered in the identification of the road and trail additions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. The location of each road and trail was assessed in relation to known locations of, and suitable habitat for, a

Terrestrial Biota – 414 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 representative group of terrestrial animals, including threatened, endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species and species of local interest. The degree to which each road or trail could result in harassment of wildlife or disruption of wildlife habitat was assessed and considered during development of these action alternatives. For roads and trails where known or potential conflicts existed, the route was either not proposed for addition to the NFTS or mitigation measures were identified to minimize or eliminate the conflict. The prohibition on cross-country travel identified in each action alternative would further minimize the potential for harassment of wildlife or disruption of wildlife habitat.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities. As part of the Travel Management process, the Inyo National Forest has conducted an assessment of existing roads and trails within the Forest boundaries. Any new construction, reconstruction and maintenance of system roads or trails will be assessed under a separate NEPA analysis and decision. Because current Travel Management efforts are directed at identifying which existing unauthorized routes will be added to the NFTS while prohibiting cross-country travel, and because there is no expectation of new construction or development, no changes in the distribution or abundance of habitat available to migratory birds are anticipated. Changes in authorization are not anticipated to contribute to measurable increases in use levels, but the prohibition of cross-country travel is expected to result in less use across the landscape. Therefore, habitat functionality is expected to remain similar to or more than, and levels of disturbance related to use are expected to remain similar to or less than, pre-decisional levels.

Terrestrial Biota – 415

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Terrestrial Biota – 416 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.11 Aquatic Wildlife

3.11.1 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Endangered Species Act (ESA) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management activities are not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in two Biological Assessments (BA), one for the Owens tui chub and one for the Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. The analysis contained in the BAs is incorporated by reference and summarized in this section of the EIS.

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) The Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on national forests. Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment identified the following standards and guidelines applicable to Travel Management and aquatic resources, which will be considered during the analysis process: • Wetland and Meadow Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 70): see discussion under Water Resources. • Riparian Habitat (Management Standard & Guideline 92): see discussion under Water Resources. • Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local aquatic and riparian dependent species assemblages (Management Standard & Guideline 96).

Aquatic Wildlife – 417 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Management Indicator Species (36 CFR 219) Management indicator species are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forest MIS Amendment Record of Decision, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the Inyo NF LRMP as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 2007) directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at the project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor population and/or habitat trends of MIS. This assessment is documented in the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project Management Indicator Species Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009) which is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Inyo Forest Resource and Land Management Plan (LRMP) Direction for management of aquatic systems is provided in the LRMP. Listed below are key standards applicable to this analysis: • Rehabilitate and maintain essential habitat for these species according to the species’ recovery plans and Memoranda of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (p. 78). • Give emphasis to riparian-dependent resources in the management of riparian areas (p. 89). • Prevent significant adverse riparian area changes n water temperatures, chemistry, sedimentation and channel blockages (p. 89).

Revised Recovery Plan for the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Specific direction is given in this document to help recover this federally listed species. Specific direction that guides decisions regarding changes to a Forest transportation system are: • (3.2) Restore and maintain streambanks, riparian vegetation, and stream channels in the North Fork of Cottonwood Creek drainage (p. 55). • (3.2.2) Continue to enforce road closure barriers at existing and potential access points (p. 55).

3.11.2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The analysis of effects to aquatic wildlife begins with a general discussion of the affected environment and the types of impacts identified in available literature as being associated with motor vehicle use of roads and trails. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that are common to all alternatives are included in this discussion. More specific information about existing conditions and impacts are then addressed for each of the special status animal species considered in the analysis, as well as habitat for Management Indicator Species (aquatic macroinvertebrates and Pacific tree frog).

Aquatic Wildlife – 418 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.11.2.1 Existing Conditions – General Overview The Inyo National Forest is located in the southeastern part of the Sierra Nevada Mountain bioregion. The bioregion has numerous major rivers, hundreds of lakes, and thousands of miles of streams that form 31 watersheds (Sierra Nevada Conservancy, 2006). Sixty percent of California's water originates from the Sierra Nevada (Sierra Nevada Research Center, no date). There are approximately 37,000 acres of riparian vegetation (including wet meadows) on the Forest, which accounts for less than 2% of the total land base managed by the Inyo NF. Approximately 80 percent of the Forest’s riparian acreage is in wilderness (Inyo NF LRMP, 1988), leaving the other 20% within the analysis area. Within the analysis area for this project, there are approximately 828 miles of perennial streams. What makes these riparian areas unique in this region of the Sierra Nevada bioregion is their existence amid miles of open, dry landscape, making these areas even more significant to the species, and people, dependent on them. Aquatic species, including those that are on the Forest Service Sensitive list, occur in specialized habitats across the Forest. However, within the scope of this analysis, many of the habitats for these species do not occur within either the focus areas or the zone of influence of the activities being analyzed. An example of this is the California golden trout. The habitat that is managed for non- hybridized California golden trout occurs in the Golden Trout Wilderness, which is outside the scope of this analysis. Species whose ranges occur within the focus areas are listed in the table below.

Table 3-184: Special Status Aquatic Species within the Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Focus area Inyo Mountains Owens springsnail Pyrgulopsis owenensis Forest Sensitive White Mountains South Sierra Escarpment Inyo Mountains Wong’s springsnail Pyrgulopsis wongi Forest Sensitive White Mountains South Sierra Escarpment Mountain yellow- Casa Diablo Rana sierrae Forest Sensitive legged frog Bishop Creek Mono and June Lakes Yosemite toad Bufo canorus Forest Sensitive Mammoth West Kern Plateau slender Batrachoseps robustus Forest Sensitive South Sierra Escarpment salamander Inyo Mountain Inyo Mountains Batrachoseps campi Forest Sensitive salamander South Sierra Escarpment Oncorhynchus mykiss California golden trout Forest Sensitive Monache aguabonita Oncorhynchus clarki Paiute cutthroat trout Federally Threatened White Mountains seleniris Lahontan cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki Federally Threatened Glass Mountains trout henshawi Owen’s tui chub Siphateles bicolor snyderi Federally Threatened Mammoth East Black Toad Anaxyrus exsul State Endangered White Mountains

Aquatic Wildlife – 419

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Except for the streams on the Kern Plateau at the southern end of the Forest, the streams and lakes of the higher elevations of the White Mountains and eastern Sierra Nevada Mountain escarpment were historically all fishless. Several species of fish inhabited the Owens Valley and lower portions of the tributaries that flowed into the valley, including Owens tui chub, Owens pup fish, Owens sucker, and the Owens and Long Valley speckled dace. At the turn of the 20th century, settlers started stocking trout into the waters of the high Sierra Nevada, and the California State Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) initiated a stocking program throughout the high country and valleys in the 1920s. Today, many of the lakes and streams on the Inyo National Forest continue to be stocked, providing a high quality fishery for the enthusiastic angler throughout the Forest and surrounding region. Human activities have altered many of the riparian and stream systems throughout this region. Activities such as dam building, water diversions, grazing, forest vegetation projects, and mining have altered water temperatures, water volume, stream-flow patterns, nutrient input and cycling, streambank stability, and other characteristics important to healthy stream and lake dynamics. Additionally, introduction of non-native fish into historically fishless streams has altered the ecological dynamics of many aquatic systems. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP, 1996a) noted that across the Sierra Nevada bioregion, aquatic/riparian systems are the most altered and impaired habitats. (i.e., “Riparian areas have been damaged extensively by placer mining (northern and west-central Sierra) and grazing (Sierra-wide), and locally by dams, ditches, flumes, pipelines, roads, timber harvest, residential development, and recreational activities.”) Similarly, herpetofauna populations (amphibians and reptiles) have severely declined throughout the Sierra Nevada at all elevations. Local degradation of habitats has led to significant effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates, which are one of the best indicators of the health in Sierran aquatic systems (SNEP, 1996a).

Existing Conditions of Aquatic Species Resources in Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) The primary role of Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) is to preserve, restore, enhance, or connect habitats for identified species at the local level and to ensure the viability of aquatic or riparian dependent species. CARs are designed to protect:

• Known locations of TES species,

• Highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species, or

• Localized populations of rare native aquatic or riparian dependent plant or animal species. In many cases, CARs support the best remaining populations of native fish, amphibian, and plant species whose distributions have been substantially reduced elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada. CARs primarily protect occupied habitat of threatened, endangered or sensitive animal species. The aim is to restore and sustain sufficient amounts of quality habitat distributed across the landscape such that effects of national forest management activities on the species are minimized. The goal is to ensure the long-term conservation and viability of aquatic or riparian associated species and prevent the listing of sensitive or vulnerable species under the Endangered Species Act. The entire sub-watershed encompassed by the CAR is managed as an RCA. There are 17 Critical Aquatic Refuges on the Forest, as described in Volume 4, Appendix I-54, of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001). Twelve of the CARs occur within the analysis

Aquatic Wildlife – 420 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 area for this project. The CARs are described below, including their unique resource and the existing condition of the habitat they contain. Effects of unauthorized routes on special status aquatic species and their habitats are described in detail in Section 3.11.2.4 below. Harvey Monroe Hall RNA. This CAR provides historic and current habitat for the Yosemite toad and the mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF). Several short (less than 100 meters) unauthorized routes occur within this CAR, but none of them occur within or near riparian habitat. Dry Creek/Crooked Meadow Complex. This CAR provided habitat for the eastern-most extant population of MYLF in the 1990s, but populations have severely declined, most likely due to a Chytrid fungus infection. Surveys in 2000 and 2004 showed no occurrences of MYLF within the CAR; however, individuals were observed by Roland Knapp within the last few years (personal communication, June 2008). The CAR contains 1.75 miles of unauthorized routes which influence MYLF habitat. Effects of these routes on MYLF habitat are described in the species account in Section 3.11.2.4. Glass Creek/Deadman Creek: This complex contains numerous high-quality, special aquatic habitats. Yosemite toads occur in the upper portions of Glass Creek, although there are no unauthorized routes that intrude into the meadow. The unauthorized route density within this CAR is one of the highest on the Forest, with a density of more than 4.5 miles per square mile. Because none of the routes occur within or near Yosemite toad habitat, it will not be considered further. Cottonwood Creek: This area is a refuge for a genetically pure population of Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT). This population is considered to be one of the healthiest in existence. This habitat has improved substantially since the removal of cattle from the watershed in 2000. Effects of unauthorized routes N2666, N2667, N2665, 04S323, and N1876 are described in detail in the BA and summarized in the PCT species account below. Little Hot Creek: This CAR provides habitat for the Owens Valley tui chub. The ponds and water impoundment provide high quality habitat for this fish. Numbers within the last six years appear to be stable and increasing. This area also has a high density of unauthorized routes per square mile within the watershed, between 2.5 and 4.5 miles per square mile. As described in the species account below, routes adjacent to the ponds and reservoir are proposed with mitigation to address potential sediment input from passing vehicles. Baker Creek: This CAR provides habitat for both lake-dwelling and stream-dwelling sub- populations of mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF). A recent Chytrid infection has caused a severe die-off of the MYLF population. One unauthorized route occurs near a meadow with frog habitat, as described in the MYLF species account below. Olancha: This CAR contains the only known sympatric populations of Inyo Mountain slender salamander and an un-named slender salamander. No unauthorized routes occur within the influence of any habitat for these salamanders. Haiwee Canyon: This CAR contains a rare, healthy population of Owens Slender Salamander. No unauthorized routes occur within the riparian areas of the CAR. Barrel Springs: This CAR provides habitat for Wong’s springsnail, Inyo Mountain slender salamander, and other unique springsnail species. The unauthorized routes within this CAR are not considered for addition to the NFTS in any of the action alternatives.

Aquatic Wildlife – 421

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

O’Harrel: This drainage is managed for the recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). The unauthorized pole line road crosses the stream below occupied habitat, and one unauthorized route is used for administrative purposes to access the French Drain. The administrative road is not considered for addition to the NFTS for any alternative. These routes are described in detail in the BA and summarized below.

3.11.2.2 Environmental Consequences - General Overview The primary impact to stream and lake systems, and consequentially the species that inhabit them, from impacts of unsurfaced roads is the effect of increased sedimentation into the water. Several studies have demonstrated that sediment delivery to stream channels in a forested environment is correlated to road surface type, physical characteristics of the adjacent areas, soils (erodibility), the steepness of slope below the road, and vehicle usage. (Chin et al., 2004; Clinton and Vose, 2003). Other factors that contribute to in-channel sediment delivery include the number of stream crossings on a channel, the condition of stream approach and the road length draining into the stream channel crossing. Input may be limited in areas where road-use is light, however, the orientation of the road, soil type, steepness, and length can all affect the amount of sediment that enters the stream during rain or snow-melt events. Chin et al. (2004) demonstrated that increased use of non-engineered routes can alter the downstream habitat by increasing sedimentation within the channel, effectively decreasing pool depths, decreasing interstitial spaces in substrate, and increasing turbidity and potentially the amounts of sands and fines which can be visually detected. These factors lead to a decrease in habitat quality for macro-invertebrates and fish. Sediment in spawning gravel increased by 2.6 – 4.3 times in watersheds with more than 4.1 miles of road per square mile (Cedarholm et al., 1980). Most surface water contaminants enter streams at stream crossing by roads, or places where other disturbances are close to streams (Gucinski et al., 2001). Gucinski also notes that trails for bicycling, walking, or horseback riding erode at rates similar to roads, but the total sediment delivered from these trails is generally lower because the total surface area of a narrow trail is less than that of most roads. Road dust can transport unwanted chemicals to surface water. Christensen et al. (1997) observed recent accumulations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (compounds created by the incomplete burning of fuels), in a Wisconsin stream, and identified dust from nearby roads as a source of the pollutant (from Gucinski). Fine grain sediments from road crossings and dust particles from nearby roads can settle in a stream and lodge in interstitial spaces between larger substrate, filling in the areas where stream dwelling insects inhabit, and thereby reducing the available food for trout and other fish. The plugging of these spaces also inhibits the flow of water through the substrate, inhibiting the oxygenating and cleansing properties of flowing water that enables fish eggs and alevin to develop. This condition would reduce the amount of habitat available to fish for reproduction, and could reduce the amount of fish in the stream. Roads that are within the riparian vegetation adjacent to streams and other aquatic features, or cross the streams, directly affect the stream vegetation habitat by removing or inhibiting (repressing), riparian plant community structure. The effects of this action would be similar for all alternatives, but the intensity would be different depending on the extent of the impact for each alternative, related to the density of routes within a defined area. Impacts include loss of soil porosity and water holding

Aquatic Wildlife – 422 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 capability, reduction of habitat for terrestrial insects eaten by fish, loss or reduction of shade in the stream habitat, and reduction in thermal buffering in the riparian area. Vegetation removal due to the placement of a route results in different impacts than erosion and sediment input into a stream. Impacts of vegetation removal are highly localized, while sedimentation can have impacts far downstream from the input source. The impacts of vegetation removal are easily determined by examining the area of vegetation removal, where it is almost impossible to determine downstream effects of sediment input sources and discern those effects from naturally occurring sediment sources, or input from other activities. Amphibians such as frogs have several natural history characteristics that make them susceptible to habitat disturbance. In addition to being ectotherms that are sensitive to small changes in ambient air and water temperatures, they have two distinct life phases. The larval life phase is wholly aquatic, and the second life phase that occurs after metamorphosis is semi-aquatic to terrestrial, depending on species. Thus, amphibians can be affected by disturbance to both aquatic and/or riparian terrestrial habitats. Amphibians tend to exhibit high habitat specificity and low mobility, further reducing their ability to adapt to disturbance (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Because of their susceptibility to both terrestrial and aquatic habitat changes, declines in some amphibian populations have been attributed in part to human disturbances such as road building and associated recreational activities. Road maintenance and use can affect adjacent vegetation as well. Reductions in vegetation along roads resulting from road-associated recreation use may create edge effects that alter community structure due to soil compaction, increased solar radiation, and wind. Increases in soil compaction, combined with increases in solar radiation, have the potential to increase soil temperatures and decrease soil moisture, thereby reducing habitat suitability for aquatic, aquatic-dependent, and riparian-dependent species. Direct effects to aquatic species from roads and motorized vehicles include direct crushing from tires. Literature indicates that placement of routes in relation to habitat can affect aquatic species through mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification (Moyle and Randall, 1996; Trombulek and Frissell, 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2000). This effect would be minimal to the adults of these species as most aquatic species, such as frogs and fish, would evade tires as they entered the water. However, impact from tires can crush eggs and disrupt spawning areas. From review of the unauthorized route system, there are no routes that travel through the aquatic habitats of springsnails, Yosemite toads, salamanders, mountain yellow-legged frogs, or any of the listed fish species. Habitat that is accessible to cross-country travel could be susceptible to this type of impact, although the potential for this is low as many of the habitats associated with these species are inaccessible to vehicles. In addition to changes in hydrology and stream morphology due to human activity, native amphibian populations on the Forest have also been affected by introductions of non-native species such as brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and other trout species. All of these species are known to be present in the analysis area. On a larger scale, however, research by Trombulak and Frissell (2000) indicates a distinct correlation between roads and exotic species. They found that “Roads provide dispersal of exotic species via three mechanisms: providing habitat by altering conditions, making invasion more likely by stressing or removing native species, and allowing easier movement by wild or human vectors” (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Several non-native invasive

Aquatic Wildlife – 423

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

species have been identified within the habitats of the Inyo National Forest, including New Zealand mud snails, whirling disease, as well as the potential for introductions of zebra and quagga mussels. These species require either fish tissues or water to survive transportation to other waters, so there is an insignificant chance that vehicles crossing a stream on an un-improved road or trail would be able to transport these species to another stream crossing in a different watershed. Other introduced organisms are not as well understood as to their method of dispersal. The introduced Chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis appears to have caused "rapid extinction" of local populations of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae) in some, although not all, populations to which it has spread in the Sierra Nevada (Briggs et al., 2005). The fungus can be spread from infected areas by vehicles carrying wet mud or gravel on their tires, bodies, or chassis. The Chytrid fungus has been found in some studies to be strongly associated with the presence of gravel roads (Pauza and Driessen, 2008). It can survive in moist river sand without a host for up to three months (Johnson and Speare, 2005), as well as exposure to UV light, and requires at least three hours of desiccation (complete drying is absolutely necessary) to be sterilized in clothing and equipment (Johnson et al., 2003). Furthermore, the fungus can be carried by introduced populations of the North American bullfrog (Garner et al., 2006) and is already present on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, increasing chances of its transmission by vehicles traveling from one stream crossing or wet area to another. The risk of the threat of spreading Chytrid from infected areas to non-infected areas is made higher by providing motor vehicle access to MYLF habitat.

3.11.2.3 Effects Analysis Methodology

Definitions The following definitions are used to describe the duration and intensity of the impacts associated with motor vehicle use of routes which pass through or influence aquatic resources. (Note: All routes are assumed to cause a long-term effect in that their development and continued use has removed vegetation and the route prism no longer provides habitat. This area is considered unsuitable or “encumbered” by the route. Long-term effects of the routes are described in the analysis using route density per watershed, and by measuring the extent of riparian vegetation removed by the presence of the road, as described in the effects analyses below.) Duration: • Short-term: Effect of vehicle passage through aquatic habitat lasts a few hours or less • Intermediate: Effect of vehicle passage through aquatic habitat lasts a few hours to a few days • Long-term: Effect of vehicle passage through aquatic habitat lasts a few days to 20 years

Intensity (effects are rated at the following levels if they appear to meet one or more of the criteria in the threshold description for that level): • Negligible: No measurable effects to wildlife species, their habitat, or the natural processes sustaining them. • Minor: Effects are detectable, but not expected to be outside the natural range of variability for wildlife species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Population

Aquatic Wildlife – 424 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

numbers and structure may undergo small changes, but remain stable and viable. Occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals are expected, but without measurable interference with survival, reproduction, or other factors affecting population levels. Sufficient habitat remains to maintain viability of all species. Effects are outside of critical reproduction periods. • Moderate: Effects on species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them are detectable, and expected to be outside the natural range of variability for short periods of time. Population numbers and structure may undergo measurable changes, but remain stable and viable. Frequent responses to disturbance by some individuals are expected, with some local effects to survival, reproduction, or other factors affecting population levels. Sufficient habitat remains to maintain viability of all species. Some effects may occur during critical periods of reproduction or in key habitat for sensitive native species. • Major: Effects on species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them are easily detectable and well outside the natural range of variability. Population numbers are depressed and population structure is altered. Frequent response to disturbance by individuals or groups, with effects on survival, reproduction, or other factors resulting in depressed population levels. Large-scale relocation of species may occur. Habitat changes may affect the viability of some species.

Data Sources The following sources were used in this analysis and applied to the analysis of each alternative: 1. Habitat and population surveys of specific species and their habitat conducted by Forest specialists, California Department of Fish and Game and/or contracted surveyors. Site- specific locations of aquatic TES species within the Forest are generally well known due to the limited amount of suitable habitat throughout the dry, eastern Sierra Nevada mountain range. 2. GIS layers of the following information: route locations; habitats of Sensitive and Threatened species; and ‘designated’ or important aquatic areas (e.g., RCAs, CARs). These layers were overlapped to identify any locations where routes intersect with aquatic resources, such as riparian areas of streams and springs, and/or known or potential habitat for special status aquatic species. 3. Site-specific field reviews of routes and their condition as related to aquatic resources. This information, although not included in the document, was used to make determinations of effects for the routes analyzed. This information is located in the project files.

Extent of riparian area affected by a route was estimated based on an average route width of 10- 12 feet and a riparian habitat zone extending 100 feet to either side of the stream. (See the Water Resources Section for discussion regarding RCA width adjustment.) However, many of the riparian areas within the Forest extend less than twenty feet from each stream bank. Using the 100 foot buffer will over-estimate the number of riparian acres within the analysis area, but will also encompass other, less direct effects of the route, such as dust, compaction, and disturbance from passing vehicles.

Aquatic Wildlife – 425

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Queries completed using the Forest’s GIS system identified unauthorized routes that indicated some type of interaction with an aquatic feature, primarily where routes intersect perennial streams. These locations were used as a starting point for determining locations to conduct site-specific field reviews. Upon field verification, it was found that several of the routes identified through the GIS screening were not impacting aquatic resources, for reasons cited as “no water in channel”, “no riparian area”, or “route does not come into contact with riparian area”. Documentation for why these routes were excluded from the aquatic resource analysis can be found in the project file. In addition, there are 17 Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) on the Forest, as described in the FEIS Volume 4, Appendix I-54 of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001). Routes that come within the 100 foot buffer of a stream within a Critical Aquatic Refuge were considered along with all streams and are displayed within the section discussing the effects using Indicator 5.

Analysis Area The analysis area includes all NFS lands within the administrative boundary of the Inyo National Forest, excluding wilderness areas. The geographic extent of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is generally confined to aquatic features of watersheds within this analysis boundary. The analysis area was chosen based on the potential for unauthorized motorized routes on NFS lands to affect aquatic systems.

Indicator Measures The following indicator measures were developed to assess the potential of motorized route designation to adversely affect aquatic and aquatic-dependent species as well as their associated habitats. In stream systems, adverse effects from roads are often associated with sediment delivery. Streams that are adversely affected by sediment delivery generally show one or more of the following characteristics: pools have been partially or completely filled-in with sediment, excessive amount of fine-grained material occurs throughout much of the channel, the channel is wide and shallow at the point of crossing, excessive recent erosion of the channel, and unstable streambanks. Streams that are adversely affected with the above conditions can only marginally support populations of fish. The following indicators are used to assess the effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel, adding facilities to the NFTS, and changing use on existing NFTS roads on threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species and their habitat: • Indicator Measure 1: Miles of routes available for public use within or adjacent to TES aquatic biota habitat • Indicator Measure 2: Miles of motorized routes and acres of areas available for motorized use at forestwide scale and within the habitat for each species. • Indicator Measure 3: The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by motorized routes.

The following indicators are used to assess the effects of prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel, adding facilities to the NFTS, and changing use on existing NFTS roads on habitat for management indicator species for streams and wet meadows (i.e., aquatic macroinvertebrates):

Aquatic Wildlife – 426 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Indicator Measure 4: Density of routes available for motorized use forestwide. This indicator measures the density of routes throughout all habitats, aquatic and upland combined. Route density related to airborne dust as described in the Impact to Aquatic Systems Section. • Indicator Measure 5: Miles of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of a perennial stream (includes stream crossings) or which bisect a meadow. This measure will be discussed under each alternative as a general forestwide impact, and then more specifically for hydrologically sensitive areas within each focus area.

Assumptions A listing of general assumptions is provided at the beginning of Chapter 3. The following lists assumptions that are specific to aquatic wildlife: • All roads are assumed to cause a long-term effect in that they encumber otherwise suitable habitat. Long-term effects of the routes are described in the analysis using route density per watershed, and by measuring the extent of riparian vegetation remove by the presence of the road, as described in the impacts section below. • Habitats for the species being analyzed were assumed to be occupied if they contained the necessary life history elements. • Habitat is already impacted. In the long-term, available habitat will remain the same on routes added to the NFTS, but will increase to at least some degree on routes not added to the NFTS due to subsequent passive restoration. See definitions for duration of effects in the Effects Analysis Methodology Section. • Aquatic species spend all or significant portions of their life cycles either in or moving through riparian habitats. • All vehicle types result in the same amount of disturbance effect on aquatic dependent species. Therefore, proposals to reclassify existing system roads as motorized trails will have no effect on aquatic systems and will not be considered further in this analysis. • Research has concluded that sediment from roads can result in adverse effects to streams and aquatic habitats (Dissmeyer, 2000; Gucinski et al., 2001; Meahan, 1991). • The overall effect of roads to aquatic habitats is related to the amount of sediment movement from road surfaces and is highly variable within and among surface types and is related to levels of maintenance and road drainage and type of use of the road (Clinton and Vose, 2003; Maholland, 2002; Maholland and Bullard, 2005). • The reduction or elimination of vehicle traffic on a road near a stream will result in less sediment delivered from the road to the stream. • The elimination of vehicle traffic on a road near a stream during periods of wet road conditions will result in less sediment being delivered from the road to the stream. Vehicle use on wet roads has the potential to cause ruts and damage to the roads with a resultant increase in erosion of sediment from the road during rainfall events and periods of snowmelt (See Water Resources analysis.)

Aquatic Wildlife – 427

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The density of roads and trails at the watershed scale will not be substantially changed as a result of any of the action alternatives for at least the next 5 to 20 years because all of the action alternatives involve the closure of unauthorized routes to vehicle use by the public rather than physical removal or decommissioning. This type of passive restoration would take an undetermined amount of time for vegetation to re-colonize roadbeds and stabilize unconsolidated soils. However, routes closed within the influence of riparian areas will recover more quickly than upland sites because of the ready availability of water for plant germination and growth.

Assumptions Specific to the Prohibition of Cross-Country Travel The effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are described below under individual species accounts using the measurement indicators listed above. Vehicle use is currently restricted or prohibited in designated wilderness areas, Research Natural Areas and the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Special Interest Area. A temporary Forest Order was established on March 2, 2007 that prohibits cross-country travel on the remainder of the INF (approximately 1.3 million acres). The temporary Order will expire in June, 2010; no permanent prohibition on cross-country travel will be in place after that time. The INF LRMP states that “Poleta Canyon will be the only open OHV area on the Forest. All other OHV use will be restricted to designated routes.” (LRMP ROD, p.2). Without a regulatory prohibition restricting use to designated routes, however, prosecution of persons traveling cross- country is currently possible only if it can be proven that wildlife or vegetative resources are damaged or unreasonably disturbed (36 CFR 261.15(h)). It is anticipated that some level of motorized vehicle use would continue to occur off of existing routes throughout the Forest. It is impossible to quantify the amount or location of habitat affected in this manner, so all habitats in the area not protected by a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel are assumed to be at risk of impact, at least to some degree. However, there are several areas (referred to as off-road travel concern areas or ORTCAs; see Chapter 3 Introduction for definition) with documented histories of repeated cross-country travel. None of the identified ORTCAs are located close to sensitive aquatic resources, and will not be addressed in this section. The impacts of cross-country travel are expected to be similar to those described above and could include soil compaction, vegetation removal, soil erosion, and introduction of non-native species and diseases.

3.11.2.4 Special Status Aquatic Species This section will describe the existing conditions (affected environment) and effects of the six alternatives on special status aquatic species listed in Table 3-184. Effects on habitat for Management Indicator Species (aquatic macroinvertebrates) are described in the ‘Aquatic Habitat’ Section that follows. During 2006, in an effort to streamline the Travel Management process, the U. S. Forest Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed Route Designation Project Design Criteria for threatened and endangered species (USDA Forest Service, 2006). In a letter dated December 27, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that by using all of the Project Design Criteria developed for each species, Forest-level consultation could tier to the programmatic consultation with no further consultation needed. These criteria were met for the Paiute cutthroat trout and the Lahontan cutthroat trout, and are described in detail in the BA. As described in the BA for the Owens

Aquatic Wildlife – 428 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 tui chub, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would not meet the design criteria that “no route or area is within the Critical Aquatic Habitat for Owens tui chub (i.e., Little Hot Creek)”. Informal consultation was initiated with the USFWS and a concurrence letter dated July 31, 2009 was received for a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” as described in the BA and summarized in this section.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierrae) - Affected Environment The mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF) was once abundant throughout its range, which included the high mountain lakes throughout the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Because of their life-history, these frogs require deep lakes or other water sources that do no freeze solid during the long winters. Tadpoles can take two to four years to develop to mature frogs, when they can finally leave the water. Adult frogs also depend on the meadows associated with the lakes and streams of their habitat, although they do not range far from water. Frogs can be found basking on solid surfaces during the day, such as rocks and logs, to warm their bodies in the sun. During these times they are rarely more than a couple leaps from the water where they can hide. In stream habitat, the wet, ponded nature of adjacent meadows can provide refuge and nurseries for developing tadpoles. The mountain yellow-legged frog’s range-wide disappearance from suitable habitat throughout the high elevations has been linked to the introduction of non-native trout, which feed on the tadpoles during the long, ice-covered months of the winter. Populations still persist in isolated lakes throughout the high elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountains within the Inyo National Forest. The frog also was known to exist in the lower elevations around Mono Lake and the June Lake areas, but has since been extirpated in those areas. The Chytrid fungus has been identified as the culprit in the rapid decline of the remaining populations that had escaped the interactions with introduced trout. Introduced predators (trout), air pollution, and the infectious disease (Chytridiomycosis) threaten remaining populations of this frog (Vredenberg et al., 2007). Within the analysis area, the mountain yellow-legged frog occurs in three focus areas: Bishop Creek, Glass Mountains, and Casa Diablo. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were previously abundant during the 1990s in the Crooked Meadow area until it is hypothesized that they succumbed to the Chytrid disease. No frogs were identified in 2000 and 2005 by Inyo NF survey crews, but they have been observed occasionally by Roland Knapp (personal communication). A county road travels through the drier portion of the meadow, and several unauthorized roads originate from the bottom portion of the meadow and follow Dexter Creek. These routes could serve as an access point for cross-country travel to these meadows. Another population occurs in the Casa Diablo focus area. Although there are no unauthorized routes within the habitat of this species, the potential for cross-country travel from existing routes is possible. Two populations occur in the Coyote Flat area. This area was very productive for frogs and has had some of the highest populations within the Forest. In 2008 these two populations contracted Chytrid, which eliminated over 90% of the population. The risk of transferring this disease to other areas on the Forest, or to other Forests, is increased by access to the meadows from unauthorized routes. Vehicle contact of one of the streams was eliminated when a bridge was installed over the crossing in 2004 on this system road. One unauthorized route occurs within the RCA upstream of occupied habitat in a different stream, but does not cross the stream. Although this risk is low, the

Aquatic Wildlife – 429

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

outcome of a disease transmission can be fatal to the frog populations. Eliminating this risk could ensure the continued existence of these populations.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierrae) – Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: This alternative does not implement a permanent prohibition on travel off of designated roads, trails, and areas. Currently, one frog population location is susceptible to off-route travel because of the ease of accessibility from adjacent system and unauthorized routes. One unauthorized route that traverses through a meadow is being further extended by motorized use. The lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country use would increase the risk of transfer of lethal disease, such as Chytrid, that could put these populations at risk of a die-off. Areas where positive infections occur could be transferred to non-infected areas. Route N2271 in the Baker Creek area would provide easy access to the meadow habitat for frogs. Access from system routes would also allow access to MYLF habitat, and could potentially impact meadow resources, including water features where the frogs and tadpoles reside. Although frogs are rarely found more than a few hops from the water, the large meadow complexes associated with the stream or lake are also considered habitat, as the hydrological functionality of the meadow influences the quality and quantity of water. Three other meadow systems on the Forest that provide habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog could be easily accessed from system and unauthorized routes. Potentially, all of these meadows could be impacted by cross-country travel, which could potentially alter the meadow hydrology and cause down-cutting of the stream channel and drying of adjacent wet meadows. These effects would be major and long- term if the use was consistent from year to year, or could be moderate and short-term if the activity occurred only once. This alternative would also put all frogs in the planning area at risk of infection of the Chytrid fungus, which is almost 100% lethal to a population. Effects of Alternative 1 (and the action alternatives) are summarized in the table below.

Table 3-185: Effects of Alternatives on Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Alt 1 Alt 2, 4, 5, and 6 Alt 3 Indicator 1: Miles of Route within Riparian 2.27 miles 0 miles 1.91 miles Stream Buffer

Indicator 2: Acres of 253 acres 0 acres 0.20 acres MYLF Habitat Impacted

Indicator 3: Proportion of Habitat Affected by >1% of direct habitat loss 0% >1% of direct habitat loss Routes

Alternative 1 would continue to allow travel on all unauthorized routes and would continue to impact three locations of MYLF habitat. Impacts in all three areas would include compaction of soils at the margin of the meadow and continued impacts on hydrologic connectivity and water storage of the meadow. Although thick sedge habitat would provide a buffer zone to capture sediment prior to entering the stream, increases in sediment that may have come into contact with petroleum products could pose a risk to the sensitive skin of these animals, reducing their resistance to disease or

Aquatic Wildlife – 430 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 infection and causing mortality of individuals. Site-specific effects associated with continued use of routes within MYLF habitat are: • Bishop Focus Area: Route #N2217 in Coyote Flat area (0.16 miles (854 feet) of meadow habitat) would continue to allow access for cross-country use and contribute sediment to the aquatic system. • Glass Mountain Focus Area: Within the Dexter Creek area, 1.75 miles of routes would continue to contribute sediment to potential stream and meadow habitat for MYLF. • Casa Diablo Focus Area: Two routes occur within the Witcher Flat area that could provide access for cross-country travel into MYLF habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6: These alternatives would improve enforcement opportunities through the permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. These alternatives have the greatest ability to reduce the impacts of direct habitat alteration and risk of disease transfer by eliminating vehicles in the immediate habitat of these frogs. These alternatives will also reduce the input of petroleum products directly into the habitat, reducing the risk of contracting infection or disease by weakening resistance of the skin. Overall, these alternatives reduce the risk of individual mortality of frogs due to the elimination of impacts identified above. There will be no effect from adding unauthorized routes to the system as none of these alternatives propose any routes that are within MYLF habitat. These alternatives have the greatest ability to reduce the risk of mortality by eliminating use on 2.27 miles of existing unauthorized routes with three stream crossings.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 3: Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are the same as described for Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6. Effects associated with proposed NFTS additions are: • Bishop Focus Area: Route #N2217 in Coyote Flat area (0.16 miles (854 feet) of meadow habitat) would continue to allow access for cross-country use and contribute sediment to the aquatic system Impacts would include compaction of soils at the margin of the meadow and continued impacts on hydrologic connectivity and water storage of the meadow. However, thick sedge habitat would provide a buffer zone to capture sediment prior to entering the stream. • Glass Mountain Focus Area: Within this focus area, route 01S474 is proposed as a 4x4 trail. There are no direct impacts to MYLF habitat as this route is located on a bench above the stream for ¾ mile, and then travels within the RCA for the remaining and downstream portion of the creek for 1 mile. Impacts would include air-borne dust that may be contaminated with petroleum products that could settle in the adjacent stream.

Aquatic Wildlife – 431

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog – Cumulative Effects Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities within mountain yellow-legged frog habitat include use of system roads, recreation activities, and livestock grazing. These activities occur throughout the habitat of the MYLF, and have occurred in the past. These actions will cumulatively affect habitat by the contribution of sediment, compaction of meadow soils, and removal/alteration of vegetation. The risk of the transfer of lethal diseases would be greatest with Alternative 1 because of the lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel and continued use of all unauthorized routes. Alternative 1 would have the highest risk of mortality of individuals due to direct and indirect effects, followed by Alternative 3. Alternatives 1 and 3 would impact MYLF habitat by contributing sediment that may be contaminated with petroleum products, which could cause mortality of frogs. Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 would benefit MYLF the most by eliminating disturbance from vehicles within their habitat, thereby reducing the cumulative impacts from grazing, roads and recreational activities.

Owens Tui Chub (Siphateles bicolor snyderi) - Affected Environment In general, tui chubs in the Owens Valley inhabit isolated springs, sluggish streams, and ponds. They prefer habitat with well developed beds of aquatic plants and bottoms of sand or other fine materials. Tui chubs seem to do well in alkaline water with temperatures that exceed 68 F during summer months (Moyle, 2002). Tui chubs are opportunistic omnivores. They feed on plant matter and detritus as well as small macroinvertebrates. Spawning takes place between late April and early July. (Moyle 2002) Owens tui chubs have become extirpated throughout most of their range by introgression with introduced Lahontan tui chubs. The remaining non-introgressed Owens tui chub populations persist in small number of fragmented habitats. The population inhabiting the Little Hot Creek waterfowl impoundment ponds has been shown through the most recent microsatellite DNA study to be non- introgressed (Chen et al., 2006). In 1982 several ponds were created below the existing dam structure on Little Hot Creek. The ponds that were created now provide habitat for tui chub. The approximately 1.08 acre reservoir provides the bulk of the habitat for the tui chub, with three additional ponds downstream that each provide about 0.01 acres of habitat. It appears that the reservoir may be filling in with fine sediment, but observed numbers of fish have not declined within the last five years (personal observation). Populations appear healthy and robust from visual observations around the ponds. Bull rush (Scirpus spp.) is the predominant vegetation within the reservoir, and appears to be increasing along the margins of the reservoir and ponds. This increase of biomass in the reservoir could be contributed to additional input of nutrients (nutrient loading), which would come from upstream sources. A rapid expansion of this plant could threaten the open water habitat for this species. Fencing was installed in the mid-1980s to exclude cattle from tui chub habitat and also to protect water fowl from other activities in the area, such as motorized recreation, dispersed camping and cattle grazing. The hot water springs that provide the water input to the ponds, also draw people seeking an unstructured hot spring experience. There is evidence of abundant camping, bathing and picnicking in the hot springs area just above the habitat for the fish. The outlet for the hot tub is

Aquatic Wildlife – 432 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 discharged into a well-vegetated meadow about a thousand feet above the exclosure. The temperature of the water cools substantively before entering the ponds, therefore losing its attraction to hot-water seekers. Recreationists do not use the tui chub habitat for soaking, and the ponds are quite a bit downstream from the main attraction of the tubs. The pond habitat area of the tui chub is flanked on either side by two unauthorized routes, U03S510 and U03S553. Currently, there are 39.49 miles of routes within the approximately 6,500 acre Little Hot Creek sub-watershed, also identified as the Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR). The area of the CAR will be used to identify impacts on the tui chub rather than the Riparian Conservation Area.

Owens Tui Chub - Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: Effects of Alternative 1 (and the action alternatives) are summarized in the table below. This alternative would allow for use of all 39.5 miles of unauthorized routes within the 6,500 acre Little Hot Creek CAR and would not permanently prohibit cross-country travel off of designated roads and trails. Although there are no connected waterways into the reservoir where the fish are found, dust from the highly mobile soils in this watershed have the potential to settle out on vegetation and may travel to the reservoir during extreme high-flow events, when intermittent and ephemeral channels flow with water. This impact would be long term and could moderately affect all 1.11 acres of the fish’s habitat by partially filling in the reservoir and ponds over a 20 year time period. Vehicle access to the immediate habitat is blocked by a barbed wire fence surrounding the habitat. The extent of this type of impact is measured by the area or miles of impact within the watershed, i.e., higher route density is positively correlated to the severity of impact to the habitat.

Table 3-186: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Owens Tui Chub Indicator 1: Miles of Indicator 2: Acres of Indicator 3: Proportion of route within CAR habitat impacted habitat affected by routes Alternative 1 39.5 miles small portion of 1.11 acres 0%

Alternative 2 26.0 miles 0 acres 0%

Alternative 3 28.8 miles 0 acres 0%

Alternative 4 13.3 miles 0 acres 0%

Alternative 5 0 miles 0 acres 0%

Alternative 6 27.8 miles 0 acres 0%

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel and is expected to reduce the occurrence of this activity throughout the watershed. Alternative 2 would add approximately 26.06 miles of routes to the system for the same effects as described in Alt. 1, and allow for the recovery of 13.5 miles of routes within the watershed. Route 03S510 is proposed to be added to the system with mitigations to address sediment run-off from the road, and to bring the road above grade from the

Aquatic Wildlife – 433

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

floodplain, which will reduce sediment input during high flow events. The route is proposed to remain open with mitigation occurring after designation, allowing the potential of sediment input to continue until work is completed. Route 03S553 is not proposed for addition, allowing for the recovery of vegetation in an area of close proximity to the tui chub habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 3: Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are the same as described for Alternative 2. This alternative would add approximately 28.82 miles of routes to the system for the same effects as described in Alternative 1 and allow for the recovery of 10.7 miles of routes within the watershed. Route 03S510 is proposed to be added to the system with mitigations to address sediment run-off from the road, and to bring the road above grade from the floodplain, which will reduce sediment input during high flow events. The route is proposed to remain open with mitigation after designation, allowing the potential of sediment input to continue until work is completed. Route 03S553 is not proposed for addition, allowing for the recovery of vegetation in an area of close proximity to the tui chub habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 4: Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are the same as described for Alternative 2. This alternative would add approximately 13.31 miles of road to the system for the same effects as described in Alternative 1 and allow for the recovery of 26.2 miles of routes within the watershed. Route 03S510 is proposed to be added to the system after mitigations have been completed (i.e., pre- designation mitigation) to address sediment run-off from the road, and to bring the road above grade from the floodplain, which will reduce sediment input during high flow events. Route 03S553 is not proposed for addition, allowing for the recovery of vegetation in an area of close proximity to the tui chub habitat. Route 03S522 is not proposed to be added under this alternative, channeling traffic to other routes to access popular recreation sites. Alternative routes for access would receive more traffic than they currently do, and because of the slope of these roads, may increase erosion and instability within that area.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 5: Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are the same as described for Alternative 2. This alternative would not authorize use on any unauthorized routes within the watershed for this species (Little Hot Creek CAR). This alternative would meet direction described in the programmatic Design Criteria developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS concurred that implementation of route designation activities as described in the Design Criteria would allow the Forest to proceed with no additional consultation and would have no effect on or would not be likely to adversely affect the Owens tui chub.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 6: Effects of prohibiting cross-country travel are the same as described for Alternative 2. This alternative would add approximately 27.8 miles of routes to the system for the same effects as

Aquatic Wildlife – 434 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 described in Alternative 1, and allow for the recovery of 11.7 miles of routes within the watershed. Route 03S510 is proposed to be added to the system with mitigations to address sediment run-off from the road, and to bring the road above grade from the floodplain, which will reduce sediment input during high flow events. The route is proposed to remain open with mitigation occurring within 18 months after designation, allowing the potential of sediment input to continue until work is completed. Route 03S553 is not proposed for addition, allowing for the recovery of vegetation in an area of close proximity to the tui chub habitat. This alternative would also implement additional route monitoring and interpretative signing.

Cumulative Effects for the Owens Tui Chub Relevant activities occurring concurrently (ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future) within the Little Hot Creek watershed include: • 15.4 miles of system and County roads and 1.1 miles of private roads occur within the watershed. Like unauthorized routes, these roads can contribute sediment and dust that may settle out in the reservoir of the tui chub habitat. Potential sediment input from these roads is limited due to the location of the roads and the flow patterns of the watershed; they may, however, contribute a minor amount of sediment to the habitat. • Livestock grazing: Grazing in the Little Hot Creek Allotment is under consideration as part of the Crowley Basin Grazing Allotment Project. The proposed action would reduce grazing until meadows within the watershed have shown an upward trend. Once that trend is achieved, grazing would be allowed to continue at lower utilization levels than allowed under current grazing direction. Effects of reasonably foreseeable changes in grazing direction include improved watershed conditions which would result in reduced erosion and sediment transport into the fluvial system and lower rates of sediment input into the reservoir compared to the existing conditions. • Recreation activities: A concrete tub about 1,000 feet above the reservoir is used for recreational bathing. The outlet for the tub is directed away from the stream (and water source to the reservoir) and flows into the adjacent meadow where sediment and other substances are allowed to filter through the thick vegetation. Dispersed camping activities occur throughout the watershed, but impacts are considered negligible due to the location and distance from the tui chub habitat. • Privately-owned mine: Activities from the mine create dust and pilings of discarded substrate which could be a source of sediment.

Impacts from the above activities would be impossible to separate from impacts caused by motorized use of unauthorized routes. Dust particles that settle out into the stream or reservoir would be impossible to track to determine the source. The well-vegetated meadows above the reservoir are efficient at removing sediment before it deposits into the reservoir, which is why the reservoir still provides abundant habitat for the tui chub. However, bull rushes are increasing within the reservoir, which could be related to nutrient input into the system.

Aquatic Wildlife – 435

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Reducing the miles of available routes within the watershed would effectively reduce the amount of sediment and dust that can affect tui chub habitat. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential sediment contribution, due to its higher route density and greater potential for cross-country travel. As such, it may reduce the available habitat moderately within the next 20 years. Alternatives 2 – 6 would reduce potential sediment sources adjacent to the reservoir significantly, although there would be varying degrees of beneficial impacts due to the different mileage of routes added to the system within the watershed. The difference in rate of sediment input would be similar between Alternatives 2, 3, and 6, all of which are expected to contribute more sediment to the reservoir than Alternatives 4 and 5. Cumulatively, the effects of the alternatives combined with the effects of all present and reasonably foreseeable future activities could contribute additional sediment that could fill in the ponds and reservoir within 20 years.

Owens Valley Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis owensensis) - Affected Environment The Owens Valley springsnail is distributed along the escarpments of the White and Inyo Mountains on the east side of the Owens Valley. These snails prefer clear, cool spring brooks and spring sites with a consistent flow of water. They are typically common in watercress and/or on bits of travertine and stone within the springhead. These snails occur in springs where the water temperatures range from 50F to 84F degrees (Hershler, 1989). Construction of spring improvements, grazing, or other impacts could alter the water quality of the spring and would preclude occurrence of this species. There are no unauthorized routes that are within an area of influence of Owens springsnail habitat.

Owens Valley Springsnail - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that could impact this species because of the lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the habitat, however, the potential for cross-country travel is expected to be very low. This species will not be considered further in this analysis.

Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) - Affected Environment Wong’s springsnail has a widespread distribution in the Owens Valley along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They range from Pine Creek south to Little Lake, and along the eastern side of the valley from French Spring to Marble Creek in the Inyo Mountains. It is also found in a few sites in Long, Adobe, and Deep Springs Valleys. Habitat for this species includes seeps and spring-fed streams of small to moderate size. Temperature requirements range from 49.1F to 71.6F degrees. The snails are typically found in watercress and/or on small bits of travertine and stone (Hershler, 1989). Construction of spring improvements, grazing, or other impacts could alter the water quality of the spring and would preclude occurrence of this species. Known habitat areas were field-verified and determined that there are no unauthorized routes that are within an area of influence of Wong’s springsnail habitat.

Wong’s Springsnail - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that could impact this species because of the lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the

Aquatic Wildlife – 436 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 habitat, the potential for cross-country travel is expected to be very low. This species will not be considered further in this analysis.

Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) - Affected Environment The Yosemite toad is an endemic species found only in the Sierra Nevada mountain range where it breeds in montane and sub-alpine meadow habitats between 6,400 and 11,300 feet elevation. The majority of suitable habitat and populations occur between 8,500 and 10,000 feet (Karlstrom, 1962; Sherman, 1980). In the December 10, 2003 edition of the Federal Register, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a 12-month finding on whether the species should be proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. The USFWS found that the petitioned action to list Yosemite toad as threatened or endangered was warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. It has been designated a Candidate for listing. Yosemite toad populations within the analysis area occur in Upper Glass Creek and within a forested meadow area south of Lake Mary in the Mammoth West focus area. There is also a population in the Saddlebag Lake area in the Mono Lake/June Lake focus area. No unauthorized routes occur within the vicinity of these habitats, so they will not be considered further, except for effects of cross-country travel under Alternative 1.

Yosemite Toad -Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that could impact this species because of the lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Habitat for this species is remote and relatively inaccessible to the general recreational user. The potential for cross-country travel is expected to be very low. This species will not be considered further in this analysis.

Kern Plateau Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps robustus) - Affected Environment Kern Plateau Slender Salamander was recently described in 2002 by Wake et al. as being slightly larger than most Batrachoseps species. This species occurs in perennially wet and moist habitat, usually associated with rocky outcrops or rock substrate, and occurs along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In the 1989 and 1990 reports by Derham Giuliani, prior to this species being described, about 20 populations of a species Batrachoseps were located along the steep Sierra Nevada escarpment as far north as Falls Creek. In all cases, no disturbances were identified in the habitat areas, except in two cases grazing impacts were noted. At the time of Giuliani’s reports, the genetics and phenotypic analysis had not been completed on the Batrachoseps genus, so for this analysis, it will be assumed that the specimens located in as far north as Falls Creek would be B. robustus, as described by Wake et al. (2002). This species has been identified within ten canyons in the more southern section of the focus area. Unauthorized routes are located at the bottom of five of the canyons, but do not intrude into the area where salamanders have been observed. These canyons include Walker Creek, Sage Flat Creek, Falls Creek, Talus Creek, and Olancha Creek. Salamander populations have been observed in the steeper portions of the ephemeral creeks and seeps, and appear to be in areas not accessible to vehicles. In Giuliani’s 1990 report, it was noted that no impacts occur within the habitat and that the habitat was

Aquatic Wildlife – 437

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

generally in good condition. The terrain leading to the habitat is steep and rocky, blocking intrusion from vehicles.

Kern Plateau Slender Salamander - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that could impact this species because of the lack of a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel. Because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the habitat, the potential for cross-country travel is expected to be very low. This species will not be considered further in this analysis.

Inyo Mountain Salamander (Batrachoseps campi) - Affected Environment The Inyo Mountain Salamander is known from less than 20 canyons within the Inyo Mountain range and the southern eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada range (Guiliani, 1990). This small, 1- 1/3 to 2-2/5 inches long salamander inhabits springs and seeps and associated riparian vegetation within the exceptionally dry slopes of these mountains. They have been found at elevations from 5900 to 8,600 feet. This species most likely feeds on a variety of small invertebrates, although due to their secrecy, it is not known exactly what species they prey upon or if they specialize on any species. Preferred habitat is found along small streams in narrow, rocky gorges with seepage from the rock walls and sparse vegetation. They are found on damp soil under rocks or in humid crevices, not in open water (Guiliani, 1990). Habitat for this species occurs within the Inyo Mountains focus area and the South Sierra Escarpment focus area. Potential habitat for this species could exist at permanent water sources or moist soil (from seeps or springs) throughout the Inyo Mountains focus area, including the 76.2 linear miles of ephemeral channel RCAs. An extensive survey of potential habitat within the Inyo Mountains was completed in 1990 by Derham Giuliani, which included ephemeral channels that would retain moisture throughout the year. Negative results were found on lands within the Inyo National Forest, except for a population identified at Barrel Springs. Although there are no unauthorized routes within the area, the Barrel Springs habitat has been impacted by water-collecting equipment and land-moving machines in the past. These activities have since ceased since this observation was made. The total area of ephemeral RCAs within the Inyo Mountains focus area is 49.4 square miles, with unauthorized roads covering 1.54 miles, equating to 3.1% affected area

Inyo Mountain Salamander - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that could impact this species. Because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the habitat, potential cross-country travel occurring under this alternative is expected to result in negligible habitat modification. This species will not be considered further in this analysis.

Paiute Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) - Affected Environment The Paiute cutthroat trout was originally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 and was reclassified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The endemic habitat for this species occurs within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness in a small drainage. In 1946,several hundred Paiute cutthroat trout were moved to the North Fork of Cottonwood Creek in the White Mountains as a refuge population, which continues to thrive today. In 1968 a small population was moved to Cabin

Aquatic Wildlife – 438 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Creek in the White Mountains, which still exists today. Habitat within both these creeks has improved substantially since grazing activities were eliminated in the mid-1990s (Inyo NF files). No routes occur within the Paiute cutthroat trout habitat in Cabin Creek.

Paiute Cutthroat Trout – Environmental Consequences Much of the creek is remote and inaccessible to vehicles; however, there are some accessible areas. Potential cross-country travel occurring under this alternative could increase sediment input and alter habitat by degrading stream banks if vehicles were to travel directly in or across the stream. These impacts could reduce the amount of spawning habitat available to fish, which could reduce population numbers. Potential impacts would be long-term and moderate. Because Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would affect this species, it will not be considered further in this analysis.

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) - Affected Environment The endemic habitat for the Lahontan cutthroat trout is located in the Lahontan Basin that encompasses most of Nevada and the edge portions of Utah, California, and Oregon. The Lahontan cutthroat trout was listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 1970, and subsequently reclassified as threatened in 1975 to facilitate management. Management of this species is directed under the Recovery Plan for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT) published in 1995. One population of LCT occurs on the Inyo National Forest in a small, hydrologically unconnected stream (not connected to any other stream or water-body) located in the Glass Mountain focus area. Records are unclear as to when the fish were transplanted to the creek, but this population of fish has recently been identified to be related to the Carson River strain of LCT (Peacock, 2007). Population estimates of the fish in the Glass Mountains have indicated a fluctuating, but stable, population since 1997; however, the population appears to be in a slight downward trend in the last 3 years (pers. comm. Dawne Becker, CDFG). Fluctuations could be attributed to observer bias or variable climatic conditions, or both. These fish are considered a refuge population in case a catastrophic event occurs in their endemic habitat. The habitat within the area has been on an upward trend since the 1980s, likely due to the elimination of vehicle access to the uppermost portion of their habitat, and the reduction of cattle grazing in the lower portion of the habitat. All age classes of fish have been observed, indicating successful reproduction. The creek that they inhabit is small, rarely exceeding three feet in width. Prior to introduction of LCT, this stream had never supported populations of any fish species. Vegetation recovery within the creek is evident through photographic documentation available in the Inyo NF files. There is one verified unauthorized route which crosses this stream; however, the crossing occurs about a mile below the occupied habitat of the fish. One unauthorized route parallels the stream for approximately 500 yards before it terminates near the stream. This route is used to access a water diversion associated with the cattle grazing activities that occur within the area. Although there is a healthy riparian buffer between the route and the stream, sediment may enter the stream during rain events.

Aquatic Wildlife – 439

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout –Environmental Consequences Potential cross-country travel occurring under Alternative 1 (especially travel in or across the stream) could increase sediment and alter habitat by degrading stream banks. These impacts could reduce the amount of spawning habitat available to fish, which could reduce population numbers. If cross-country travel occurs, impacts would be long-term and moderate. Due to the short length of the route known to cross the occupied stream, the infrequent use of this route, and the healthy riparian vegetation buffer, continued use of route 02S576 would result in minor impacts to vegetation within the RCA and minor sediment inputs to the stream. These impacts would affect the lower-most portion of the habitat, which is marginal due to low water during summer, silty substrate, and variable temperature fluctuations. Impacts would be long-term and minor. This route is not proposed under any of the action alternatives for addition to the NFTS. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are expected.

California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) - Affected Environment The South Fork of the Kern River and its tributaries are part of the historic endemic habitat for the California golden trout. Currently, the streams below the Schaeffer Barrier, which includes the streams in the Monache focus area, are occupied by brown trout, rainbow trout, and a highly hybridized population of golden trout X rainbow trout. The golden trout in these sections of stream are not considered viable for restoring the native strain of golden trout. However, the Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the California Golden Trout (2004) has identified the South Fork of the Kern River as future habitat for the California golden trout, and streams should be managed for this future restoration. Habitat within the Monache Meadow area is characterized by sandy bottom substrate with outsloped or calving banks (Inyo NF Stream Surveys, 2005) Several system roads travel through the Monache focus area, and cross the river and streams at 10 locations. Road crossings are wide, shallow, sandy, lacking in riparian vegetation, and contribute noticeable amounts of sediment into the stream. Roads are in close proximity to the streams and run- off during storms has been observed. Fish habitat lacks structural complexity within and along the channel. Woody riparian vegetation is infrequent along the banks of the stream. Complexity within the channel is lacking and is evident by long stretches of wide, shallow, and sandy consistency. However, brown and rainbow trout do flourish within these areas as is proven by the successful anglers that come to enjoy the many fishing opportunities in the area.

California Golden Trout - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would affect this species. Potential cross-country travel occurring under Alternative 1 (especially travel in or across streams) could increase streambank instability and erosion into the river channel. Potential cross-country travel would not affect any populations of non-hybridized California golden trout. As a result, golden trout will not be considered further in this document. Black Toad (Anaxyrus exsul)- Affected Environment The black toad has one of the most restricted ranges of all anuran amphibians. It is currently listed as a Fully Protected California State Threatened Species. Its habitat is almost entirely located on private land in Deep Springs Valley (Murphy et al., 2003) and in a spring located on BLM lands.

Aquatic Wildlife – 440 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

However, in early 2009, over 100 tadpoles and several adult toads were discovered to exist within a spring and associated flow on the Inyo National Forest up-drainage of the BLM spring. This indicates that the toad is using the area between the two springs as a dispersal corridor. Currently, unauthorized route 07S143 bi-sects the dispersal area and travels along the out-flow area of the spring. This area is usually dry during spring and summer months, but will flow during rain and run- off events and during melt-off of rare snow accumulation. Toads are more likely to travel overland during wet periods. This route is in the direct path of dispersal, which is a key component for toads to discover new habitats and to continue finding mating partners for reproduction. Black Toad – Environmental Consequences Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are described below. Route 07S143 would be closed to motorized use in Alternatives 5 and 6, but open for use in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. Adding the route to the system in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would reduce, but not eliminate, opportunities for toads to migrate to and from currently occupied habitat, and reduce opportunities for toads to disperse and colonize additional habitat. This would reduce the opportunities for this species to expand its currently restricted range. The presence of the road could affect dispersal opportunities, and vehicle use through dispersal corridors increases the chance of mortality by vehicles. Alternatives 5 and 6 would eliminate the potential for vehicle-caused mortality of toads and tadpoles and improve the current situation for dispersal. Present and reasonably foreseeable activities within black toad habitat include continued eradication of tamarisk surrounding the springs and outlet area by Forest Service weed eradication crews. This will benefit toads in the long-term by eliminating non-native species from the toad’s habitat, encouraging replacement with native species, and by creating open areas within the spring pools. Historically, this spring was used as a water source for a homestead. There may be the occasional recreationist exploring the ruins of the homestead in the ephemeral wash above the spring. The route that used to provide access to the old stone structure is now washed out and impassable by vehicle. No other actions are reasonably foreseeable for this area. Cumulatively, Alternatives 1-4 would have the greatest impact on the dispersal corridor used by the toad by adding route 07S143 to the NFTS; ongoing tamarisk treatments would continue to improve the immediate habitat occupied by the toad. Alternatives 5 and 6 would add to the beneficial effects of ongoing tamarisk eradication to black toad and its habitat by eliminating vehicle-related impacts in the dispersal corridor.

3.11.2.5 Aquatic Habitat for Management Indicator Species This section will describe the impacts of the six alternatives on habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates, identified as Management Indicator Species in the 2007 amendment of the SNFPA. Due to the limited scope of potential effects (i.e., no more than 0.07% of meadow habitat would be affected by the alternatives), effects on wet meadow habitat specific to the Pacific tree frog (a management indicator species), are not summarized in this section. See the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009) for the analysis of effects to wet meadow habitat. Impacts to streams that would affect macroinvertebrates include impacts to shade, water temperature, erosion and sedimentation, which are described below. This assessment is documented in the Inyo NF Motorized Travel Management Project Management Indicator Species

Aquatic Wildlife – 441

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009) which is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Aquatic Habitat – Affected Environment There are approximately 20,030 acres of riparian vegetation (including wet meadows) within the analysis area. This figure was calculated by including a 100 foot RCA buffer on either side of the stream (200 feet total) and multiplying it by the 828 miles of perennial stream within the analysis area. Of the 1695 miles of unauthorized routes that occur throughout the analysis area, 15.4 miles pass through the 100 foot RCA buffer, impacting about 19 acres of habitat within or near the riparian vegetation. System roads and unauthorized routes on the Forest occur adjacent to, and cross, all stream habitat types and systems. Most county roads are constructed for higher standards of comfort and safety, while the majority of existing Forest Service system roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles (i.e., Maintenance Level 2). Unauthorized routes are routes that have been pioneered through native materials and usually follow the path of least resistance, whether that is slope, angle, lack of vegetation, lack of rocks, etc. Stream crossings are generally unimproved fords or low water crossings with no improvement to reduce erosion at the source. For this analysis, it is assumed that these crossings from unauthorized routes are approximately 10 feet wide, including ingress and egress on both sides of the creek. It is noted that many crossings through riparian areas do widen as drivers try to pick the easiest way through a wet area to avoid getting stuck in soft, wet soils, increasing the margins of the crossing as each vehicle passes. The effects determination for each crossing is based on the condition of the crossing and the amount of sediment and downstream effects resulting from the crossing. All crossings are assumed to have long-term effects in that they occupy an area otherwise suitable for occupation by riparian vegetation. The intensity of the impact, which is given in the tables below, relates to the severity of the impact at the time that a vehicle crosses the stream, and how long that impact lasts. The ratings are the same that are described above, either as negligible, minor, moderate and major. The categories are relatively descriptive. For example, a rating of negligible indicates that the crossing is very stable, passes through a culvert, or does not receive noticeable use. A rating of major would indicate that there is extensive use on the route, extensive rutting, and erosion is evident at and below the crossing for a longer duration. The majority of the crossings have been field-verified but if they were not, effects are assumed to be moderate. The following section discusses the effects of each alternative on aquatic habitat as measured by: • Density of routes available for motorized use by HUC 6 watersheds throughout the Inyo NF, and • Miles of routes available for motorized use within 100 feet of a perennial stream (includes stream crossings) or which bisect a meadow. Results are displayed forestwide as well as for the 11 focus areas shown on Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1.

Aquatic Wildlife – 442 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The table below summarizes the impacts of each alternative on hydrologically sensitive areas within the analysis area. Tables 3-182 through 3-196 provide more detailed descriptions of impacts in each focus area for all of the alternatives.

Table 3-187: Summary of Effects to Hydrologically Sensitive Areas within the Analysis Area Miles of Routes Acres Affected % of Available Number of Stream within RCA within RCA RCA Affected Crossings Alternative 1 15.45 18.4 0.09% 35 Alternative 2 8.06 10.1 0.05% 19 Alternative 3 10.65 12.9 0.06% 25 Alternative 4 5.40 6.5 0.03% 10 Alternative 5 0 0 0% 0 Alternative 6 8.23 10.0 0.05% 21

Aquatic Habitat – Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (Existing Conditions Forestwide) To assess effects on aquatic habitat, route density has been calculated for HUC 6 watersheds on the Forest. Whereas other indicator measures have confined the direct/indirect effects analysis to the unauthorized routes considered in each alternative, this analysis includes system and other public roads in addition to the unauthorized routes. This is because the connectivity of the road network makes it impossible to accurately describe route density unless all travelways in the watershed are considered. Analysis of the data indicate that 47 watersheds have a total route density of less than 0.5 miles of route per square mile, 49 watersheds have a total route density of 0.5 to 2.5 miles per square mile, 7 watersheds have a route density of 2.5 to 4.5 miles per square mile, and three watersheds have a route density of more than 4.5 miles of route per square mile. Based on literature reviewed, a threshold route density above which negative impacts to aquatic resources are expected has not been identified. A definitive value would be difficult to determine due to the differences in soil types across the Forest. For this analysis, taking into consideration the relatively stable property of the soils in this region (see Soil Resources Section), watersheds with a density higher than 2.5 miles per square mile will be considered to be at increased risk of negative impacts to aquatic resources caused by sediment input into stream systems. The table below describes the breakdown of the watersheds with more than 2.5 mile/square mile route density.

Aquatic Wildlife – 443

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-188: Density of Routes (Unauthorized, System, and Total) in HUC 6 Watersheds for Alternative 1 (Existing Condition) Name of HUC 6 Watershed Density of NFTS Density of Unauthorized Total Route Roads (mi/sq mi) Routes (mi/sq mi) Density (mi/sq mi) Antelope Spring 1.5 1.1 2.6 Dry Creek 1.4 1.7 3.1 East Craters/Sand Flat 2.1 2.1 4.3 Hot Creek 1.4 2.7 4.1 June Lake 1.6 1.0 2.6 Mammoth Creek 1.7 1.5 3.2 Owens River Gorge 1.4 1.8 3.2 Deadman Creek 1.6 3.3 4.9 Owens River/Dry Creek 2.5 3.1 5.6 Punch Bowl 2.5 2.3 4.8

It is hard to quantify or even qualify the extent of impacts to aquatic systems with these figures, as many of the routes on the Forest are not associated with aquatic habitats. However, higher route density is positively related with (1) the amount of vegetation loss/alteration in an area, (2) the amount of soil compaction from the roadbed, (3) dust production which can ultimately be transported and settle out in aquatic systems, and (4) change in drainage patterns, etc. A discussion of route density as related to watershed impacts is given in the Water Resources Section of this document. This alternative would have the highest amount of surface area impacted by the presence and use of routes that would collectively affect aquatic resources in the long-term (more than 20 years). With regards to cross-country travel, this alternative would result in the greatest potential impact to aquatic systems of all the alternatives after the temporary Forest Order has expired in June 2010. The Forest has identified several areas (i.e., off road travel concern areas or ORCTAs) where off-road travel has been difficult to control. In these areas it is reasonable to assume that cross-country travel will continue in the future under this alternative. However, the ORCTAs are not located near aquatic systems or habitat, so effects to aquatic resources are not expected. Across the Forest, 47 perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) have an existing unauthorized route density of less than 0.5 miles per square mile, 31 RCAs have a density between 0.5 and 2.5 miles per square mile, and 3 RCAs have a density of 2.5 to 4.5 miles per square mile. This density would remain unchanged under Alternative 1. This alternative would also allow for continued use of 36 unauthorized-route stream crossings and 15.38 miles of routes within 81 RCAs on the Forest. Sediment input and loss of vegetation within the RCA would continue, causing local, long-term negative impacts to pools, spawning gravels, macro-invertebrate habitat, and reduction of shade. In the long-term, these effects could ultimately reduce the fitness of individual fish within the area of impact of these routes. Effects of the No Action Alternative for each of the 11 focus areas within the analysis area are described in the table below.

Aquatic Wildlife – 444 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-189: Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 (No Action) on Aquatic Habitat for MIS Focus Area Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences (Alt. 1) This focus area is characterized by a system of lakes and streams that are very popular with recreationists, most likely due to their close proximity to major state highways and paved county roads. Streams in this area provide a high amount of recreational fishing opportunities, and include Mill Creek, Lee Vining Creek, Sawmill Creek and Rush Creek. The area is also characterized by several lakes, including the June Lake group (June, Gull, Grant and Silver Lakes), Mono Lake, and the Tioga Pass group of lakes, Ellery Lake, Tioga Lake, and Saddlebag Lake.

Alternative 1 would allow 2.01 miles of routes to continue to impact the 104 miles of stream within the focus area. Mill, Lee Vining, Mono/June Walker, Rush, Bohler, Parker, Gibbs and Sawmill Creeks will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the location of the route within the riparian buffer.

Of the 2,521 acres of riparian habitat, continued loss of vegetation would occur on 2.4 acres, or about 0.10% of the available habitat. One route with a stream crossing occurs within this focus area, 02N110, which fords Mill Creek. The crossing of 02N110 is rocky and stable, but still may provide a direct path for the limited available sediment to enter the creek. There are a total of 100.4 miles of perennial streams throughout the Mammoth West focus area. There are 2.27 miles of unauthorized routes within perennial stream RCAs. The streams that would be affected by these unauthorized routes include Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Lower Glass Creek, Hartley Springs Creek and Laurel Creek. Alternative 1 would allow continued use of 2.27 miles of routes within the riparian zone. Of the 2,433 acres of riparian habitat, continued loss of vegetation would occur over 2.75 acres, or about 0.11% of the available habitat. Deadman Creek and associated Mammoth West tributaries have a high density of routes, although many channels are ephemeral. This stream system occurs through highly mobile soils, which would easily accumulate in the stream where water is flowing. This alternative has the highest ability to adversely impact Deadman Creek. Two stream crossings currently exist within this focus area: 02S370, which crosses Glass Creek and has a culvert and route 03S130 which crosses Deadman Creek. Both these routes would have a minor influence on sediment input to the creek. There are approximately 21.5 miles of perennial stream within the Mammoth East focus area, much of which is found on private in- holdings along the Owens River and Hot Creek. Approximately 6 miles of perennial streams occur on Inyo National Forest lands. There are 0.47 miles of unauthorized routes within the perennial stream RCAs. Streams affected by these unauthorized routes include Hot Creek, Little Hot Creek, Mammoth Creek, and a small section of Deadman Creek. Alternative 1 would allow continued use of 0.47 miles of routes within perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas. Hot Creek, Mammoth East Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, and Little Hot Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of routes. These impacts will be long term. Of the 521 acres of riparian habitat, continued loss of vegetation would occur over 0.57 acres, or about 0.11% of the available habitat. No unauthorized routes cross streams within this focus area.

Aquatic Wildlife – 445 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences (Alt. 1) The Glass Mountain focus area is characterized by permeable volcanic soils. There are 69.3 miles of perennial stream channels in this area. The main streams that flow through the area are either tributaries to the Owens River, terminate in the soil, or are captured in aqueducts for irrigation in Hammel Valley. Tributaries to the Owens River include Deadman Creek and McLaughlin Creek and springs. Creeks that infiltrate before reaching a perennial body of water include O’Harrel Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Cow Canyon Creek, Wet Meadow Creek, Taylor Creek, McGee Creek, and Sawmill Canyon Creek. The Owens River is the southern boundary of the focus area, and occurs primarily on private land, except for several small stretches where it meanders onto the Forest.

Glass Mountains Of the 69.3 miles of streams, Alternative 1 would allow continued use of 3.23 miles of routes within the RCA. This equates to 0.2% of the total riparian area, or 3.9 acres of impact within the 1,680 acres of perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas. Eleven stream crossings were verified during field visits. One stream has a culvert at the crossing, thereby reducing impacts (01S191). The ten remaining routes with stream crossings are listed in the table below with their associated impacts. Sedimentation, removal of vegetation (resulting in shade reduction), and impeded channel morphology would continue on stretches of Clark Canyon Creek, McLaughlin Spring channel, O’Harrel Creek, McGee Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Sagehen Spring channel, Bald Mountain Spring and Johnny Meadow Spring. Effects to these channels include soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. There are two miles of perennial stream within the Pizona focus area. One unauthorized route enters the Pizona Creek RCA for a total of 0.03 miles (159 feet), affecting an area approximately 0.04 acres. There are no perennial stream crossings on unauthorized routes. Pizona There are approximately 4.8 acres of riparian vegetation within this focus area, assuming a 10 foot strip of riparian vegetation on each side of the stream. Unauthorized routes affect 0.04 acres within these riparian area, which equates to 0.8% of the available area. The Casa Diablo focus area encompasses the table lands area above the Owens River Gorge, and extends across Highway 395 to include the Rock Creek area. Perennial streams in this area include Upper and Lower Rock Creek, Birch Creek, and Witcher Creek. Rock Creek Lake is a popular recreation destination.

There are 55.0 miles of perennial streams within the Casa Diablo focus area. Approximately 0.48 miles of unauthorized roads pass through perennial stream RCAs. The streams affected by these routes include Upper Rock Creek, Witcher Creek and Crooked Creek. Casa Diablo Of the 1,333 acres of riparian habitat, use of unauthorized routes in Alternative 1 would affect 0.58 acres, or about 0.04% of the available habitat adjacent to Lower Rock Creek and Crooked Creek. Soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be minor and long term. Within this focus area, there is one unauthorized route that crosses an irrigation ditch (N1624), and one route that crosses Crooked Creek (N1620), both which have culverts at the crossing. Potential impacts from these routes have been reduced, but still exhibit a loss of vegetation at the crossing location.

Aquatic Wildlife – 446 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences (Alt. 1) The perennial streams in the White Mountains exhibit the typical characteristics of an arid area. These streams originate from high elevations and descend steeply to the valley floors. The streams are typically fed by perennial springs, and their flows are higher in the spring and early summer due to snow pack, which can be substantial at times, but can also be next to non-existent. This area does not receive the precipitation that the Sierra Nevada Mountains do, and associated riparian areas are usually quite narrow and exist in steep terrain. There are no fish that are native to the White Mountains, although there are fish in the valleys that are fed by the streams that originate in this almost barren landscape.

There are 179 miles of perennial streams and creeks within the White Mountain focus area, and there are 2.72 miles of unauthorized routes that occur within RCAs with perennial streams. Streams include Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock White Mountains Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, North Fork Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek. Of the 4,339 acres of riparian habitat, 3.3 acres, or about 0.08% of the available habitat, would not be vegetated.

Soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation will continue to impact creeks in the focus area. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts would be long term. Within the perennial stream system, there are 7 crossings by unauthorized routes. See the table below for impacts associated with each route crossing.

The Bishop focus area is a popular fishing area due to the abundant streams and man-made reservoirs stocked with rainbow trout. This area was largely fishless until European settlers stocked the waters with trout. There may have been some native fish that inhabited the lower sections of stream in the valley bottom. Major within this focus area are Pine Creek, Horton Creek, McGee Creek, Bishop Creek, Cow Creek, Baker Creek and West Fork Coyote Creek. Popular reservoirs include North Lake, Lake Sabrina, and South Lake.

There are 132.6 perennial stream miles within this focus area. Within the perennial stream RCAs for Baker Creek, Middle Fork Bishop/Coyote Shannon Canyon, Rawson Creek, Coyote Creek, South and North Fork of Bishop Creek, McGee Creek, Horton Creek and Pine Creek, there are 2.08 miles of unauthorized routes. Of the 3,215 acres of riparian habitat, this alternative would affect riparian vegetation on 2.5 acres, or about 0.08% of the available habitat. There are 8 crossings of perennial streams. One route (N2198) has extensive erosion and rutting at the area of the crossing; all other crossings have moderate impacts from sediment. See the table below for a list of routes and associated impacts.

This focus area is characteristically dry, with no perennial streams. There is one perennial RCA, a small outflow channel from a spring southeast of the Black Jack Mine. Aquatic resources are limited to infrequent and scattered springs and seeps located throughout the area, as well as ephemeral channels located in north-facing canyons or the north-facing slope of steep canyons. Inyo Mountains It was determined through field checks that unauthorized routes are not affecting springs. Ephemeral systems occur in the steep drainages along the escarpment and usually terminate before entering the valley floor.

Aquatic Wildlife – 447

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences (Alt. 1) The aquatic resources within this focus area are characterized by steep, narrow canyons that descend from the high elevations of the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada to the flat, arid landscape of the Owens Valley. There are 26 perennial streams (132.6 miles) within the focus area, many of which have been stocked with rainbow, brook, brown and golden trout. Many of these streams are supported by snow pack, and often go dry in winters with less precipitation. Other streams are supported by springs located within the canyons. The larger stream systems within the focus area include Big Pine Creek, Independence Creek, Oak Creek and Cottonwood Creek. All of these streams are captured downstream of the Forest boundary by the Los Angeles Department of Water Resources aqueduct.

Alternative 1 would allow the continued use of 2.02 miles of routes within perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas. Of the 3,214 acres of riparian habitat, this alternative would continue to affect 2.4 acres, or about 0.08% of the available habitat. Streams South Sierra that would be affected by unauthorized routes are: Tallus Creek, Johnson Creek, Hogback Creek, Summit Creek, Sage Flat Creek, Walker Creek, Olancha Creek, Cottonwood Creek, South Fork Lubkin Creek, Lone Pine Creek, Hogback Creek, Georges Creek, Bairs Creek, Shepherd Creek, North and South Forks Oak Creek, Sawmill Creek, Division Creek, Goodale Creek, Taboose Creek, Red Mountain Creek, Tinemaha Creek, Fuller Creek, Birch Creek, and Pine Creek. Soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue to affect these channels. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts would be long term.

There are four perennial stream crossings on unauthorized routes in the focus area. See the table below for a list of crossings and their associated impacts. There are a total of 32.0 miles of perennial stream channels within the Monache focus area. These streams include the South Fork of the Kern River and associated tributaries, Round Mountain Stringer, Monache Creek, Soda Creek, Kingfisher Stringer, and Snake Creek. One section of unauthorized route 0.1 miles in length enters the perennial stream RCA for Monache Creek. Monache There are 776 acres of perennial stream RCAs within this focus area. The area of impact from unauthorized routes covers 0.48 acres within these RCAs, which equates to 0.06% of the area of the available RCA. There are no stream crossings by unauthorized routes.

Aquatic Wildlife – 448 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-190: Existing Condition of Unauthorized Route Stream Crossings with Identified Impacts (Alternative 1) Focus Route Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity Area Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02N110 Mill Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish, several Moderate June June

Mono / Mono crossings in creek

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 03S130 Deadman Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish

West Vegetation removal at site of culvert, Mammoth 02S370 Glass Creek Minor some sediment contribution

01S527 Johnny Meadow Vegetation removal, sediment Moderate Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 01S474 Dexter Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish, severe Major rutting Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S535 McLaughlin Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish 02S533 McLaughlin Creek Route rarely used Minor Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Sagehen Spring 01S191 reduced spawning habitat for fish, has Negligible Creek culvert 02S572 O’Harrel Creek No fish habitat Moderate 02S539 Chavez Spring outlet No fish habitat Moderate Glass Mountains Glass Mountains Bald Mt. Spring Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S506 Minor Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S568 McGee Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S602 Dry Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish, Moderate multiple crossings in channel Reduced spawning habitat, loss of N1624 Crooked Creek Negligible macroinvertebrate habitat, has culvert

Reduced spawning habitat, loss of N1620 Crooked Creek Negligible macroinvertebrate habitat, has culvert Casa Diablo Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Queen Canyon N. 01N258 reduced spawning habitat for fish; Minor Fork (Crosses on earthen dam) Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Queen Canyon S. 01N258 reduced spawning habitat for fish (Route Minor Fork is rarely used) Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 01N299 Rock Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish, Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 05S135 N.F. Crooked Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish (Route Negligible has culvert)

White Mountains Mountains White Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1918 Wyman Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N749 Rock Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1894 Silver Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish

Aquatic Wildlife – 449 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Route Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity Area Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1892 Silver Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1793 Pine Creek trib. reduced spawning habitat for fish (not Moderate visited) Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1967 McGee Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1937 Horton Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1978 McGee Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2198 Coyote Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish, Major extensive rutting and bank modification.

Bishop/Coyote Bishop/Coyote Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Rawson Creek, W. 08S119 reduced spawning habitat for fish, muddy Moderate Fork crossing Rawson Creek, Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2648 Moderate E. Fork reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 08S204 Coyote Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish, muddy Moderate crossing Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 19S103 Walker Creek Moderate reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2321 Division Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish (not Moderate visited) Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2322 Division Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish (not Moderate

South Sierra South Sierra visited) Little Cottonwood Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2455 Minor Creek Tributary reduced spawning habitat for fish

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: This alternative would add 929 miles of routes to the NFTS throughout the Forest. Breaking this down into density of routes per HUC 6 watershed, 98 watersheds have a total route density of less than 2.5 miles per square mile, six watersheds have 2.5 to 4.0 miles per square mile and 2 watersheds are impacted by more than 4.1 miles of route per square mile, as shown in the table below. Effects to aquatic habitat within the watersheds with a route density exceeding 2.5 mi/square mile are expected to be the same as under Alternative 1.

Aquatic Wildlife – 450 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-191: Route Density within HUC 6 Watersheds for Alternative 2 Name of HUC 6 Watershed Density of NFTS Density of Routes Added Total Route Roads (mi/sq mi) to NFTS (mi/sq mi) Density (mi/sq mi) Dry Creek 1.4 1.1 2.5 East Craters/Sand Flat 2.1 1.1 3.2 Hot Creek 1.4 1.8 3.2 Mammoth Creek 1.7 1.0 2.7 Owens River Gorge 1.4 1.5 2.9 Deadman Creek 1.6 2.2 3.8 Owens River/Dry Creek 2.5 2.0 4.5 Punch Bowl 2.5 1.6 4.1

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel, which is expected to reduce potential future disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation. It would also allow for the recovery of vegetation on a total of 7.39 miles of unauthorized routes within the riparian zone forestwide. A total of 7.99 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS within perennial RCAs. The following table summarizes the impacts of Alternative 2 for the 11 focus areas within the analysis area.

Table 3-192: Summary of Effects of Alternative 2 on Aquatic Habitat for MIS, by Focus Area (Stream Crossings are Listed in Table Below) Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 2 Adds 1.52 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). Routes impact 0.07% of the 2,521 acres of available riparian habitat Mill, Lee Vining, Wilson, Bohler, Rush and Sawmill Creeks will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of Mono/June vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. One route with a stream crossing is proposed under this alternative. This would be the same as Alternative 1.

Adds 0.77 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream RCAs. Routes impact 0.93 acres or 0.03% of the 2,433 acres of available habitat. Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Lower Glass Creek and Laurel Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause Mammoth West siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. One route, 03S370, that crosses a stream will be added with this alternative. Impacts of sediment input to the stream would be long term, but negligible because of the existing culvert.

Adds 0.28 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.34 acres (0.07%) of the 521 acres of available riparian habitat. Hot Creek, Mammoth Creek, and a small section of Deadman Creek just before the confluence of the Owens River will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, Mammoth East accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term and permanent. No routes cross streams within this focus area.

Aquatic Wildlife – 451

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 2 Adds 0.65 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.78 acres, or about 0.05%, of the 1,680 acres of available riparian habitat. Increased sedimentation, decreased shade, and impeded channel morphology would continue to affect Clark Canyon Creek, McLaughlin Spring channel, O’Harrel Creek, McGee Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Sagehen Spring channel, Bald Mountain Spring and Glass Mountains Johnny Meadow Spring. Soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. There are four stream crossings proposed for this focus area as identified below.

Pizona No routes within perennial stream RCAs are proposed for this alternative. Adds 0.13 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.16 acres, or about 0.01% of the 1,333 acres of available riparian habitat. The streams affected by these routes include Lower Rock Creek and Crooked Creek, both of which would continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause Casa Diablo siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Within this focus area, there is one unauthorized route that crosses an irrigation ditch (N1624), which has a culvert at the crossing. Potential impacts from this route have been reduced, but loss of vegetation continues at the crossing location.

Adds 1.74 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 2.10 acres, or about 0.05% of the 4,339 acres of available riparian habitat. Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, NF Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and White Mountains Wyman Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Five routes with crossings are proposed under this alternative. All crossings have proposed mitigation to address sediment input.

Adds 1.31 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impacts 1.6 acres, or about 0.05% of the 3,215 acres of available riparian habitat. Baker Creek, Middle Fork Shannon Canyon, Rawson Creek, Coyote Creek, South and North Forks of Bishop Creek, McGee Creek, Horton Creek,and Pine Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and Bishop/Coyote removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Three routes with crossings are proposed under this alternative. All crossings have proposed mitigation to address sediment input.

Inyo Mountains There are no perennial streams within the Inyo Mountains Focus area.

Aquatic Wildlife – 452 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 2 Adds 1.32 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 1.60 acres or about 0.05% of the 3,214 acres of available riparian habitat. Walker Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Inyo Creek, Hogback Creek, Independence Creek, North and South Forks Oak Creek, Sawmill Creek, Division Creek, Goodale Creek, Taboose Creek, Red Mountain Creek, Tinemaha Creek, Pinyon Creek, Little Pine Creek, and Pine Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in South Sierra hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Four routes with crossings are proposed to be added under this alternative. The route crossing the South Fork of Oak Creek was recently obliterated by a large debris/mud flow. The crossing at Walker Creek and the two at Division Creek are proposed for mitigation to reduce the amount of sediment input to the creek.

Adds one route to the NFTS in the Monache Creek RCA for a total of 0.1 miles. The continued effects of sediment input will be long-term but minimal due to the sparse Monache vegetation that occurs at this site. There are no unauthorized road crossings in this focus area.

Table 3-193: Summary of Routes with Stream Crossings by Focus Area for Alternative 2 Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02N110 Mill Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish June June Mono / Mono

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S370 Glass Creek Negligible spawning habitat for fish West Mammoth

02S572 O’Harrel Creek No fish habitat Minor

02S539 Chavez Spring outlet No fish habitat, Minor

Glass Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced

Mountains Mountains 02S506 Bald Mt. Spring Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S602 Dry Creek spawning habitat for fish, multiple crossings Moderate in channel

N1624 Crooked Creek Sediment input from dust, vegetation loss Minor Casa Diablo

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 01N299 Rock Creek spawning habitat for fish (Open after Minor mitigation)

White White Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 05S135 N.F. Crooked Creek Minor Mountains Mountains spawning habitat for fish

Aquatic Wildlife – 453

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1894 Silver Creek spawning habitat for fish (Open after Minor mitigation) Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1892 Silver Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1918 Wyman Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Rawson Creek, W. Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 08S119 Minor Fork spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 08S204 Coyote Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1937 Horton Creek Minor Bishop/Coyote Bishop/Coyote spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 19S103 Walker Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2321 Division Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2322 Division Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish South Sierra South Sierra Little Cottonwood Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2455 Minor Creek Tributary spawning habitat for fish

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 3: This alternative would add 1,171 miles of routes to the NFTS throughout the Forest. Breaking this down into density of routes per HUC 6 watershed, 98 watersheds have a total route density of less than 2.5 miles per square mile, 6 watersheds have a total route density of 2.5 to 4.0 miles per square mile, and 2 watersheds are impacted by more than 4.1 miles of routes per square mile, as shown in the table below. Effects to aquatic habitat within the watersheds with a route density exceeding 2.5 mi/square mile are expected to be the same as under Alternative 1.

Table 3-194: Route Density within HUC 6 Watersheds for Alternative 3 Name of HUC 6 Watershed Density of NFTS Density of Routes Added Total Route Roads (mi/sq mi) to NFTS (mi/sq mi) Density (mi/sq mi) Dry Creek 1.4 1.2 2.6 East Craters/Sand Flat 2.1 1.2 3.3 Hot Creek 1.4 1.9 3.3 Mammoth Creek 1.7 1.1 2.8 Owens River Gorge 1.4 1.6 3.0 Deadman Creek 1.6 2.4 4.0 Owens River/Dry Creek 2.5 2.3 4.8 Punch Bowl 2.5 1.8 4.3

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel, which is expected to reduce potential future disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation. It would also allow for the recovery of vegetation on a total of 4.72 miles of unauthorized routes within the riparian zone forestwide. A total of 10.66 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS within perennial RCAs.

Aquatic Wildlife – 454 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The following table summarizes the impacts of Alternative 3 for the 11 focus areas within the analysis area.

Table 3-195: Route Summary of Effects of Alternative 3 on Aquatic Habitat, by Focus Area Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 3 Mono/June Same as Alternative 2. Adds 1.21 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream RCAs. Routes impact 1.5 acres or 0.06% of the 2,433 acres of available habitat.

Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Lower Glass Creek, and Laurel Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic Mammoth West health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term.

One route with a stream crossing will be added with this alternative, which currently has a culvert. Impacts of sediment input to the stream would be long term, but negligible. Mammoth East Same as Alternative 2. Adds 2.27 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.78 acres, or about 0.14%, of the 1,680 acres of available riparian habitat.

Increased sedimentation, decreased shade, and impeded channel morphology would continue to affect Clark Canyon Creek, McLaughlin Spring channel, O’Harrel Creek, McGee Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Sagehen Spring channel, Bald Mountain Spring and Johnny Meadow Spring. Soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in Glass Mountains hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term.

Seven routes with stream crossings are proposed to be added under this alternative. All seven crossings are proposed for mitigation, which includes hardening the crossings to reduce the input of sediment. The crossing on Dexter Creek is especially unstable and would still input sediment into the system even with the proposed mitigation. Pizona No routes within perennial stream RCAs are proposed for this Alternative. Casa Diablo Same as Alternative 2. Adds 1.97 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 2.4 acres, or about 0.06% of the 4,339 acres of available riparian habitat.

Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, NF Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run- White Mountains off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term.

Six routes with stream crossings are proposed for this Alternative. All routes are proposed for mitigation to address sediment input, except for route N1892, which did not appear to be a source of sediment when field checked. Route 04S323 has previously been closed due to impacts to Paiute cutthroat trout.

Aquatic Wildlife – 455

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 3 Adds 1.54 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impacts 1.9 acres, or about 0.06% of the 3,215 acres of available riparian habitat.

Baker Creek, Middle Fork Shannon Canyon, Rawson Creek, Coyote Creek, South and North Fork of Bishop Creek, McGee Creek, Horton Creek and Pine Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would Bishop/Coyote continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term.

Five routes with crossings are proposed to be added under this alternative. All crossings are proposed for mitigation to reduce the amount of sediment in the stream. Route N2198 has extensive rutting and erosion, and even with mitigation would most likely still contribute a fair amount of sediment above natural levels. Inyo Mountains There are no perennial streams within the Inyo Mountains Focus area. Adds 1.61 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 1.95 acres or about 0.06% of the 3,214 acres of available riparian habitat.

Walker Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Inyo Creek, Hogback Creek, Independence Creek, North and South Fork Oak Creek, Sawmill Creek, Division Creek, Goodale Creek, Taboose Creek, Red Mountain Creek, Tinemaha Creek, Pinyon Creek, Little Pine Creek and Pine Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from South Sierra road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term.

Four routes with crossings are proposed to be added under this alternative. The route crossing the south fork of Oak Creek was recently obliterated by a large debris/mud flow, so the status of the route is unknown. The crossing at Walker Creek and the two at Division Creek are proposed for mitigation to reduce the amount of sediment input to the creek. Monache Same as Alternative 2.

Table 3-196: Route Specific Impacts at Stream Crossings for Alternative 3 Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02N110 Mill Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish June June Mono \ Mono

Reduction of food availability and reduction 02S370 Glass Creek Negligible of spawning habitat West Mammoth

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 01S474 Dexter Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Sagehen Spring Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 01S191 Minor Creek spawning habitat for fish

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S572 O’Harrel Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish; no fish habitat

02S539 Chavez Spring outlet No fish habitat Minor Glass Mountains Glass Mountains

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S506 Bald Mt. Spring Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish

Aquatic Wildlife – 456 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S568 McGee Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 02S602 Dry Creek spawning habitat for fish, multiple crossings Moderate in channel

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1624 Crooked Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Casa Diablo Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 01N299 Rock Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish, Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N.F. Cottonwood 04S323 spawning habitat for fish Major Creek Violates road closure Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 05S135 N.F. Crooked Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1894 Silver Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish

White Mountains Mountains White Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1892 Silver Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1918 Wyman Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2198 Coyote Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Rawson Creek, W. Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 08S119 Minor Fork spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 08S204 Coyote Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1937 Horton Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Bishop/Coyote Bishop/Coyote

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N1793 Pine Creek trib. Minor spawning habitat for fish

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced 19S103 Walker Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2321 Division Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2322 Division Creek Minor spawning habitat for fish South Sierra South Sierra Little Cottonwood Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced N2455 Minor Creek Tributary spawning habitat for fish

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 4: This alternative would add 694 miles of routes to the NFTS throughout the Forest. Breaking this down into density of routes per HUC 6 watershed, 99 watersheds have a total route density of less than 2.5 miles per square mile, 7 watersheds have a total route density of 2.5 to 4.0 miles per square mile, and no watersheds are impacted by more than 4.1 miles of route per square mile, as shown in the table below. Effects to aquatic habitat within the watersheds with a route density exceeding 2.5 mi/square mile are expected to be the same as under Alternative 1.

Aquatic Wildlife – 457

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-197: Route Density within HUC 6 Watersheds for Alternative 4 Name of HUC 6 Watershed Density of NFTS Density of Routes Added Total Density Roads (mi/sq mi) to NFTS (mi/ sq mi) (mi/sq mi) East Craters/Sand Flat 2.1 0.6 2.7 Hot Creek 1.4 1.2 2.6 Mammoth Creek 1.7 0.9 2.6 Owens River Gorge 1.4 1.1 2.5 Deadman Creek 1.6 1.5 3.1 Owens River/Dry Creek 2.5 1.4 3.9 Punch Bowl 2.5 1.1 3.6

This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel, which is expected to reduce potential future disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation. It would also allow for the recovery of vegetation on a total of 9.69 miles of unauthorized routes within the riparian zone forestwide. A total of 5.42 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS within perennial RCAs. The following table summarizes the impacts of Alternative 4 for the 11 focus areas within the analysis area.

Table 3-198: Effects of Alternative 4 on Riparian Habitat, by Focus Area Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 4 Adds 1.54 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). Routes impact 0.07% of the 2521 acres of available riparian habitat Mill, Lee Vining, Wilson, Bohler, Rush and Sawmill Creeks will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic Mono/June health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. One route with a stream crossing is proposed under this alternative. Effects would be the same as Alternative 1.

Adds 0.32 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream RCAs. Routes impact 0.39 acres or 0.02% of the 2,433 acres of available habitat. Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Lower Glass Creek and Laurel Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in Mammoth West hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. No routes would cross perennial streams.

Adds 0.26 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.32 acres (0.06%) of the 521 acres of available riparian habitat. Hot Creek, Mammoth Creek, and a small section of Deadman just before the confluence of the Owens River will continue to receive impacts of soil Mammoth East compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. No routes cross streams within this focus area.

Aquatic Wildlife – 458 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 4 Adds 0.31 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.38 acres, or about 0.02%, of the 1,680 acres of available riparian habitat. Increased sedimentation, decreased shade and impeded channel morphology would continue to affect Clark Canyon Creek, McLaughlin Spring channel, O’Harrel Creek, McGee Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Sagehen Spring channel, Bald Mountain Spring and Johnny Meadow Spring. Soil compaction, Glass Mountains accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. One route crosses a perennial stream (O’Harrel Creek). This route is proposed to be closed until mitigation has been completed (pre-designation), which would include hardening the crossing with large gravel.

Pizona No routes within perennial stream RCAs are proposed for this Alternative. Adds 0.17 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.21 acres, or about 0.02% of the 1,333 acres of available riparian habitat. The streams affected by these routes include Lower Rock Creek and Crooked Creek, and will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from Casa Diablo road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Within this focus area, there is one unauthorized route that crosses an irrigation ditch (N1624), and one route that crosses Crooked Creek (N1620), both of which have culverts at the crossing. Potential impacts from these routes have been reduced, but loss of vegetation continues at the crossing location.

Adds 1.34 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 1.6 acres, or about 0.04% of the 4,339 acres of available riparian habitat. Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, North Fork Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, White Mountains and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Three routes that cross streams are proposed for this alternative. Routes will be closed to public use until mitigations are completed to reduce sediment input to the creek (pre-designation). Mitigations on route N1892 will be completed after designation.

Adds 0.19 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.23 acres, or about 0.001% of the 3,215 acres of available riparian habitat. Baker Creek, Middle Fork Shannon Canyon, Rawson Creek, Coyote Creek, South and North Fork of Bishop Creek, McGee Creek, Horton Creek and Pine Bishop/Coyote Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. There are no routes with stream crossings proposed for this alternative.

Inyo Mountains There are no perennial streams within the Inyo Mountains Focus area.

Aquatic Wildlife – 459

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 4 Adds 1.23 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 1.49 acres or about 0.04% of the 3,214 acres of available riparian habitat. Inyo Creek, Hogback Creek, Independence Creek, North Fork Oak Creek, Sawmill Creek, Division Creek, Goodale Creek, Taboose Creek, Red Mountain Creek, Tinemaha Creek, Pinyon Creek, Little Pine Creek, and Pine Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in South Sierra hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Two routes which cross Division Creek are proposed in this alternative; pre- designation mitigations to address erosion issues are recommended for each crossing.

Monache Same as Alternative 2.

Table 3-199: Summary of Route Crossings by Focus Area for Alternative 4 Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02N110 Mill Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish June June Mono / Mono Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S572 O’Harrel Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish; no fish Minor habitat

Glass Chavez Spring 02S539 No fish habitat Minor Mountains Mountains outlet Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1624 Crooked Creek Negligible reduced spawning habitat for fish

Casa Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Diablo N1620 Crooked Creek Negligible reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 01N299 Rock Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish, Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1918 Wyman Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish White White

Mountains Mountains Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1892 Silver Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2321 Division Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Sierra South N2322 Division Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 5: This alternative would not add any routes to the NFTS; however, routes would still be visible on the ground in the short-term and would still impact hydrologic processes, but at a lower rate than if they were used by motorized vehicles. In the long-term, after 20 years, there would be some vegetative recovery and reduction of soil movement, especially in flatter terrain. This alternative would have the least amount of long-term impacts on riparian habitat of all the alternatives. This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel, which is expected to reduce potential future disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation. It would also allow for the passive recovery of

Aquatic Wildlife – 460 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 vegetation on a total of 15.4 miles (18.6 acres) of unauthorized routes within the riparian zone forestwide. The following table summarizes the impacts of Alternative 5 for the 11 focus areas within the analysis area.

Table 3-200: Summary of Effects of Alternative 5 on Aquatic Habitat for MIS, by Focus Area Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 5 This alternative would not allow the continued use of any unauthorized routes, allowing 2.5 acres of riparian habitat to slowly recover. Impacts from loss of vegetation and soil erosion will continue for up to 10 years until vegetation has recovered. Impacts within riparian areas will recover faster than upland sites because water is available. Mill, Lee Vining, Wilson, Bohler, Rush and Sawmill Mono/June Creeks will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term for up to 10 years with gradual reduction as routes re-vegetate. Recovery of 2.75 acres of riparian habitat on Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Mammoth West Lower Glass Creek and Laurel Creek. See Mono Lake and June Lake discussion for more information about effects. Recovery of 0.57 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake Mammoth East discussion for more information about effects. Recovery of 3.9 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake Glass Mountains discussion for more information about effects. Pizona No routes within perennial stream RCAs are proposed for this Alternative. Recovery of 0.57 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake Casa Diablo discussion for more information about effects. Recovery of 3.3 acres of riparian habitat on Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich White Mountains Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, NF Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek. See Mono Lake and June Lake discussion for more information about effects. Recovery of 2.52 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake Bishop/Coyote discussion for more information about effects. Inyo Mountains There are no perennial streams within the Inyo Mountains Focus area. Recovery of 2.45 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake South Sierra discussion for more information about effects. Recovery of 0.02 acres of riparian habitat. See Mono Lake and June Lake Monache discussion for more information about effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 6: This alternative would add 1005 miles of routes to the NFTS throughout the Forest. Breaking this down into density of routes per HUC 6 watersheds, 98 watersheds have a total route density of less than 2.5 miles per square mile, 6 watersheds have 2.5 to 4.0 miles per square mile and 2 watersheds are impacted by more than 4.1 miles of route per square mile, as shown in the table below. Effects to aquatic habitat within the watersheds with a route density exceeding 2.5 mi/square mile are expected to be the same as under Alternative 1.

Aquatic Wildlife – 461

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-201: Route Density within HUC 6 Watersheds for Alternative 6 Name of HUC 6 Watershed Density of NFTS Density of Routes Added Total Route Density Roads (mi/sq mi) to NFTS (mi/sq mi) (mi/sq mi) Dry Creek 1.4 1.1 2.5 East Craters/Sand Flat 2.1 1.1 3.2 Hot Creek 1.4 1.8 3.2 Mammoth Creek 1.7 1.1 2.8 Owens River Gorge 1.4 1.5 2.9 Deadman Creek 1.6 2.2 3.8 Owens River/Dry Creek 2.5 2.0 4.5 Punch Bowl 2.5 1.8 4.3 This alternative would permanently prohibit cross-country travel, which is expected to reduce potential future disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation. It would also allow for the recovery of vegetation on a total of 6.91 miles of unauthorized routes within the riparian zone forestwide. A total of 8.5 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS within perennial RCAs. The following table summarizes the impacts of Alternative 6 for the 11 focus areas within the analysis area.

Table 3-202: Summary of Effects of Alternative 6 on Aquatic Habitat by Focus Area Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 6 Mono/June Same as Alternative 2. Adds 0.99 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial stream RCAs. Routes impact 1.2 acres or 0.05% of the 2,433 acres of available habitat. Mammoth Creek, Deadman Creek, Lower Glass Creek, and Laurel Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related Mammoth West activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. One route with a stream crossing will be added with this alternative, which currently has a culvert. Impacts of sediment input to the stream would be long term, but negligible.

Adds 0.21 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 0.25 acres (0.05%) of the 521 acres of available riparian habitat. Hot Creek, Mammoth Creek, and a small section of Deadman Creek just before the confluence of the Owens River will continue to receive impacts of soil Mammoth East compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. No routes cross streams within this focus area.

Adds 0.86 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 1.04 acres, or about 0.06%, of the 1,680 acres of available riparian habitat. Increased sedimentation, decreased shade and impeded channel morphology would continue to affect Clark Canyon Creek, McLaughlin Spring channel, O’Harrel Creek, McGee Creek, Dry Creek, Dexter Creek, Sagehen Spring channel, Bald Mountain Spring, and Johnny Meadow Spring. Soil compaction, Glass Mountains accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, and removal of vegetation would continue. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Six proposed routes cross streams, as shown in the table below. All crossings are proposed for mitigation, which includes hardening the crossings to reduce the input of sediment.

Pizona No routes within perennial stream RCAs are proposed for this Alternative.

Aquatic Wildlife – 462 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Focus Area Environmental Consequences – Alternative 6 Casa Diablo Same as Alternative 2. Adds 1.71 miles of routes to NFTS within perennial RCAs. Routes impact 2.07acres, or about 0.05% of the 4,339 acres of available riparian habitat. Morris Creek, Queen Canyon Creek, Pinchot Creek, Rock Creek (Trail Canyon), Middle Creek, South Fork Chiatovich Creek, Montgomery Creek, Falls Canyon Creek, Willow Creek, Lone Tree Creek, North Fork Cottonwood Creek, Silver Canyon Creek, Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek will continue to receive impacts of soil compaction, accelerated run-off, reduction in hydrologic health, White Mountains and removal of vegetation. Sediment input from road-related activities would continue to cause siltation in the stream channel near and downstream of the point source. These impacts will be long term. Five routes with stream crossing are proposed under this alternative. All routes are proposed for mitigation to reduce sediment input to the stream. Silver Creek has two stream crossings and Rock Creek, North Fork Crooked Creek, and Wyman Creek each have one crossing.

Same as Alternative 2, except stream crossings have mitigation proposed to Bishop/Coyote reduce sediment impacts Inyo Mountains There are no perennial streams within the Inyo Mountains focus area. South Sierra Same as Alternative 2. Monache Same as Alternative 2.

Table 3-203: Summary of Stream Crossings by Focus Area for Alternative 6 Road Stream Name Type of Impact Intensity

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02N110 Mill Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish June June Mono / Mono

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S370 Glass Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish West Mammoth Sagehen Spring Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 01S191 Minor Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S572 O’Harrel Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish; no fish Minor

habitat 02S539 Chavez Spring outlet No fish habitat Minor Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 02S506 Bald Mt. Spring Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Glass Reduced aquatic insect habitat and Mountains Mountains 02S568 McGee Creek reduced spawning habitat for fish Minor

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced spawning habitat for fish, multiple 02S602 Dry Creek Moderate crossings in channel

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and reduced spawning habitat for fish, has N1624 Crooked Creek Negligible culvert Casa Diablo

Aquatic Wildlife – 463

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 01N299 Rock Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish, Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 05S135 N.F. Crooked Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1894 Silver Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1892 Silver Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish White Mountains Mountains White Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1918 Wyman Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Rawson Creek, W. Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 08S119 Minor Fork reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N1937 Horton Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 08S204 Coyote Creek Minor Bishop/Coyote Bishop/Coyote reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and 19S103 Walker Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2321 Division Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2322 Division Creek Minor reduced spawning habitat for fish South Sierra South Sierra Little Cottonwood Reduced aquatic insect habitat and N2455 Minor Creek Tributary reduced spawning habitat for fish

Cumulative Effects – Aquatic Habitat The combined impacts from past actions within the analysis area, which include road building, use and maintenance; livestock grazing; hydroelectric and water storage dams and facilities; recreational use, including fish stocking; irrigation ditches; timber activities; mining; facilities; and special uses, have shaped the current condition of aquatic species and their habitat. However, because data describing the location, extent, and intensity of the effects of these past activities is limited, the current condition of aquatic species is used as a proxy for the effects of past actions. Past activities have resulted in the loss of native fish and amphibians by the introduction of non- native salmonids. Sediment input to streams from roads, recreation, grazing activities, and other soil- disturbing activities has changed the availability of habitat for macro-invertebrate species, reduced suitable spawning habitat for non-native salmonids, and altered the sediment budget within stream systems. Roads have also provided avenues of access for disease and nuisance species, such as the New Zealand mud snail, Chytrid fungus, tiger salamander, bullfrogs and crayfish. All these species have had a detrimental impact on native species such as the Owens tui chub, Owens pup fish, Long Valley speckled dace, and mountain yellow-legged frog. Some activities have obvious impacts on aquatic resources, such as the area where a road crosses a stream. This impact removes riparian vegetation at the source of the activity. Other effects are not so obvious, such as changes to hydrologic flows of streams caused by dams, which can trigger changes in the timing and temperature of high spring flows and the timing and condition of the spawning season for fish. The confounding aspect of determining impacts of activities on aquatic systems is that many of the effects from these activities are not equally distributed across all acres “affected” by the activity. For example, although grazing occurs on more than 700,000 acres on the Forest, this figure does not equate to a loss of aquatic habitat on all 700,000 acres. Impacts are

Aquatic Wildlife – 464 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 primarily indirect, in that grazing activities can impact vegetation and generate sediment input to streams. The intensity of those impacts is determined by the intensity of the grazing, the condition of the meadows and vegetation, and the capacity of the riparian areas to filter out sediment prior to it entering the stream. These limitations make it difficult to quantify cumulative effects of different activities on aquatic systems and species.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The current and reasonably foreseeable future projects relevant to the analysis of aquatic systems are described below. Additional information about the relevant activities considered in this analysis is provided in Appendix D. All acreage figures are approximate. Livestock grazing. Grazing occurs on about 738,000 acres throughout the Forest. Although this amount of acreage is available for authorized grazing use, not all acres are grazed, nor are they grazed equally or continuously. Since the most abundant forage is located within meadows and riparian areas, grazing use is usually concentrated in those areas. Impacts from grazing can include streambank trampling, riparian vegetation alteration, erosion and sediment transport to streams and changes in hydrologic function of meadows and riparian areas. However, authorized grazing is subject to standards that are designed to promote riparian health and stability. As stated above, the effects of past actions are considered to be represented by the current condition, and currently the stream systems and meadows on the Forest do support native fish, introduced sport fish (trout) and amphibians. Most stream systems on the Inyo NF have functioning streambanks, although some systems are functioning at risk or are non-functional (see Crowley Lake Range Allotment Permit Re- issuance EA, 2008). The current populations of fish and amphibians have continued to persist with the activities of grazing (which occurred at more intensive levels in the past than currently) as well as existing unauthorized routes. Nonetheless, a reduction in sediment input to the stream systems would benefit fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. Areas that would be most affected cumulatively by the presence and use of routes and grazing activities are those within active allotments where the route comes into proximity of a riparian area (100 foot buffer area) and/or meadows. Timber activities and fuel treatments (28,853 acres). Prescribed burning, brush removal and vegetation management practices where small trees are removed from a mature forest occur throughout the Forest. These activities are conducted under Forest Plan direction, and impacts from the project are mitigated to reduce impacts to riparian areas. Most small tree removal projects occur in the Jeffery pine stands within the Mammoth – June and Glass Mountains area. Fuel treatments and prescribed burning activities occur throughout the Forest, primarily focused around communities and developed recreation sites. For any of these types of projects, buffer zones are placed around streams and water features to reduce or eliminate impact of sediment or ash to enter the stream. The primary impact associated with these activities is dust production. Airborne sediment has the potential to settle out on vegetation which would later be washed off during a rain event, and eventually find its way to a stream. This impact across the forest would be negligible, and added to dust impacts from unauthorized routes may contribute enough sediment to stream systems to account for a minor impact to stream resources. Cumulatively, this minor impact could result in a reduction of spawning habitat and an alteration in habitat for macro-invertebrate population assemblages.

Aquatic Wildlife – 465

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Hydrologic development projects. Streams that are impacted by dams include Rush Creek (Gem, Agnew and Silver Lakes), Lee Vining Creek (Saddlebag, Tioga and Ellery Lakes), Mill Creek (Lundy Lake), Mammoth Creek (Lake Mary, Lake George, Lake Mamie, Twin Lakes and Horseshoe Lake), and all forks of Bishop Creek (North, South, Sabrina Lakes and Intake 2). Other low-level dams have been constructed on the Forest, such as Convict Lake, but impact to the flow regime and riparian habitat is negligible. These dams affect the change in the timing of hydrologic events, such as flood events, and affect the overall flow regime of the natural stream. Like native surface routes, dams affect sediment budgets in the stream. However, where roads often act as a sediment source, dams can interrupt sediments on their path downstream, as sediments drop out in the reservoir. Temperature regimes of the stream are also altered throughout the seasons because flows are changed. All these impacts can affect the populations of fish and macro-invertebrates. Geothermal exploration and development (211 acres). Geothermal exploration and development is currently concentrated in the Mammoth Lakes area. This activity has the potential to affect the water source for the Owens tui chub due to the close proximity to its habitat, and because the tui chub prefers cool, not cold, water sources. The current geothermal well operations are under a monitoring plan to detect any changes in water chemistry or temperatures that may affect the tui chub. To this date, no changes have been detected. Any impact from this activity is already mitigated through monitoring and subsequent actions to make the effect of this activity negligible to the tui chub. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from proposed NFTS additions and other actions proposed in the alternatives. Recreation activities (no acre estimate available). Localized areas within the Forest draw concentrated use to streambanks from angling activities. Campgrounds near streams are subject to this type of impact, as are popular fishing sites. Streambanks on Hot Creek, Rush Creek, Owens River, Mammoth Creek, Bishop Creek, and Rock Creek, for example, have been impacted by concentrated use. Typically, concentrated use results in user-created trails or “worn” spots on streambanks where people concentrate for fishing. Impacts include loss of riparian vegetation and compaction of soil which can make a stream vulnerable to bank collapse, altering fish habitat within the stream. Wildland fire (estimated 54,000 acres over the next 20 years). Effects are similar to those described for prescribed burning, though in general wildland fires burn more intensely, potentially resulting in more severe effects on stream systems by increasing sediment and ash into fluvial systems. The location and intensity of any future wildland fire is difficult to predict, making it difficult to assess future effects with any degree of certainty. In general, however, wildland fires burning at a high intensity within a perennial watershed will ultimately, or immediately, contribute ash and sediment to the stream. Ash can cover spawning beds fill in pools and can suffocate fish. Vegetation removed by fires can cause temperatures to rise in the stream, increase solar radiation and cause bank instability. Road and trail development or improvement. There are 264 stream crossings (system roads and unauthorized routes) on the Forest. Most of the impacts associated with these crossings are addressed by the use of culverts, bridges, or paving. Native surface system roads have the same impacts as unauthorized routes; including dust, change in hydrologic cycle, concentrated run-off, etc. Several existing roads traverse perennial drainages, such as the county-maintained Wyman and Silver Canyon roads, and impair stream function due to the lack of improved crossings. Road maintenance, such as

Aquatic Wildlife – 466 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 placing cinders on roads during winter months, can impact aquatic systems as cinders are crushed by tires and become airborne or wash down drainage channels from paved roads. Many of the main canyons receive such impacts, including Big Pine Canyon, Bishop Creek, Pine Creek, Rock Creek, Convict Drainage, and Lee Vining Canyon. Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify these impacts, visual estimates indicate these impacts could range from minor to moderate across the Forest. Road rehabilitation and other watershed restoration projects. It is estimated that there may be about 22 acres of watershed restoration and road rehabilitation projects ongoing or in the foreseeable future, including extensive stream crossing mitigation in Silver and Wyman Canyons. These site- specific actions are intended to reduce sediment into aquatic systems. The action may have significant beneficial effects at the site of the project; however, at a forestwide scale the improvements would most likely be negligible compared to the extent of impacts from all other actions on the Forest.

Summary It is difficult to quantitatively analyze effects from the above activities because the impacts from each activity affect riparian resources differently. For example, comparing grazing impacts to road construction is not comparable because the existence of the road removes all vegetation at the site, whereas grazing, although affecting vegetation, does not remove it throughout the entire acreage of use.

Table 3-204: Summary of Present and Foreseeable Future Action Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis for Aquatic Systems Activity Impacts Area Affected Increased Livestock grazing sedimentation, 738,000 acres streambank instability Timber and Fuel Negligible impacts from 28,853 acres Treatments dust Loss of riparian Recreation Activities vegetation, streambank Throughout Forest instability Increase of erosion, loss of riparian vegetation in 54,000 acres. Variable intensity Wildland Fire the short term, improved and location. watershed conditions in the long term Loss of riparian Existing stream crossings vegetation, increased 264 stream crossings (system and unauthorized) sedimentation Road and watershed Reduction of sediment 22 acres (beneficial impact) rehabilitation projects input Area impacted by Loss of riparian 15.4 miles, or 18.6 acres (assuming a 10-12 ft unauthorized routes in vegetation, increased average width of unimproved road) perennial RCAs sedimentation Area impacted by system Loss of riparian 62.6 miles of roads, or 136.6 acres (assuming 18 ft and other public roads in vegetation, increased average width of maintained roads) perennial RCAs sedimentation

Aquatic Wildlife – 467

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

When added to the effects of present and foreseeable future activities described above, the impacts of allowing continued use of 1,668 miles of unauthorized routes and not implementing a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel, as proposed in Alternative 1, are expected to result in long term moderate impacts on aquatic systems. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would effectively reduce impacts to aquatic resources by prohibiting cross-country travel and reducing the amount of riparian vegetation encumbered by unauthorized routes on the Forest over the long-term. Overall cumulative effect of these alternatives on aquatic systems is expected to be long term and minor in intensity, with beneficial effects from the passive restoration of routes not added to the NFTS. Alternative 5 would have beneficial effects to aquatic systems from the closure and non-use of all unauthorized routes on the Forest.

3.11.2.6 Effects of Mitigation Measures The beneficial effects of mitigations proposed to reduce or eliminate effects to aquatic biota and their habitat are analyzed in the species-specific Direct and Indirect Effects Sections above. The effects determinations for aquatic biota assume that mitigation measures applied to minimize effects on aquatic resources will be initiated or completed within approximately five years. For routes with pre-designation mitigations, the effects of motor vehicle use on aquatic resources (e.g., sedimentation at stream crossings) would be eliminated until completion of the prescribed mitigation, at which time the effects determinations for Alternatives 2 – 6 would be achieved. For routes with post-designation mitigations, the effects analysis assumed that the existing impacts would continue until the mitigation is completed, with the conclusion that waiting 2 – 5 more years for implementation of the mitigations would not cause significant or irreversible damage to the aquatic resource in that area. However, those routes with post-designation mitigation actions will continue to cause localized impacts on aquatic resources until mitigation actions have been completed, at which time the determinations under Alternatives 2-6 would be achieved . Mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on other forest resources are summarized in Chapter 2 and listed by route in Appendix A. Mitigations proposed to reduce effects on other forest resources are analyzed here to assess potential adverse impacts on aquatic biota. Of these, none are proposed in areas within the influence of aquatic species habitat. Therefore, none of the mitigations proposed for resource protection, as described in Appendix A, would affect aquatic resources.

3.11.2.7 Determinations for Special Status Species

For Yosemite toad, Owens and Wong’s Springsnails, Inyo Slender Salamander and Kern Plateau Slender Salamander, Paiute Cutthroat Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and California Golden Trout: It is my determination that Alterative 1 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of their habitats. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would have no effect on these species as there are no unauthorized routes that come into contact with or are near habitat for these species. It is my determination that the implementation of these alternatives will have no effect on these species.

Aquatic Wildlife – 468 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

For Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: It is my determination that the implementation of Alternative 1 may result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 propose to add no routes within mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. It is my determination that the implementation of these alternatives will have no effect on the mountain yellow-legged frog. Alternative 3 poses a minor risk of altering 0.20 acres of habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. It is my determination that the implementation of Alternative 3 may affect individuals, but the species is already warranted to be listed as a federally designated species.

For Owens Tui Chub: It is my determination that the implementation of Alternative 1 may affect and is likely to adversely affect habitat of the Owens tui chub. Alternatives 2-6 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Owens tui chub, although the degree of impact within the watershed varies as described in detail above. This determination is based on the stable trend in population and habitat of the Owens tui chub within the Little Hot Creek area. For Black Toad: It is my determination that the implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 will continue to restrict and impact black toad habitat (dispersal routes and spring habitat). The implementation of Alternatives 5 and 6 will eliminate all vehicle-associated impacts from habitat on the Inyo National Forest.

3.11.2.8 Determinations for Aquatic Management Indicator Species

Macroinvertebrate Species: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Habitat Trend. Based on the analysis of aquatic habitat contained in the Inyo NF Travel Management MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009) and summarized in this section, route density throughout the project area will be reduced in all of the action alternatives. With the current trend of IBI metrics as stable, any decrease in the amount of road density will be beneficial to the habitat and aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Pacific Tree Frog: Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Pacific Tree Frog Trend. Based on the analysis of wet meadow habitat contained in the Inyo NF Travel Management MIS Report (USDA Forest Service, 2009), the improvement of 1.79 acres to 7.68 acres of meadow habitat will be a small beneficial effect to the existing trend in the habitat, and will not lead to a downward trend or change in the distribution of Pacific tree frogs across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Aquatic Wildlife – 469

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.11.3 Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects The following tables provide a summary of effects by focus area for each alternative. Please refer to the alternative analyses for more detailed descriptions of effects, including site-specific descriptions of routes. Effects are described as negligible (no effect), minor, moderate (effects are noticeable but still support viable populations), and major (effects that affect the viability of species and have a negative impact on the quality of aquatic resources overall). These ratings summarize effects for the entire analysis area rather than individual or localized effects to stream resources, whether adverse or beneficial.

Table 3-205: Summary of Effects on Aquatic Resources for All Alternatives for Mono/June, Mammoth West, Mammoth East, and Glass Mountains Focus Areas. Effects of Alternatives for Each Indicator Indicators – Aquatic Biota Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 1. Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to TES aquatic moderate none minor none beneficial none biota habitat. 2. Miles of motorized routes and acres of areas at forestwide scale moderate none minor none beneficial none and within the habitat for each species. 3. The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by motorized moderate none minor none beneficial none routes 4. Density of motorized routes as a measure of habitat effectiveness at major moderate moderate minor beneficial moderate the 6th field watershed level. 5. Number hydrologically sensitive areas within 100 ft. (RCA width) of major moderate moderate minor beneficial moderate an added route, including stream crossings

Table 3-206: Summary of Effects on Aquatic Resources for All Alternatives for Pizona, Casa Diablo, Bishop/Coyote, White Mountains, Inyo Mountains, South Sierra Escarpment and Monache Focus Areas Effects of Alternatives for Each Indicator Indicators – Aquatic Biota Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 1. Miles of unauthorized routes within or adjacent to TES aquatic moderate none minor none beneficial none biota habitat. 2. Miles of motorized routes and acres of areas at forestwide scale moderate none minor none beneficial none and within the habitat for each species. 3. The proportion of a species habitat that is affected by motorized moderate none minor none beneficial none routes 4. Density of motorized routes as a measure of habitat effectiveness at moderate minor moderate minor beneficial minor the 6th field watershed level. 5. Number hydrologically sensitive areas within 100 ft. (RCA width) of moderate minor moderate minor beneficial minor an added route, including stream crossings

Aquatic Wildlife – 470 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.11.4 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction All action alternatives (2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) would comply with the Forest Plan, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), the Travel Management regulations, and other regulatory direction. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, does not address aquatic resource concerns such as perennial road-stream crossings. This alternative would not make progress toward desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan and SNFPA for water resources. In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on aquatic resources were considered in the development of the trail additions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. This determination is based on the following: 1. Site-specific information regarding the nature and location of the routes to aquatic resources was used in the development of the alternatives to determine route-specific recommendations, identify mitigations, and estimate potential effects. 2. Routes with sediment concerns which could not be mitigated to acceptable levels were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. For the purposes of this analysis, “acceptable level” means that the degree of impact from a route does not interfere with the viability of aquatic species resources. In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(b), harassment of aquatic wildlife and disruption of aquatic habitat were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. The objective was to minimize impacts, as demonstrated by the following: 1. The alternatives were developed in an interdisciplinary setting, with the objective of avoiding impacts to aquatic resources were possible. 2. Where avoidance could not be achieved because of the need to balance resource impacts with recreational access and adverse effects to aquatic resources were anticipated, mitigations were proposed to minimize effects to acceptable levels. “Acceptable level” means that the degree of impact from an added route does not interfere with the viability of aquatic species resources. 3. Routes with adverse impacts to aquatic resources that could not be minimized were not proposed for addition to the NFTS. 4. Travel off of designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects to aquatic resources.

Aquatic Wildlife – 471

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aquatic Wildlife – 472 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.12 Air Quality

3.12.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences for air quality. It describes the area potentially affected by the alternatives and existing resource conditions within that area. Measurement indicators are used to describe the existing conditions for the Forest. The measurement indicators will be used in the analysis to quantify and describe how well the proposed action and alternatives meet the project objectives and address resource concerns.

3.12.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction Air quality is managed through a series of federal, state, and local laws and regulations designed to assure compliance with the Clean Air Act. A summary of how the regulations apply to this project is provided here.

Federal Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is the federal law passed in 1970, and last amended in 1990, (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) which is the basis for national control of air pollution.

Regional Haze Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), 40 CFR Part 51 The Regional Haze Rule requires states to demonstrate “reasonable progress” toward improving visibility in each Class I area over a sixty-year period (to 2064), during which visibility should be returned to natural conditions. Class I areas include wilderness or National Parks greater than 5000 acres which existed as of August 7, 1977.

General Conformity Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) (Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act (part 51, subpart W, and part 93, subpart B) U.S. EPA passed the final General Conformity Rule in 1993. Under the rule, federal agencies must work with State and local governments in a non-attainment or maintenance area to ensure that federal actions conform to the initiatives established in the applicable state implementation plan (U.S. EPA, 2008).

California Clean Air Act (H&S §§ 39660 et seq.) California adopted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988. The Act provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation in California independent of federal regulations, and establishes ambient air quality standards for the same criteria pollutants as the federal clean air legislation (CARB, 2007).

Air Quality – 473 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

California Air Resources Board (CARB) Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards Rulemaking In 1994, the CARB approved new off-highway recreational vehicle regulations (since amended in 1998). The rulemaking established emission standards for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) including off-road motorcycles (dirt bikes) and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) (CARBc, 2006). OHV registration became contingent on vehicle compliance to California emissions standards. Dirt bikes and ATVs that meet emission standards are eligible for OHV Green Sticker registration and have a year-round operating period, while non-compliant vehicles fall under the OHV Red Sticker program and have a limited operational season.

Air Pollution Control Districts Both the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and the San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District are contained within the Inyo National Forest. Both Districts have published rule and regulations that are used to manage air quality within their respective Districts. In addition the Districts prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs or State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for areas identified as non-attainment for PM10 standards. These plans contain specific measures that decrease emissions to attain Federal Standards.

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988) (LRMP) The LRMP includes the following direction related to air quality management: • Coordinate with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District when developing guidelines for management programs on the Forest. • Conduct, or require of lessees and contractors, dust abatement procedures during construction or other Forest activities that generate significant dust.

3.12.3 Affected Environment Topography and weather patterns determine the extent to which airborne particulate matter accumulates within a given area. Weather patterns strongly influence air quality through pollutant dispersion. The primary weather conditions that affect dispersion are atmospheric stability, mixing height and transport wind speed. Atmospheric stability refers to the tendency for air to mix vertically through the atmosphere. Mixing height is the vertical distance through which air is able to mix. The transport wind speed is a measure of the ability to carry emissions away from a source horizontally. These factors determine the ability of the atmosphere to disperse and dilute the released emissions. The general climate of the air basins on the Inyo National Forest varies considerably with elevation and proximity to the Sierra ridge. The terrain features of the air basin make it possible for various climates to exist in relatively close proximity. The pattern of mountains and hills causes a wide variation in rainfall, temperature, and localized winds throughout the basin. Temperature variations have an important influence on basin wind flow, dispersion along mountain ridges, and vertical mixing. During the spring, strong winds from the north and south are common in the Owens Valley. Strong southerly winds transport particles from the dry Owens Lake bed, impacting visibility and air quality in the Owens Valley and surrounding parts of the Forest.

Air Quality – 474 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

From an air quality perspective, the topography and meteorology of the air basin combine such that local conditions predominate in determining the effect of emissions in the basin. Regional airflows are affected by the mountains and hills, which direct surface air flows, cause shallow vertical mixing, and create areas of high pollutant concentrations by hindering dispersion. Inversion layers, where warm air overlays cooler air, frequently occur and trap pollutants close to the ground.

3.12.3.1 Existing Conditions Forestwide Air quality across the Forest is generally considered good to excellent due to low population density and the remote nature of the Forest. Air quality can be severely impacted by particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants during large wildfire events on the Forest and on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. The analysis area is contained within the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD), the San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJUAPCD) (Tulare County) and the State of Nevada where the Bureau of Air Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 manage air quality.

Fugitive Dust Atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed “fugitive” because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of fugitive dust include native surface roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction operations. In the project area, native surface roads are the most common source of fugitive dust. Fugitive road dust is a result of motor vehicle use when road surfaces are dry; the force of wheels moving across the native surfaces causes pulverization of surface material. Dust is lofted by the rolling wheels as well as by the turbulence caused by the vehicle itself. This air turbulence can persist for a period of time after the vehicle passes. The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of native surface road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. Variables which influence the amount of dust produced include the average vehicle speed, the average vehicle weight, the average number of wheels per vehicle, the road surface texture, the fraction of road surface material which is classified as silt (particles less than 75 microns in diameter), and the moisture content of the road surface (US EPA 2002). Ashy, volcanic soils on the northern part of the Forest become especially dusty during the dry summer and fall months. Ashy soils are primarily found on the Mammoth and Mono Lake Ranger Districts west of the White Mountains. The impact of a fugitive dust source on air quality depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source, considerable amounts of fine particles also are emitted and dispersed over much greater distances from the source. Theoretical drift distance, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, has been computed for fugitive dust emissions. Results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 10 mph, particles larger than about 100 microns in aerodynamic diameter are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the route or other point of emission. Particles that are 30 to 100 microns in diameter are likely to undergo impeded settling. These particles, depending upon the extent of atmospheric turbulence, are likely to settle within a few hundred feet of the route.

Air Quality – 475

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Smaller particles, (particularly Inhalable Particles, PM10, and Fine Particles), have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are much more likely to have their settling rate retarded by atmospheric turbulence.

Inhalable Particles (PM10) Sources of PM10 emissions include wood burning stoves from residential areas; smoke from pile burning, broadcast burning, and wildfires; and re-suspended road dust and cinders. Many of the PM10 emissions in the Forest’s air basins are due to off-forest activities; namely forest fires on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, wood burning from valleys east and west of the Sierra Crest, and dust from the dry or partially dry Owens and Mono Lakes (GBUAPCD 2001, 1990). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate these particles to protect visibility and human health. The federal 24-hour ambient air quality standard for PM10 is 150 g /m3 (US EPA 2008). There are currently four federal non-attainment areas for PM10 on the Forest. They are the Southern Owens Valley, Coso Junction, Mammoth Lakes and Mono Basin. The Southern Owens Valley and Coso Junction are in severe non-attainment for federal standards, while Mammoth Lake and Mono Basin are in moderate non-attainment for federal standards. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and/or air quality plans have been prepared for the Southern Owens Valley (including a small part of the Forest covered by the Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area SIP), Mono Basin and the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Ozone Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed by complex photochemical reactions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) volatile organic compounds (VOC), and carbon monoxide in the presence of sunlight. The Monache area is in Tulare County which is part of the San Joaquin Valley Pollution Control District. Currently, there is no federal standard for Ozone –one hour. The area is in serious non-attainment for Ozone -eight hour according to federal standards. Currently the Ozone – eight hour standard is 0.075 ppm. This was recently lowered from 0.08 ppm in March 2008 (US EPA, 2008). In the summer, strong winds flow up valley from the Central Valley to the west, transporting medium for ozone precursors and ozone generated in the San Joaquin valley to the Monache area. Based on personal observation, air quality is generally good to excellent in the Monache area, the exception being when there is a wildfire or a Fire Use fire nearby.

3.12.3.2 Existing Conditions in Class I Airsheds The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that a program be established to prevent degradation of air quality in pristine areas and protect Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of Class I areas. Designation as a Class I area allows only very small increments of new pollution above already existing air pollution levels. Class I areas include national wildernesses greater than 5,000 acres in existence on August 7, 1977, when the amendments were signed into law. The closest Class I areas to the project are the Ansel Adams, John Muir and Hoover Wildernesses. Within Class I areas, visibility is the AQRV that is most affected, especially by fugutive dust. Particulates that remain suspended in the atmosphere are efficient light scatterers, and therefore, contribute to regional haze. The AQRV of visibility is considered good to excellent most of the time in these Classes I airsheds.

Air Quality – 476 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.12.4 Environmental Consequences The Affected Environment outlined in the previous section reflects the current air quality conditions for the Inyo National Forest air basins. In the Environmental Consequences Section, the effects of the alternatives are analyzed to determine the potential for public motor vehicle travel to cause or contribute to violations of National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQs), degrade air quality, affect Class I areas, or to cause or contribute to visibility impairment beyond the existing conditions.

3.12.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology As described in Chapter 2, each of the action alternatives includes proposals to prohibit cross- country vehicle travel, make limited changes to the existing NFTS, and add new facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS. The following section describes the analysis methods used to assess the effects of the alternatives on air quality.

Measurement Indicators The following indicators are used to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of prohibiting cross-country travel and adding facilities (presently unauthorized routes) to the NFTS. 1. Miles of native surface routes available for motorized use in PM10 non-attainment areas. 2. Miles of native surface routes available for public motorized use within one mile of Class I airsheds. 3. Miles of routes available for motorized use within Tulare County (Monache area of the Inyo National Forest).

Rationale: Motor vehicles generate dust (particulate matter) and ozone-forming emissions. Miles of native surface unauthorized routes within or adjacent to air quality-impaired areas are used to compare the dust-production potential of each alternative to existing levels (for PM 10 non-attainment areas and Class I airsheds). For the ozone-8 hour non-attainment area (Monache), miles of routes are used to evaluate the relative contribution of vehicle emissions in Monache to ozone production levels. Proposed changes to the existing NFTS (such as changes in vehicle class and season of use) will not be considered further in this analysis. Motorized vehicles can already use NFTS roads. Allowing or prohibiting use of those roads by different types of vehicles will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on air quality.

3.12.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Air Quality The number of vehicle miles traveled annually by forest users is not expected to change in any of the alternatives through the prohibition of cross-country travel and the redirection of motorized use onto a designated system of roads, trails and areas. As a result, adverse effects to air quality (i.e., effects that would cause or significantly contribute to air quality impairment beyond the existing conditions) are not anticipated for any of the alternatives. This determination is based on the following:

Air Quality – 477

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• None of the proposed routes (or any existing unauthorized routes) pass through serpentine soils. Therefore the threat of asbestos from dust generated by motorized vehicle traffic is non-existent. • None of the alternatives propose routes, areas or terminal facilities that would result in a significant increase or change in concentration of use. Use levels for the vast majority of unauthorized routes are well below capacity. More than 96% of unauthorized routes are estimated to receive less than 25 vehicle trips per week (or 3-4 vehicle trips per day). Another 3% receive 25-100 vehicle trips per week, which equates to 4-14 vehicle trips per day. In addition, many of these routes are short spurs off of existing NFTS roads. Since many of the routes do not provide through access and receive very low use, reductions in the miles of routes available for motorized use are not expected to result in major changes in use levels on designated routes.

Within PM10 non-attainment areas, motorized vehicle use of native surface unauthorized routes would continue to produce dust at or below current levels. The Owens Valley PM10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment SIP (2008) and the Mono Basin Planning Area PM-10 SIP (2005) indicate that unpaved roads within these areas contribute a negligible amount of PM10 emissions. The Air Quality Management Plan for the Town of Mammoth Lakes (1990) lists emissions from re- suspended road cinders used to melt snow in the winter as the largest source of PM10. Emissions from unpaved roads are not a primary source of PM 10 in the Mammoth Lakes non-attainment area. The following table provides an overview of the miles of unauthorized (mostly native surface) routes within the respective PM10 non-attainment areas. It has been determined that the alternatives would have a negligible contribution to the violation of the federal standard for PM 10 non-attainment areas because: • Unpaved roads in the Owens Valley and Mono Lake non-attainment areas have been found to contribute a negligible amount of PM10 emissions, and • None of the alternatives would produce fugitive dust beyond current levels. All of the action alternatives would reduce miles of native surface routes on the Forest, which would reduce fugitive dust and PM 10 production from current levels.

Table 3-207: Miles of Routes Available for Motorized Use within PM10 Non-Attainment Areas PM10 Area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Mono Basin 385 204 284 141 N/A 222 Mammoth 26 9 9 7.5 N/A 9 Coso Junction 3 0 1.6 0 N/A 0 Owens Valley 90 37 65 35 N/A 42 Total 504 250 360 251 N/A 273

Adjacent to Class I airsheds, motorized vehicle use of native surface unauthorized routes would continue to produce dust and emissions at or below current levels. These airsheds include Hoover, Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses; Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks, and the Devils Post Pile National Monument. The following table displays the miles of routes available

Air Quality – 478 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 for motorized use within one mile of a Class 1 airshed. In the existing condition, approximately 3% of the total unauthorized routes on the Forest are located within 1 miles of a Class I airshed. Based on the Owens Valley (2008), Coso Junction (2004) and Mono Basin SIPs (2003), fugitive dust generated from unauthorized routes impacting visibility in Class 1 airsheds is of very low concern. The relative contribution of any of the alternatives to visibility concerns within Class I airsheds is expected to be negligible.

Table 3-208: Miles of Routes Available for Motorized Use within 1 Mile of Class 1 Airsheds (Wilderness and National Parks/Monuments) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of Routes Available for Motorized 48.8 15.3 34.8 14.5 N/A 29.8 Use

The Monache area is in non-attainment for ozone -eight hour federal standards. The following table displays the miles of routes available for motorized use in the Monache area for each alternative. For all of the alternatives, direct and indirect effects of vehicle emissions on air quality, specifically ozone generating pollutants, do not result in measurable variations from current conditions. Unauthorized route mileage is extremely low (0.5 miles in the existing condition), so use of these routes would contribute minimally to ozone production within the larger non-attainment area. In addition, the Monache area is an isolated section of the Forest well away from the high population bases (and associated vehicle use) in Tulare County and the Central Valley of California. The degradation of air quality occurs in the Central Valley portion of Tulare County. Recreational travel on the unauthorized routes within the Monache area will not cause or significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQs in the existing condition or the action alternatives.

Table 3-209: Unauthorized Routes per Alternative in the Monache Area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Miles of routes available for 0.5 0.04 0.04 N/A N/A 0.04 motorized use

3.12.5 Effects of Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on forest resources are summarized in Chapter 2, and listed by route in Appendix A. Proposals to reroute an existing travelway to a new location were identified as the only mitigation potentially affecting air quality due to their potential to disturb vegetation and expose bare soil. All other proposed mitigation measures are not expected to create dust above that generated through motorized use of the route itself. This is because the other mitigations do not involve new ground disturbance, disturbance is confined to the existing road prism, and/or ground disturbance is very limited in scope. The reroutes would be constructed with heavy equipment. The old route path would be restored. In the short term (i.e., during implementation of the mitigation), dust from the newly created route would likely be greater than baseline levels due to the new disturbance. As the old route path revegetates and the new route stabilizes, the amount of dust generated would be similar to existing conditions. Adverse affects to air quality are not anticipated in the short or long-term.

Air Quality – 479

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.12.6 Cumulative Effects Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area and west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains that affect local air quality (particulate matter and visibility) include smoke from wildland fires and wood burning, dust and pollution from urban development, blowing dust from the dry portions of Owens and Mono Lakes, and emissions from motorized vehicle use. In reviewing the Owens Valley PM10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan (2008), the Mono Basin Planning Area PM-10 State Implementation Plan (2005) and the Air Quality Management Plan for the Town of Mammoth Lakes (1990) it was found that fugitive dust currently generated by travel on all unpaved roads (i.e., NF system roads, unauthorized routes as well as County, BLM and private roads) within the three PM 10 non- attainment areas is negligible. The largest sources of emissions are from the Owens Lake Bed, Mono Lake exposed lake bed and cinders used to melt snow on paved roads in the Mammoth Lakes area. In the foreseeable future, planned restoration activities may result in slight decreases in dust from Mono and Owens Lake (GBUAPCD, 2003 and 2008). Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is proposing 3.5 square miles of Moat and Row treatment in the Owens Lake bed. There is a change in this treatment since the 2008 Owens Valley PM10 SIP plan was developed. LADWP is proposing a more robust operations and maintenance plan to help reduce PM10 emissions. Recreational OHV use is the primary present and foreseeable future activity within the Monache area (non-attainment for ozone – 8 hour) relevant to this discussion of cumulative effects to air quality. Most of the roads and trails in this area are part of the existing system; unauthorized route mileage is extremely limited. Although the Monache area is a popular destination for recreational OHV use, the relative contribution of emissions in this area to ozone non-attainment is considered to be low because: • Monache is located in an isolated part of the Forest well removed from the high population bases (and associated vehicle emissions) in the rest of Tulare County and the Central Valley of California, and • Proposals to add routes to the NFTS would not result in measurable adverse cumulative effects for ozone production in the non-attainment area, given the extremely limited mileage of unauthorized routes in the Monache area.

3.12.6.1 Climate Change The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) developed a “State of Knowledge” paper that outlines what is known and what is uncertain about global climate change. The following elements of climate change are known with near certainty: 1. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood. 2. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 3. An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7 F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

Air Quality – 480 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

4. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 5. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

According to EPA (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns. Given what is and is not known about global climate change, the following discussion outlines the cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and effects of climate change on forest resources. Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N20) emissions generated by public motorized vehicle travel on NFTS facilities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The intensity and severity of these effects are expected to vary regionally and even locally, making any discussion of potential site-specific effects of global climate change on forest resources speculative. Because greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on global climate from emission associated with this project. In summary, the potential for cumulative effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because none of the alternatives would result in measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global climatic patterns.

3.12.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Direction In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on air quality were considered in the development of road and trail additions proposed in the Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 6. This determination is based on the following: 1. None of the alternatives would produce fugitive dust beyond current levels. All of the action alternatives would reduce the miles of native surface routes on the Forest, which would reduce fugitive dust and PM10 production from current levels. 2. Fugitive dust generated from unauthorized routes is not a major contributor impacting visibility in Class 1 airsheds, and 3. The Monache area is well away from population centers and high vehicle uses areas.

Air Quality – 481

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Air Quality – 482 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.13 Inventoried Roadless Areas

3.13.1 Introduction The rugged topography of the Inyo National Forest and the relatively limited opportunities for resource extraction activities has contributed to the classification of approximately 26% (540,000 acres) of the Forest as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). This section describes the effects of the six alternatives on the values and characteristics of those roadless areas.

3.13.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction In 1972, the Forest Service initiated a review of National Forest System roadless areas generally larger than 5,000 acres to determine their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. A second review process completed in 1979, known as Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in another nationwide inventory of roadless areas. Classification of IRAs on the Inyo National Forest began in 1978 and resulted in the identification of 39 areas (approximately half of the entire Forest) as roadless study areas subject to evaluation for potential wilderness designation. Of the 39 areas reviewed, all or parts of three were designated wilderness by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. In addition, 21 other study areas were made available for non-wilderness uses while all or part of the 17 remaining areas were placed in the Further Planning category by the California Wilderness Act (LRMP, 1988). Per the Inyo National Forest Plan guidance, these Further Planning Areas were to be considered for their suitability for both wilderness and non-wilderness uses. Management prescriptions were assigned to these Areas as follows: • 28% were assigned to Rx 2—Proposed Wilderness • 52% to amenity-focused management prescriptions such as Rx 17—Semi-Primitive Recreation • 20% to commodity-based prescriptions such as Rx 18—Multiple Resource Area.

Today, IRAs are managed to maintain certain values and characteristics such as high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air resources; a diversity of plant and animal communities and their habitat; and primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation. These characteristics are described in more detail in Section 3.13.4.1.

3.13.3 Affected Environment On the Inyo National Forest, roughly half of non-wilderness lands are within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). IRAs offer a unique landscape with few developed roads where recreationists may experience technical trail driving and access to remote dispersed recreation opportunities. The terrain and relative accessibility of the IRAs provide good opportunities for visitors to experience semi-primitive conditions with a high degree of challenge and limited developed recreation facilities. Recreation activities in these areas include hunting, fishing, hiking, backpacking, camping, nature viewing, and OHV use. Approximately 18% of all INF routes (both

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 483 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

NFTS and unauthorized) are within IRAs. Miles of unauthorized routes in IRAs make up approximately 21% (346 miles) of all unauthorized routes on the Forest. NFTS roads in IRAs make up approximately 16% (214 miles) of system routes on the Forest. Total route density in IRAs, including both unauthorized and system routes, is 0.66 miles per square mile. Comparatively, route density for the general Forest area (excluding wilderness, Research Natural Areas, and other areas where vehicle use is restricted) is 2.55 miles per square mile. Five of the IRAs on the Inyo National Forest do not contain any NFTS or unauthorized motorized routes: Table Mountain, Nevahbe Ridge, Tioga Lake, Hall Natural Area, & Mt. Olsen. In addition, since the publication of the draft EIS, the entirety of one roadless area has been designated as wilderness: Niesse. The table below shows the remaining 37 roadless areas with their existing size, total miles (NFTS and unauthorized), and route densities. Despite the implication of their name, roadless areas can and do contain motorized roads and trails. Although it is difficult to determine exactly when an unauthorized route was established in an IRA, the original files created for the RARE II evaluation indicate motorized uses were occurring at the time roadless boundaries were drawn. In addition, a review of aerial photos and a 1988-1991 route inventory both suggest that the majority of unauthorized routes in IRAs have existed on the ground for many years. Using GIS, the 1988-1991 route inventory was compared to the current inventory. The results of this review suggest that many of the unauthorized routes in IRAs were originally inventoried in 1988. In addition to this GIS analysis, Forest Service staff conducted detailed reviews of aerial photographs from 1987 and 1993. Of the routes reviewed in IRAs, the majority existed prior to 1993. Combined, these two analyses indicate that at least 70-80% of the unauthorized routes in IRAs existed on the ground prior to 1993.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 484 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-210 : Existing Conditions of Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Inyo National Forest Inventoried Total Sq. Acres Existing Routes in IRAs (mi) Route Roadless Area Miles Density Total Miles Unauthorized NFTS (mi/sq mi) Buttermilk 0.18 116 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.64 North Lake 0.66 419 0.83 0.26 0.57 1.26 Wonoga Peak 1.33 849 1.26 1.26 0.00 0.95 Whisky Creek 1.35 863 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.11 Horton 1.38 881 1.48 1.00 0.48 1.07 Log Cabin 2.62 1679 3.40 3.14 0.26 1.30 Saddlebag Wheeler Ridge 4.21 2697 4.99 4.82 0.16 1.19 Sherwin 4.90 3138 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.06 Independence 5.28 3382 5.80 3.21 2.58 1.10 Creek Rock Creek West 5.65 3618 0.98 0.01 0.97 0.17 San Joaquin 9.71 6218 10.68 5.55 5.13 1.10 Horse Meadow 8.83 5653 7.22 3.93 3.29 0.82 Watterson 10.81 6920 5.32 5.32 0.00 0.49 Mono Craters 11.12 7115 14.69 6.61 8.08 1.32 Deep Wells 12.00 7679 9.64 1.15 8.49 0.80 Tinemaha 12.38 7925 4.03 2.45 1.58 0.33 Laurel Mcgee 13.69 8761 15.44 7.84 7.60 1.13 Benton Range 15.05 9634 16.34 7.18 9.16 1.09 Andrews Mountain 15.48 9906 11.33 8.00 3.33 0.73 Sugarloaf 18.01 11528 4.08 4.08 0.00 0.23 Coyote North 18.64 11928 11.27 11.23 0.04 0.60 Dexter Canyon 26.64 17050 35.20 29.86 5.34 1.32 Birch Creek 44.97 28783 10.55 6.08 4.48 0.23 Black Canyon 50.61 32391 29.96 22.98 6.68 0.59 Soldier Canyon 63.36 40549 59.23 54.22 5.01 0.93 South Sierra 64.83 41494 29.21 7.11 22.10 0.45 Blanco Mountain 12.22 7823 0.10 0.02 0.09 0.01 Glass Mountain 82.55 52833 61.63 37.94 23.69 0.75 Coyote Southeast 82.98 53108 37.95 24.58 13.37 0.46 Excelsior 83.32 53323 57.90 6.26 51.64 0.69 Paiute 88.70 56765 77.86 64.95 12.91 0.88 Boundary Peak 66.64 42651 31.00 14.54 16.46 0.47 Nevahbe Ridge 0.74 300 0 0 0 0 Tioga Lake 0.48 306 0 0 0 0 Table Mountain 0.70 477 0 0 0 0 Mount Olsen 2.70 1725 0 0 0 0 Hall Natural Area 2.18 1398 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 846.65 541,856 559.96 346.07 213.90 0.66

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 485

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.13.3.1 Implications of the 2009 Wilderness Bill on IRAs Shortly after the DEIS was published in January 2009, Congress passed a bill designating approximately 313,000 acres of the Inyo National Forest as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation System. The majority (297,000 acres) of these newly designated lands were previously managed as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, motorized and mechanized forms of travel are not permitted in designated wilderness. The designation of 313,000 acres as wilderness has reduced the overall amount of roadless areas on the INF. The new wilderness areas include approximately 27 miles of unauthorized routes. Use of motor vehicles in wilderness areas is prohibited and as a result these routes will not be considered further in this analysis. The 338 miles of unauthorized routes located within the remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas not affected by the recent wilderness designation are still under consideration in the alternatives analyzed in this EIS.

3.13.3.2 Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas In 2001, the California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) completed its own inventory of potential wilderness areas on California public lands. For the purpose of this analysis, these areas will be referred to as Citizen-Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRAs). The CWC inventory identified 783,936 acres of land on the INF as potential wilderness areas, approximately 90% of which is within agency- identified IRAs. Since the addition of new wilderness, 14,704 acres of CIRAs have now become designated wilderness. The remaining 66,854 acres of the CWC-inventoried areas outside of IRAs encompass several developed campgrounds, trailhead and visitor center parking lots, key access roads, commercial pack stations, and picnic areas. In many cases, the CIRAs include roads that were cherry-stemmed out when IRA boundaries were established (i.e., boundaries were drawn to exclude existing roads when the area was designated as an IRA). Because they include a number of long-standing developed recreation sites and the roads used to access those sites, many of the CIRAs provide a very different experience than found in adjacent IRAs. There are currently 131 miles of system roads and 87 miles of unauthorized routes in CIRAs. Existing route density within CIRAs is 2.1 miles per square mile, which is similar to the general forest area where route density is 2.55 mi/square mile. In comparison, route density within IRAs is 0.66 miles per square mile. Management direction for CIRAs is provided by the Forest Plan (LRMP, 1988), as amended. A separate analysis has been conducted to compare the effects of the five action alternatives on CIRAs. CIRAs within agency-identified IRAs will not be analyzed separately.

3.13.4 Environmental Consequences This section discloses the environmental effects of each of the alternatives on IRAs and CIRAs. This analysis is focused on the effects of three actions associated with the alternatives: (1) the prohibition of cross-country travel, (2) additions of currently unauthorized routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) as motorized trails in IRAs, and (3) changes to the existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS). Resource reports from other sections of this EIS have been used to describe effects to roadless characteristics. A complete analysis of each resource area for the entire project is provided within each respective resource section of this chapter.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 486 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

With the addition of new wilderness and the subsequent reduction of IRA acreage on the Forest, the effects analysis section for IRAs has been recalculated to reflect any changes in IRA boundaries since the DEIS was published and released for comment. The IRA effects analysis was completed for each individual IRA and then analyzed on a forestwide scale (Tables 3-212 through 3-215). This analysis focuses on how each alternative would affect roadless area characteristics on the Inyo National Forest.

3.13.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology Roadless characteristics include: (1) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air resources; (2) sources of public drinking water; (3) diversity of plant and animal communities; (4) habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive (P), semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), and semi- primitive motorized (SPM) classes of dispersed recreation; (6) reference landscapes; (7) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; (8) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and (9) other locally-identified unique characteristics (66 FR 3245, Jan. 12, 2001). Additional characteristics considered in this analysis include: (1) untrammeled; (2) natural; (3) undeveloped; and (4) outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The presence or absence of these qualities affects the future wilderness potential of an area. All thirteen characteristics are defined in the following table.

Table 3-211 : Roadless Characteristics and Descriptions Roadless Characteristic Description These three key resources are the foundation upon which other resource values Soil, Water and Air and outputs depend. Healthy watersheds provide clean water for domestic, resources agricultural, and industrial uses; help maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations; and are the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation. NFS lands contain watersheds that are important sources of public drinking water. Sources of public drinking Careful management of these watersheds is crucial in maintaining the flow of water clean water to a growing population. Undeveloped areas are more likely than roaded areas to support greater ecosystem health, including the diversity of native and desired nonnative plant and Diversity of plant and animal communities, due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and animal communities accompanying activities. Inventoried Roadless Areas also conserve native biodiversity, by providing areas where nonnative invasive species are rare, uncommon, or absent. Discuss the diversity of plant and animal communities. Inventoried Roadless Areas function as biological strongholds and refuges for Habitat for TES and many species. Of the nation’s species currently listed as threatened, endangered, species dependent on or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, approximately 25% of large undisturbed areas of animal species and 15% of plant species are likely to have habitat within land Inventoried Roadless Areas on NFS lands.

Primitive, semi-primitive These areas often provide outstanding recreation opportunities such as hiking, non-motorized, and semi- camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and primitive motorized canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes unlike classes of recreation Wilderness, the use of mountain bikes and motorized means of travel is allowed.

The body of knowledge about the effects of management activities over long periods of time and on large landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes can Reference landscapes for provide comparison areas for evaluation and monitoring. These areas provide a research study or natural setting that may be useful as a comparison to study the effects of more interpretation intensely managed areas.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 487

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristic Description High quality scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, is a Landscape character and primary reason that people choose to recreate. In addition, quality scenery integrity contributes directly to real estate values in neighboring communities and residential areas. Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, structures, art, or objects that have Traditional cultural played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred sites are places properties and sacred that have special religious significance to a group. Traditional cultural properties sites and sacred sites may be eligible for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. This quality monitors human activities that directly control or manipulate the Untrammeled components or processes of ecological systems. This quality monitors both intended and unintended effects of modern people on Natural ecological systems. This quality monitors the presence of permanent improvements such as Undeveloped structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence or occupation.

Outstanding opportunities This quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience for solitude or a primitive solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation in a wilderness setting, rather than and unconfined type of monitoring visitor experiences per se. recreation

Effects on these characteristics are described in the analysis by their intensity and by type: Intensity: • Negligible - No measurable effects to the characteristic. • Minor - Effects are detectable, but are not expected to increase or influence the level of development within the IRA. • Moderate - Effects on the characteristic are detectable and expected to increase the level of development for short periods of time until effects have recovered. • Major - Effects on the characteristic are easily detectable and measurably increase the long-term level of development. Type: • Improving - Effects will improve the overall characteristic of roadless areas. • Stable - Effects to the characteristic are not expected to change. • Degrading - Effects will degrade the overall characteristic of roadless areas.

Measurement Indicators Because of the relationship between motorized use and the natural resource and recreation conditions associated with roadless characteristics, the following measurement indicators will be used in the analysis: • Miles of routes available for public motorized use within IRAs and CIRAs. (Note: For the No Action Alternative, the term “routes available for public motorized use” includes all existing unauthorized routes, even though those routes

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 488 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

will not be added to the NFTS. For the action alternatives, it includes only those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails in that alternative.) • Density (mi/square mile) of routes available for motorized use within IRAs and CIRAs. • Number of perennial stream crossings in IRAs and CIRAs. • Acres of land in IRAs available for passive recovery.

Assumptions The following assumptions are central to the analysis of the effects on IRAs: • Off-highway vehicle use is permitted in IRAs. Motorized trails can be added to the NFTS provided roadless characteristics—including semi-primitive motorized classes of recreation—are maintained. • The unauthorized routes considered in the alternatives are part of the current condition of the IRAs. In many cases, routes in IRAs proposed as motorized trails in one or more of the alternatives have been and continue to be used by visitors who seek to engage in primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities. • Consistent with Forest Service policy, a trail is a route established for travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle, and can be over, or under, 50 inches wide. Roads typically have been developed and used for the purpose of transportation (moving from point to destination); while trails often provide more opportunity for recreational motorized use (travel for the purpose of the motorized recreational experience). Motorized trails may help maintain the semi-primitive motorized characteristic of IRAs. (See Chapter 2.3.7 for more information about motorized trail management.) • Public motorized use of the 346 miles of existing unauthorized routes in IRAs and 214 miles of NFTS roads in IRAs would continue under the No Action Alternative. No permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would be in place. • Effects from all vehicle classes on roadless characteristics are assumed to be the same; therefore, changes in vehicle class will not be considered further in this analysis. • No further analysis or decision is necessary to continue public motorized use of the existing NFTS roads within IRAs. These decisions were made previously. • For the purposes of this analysis, unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS are assumed to naturally decompact and revegetate. Converting routes to non-motorized uses is not reasonably foreseeable at this time as site-specific proposals must first be developed and analyzed. • Road use levels of “Light” (fewer than 25 motor vehicles per week) and “Low” (25 - 100 motor vehicles per week) are considered to be compatible with the characteristics of IRAs. The current use level of all proposed unauthorized routes for all alternatives is “Light” (fewer than 25 motor vehicles per week).

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 489

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.13.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on All IRAs As shown in the table below, there are 346 miles of existing unauthorized routes within the 540,000 acres classified as IRAs. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 propose to add certain unauthorized routes in IRAs to the NFTS as motorized trails (35 miles, 206 miles, and 88 miles, respectively). Alternatives 4 and 5 would not add any of the existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS; motorized use of these routes would be prohibited. General effects of those actions include: • Routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails would be dedicated to use for transportation and would not support native vegetation within the road prism or wheel treads. Recovery of natural vegetation would occur if unauthorized routes are not added to the NFTS because motorized use would be prohibited. This would benefit the natural condition of the landscape, the health of soil and water resources, and plant and animal communities. • The addition of routes to the NFTS as motorized trails would result in human presence and noise in close proximity to these routes. This could result in localized and temporary effects on primitive and semi-primitive recreation experiences. • The total number of perennial stream crossings in IRAs would be reduced, resulting in localized improvements in water quality and increasing the extent of riparian vegetation within the crossing. • Opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreational experiences would increase, as would opportunities to experience solitude, or the isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others. • Opportunities for semi-primitive motorized experiences would decrease compared to the existing condition. Fewer routes would be available for exploration in remote, low route density areas.

The following tables provide more detailed information about the actions proposed by each alternative in IRAs and CIRAs and the effects of those actions on roadless characteristics. • Table 3-212 displays the miles of existing NFTS roads and routes added to the NFTS in IRAs, by alternative. • Table 3-213 displays the miles of existing NFTS roads and routes added to the NFTS in CIRAs, by alternative. • Table 3-214 displays acres, miles of proposed routes, and total route density (existing NFTS and proposed additions) for each individual IRA by alternative. • Table 3-215 describes the effects to roadless characteristics by each alternative. Direct and indirect effects were analyzed for each individual IRA and then applied to all IRAs on a forestwide scale. • Table 3-216 describes the effects to roadless characteristics by each alternative. Direct and indirect effects were analyzed for each individual CIRA and then applied to all CIRAs on a forestwide scale.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 490 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-212: Unauthorized and NFTS Routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Unauthorized Routes in IRAs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Available for Motorized Use as: No Action Open to all vehicles 346 (see below) 0 0 0 0 0 Motorcycle Trail 0 7 25 0 0 8 Trail Vehicles <50” 0 28 19 0 0 9 All Trail Vehicles 0 0 144 0 0 65 Single Track after mitigation 0 0 2 0 0 0 All Trail Vehicles after mitigation 0 0 14 0 0 6 346 (use would continue but Subtotal unauthorized miles routes would 35 206 0 0 88 added to NFTS remain unauthorized)

Existing NFTS Roads in IRAs Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA Miles in IRA (includes changes in vehicle Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 type and public access) Open to all vehicles (no change) 214 205 158 169 214 164 Change from NFTS road to 0 1 1 8 0 1 motorcycle trail Change from NFTS road to Trail 0 8 5 36 0 2 Vehicles <50” Change from NFTS road to all 0 0 50 28 0 47 Trail Vehicles Subtotal miles of NFTS roads 214 214 214 214 214 214 and motorized trails Total unauthorized and NFTS 560 249 420 214 214 302 miles in IRAs (Distances are rounded to the nearest mile.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 491 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-213: Unauthorized and NFTS Routes in Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Unauthorized Routes in CIRAs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Available for Motorized Use as: No Action Road open to all vehicles 87 (see below) 42 36 29 0 31 Road open to all vehicles after 0 2 2 1 0 1 mitigation Motorcycle Trail 0 1 4 3 0 4

Trail Vehicles <50” 0 4 5 2 0 1

All Trail Vehicles 0 0 19 5 0 13

Trail Vehicles <50” after mitigation 0 0 1 0 0 1 87 (use would continue but Subtotal unauthorized miles routes would 49 67 40 0 51 added to NFTS remain unauthorized)

Existing NFTS Roads in CIRAs Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA Miles in CIRA (includes changes in vehicle Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 type and public access) No Action

Open to all vehicles (no change) 132 129 79 84 132 82 Change from NFTS road to 0 3 5 3 0 1 motorcycle trail Change from NFTS road to Trail 0 0 2 2 0 0 Vehicles <50” Change from NFTS road to all 0 0 49 43 0 49 Trail Vehicle Subtotal miles of NFTS roads 132 132 135 132 132 132 and motorized trails Total unauthorized and NFTS 219 181 202 172 132 183 miles in CIRAs (Distances are rounded to the nearest mile.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 492 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-214: Acres, Miles of Routes Added to the NFTS, and Total Route Density (Existing NFTS and Proposed NFTS Additions) for Each IRA by Alternative Inventoried Roadless Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Area (IRA) Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Buttermilk 116 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.64 Nevahbe Ridge 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tioga Lake 306 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 North Lake 419 0.83 1.26 0.58 0.89 0.58 0.89 0.57 0.87 0.57 0.87 0.58 0.89 Table Mountain 447 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wonoga Peak 849 1.26 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Whisky Creek 863 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Horton 881 1.48 1.07 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.35 Hall Natural Area 1,398 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Log Cabin Saddlebag 1,679 3.40 1.30 0.26 0.10 3.13 1.19 0.26 0.10 0.26 0.10 3.11 1.19 Mount Olsen 1,725 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wheeler Ridge 2,697 4.99 1.19 0.16 0.04 4.81 1.14 0.16 0.04 0.16 0.04 4.45 1.06 Sherwin 3,138 0.32 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.04 Independence Creek 3,382 5.80 1.10 2.58 0.49 5.67 1.07 2.58 0.49 2.58 0.49 2.58 0.49 Rock Creek West 3,618 0.98 0.17 0.97 0.17 0.97 0.17 0.97 0.17 0.97 0.17 0.97 0.17 Horse Meadow 5,653 7.22 0.82 3.29 0.37 4.28 0.48 3.29 0.37 3.29 0.37 4.29 0.49 San Joaquin 6,218 10.68 1.10 6.20 0.64 9.53 0.98 5.13 0.53 5.13 0.53 5.13 0.53 Watterson 6,920 5.32 0.49 0.00 0.00 5.17 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33 0.40 Mono Craters 7,115 14.69 1.32 8.08 0.73 9.20 0.83 8.08 0.73 8.08 0.73 8.08 0.73 Deep Wells 7,679 9.64 0.80 8.49 0.71 8.49 0.71 8.49 0.71 8.49 0.71 8.49 0.71 Blanco Mountain 7,823 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 Tinemaha 7,925 4.03 0.33 1.58 0.13 2.28 0.18 1.58 0.13 1.58 0.13 1.79 0.14 Laurel Mcgee 8,761 15.44 1.13 7.60 0.56 13.03 0.95 7.60 0.56 7.60 0.56 10.04 0.73 Benton Range 9,634 16.34 1.09 9.16 0.61 10.46 0.69 9.16 0.61 9.16 0.61 10.12 0.67 Andrews Mountain 9,906 11.33 0.73 3.33 0.21 4.47 0.29 3.33 0.21 3.33 0.21 3.33 0.21

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 493

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Inventoried Roadless Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Area (IRA) Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Total Route Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Miles Density Sugarloaf 11,526 4.08 0.23 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coyote North 11,928 11.27 0.60 0.04 0.00 8.99 0.48 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 Dexter Canyon 17,050 35.20 1.32 5.41 0.20 24.59 0.92 5.34 0.20 5.34 0.20 11.12 0.42 Birch Creek 28,783 10.55 0.23 4.48 0.10 7.45 0.17 4.48 0.10 4.48 0.10 4.48 0.10 Black Canyon 32,391 29.96 0.59 12.20 0.24 21.22 0.42 6.98 0.14 6.98 0.14 14.78 0.29 Soldier Canyon 40,549 59.23 0.93 12.69 0.20 41.86 0.66 5.01 0.08 5.01 0.08 21.67 0.34 South Sierra 41,494 29.21 0.45 22.10 0.34 24.56 0.38 22.10 0.34 22.10 0.34 22.10 0.34 Boundary Peak 42,651 31.00 0.47 16.46 0.25 24.00 0.36 16.46 0.25 16.46 0.25 19.78 0.30 Glass Mountain 52,833 61.63 0.75 23.71 0.29 36.29 0.44 23.69 0.29 23.69 0.29 30.93 0.37 Coyote Southeast 53,108 37.95 0.46 26.72 0.32 36.80 0.44 13.37 0.16 13.37 0.16 28.26 0.34 Excelsior 53,323 57.90 0.69 51.76 0.62 51.76 0.62 51.64 0.62 51.64 0.62 51.84 0.62 Paiute 56,765 77.86 0.88 20.46 0.23 56.53 0.64 12.91 0.15 12.91 0.15 28.58 0.32

Total or Average 541,853 559.98 0.66 249.00 0.29 419.48 0.50 213.90 0.25 213.90 0.25 301.78 0.36 Route Density:

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 494 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-215: Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics of IRAs Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) Vehicle use would continue on 346 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 503 acres), Alternative 1 resulting in continued impacts (e.g., compaction, minor erosion) within the route prism. Soil, Water, & Air Resources Minor degrading effect Unauthorized routes would cross 11 perennial stream crossings in 4 of the IRAs: Blanco Mtn=1,

Coyote Southeast=4, Dexter Canyon=2, & Glass Mountain=4 (specific effects analysis to these

IRAs resulting from stream crossings is discussed later in this section). This alternative would add 35 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 311 miles of existing unauthorized routes (approximately 452 acres). This prohibition would result in minor positive impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is reduced and the area is gradually revegetated.

This alternative would reduce the amount of perennial stream crossings by 9 for a total of 2 Alternative 2 crossings in the Coyote Southeast IRA (specific effects analysis to this IRA resulting from stream Minor improving effect crossings is discussed later in this section).

No measurable effects to air resources are expected. This alternative will reduce the mileage of native surface unauthorized routes in IRAs by 90%. Due to low use levels and heavy snowfall which restricts wheeled vehicle access on many unauthorized routes during the winter months, this alternative would not result in measurable variations from current air resource conditions (e.g., particulate matter and ozone generating emissions). There would be localized reductions in fugitive dust as motorized use would be prohibited on routes not added to the NFTS.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 495

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) This alternative would add 206 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 140 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 204 acres). This prohibition would result in minor positive impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is reduced and the area is gradually revegetated. Alternative 3

Minor improving effect This alternative would reduce the amount of perennial stream crossings by 4 for a total of 7

crossing in 4 of the IRAs: Blanco Mtn.=1, Coyote Southeast=3, Dexter Canyon=2, & Glass

Mountain=1 (specific effects analysis to these IRAs resulting from stream crossings is discussed

later in this section).

No measurable effects to air resources are expected. This alternative will reduce the mileage of

native surface unauthorized routes in IRAs by approximately 40%. Due to low use levels and

heavy snowfall which restricts wheeled vehicle access on many unauthorized routes during the winter months, this alternative would not result in measurable variations from current air resource conditions (e.g., particulate matter and ozone generating emissions). There would be localized reductions in fugitive dust as motorized use would be prohibited on routes not added to the NFTS, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 6, 2, 4, and 5. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of all 346 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 503 acres). This prohibition would result in minor positive impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is reduced and the area is gradually revegetated.

Alternatives 4 & 5 Because no unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS in Alternatives 4 and 5, motorized Minor improving effect use of all 11 existing stream crossings would be eliminated. Riparian vegetation would gradually

recover within the crossing.

These alternatives will reduce the mileage of native surface unauthorized routes in IRAs by 100%. However, any resulting reduction in emissions would not result in measurable effects to air quality in IRAs because of the low use levels and heavy snowfall which restricts wheeled vehicle access on many unauthorized routes during the winter months.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 496 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) This alternative would add 88 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 258 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 375 acres). This prohibition would result in minor positive impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is reduced and the area is gradually revegetated.

This alternative would reduce the amount of perennial stream crossings by 6, for a total of 5 crossings in 4 of the IRAs: Blanco Mtn.=1, Coyote Southeast=2, Dexter Canyon=1, & Glass Alternative 6 Mountain=1 (specific effects analysis to these IRAs resulting from stream crossings is discussed Minor improving effect later in this section).

This alternative will reduce the mileage of native surface unauthorized routes in IRAs by approximately 75%. Due to low use levels and heavy snowfall which restricts wheeled vehicle access on many unauthorized routes during the winter months, this alternative would not result in measurable variations from current air resource conditions (e.g., particulate matter and ozone generating emissions). There would be localized reductions in fugitive dust as motorized use would be prohibited on routes not added to the NFTS, slightly less than expected under Alternative 2. No watershed-level effects with the potential to impact sources of public drinking water are Sources of public drinking water No effect - All alternatives expected because there are so few routes in each watershed adjacent to or crossing stream

channels. The quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat for rare animal species are not expected to be greatly altered by the continued use of 346 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 503 acres). Any potential disturbance to animal communities would likely be limited to temporary Diversity of plant and animal Alternative 1 auditory and/or visual perturbation of individuals in proximity to unauthorized routes when used communities Minor degrading effect by motorized vehicles.

Continued motorized use of all unauthorized routes within IRAs will continue to displace the natural vegetation within the route “prism”, meaning that an estimated 503 acres would remain without native vegetation and minor degrading impacts (e.g., crushing of individual plants, dust, etc.) to rare and native plant communities in the area would continue.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 497

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading)

Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized use would be prohibited [including use of 311 miles (452 acres) of unauthorized routes]. Due to Alternative 2 the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise, the potential for degrading effects to Localized minor improving species is decreased, resulting in minor improving impacts to plant and animal communities in effect the area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize the 452 acres currently encumbered by

unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 35 miles of routes added to the NFTS. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized Alternative 3 use would be prohibited [including use of 140 miles (204 acres) of unauthorized routes]. Due to Localized minor improving the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise, the potential for degrading effects to effect species is decreased, causing minor improving impacts to plant and animal communities in the area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize the 204 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plants and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 206 miles of routes added to the NFTS. No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS. Native vegetation will gradually colonize Alternatives 4 & 5 the 503 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes, resulting in minor improving Minor improving effect impacts to the native plant communities in the area. Due to the elimination of vehicle presence and associated noise, any degrading effects to wildlife species associated with motorized use of unauthorized routes would be eliminated. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized use would be prohibited [including use of 258 miles (375 acres) of unauthorized routes]. Due to Alternative 6 the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise, the potential for degrading effects to Localized minor improving species is decreased, causing minor improving impacts to plant and animal communities in the effect area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize the 375 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 88 miles of routes added to the NFTS. This alternative would continue to affect plant and wildlife species and their habitat through disturbance, crushing of individuals, dust, spread of invasive plants, etc. However, these effects Habitat for TES and species dependent Alternative 1 are expected to be minor because habitat effectiveness is currently high and the existing routes on large undisturbed areas of land Minor degrading effect have very little influence on habitat quality. (Please see Terrestrial Wildlife and Rare Plant Sections of Chapter 3 for more detailed analysis.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 498 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) All alternatives result in a low level of habitat influence and high habitat effectiveness for terrestrial wildlife species. All action alternatives could have an improving impact on TES Alternatives 2,3,4,5,6 terrestrial wildlife and plants by reducing the existing level of direct, indirect and cumulative Minor improving effect impacts associated with motor vehicle use of roads. However, this effect is expected to be minor because habitat effectiveness is currently high and all routes have a very low level of influence on habitat quality. This alternative provides for the greatest opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) Alternative 1 recreation because it allows for the highest concentration of routes (0.66 mi/square mile) within Minor improving effect on IRAs. Conversely, this alternative reduces the opportunity to experience solitude (a measure of SPM primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences), or the isolation from the sights, sounds, Minor degrading effect on and presence of others. This is due to the relative likelihood of encounters with other P/SPNM recreationists when compared to other five alternatives. This alternative provides more opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation than Alternative 2 Alternatives 4 and 5, but less than Alternatives 1,3 and 6 due to the reduction of routes available Minor improving effect on for public use in IRAs (route density of 0.29 mi/square mile). Conversely, the reduction in P/SPNM available routes increases the opportunity to experience solitude (a measure of primitive (P) and Minor degrading effect on semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) experiences), or the isolation from the sights, sounds, and SPM presence of others. This alternative would have the highest concentration of routes (0.50 mi/square mile ) in IRAs of Alternative 3 all action alternatives. Alternative 3 would decrease the opportunities for semi-primitive Primitive and semi-primitive Minor improving effect on motorized recreation experiences when compared to Alternative 1, but would provide more classes of recreation P/SPNM opportunities for SPM experiences than the other action alternatives. Opportunities for primitive Minor degrading effect on and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation experiences would improve as compared to SPM Alternative 1 but to a lesser extent than Alternatives 2, 4, 5 & 6. Alternatives 4 & 5 Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the same impacts to this characteristic of IRAs because Minor improving effect on motorized use of unauthorized routes in IRAs would be prohibited in both alternatives. This P/SPNM would result in the greatest reduction in opportunities for semi-primitive motorized recreation Minor degrading effect on experiences. Conversely, these alternatives would result in the greatest change in the SPM opportunity to experience solitude (a measure of primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences), and isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others.. This alternative provides more opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation than Alternative 6 Alternatives 2, 4 and 5, but less than Alternatives 1 and 6 due to the reduction of routes available Minor improving effect on for public use in IRAs (route density of 0.36 mi/square mile). Conversely, the reduction in P/SPNM available routes increases the opportunity to experience solitude (a measure of primitive (P) and Minor degrading effect on semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) experiences), although to a lesser degree than SPM Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 499

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading)

There are several locally unique features located within or adjacent to IRAs on the forest. These include the Ancient Bristlecone Forest and seven Research Natural Areas (RNAs). RNAs are managed to maintain the ecological integrity of target vegetation types with an emphasis on Reference landscapes for research, study, and observation. Existing Research Natural Areas meet established targets for research study or interpretation No effect - All Alternatives Jeffrey pine (Indiana Summit), lodgepole pine (Sentinel Meadow), foxtail pine (Last Chance Meadow), bristlecone pine (White Mountain), unique ecosystems (Harvey Monroe Hall), pinyon pine ( Whippoorwill Flat) and alpine fellfields (McAfee Meadow). None of the alternatives are proposing to add any additional routes to the NFTS in these areas. Consequently, none of the alternatives would cause an effect to these unique landscapes. None of the alternatives are anticipated to detract from the landscape character and integrity of IRAs, as rugged terrain masks the visibility of existing routes and use levels are light (100% of Landscape character unauthorized routes are “Light=Fewer than 25 motor vehicles per week”) compared to roads and and integrity No effect - All Alternatives motorized trails outside of IRAs. Routes added to the NFTS are low standard, primitive, native surface routes that remain visually subordinate to the landscape by following natural terrain and contour. (See Visual Resources Section for more detailed analysis of the visual impacts of unauthorized routes.) No effect - All Action Traditional cultural Consultation with local American Indian groups is ongoing to ensure the protection of, and Alternatives properties and sacred sites access to, traditional secular, religious, and ceremonial sites.

Other locally unique No effect - All alternatives See the Reference Landscapes discussion above. characteristics Since routes currently exist on the ground and no new construction is proposed, adding routes to the NFTS would not control or manipulate (trammel) natural systems. Examples of activities No effect - All alternatives which typically control or manipulate ecosystem processes include dam building which impedes Untrammeled natural flood cycles or managing vegetation to change a landscape from one type to another. These types of actions are intentional and deliberate and have conspicuous effects on natural systems. Proposed additions and changes to the NFTS do not meet this definition of trammeling because they do not involve new construction and would maintain existing use patterns and levels. Natural vegetation would not be allowed to regrow within the treads of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1) and routes added to the NFTS (Alternatives 2, 3, and 6). There will be a limited Natural Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6 potential for spread of noxious weeds from continued wheeled motor vehicle use of routes. Minor degrading effect Localized sediment input would continue at stream crossings, as would continued removal of riparian vegetation.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 500 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) Prohibiting motorized use on all unauthorized routes will result in gradual revegetation of route Alternatives 4, 5 prism and would reduce the visual presence of routes on the landscape. There will be a Minor improving effect decreased potential for spread of noxious weeds from motorized vehicles. There would be fewer road-stream crossings, so local sediment input would decrease. Motorized use of all existing unauthorized routes (346 miles) in IRAs would be allowed. Unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS and would continue to have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. Although no unauthorized routes would be added to the system, the public would continue to use them. Regardless, this would not increase the level of No effect - Alternative 1 development within IRAs since the routes under consideration are part of the existing condition and do not represent a permanent development of the landscape. The majority of unauthorized Undeveloped routes are primitive wheel tracks which follow natural terrain. They have native surfacing and lack constructed structures such as culverts, water bars, and bridges. Therefore Alternative 1 would have no effect on the undeveloped character. Vegetation on all unauthorized routes not added to the NFTS in each alternative would gradually Alternatives 2,3,4,5,6 recover to a natural state, causing minor improvements to the undeveloped character of 204 Minor improving effect acres (Alternative 3), 375 acres (Alternative 6), 452 acres (Alternative 2), and 503 acres (Alternatives 4 and 5) within the 540,000 acres of IRAs. There will be no changes to the opportunity to experience solitude because use will remain consistent to existing levels. Route density within IRAs is low (0.66 mi/square mile ) compared No effect - Alternative 1 to the general Forest area (2.55 mi/square mile ). Use of existing unauthorized routes would continue. Outstanding opportunities for solitude Alternatives 2,3,6 Reduction in the miles of motorized routes in IRAs will decrease the likelihood of encountering or a primitive and unconfined type of Minor improving effect other recreationists and increase the sense of isolation from sights, sounds and the presence of recreation others compared to the existing condition.

These alternatives would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, providing the greatest Alternatives 4 & 5 increase in opportunity for primitive and non-motorized recreation within IRAs. This would create Minor improving effect the lowest likelihood of encountering other recreationists of the alternatives, contributing to the sense of isolation from sights, sounds and the presence of others and evidence of man. (Please see the Resource sections in Chapter 3 for more information about effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 501

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-216: Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Characteristics of CIRAs Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) Vehicle use would continue on 87 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 126 acres), Alternative 1 resulting in continued minor impacts (e.g., compaction, minor erosion, fugitive dust, sediment Minor degrading effect input at stream crossings) to soil, water, and air resources. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 38 miles (55 acres) of existing unauthorized routes. This would result in localized improving impacts to the soil water, and air resources in the area as: 1) unauthorized route prisms are gradually revegetated Alternative 2 and the potential for erosion and fugitive dust decreases; 2) the potential for cross-country travel Minor improving effect is reduced; and 3) localized sediment input into stream channels at crossings is mitigated (on

routes added to the NFTS) or eliminated (on routes not added to the NFTS). Watershed-level effects to water resources are not expected because of the limited number of routes in each watershed which parallel or cross live stream channels. Soil, Water, & Air Resources Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 20 miles (29 acres) Alternative 3 of unauthorized routes. Effects are the same as described for Alternative 2, but would occur Minor improving effect over a slightly smaller area.

Alternative 4 Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 47 miles (68 acres) Minor improving effect of unauthorized routes. Effects are the same as described for Alternative 2. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 87 miles (126 Alternative 5 acres) of unauthorized routes, resulting in minor positive impacts to the air, water, and soil Minor improving effect resources in the area. These effects are expected to be the same as described for Alternative 2,

but would occur over a slightly larger area. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 36 miles (52 acres) Alternative 6 of unauthorized routes. These effects are expected to be the same as described for Alternative Minor improving effect 2.

No watershed-level effects with the potential to impact sources of public drinking water are Sources of public drinking water No effect - All alternatives expected because there are so few routes in each watershed adjacent to or crossing stream

channels.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 502 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) The quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat for rare plant and animal species are not expected to be greatly altered by the continued use of 87 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 126 acres) in CIRAs. Any potential disturbance to animal communities would Diversity of plant and animal Alternative 1 likely be limited to temporary auditory and/or visual perturbation of individuals in proximity to communities Minor degrading effect unauthorized routes when used by motorized vehicles.

Continued motorized use of all unauthorized routes within CIRAs will continue to displace the natural vegetation within the route “prism”, meaning that an estimated 126 acres would remain without native vegetation and minor degrading impacts (e.g., crushing of individual plants, dust, etc.) to rare and native plant communities in the area would continue. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized use would be prohibited, including use of 38 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 55 acres). Due to the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise on these routes, the Alternative 2 potential for degrading effects to species in the area is decreased, resulting in minor improving Minor improving effect impacts to plant and animal communities in the area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize

the 55 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 49 miles of routes added to the NFTS. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized Alternative 3 use would be prohibited, including use of 20 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 29 Localized minor improving acres). Due to the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise on these routes, the effect potential for degrading effects to species in the area is decreased, causing minor improving

impacts to plant and animal communities in the area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize

the 29 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and

animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 67 miles of routes added to the

NFTS. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized Alternative 4 use would be prohibited, including use of 47 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 68 Localized minor improving acres). Due to the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise on these routes, the effect potential for degrading effects to species in the area is decreased, causing minor improving impacts to plant and animal communities in the area. Native vegetation would gradually colonize the 68 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 40 miles of routes added to the NFTS.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 503

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) No unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS. Native vegetation will gradually colonize Alternative 5 the 126 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes, resulting in minor improving Minor improving effect impacts to the native plant communities in the area. Due to the elimination of vehicle presence and associated noise, any degrading effects to wildlife species associated with motorized use of unauthorized routes in CIRAs would be eliminated. Any potential disturbances to animal communities would be reduced as cross-country motorized use would be prohibited, including use of 36 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately 52 acres). Due to the reduction in vehicle presence and associated noise on these routes, the Alternative 6 potential for degrading effects to species in the area is decreased, causing minor, localized Localized minor improving improving impacts to plant and animal communities in the area. Native vegetation would effect gradually colonize the 52 acres currently encumbered by unauthorized routes. Minor degrading effects to plant and animal communities would continue on and adjacent to the 51 miles of routes added to the NFTS. This alternative would continue to affect plant and wildlife species and their habitat through disturbance, crushing of individuals, dust, spread of invasive plants, etc. However, these effects Alternative 1 are expected to be minor because habitat effectiveness is currently high and the existing routes Minor degrading effect have very little influence on habitat quality. (Please see Terrestrial Wildlife and Rare Plant Sections of Chapter 3 for more detailed analysis.) Habitat for TES and species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land All alternatives result in a low level of habitat influence and high habitat effectiveness for terrestrial wildlife species. All action alternatives could have a improving impact on TES Alternatives 2,3,4,5,6 terrestrial wildlife and plants by reducing the existing level of direct, indirect and cumulative Minor improving effect impacts associated with motor vehicle use of roads. However, this effect is expected to be negligible because habitat effectiveness is currently high and all routes have a very low level of influence on habitat quality. This alternative provides for the greatest opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) Alternative 1 recreation because it allows for the highest concentration of unauthorized routes (2.10 mi/square Primitive and semi-primitive Minor improving effect on mile ) within CIRAs. Conversely, this alternative reduces the opportunity to experience solitude classes of recreation SPM (a measure of primitive (P) and semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) experiences), or the Minor degrading effect on isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others. This is due to the likelihood of P/SPNM encounters with other recreationists.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 504 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) This alternative provides more opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation than Alternatives 4 and 5, but less than Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 due to the reduction of available routes Alternative 2 in CIRAs (route density of 1.72 mi/square mile). Conversely, the reduction in available routes No effect on P/SPNM has the potential to increase the opportunity to experience solitude or the isolation from the Minor degrading effect on sights, sounds, and presence of others. However, because of the presence of popular developed SPM recreation sites such as campgrounds, trailheads, and picnic areas within CIRAs, the actions proposed by this alternative are not expected to result in a measurable change in P/SPNM experiences. This alternative would have the highest concentration of routes (1.89 mi/square mile) in CIRAs of all action alternatives. Alternative 3 would decrease the opportunities for semi-primitive Alternative 3 motorized recreation experiences when compared to Alternative 1, but would provide more No effect on P/SPNM opportunities for SPM experiences than the other action alternatives. Opportunities for P and Minor degrading effect on SPNM experiences would improve as compared to Alternative 1 but to a lesser extent than SPM Alternatives 2, 4, 5 & 6. However, because of the presence of popular developed recreation

sites such as campgrounds, trailheads, and picnic areas within CIRAs, the actions proposed by this alternative are not expected to result in a measurable change in P/SPNM experiences. This alternative provides more opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation than Alternatives 5, but less than Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 because it adds fewer routes to the NFTS Alternative 4 in CIRAs (route density of 1.65 mi/square mile). Conversely, the reduction in available routes No effect on P/SPNM has the potential to increase the opportunity to experience solitude or the isolation from the Minor degrading effect on sights, sounds, and presence of others. However, because of the presence of popular SPM developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, trailheads, and picnic areas within CIRAs, the

actions proposed by this alternative are not expected to result in a measurable change in P/SPNM experiences from existing conditions. This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, providing the greatest Alternative 5 potential increase in opportunity for primitive and non-motorized recreation experiences within Negligible improving effect CIRAs. Conversely, this would result in the greatest reduction in opportunities for semi-primitive on P/SPNM motorized recreation experiences. Use of popular developed recreation sites within CIRAs Minor degrading effect on would continue, meaning that many of these areas would continue to act as concentrated hubs SPM for dispersed recreation activities. As a result, this alternative would have a very slight, if any, effect on this characteristic.. Alternative 6 This alternative provides more opportunity for semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation than Minor improving effect on Alternatives 2, 4 and 5, but less than Alternatives 1 and 6 due to the reduction of available routes P/SPNM in CIRAs (route density of 1.74 mi/square mile). Conversely, the reduction in available routes Minor degrading effect on increases the opportunity to experience solitude (a measure of primitive (P) and semi-primitive SPM non-motorized (SPNM) experiences), although to a lesser degree than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 505

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) There are several locally unique features located adjacent to CIRAs on the forest. These include the Ancient Bristlecone Forest and seven Research Natural Areas (RNAs). RNAs are managed to maintain the ecological integrity of target vegetation types with an emphasis on research, Reference landscapes for study, and observation. Existing Research Natural Areas meet established targets for Jeffrey research study or interpretation No effect - All alternatives pine (Indiana Summit), lodgepole pine (Sentinel Meadow), foxtail pine (Last Chance Meadow), bristlecone pine (White Mountain), unique ecosystems (Harvey Monroe Hall), pinyon pine ( Whippoorwill Flat) and alpine fellfields (McAfee Meadow). None of the alternatives are proposing to add any additional routes to the NFTS in these areas. Consequently, none of the alternatives would cause an effect to these unique landscapes. None of the alternatives are anticipated to detract from the landscape character and integrity of Landscape character CIRAs. Routes added to the NFTS are low standard, primitive, native surface routes that remain and integrity No effect - All alternatives visually subordinate to the landscape by following natural terrain and contour. They repeat form,

line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape. (See Visual Resources Section.) Traditional cultural No effect - All alternatives Consultation with local American Indian groups is ongoing to ensure the protection of, and properties and sacred sites access to, traditional secular, religious, and ceremonial sites. Other locally unique See the Reference Landscapes discussion above. No effect - All alternatives characteristics No effect - All alternatives Proposed additions and changes to the NFTS would not control or manipulate (trammel) natural Untrammeled systems because they do not involve new construction, would maintain existing use patterns and levels, and would add routes to the system as low standard roads or trails (rather than as paved or surfaced passenger car roads). Natural vegetation would not be allowed to regrow within the treads of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1). There will be a limited potential for spread of noxious weeds from continued Alternative 1 wheeled motor vehicle use of routes. Localized sediment input would continue at stream Natural Minor degrading effect crossings, as would continued removal of riparian vegetation.

Of the 66,986 acres of CIRAs, Alternative 1 would dedicate a maximum of 126 acres (0.002% of total CIRA) to transportation uses. All of the action alternatives would slightly reduce the area encumbered by routes.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 506 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) Although these alternatives would prohibit motorized use of some of the existing unauthorized routes in CIRAs, the natural character of the landscape is not expected to change because use of all developed recreation sites would continue. Developed recreation sites (campgrounds, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 trailheads, etc.) and the existing paved and surfaced system roads which access those sites No effect affect the natural character of the landscape. The gradual revegetation of route prisms and reduced potential for weed spread brought about by the action alternatives would not offset these continued effects. Prohibiting cross-country motorized use (including use of all unauthorized routes) will result in gradual revegetation of route prism and would reduce the visual presence of routes on the Alternative 5 landscape. There will be a decreased potential for spread of noxious weeds from motorized Negligible improving effect vehicles on these routes. However, use of all developed recreation sites would continue to contribute impacts to the natural character of the landscape. As a result, any improving effect associated with this alternative is expected to be negligible. Motorized use of all existing unauthorized routes (87 miles) in CIRAs would be allowed. Unauthorized routes would not be added to the NFTS and would continue to have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities. Although no unauthorized routes would be added to the system, the public would continue to use them. Regardless, this would not increase the level of No effect - Alternative 1 development within CIRAs since the routes under consideration are part of the existing condition and do not represent a permanent development of the landscape. The majority of unauthorized routes are primitive wheel tracks which follow natural terrain. They have native surfacing and Undeveloped lack constructed structures such as culverts, water bars, and bridges therefore Alternative 1 would have no effect on the undeveloped character. Vegetation on unauthorized not added to the NFTS in each alternative would gradually return to a natural state and obscure the route. However, because of the presence of developed Alternatives 2,3,4,5,6 campgrounds, paved and surfaced system roads, trailheads, picnic areas, pack stations, and No effect other concentrated recreation facilities within CIRAs, the level of development is not expected to appreciably change as a result of the actions proposed by the alternatives. Outstanding opportunities for solitude There will be no changes to the opportunity to experience solitude because use will remain or a primitive and unconfined type of consistent to existing levels. Route density within CIRAs (2.10 mi/square mile) is more than No effect - Alternative 1 recreation three times the route density in IRAs (0.64 mi/square mile) and similar to the general Forest area (2.55 mi/square mile). Use of existing unauthorized routes would continue.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 507

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Roadless Characteristics Intensity of Effect Description of Effect (Minor, Moderate, Major) and Type (Beneficial, Stable, or Degrading) Although these alternatives would prohibit motorized use of some of the existing unauthorized routes in CIRAs, the likelihood of encountering other recreationists is not expected to change because of the presence of popular developed recreation sites within CIRAs such as Alternatives 2,3,4,6 campgrounds in Bishop Creek, Westgard Pass, Lee Vining Canyon, and Big Pine Creek; No effect trailhead and visitor center parking lots such as those at the Schulman Grove Visitor Center and

S.F. Mill Creek; and developed picnic areas. The sense of isolation from sights, sounds and the presence of others is not expected to change from existing conditions as a result of the actions proposed by the alternatives. This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, providing the greatest increase in opportunity for primitive and non-motorized recreation experiences within CIRAs. This would create the lowest likelihood of encountering other recreationists of the alternatives, contributing to the sense of isolation from sights, sounds and the presence of others and Alternative 5 evidence of man. However, existing developed recreation sites such as campgrounds in Bishop Negligible improving effect Creek, Westgard Pass, Lee Vining Canyon, and Big Pine Creek; trailhead and visitor center parking lots such as those at the Schulman Grove Visitor Center and S.F. Mill Creek; and developed picnic areas would remain in place. Use of these popular developed recreation sites would continue, meaning that the sights, sounds, and the presence of others would continue. As a result, this alternative would have negligible improving, if any, effect on this characteristic. (Please see the resource sections in Chapter 3 for more information about effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 508 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.13.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Specific IRAs For the vast majority of IRAs on the Forest, direct and indirect effects to roadless characteristics were similar in type and intensity. However, where effects to one or more of the roadless characteristics were unlike forestwide trends in one or more of the action alternatives, direct and indirect effects are described in detail here. These IRAs are Log Cabin/Saddlebag, Independence Creek, Wheeler Ridge, Boundary Peak, Coyote Southeast, Dexter Canyon, and Glass Mountain.

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Log Cabin/Saddlebag IRA Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in a route density of 1.19 miles/mi2 in this IRA, compared to a route density of 0.66 miles/ mi2 in IRAs forestwide. The higher density of routes in the Log Cabin/ Saddlebag IRA is a direct result of the newly designated wilderness, which reduced the size of the IRA by approximately 13,477 acres. Prior to the new wilderness additions, routes proposed in Alternatives 3 and 6 resulted in a route density of 0.13 miles/ mi2. Figure 3-5 provides a visual representation of the existing Log Cabin/Saddlebag IRA. As shown in the table below, Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in negligible effects to the Soil, Water, and Air Resources and Opportunities for Solitude characteristics for this IRA. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to these characteristics, as described in Table 3-220.

Table 3-217: Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics of the Log Cabin Saddlebag IRA Intensity of Effect (Negligible, Minor, Moderate, or Major) Roadless and Type of Effect Description of Effect Characteristics (Improving, Stable, or Degrading)

Routes proposed in Alternatives 3 & 6 would create a route density of 1.19 mile/square mile in the Log Cabin Saddlebag IRA. The total size of the IRA is now 1679 acres (2.62 square miles) and has a total of 3.40 miles of existing routes (0.26 miles of NFTS and 3.14 miles of Unauthorized).

Alternatives 3 & 6 Soil, Water, & Air Alternatives 3 & 6 both propose to add 2.87 miles of Negligible Stable Resources unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Effect Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, including use of 0.26 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately .42 acres). This prohibition would result in negligible and stable impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is slightly reduced and the area is gradually revegetated.

Alternatives 3 & 6 would have the highest concentration of Outstanding routes (1.19 mi/square mile ) in the Log Cabin Saddlebag IRA opportunities for solitude Alternatives 3 & 6 compared to other IRAs. Measurable effects on the or a primitive and Negligible Stable opportunities for semi-primitive motorized recreation unconfined type of Effect experiences when compared to Alternative 1 would be recreation negligible and stable, as the public would no longer be able to use a 0.26 miles of routes in this IRA. (Please see the resource sections in Chapter 3 for more information about effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 509 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Figure 3-5: Log Cabin/Saddlebag IRA (NFTS and Unauthorized Routes in Alternatives 3 & 6)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 510 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Independence Creek IRA Alternative 3 would result in a route density of 1.07 miles/mi2 in this IRA, compared to a route density of 0.66 miles/mi2 in IRAs forestwide. The higher density of routes in the Independence Creek IRA is a direct result of the newly designated wilderness, which reduced the size of the IRA by approximately 9,994 acres. Prior to the new wilderness additions, routes proposed in Alternative 6 resulted in a route density of 0.12 miles/mi2. Figure 3-6 provides a visual representation of the existing Independence Creek IRA. As shown in the table below, Alternative 3 would result in negligible effects to the Soil, Water, and Air Resources and Opportunities for Solitude characteristics for this IRA. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to these characteristics, as described in Table 3-220.

Table 3-218: Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics of the Independence Creek IRA

Intensity of Effect (Negligible, Minor, Roadless Moderate, or Major) Description of Effect Characteristics and Type of Effect (Improving, Stable, or Degrading)

Routes proposed in Alternative 3 would create a route density of 1.07 mile/square mile in the Independence Creek IRA. The total size of the IRA is now 3382 acres (5.80 square miles) and has a total of 3.21 miles of existing unauthorized routes. Alternative 3 would add approximately 3.10 miles of Alternative 3 Soil, Water, & Air unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Negligible Stable Resources Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited, Effect including use of 0.11 miles of unauthorized routes (approximately .17 acres). This prohibition would result in negligible stable impacts to the soil resources in the area as erosion is slightly reduced and the area is gradually revegetated.

This alternative would have the 3rd highest concentration of Outstanding routes (1.07 miles per square mile) in the Independence Creek opportunities for solitude Alternative 3 IRA (Log Cabin Saddlebag and Wonoga IRAs are higher). or a primitive and Negligible Stable Alternative 3 would have a negligible stable effect on the unconfined type of Effect opportunities for semi-primitive motorized recreation recreation experiences when compared to Alternative 1, as the public would no longer be able to use 0.11 miles of routes in this IRA.

(Please see the resource sections in Chapter 3 for more information about effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 511

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Figure 3-6: Independence Creek IRA (NFTS and Unauthorized Routes in Alternative 3)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 512 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Wheeler Ridge IRA Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in a route density of 1.14 miles/mi2 and 1.06 miles/mi2 respectively in this IRA, compared to a route density of 0.66 miles/mi2 in IRAs forestwide. The higher route density for the Wheeler Ridge IRA is a direct result of the newly designated wilderness, which reduced the size of the IRA by approximately 13,026 acres. Prior to the new wilderness additions, routes proposed in Alternative 3 resulted in a route density of 0.20 miles/mi2. Figure 3-7 provides a visual representation of the existing Wheeler Ridge IRA. As shown in the table below, Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in negligible effects to the Opportunities for Solitude characteristic for this IRA. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to this characteristic, as described in Table 3-220.

Table 3-219: Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics of the Wheeler Ridge IRA Intensity of Effect (Negligible, Minor, Roadless Moderate, or Major) Description of Effect Characteristics and Type of Effect (Improving, Stable, or Degrading)

Routes proposed in Alternative 3 would create a route density of 1.14 mile/square mile in the Wheeler Ridge IRA. The total size of the IRA is now 2697 acres (4.21 square miles) and has a total of 4.82 miles of existing unauthorized routes. This alternative would add approximately 4.65 mile of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Motorized use off the Alternative 3 designated NFTS would be prohibited. Vehicle use would Negligible Stable continue on approximately 4.65 miles of unauthorized routes Effect (approximately 7 acres), resulting in continued impacts (e.g., compaction, minor erosion) within the route prism. Alternative 3 would have a negligible stable effect on the opportunities for semi-primitive motorized recreation experiences when compared to Alternative 1, as the public Outstanding would still be able to able to use 4.65 miles of routes in this opportunities for solitude IRA. or a primitive and unconfined type of Routes proposed in Alternative 6 would create a route density recreation of 1.06 mile/square mile in the Wheeler Ridge IRA. The total size of the IRA is now 2697 acres (4.21 square miles) and has a total of 4.82 miles of existing unauthorized routes. This alternative would add approximately 4.28 mile of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails. Motorized use off the designated NFTS would be prohibited. Vehicle use would Alternative 6 continue on approximately 4.28 miles of unauthorized routes Negligible Stable (approximately 6 acres), resulting in continued impacts (e.g., Effect compaction, minor erosion) within the route prism. Alternative 6 would have a negligible stable effect on the opportunities for semi-primitive motorized recreation experiences when compared to Alternative 1, as the public would still be able to able to use 4.28 miles of routes in this IRA.

(Please see the resource sections in Chapter 3 for more information about effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources.)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 513

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Figure 3-7: Wheeler Ridge IRA (NFTS and Unauthorized Routes in Alternatives 3 & 6)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 514 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Boundary Peak IRA In the Boundary Peak IRA, unauthorized routes proposed in Alternatives 1, 3, and 6 would cross one perennial stream, impacting (crushing or removal) riparian vegetation growing in the crossings and causing minor degrading impacts to the water component of the “Soil, Water & Air Resources” characteristic in the Boundary Peak IRA. This would lead to a minor degrading effect on this characteristic of this IRA in Alternatives 1, 3, and 6. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to this characteristic, as described in Table 3-320.

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Coyote Southeast IRA In the Coyote Southeast IRA, unauthorized routes would cross perennial stream crossings (Alternative 1 = four streams; Alternative 2 = two streams; Alternative 3 = three streams; and Alternative 6 = two streams), impacting (crushing or removal) riparian vegetation growing in the crossings and causing minor degrading impacts to the water component of the “Soil, Water & Air Resources” characteristic in the Coyote Southeast IRA. This would lead to a minor degrading effect on this characteristic of this IRA in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to this characteristic, as described in Table 3-320.

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Dexter Canyon IRA In the Dexter Canyon IRA, unauthorized routes would cross perennial stream crossings (Alternative 1 = two streams; Alternative 3 = two streams; and Alternative 6 = one stream), impacting (crushing or removal) riparian vegetation growing in the crossings and causing minor degrading impacts to the water component of the “Soil, Water & Air Resources” characteristic in the Dexter Canyon IRA. This would lead to a minor degrading effect on this characteristic of this IRA in Alternatives 1, 3, and 6. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to this characteristic, as described in Table 3-320.

Direct and Indirect Effects on the Glass Mountain IRA In the Glass Mountain IRA, unauthorized routes would cross perennial stream crossings (Alternative 1 = four streams; Alternative 3 = one stream; and Alternative 6 = one stream), impacting (crushing or removal) riparian vegetation growing in the crossings and causing minor degrading impacts to the water component of the “Soil, Water & Air Resources” characteristic in the Glass Mountain IRA. This would lead to a minor degrading effect on this characteristic of this IRA in Alternatives 1, 3, and 6. All other action alternatives would result in a minor improvement to this characteristic, as described in Table 3-220.

3.13.4.4 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives The greatest potential threats to maintaining roadless characteristics are road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting (USDA Forest Service, 2000). These activities pose disproportionately greater risks of altering and fragmenting natural landscapes at regional and national scales (Federal Register V66, No. 9, 1-15 to 1-16). Therefore, consideration of cumulative effects resulting from present and foreseeable future activities was limited to proposals to construct or

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 515

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

reconstruct roads or harvest timber within IRAs. None are currently proposed or under implementation (see inventory in Appendix D). Motorized use has historically taken place in IRAs, resulting in the existing network of 560 miles of NFTS roads and unauthorized routes. Records indicate that motorized use (of NFTS roads and unauthorized routes) was occurring at the time IRA boundaries were established during the RARE II evaluations in 1978. For all alternatives, including Alternative 1, which allows for continued use of all unauthorized routes, the level of development would not increase within IRAs because the routes under consideration are part of the existing condition and do not represent a permanent development of the landscape. The majority of unauthorized routes are primitive wheel tracks that follow natural terrain. They have native surfacing and lack constructed features such as culverts, water bars, and bridges. For these reasons, adding existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails would have no cumulative effect on the level of development within IRAs. For CIRAs, the action alternatives are expected to result in minor degrading direct and indirect effects to semi-primitive motorized recreation experiences. Semi-primitive motorized experiences are characterized by the presence and use of primitive roads and trails. Primitive roads are not constructed, and are used by vehicles not intended for highway use (ROS User’s Guide, p.16). All unauthorized routes in CIRAs—and forestwide—are considered to be primitive roads or trails. There are no present or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would increase semi-primitive motorized experiences by constructing new primitive roads within CIRAs. As a result, the action alternatives would have the cumulative effect of reducing semi-primitive motorized experiences in CIRAs by decreasing the miles of primitive roads and trails available for motorized use from existing conditions. This effect is expected to be most pronounced in Alternative 5, which would not add any unauthorized routes to the NFTS, followed by Alternatives 4, 2, 6, and 3 respectively. For all other characteristics, direct and indirect effects are either not expected or are expected to be improving. Therefore, degrading cumulative effects to these characteristics are not expected. Designation of the 313,000 acres of new wilderness will result in slight degrading effects to the “Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of recreation” characteristic for remaining IRAs. This is because the new wilderness areas contain 27 miles of unauthorized routes that will no longer be available for motor vehicle use. The effect is considered to be negligible because of the limited mileage affected in comparison to opportunities for semi- primitive recreation forestwide. In all alternatives, beneficial effects on the other 12 roadless characteristics are considered to be negligible because these areas have very low levels of development and little to no motorized use. Designation as wilderness will not represent a measurable change from the existing condition for these characteristics.

3.13.5 Summary of Effects Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on roadless characteristics are summarized in the table below. As mentioned earlier, an effects analysis was completed on an individual IRA basis and then applied on a forestwide scale. As shown, the alternatives result in varying degrees of minor effects to roadless characteristics. Effects are detectable, but are not expected to increase or influence the level of development within the IRA. At the forestwide scale, all action alternatives would result

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 516 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 in minor improving effects to the overall character of IRAs on the Forest compared to existing conditions.

Table 3-220: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on Roadless Characteristics (IRAs) Roadless Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Characteristics

Soil, Water & Air Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Resources Degrading Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Sources of public No No No No No No drinking water Diversity of plant and Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor animal communities Degrading Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving

Habitat for TES and species dependent on Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor No Effect large undisturbed Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving areas of land

Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Primitive and semi- Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving primitive recreation (SPM) (P/SPNM) (P/SPNM) (P/SPNM) (P/SPNM) (P/SPNM) opportunities Degrading Degrading Degrading Degrading Degrading Degrading (P/SPNM) (SPM) (SPM) (SPM) (SPM) (SPM))

Reference landscapes for No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect research study or interpretation

Landscape character No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect and integrity

Traditional cultural properties and sacred No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect sites

Other locally unique No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect characteristics Untrammeled No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Natural Degrading Degrading Degrading Improving Improving Degrading Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Undeveloped No Effect Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Outstanding opportunities for Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor solitude or a primitive No Effect Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving and unconfined type of recreation

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 517

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.13.6 Compliance with Forest Plan Direction In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on IRA and CIRA characteristics were considered in the development of the road and motorized trail additions proposed in all action alternatives. This determination is based on the following: • The alternatives were developed with consideration of site-specific information regarding the nature and location of routes within IRAs, both individually and forestwide. • The objective was to avoid adverse effects to IRA characteristics such as high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air resources; a diversity of plant and animal communities and their habitat; and primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation opportunities. This objective was accomplished by: (1) proposing mitigations to minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources when needed, (2) considering the contribution of routes within IRAs to enhancing semi- primitive motorized recreation experiences, and (3) considering each route’s potential to create conflict with primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized experiences. • Travel off of designated routes will be prohibited after roads and trails have been designated, further minimizing effects on IRA characteristics.

Proposed management activities within IRAs are guided by direction outlined in an August 18, 2008 memorandum from the Chief of the Forest Service to ensure the Proposed Action and alternatives do not create a conflict with either the ruling of the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming or the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. Proposed activities within CIRAs are consistent with applicable management direction from the 1988 Inyo National Forest Plan, as amended.

Inventoried Roadless Areas – 518 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.14 Transportation Facilities

3.14.1 Introduction This section of the environmental analysis discloses the effects of the six alternatives on management and maintenance of the roads and motorized trails (i.e., transportation facilities), which make up the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system). It addresses the extent to which the alternatives respond to direction related to transportation facilities established in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). It also considers whether alternative proposals to add new facilities to the NFTS or make changes to the existing NFTS provide adequate public safety, and result in a sustainable, affordable system.

3.14.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects transportation facilities includes:

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 212 (36 CFR 212) The implementing regulation for the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA), it includes portions of the Travel Management Rule published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2005. Part 212 provides criteria for designation of roads and trails. Providing safe transportation facilities and considering the affordability of maintaining the transportation facilities are two of the criteria.

Forest Service Manual Sections 2350 and 7700 Contain agency policy for management of the National Forest Transportation System. The policy requires the development of trail management objectives (TMOs) and road management objectives (RMOs). The TMOs and RMOs document the purpose of each trail or road. The purpose for the trail or road sets the parameters for maintenance standards needed to meet user needs, resource protection, and public safety. Forest Service Handbook 7709.59, Road System Operation and Maintenance Handbook, describes the maintenance management system the Forest Service uses and the maintenance standards needed to meet road management objectives (RMOs) for the road system and includes considerations for public safety.

Regional Forester’s Letters Direction related to motorized mixed use is contained in Regional Forester’s letters, file code 7700/2350, dated 08/26/06, 06/20/07, and 1/13/09. These letters provide procedures National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region will use to evaluate safety aspects of public travel on roads when proposed changes to the NFTS will allow both highway-legal and non-highway-legal traffic on a road (motorized mixed use).

Transportation Facilities – 519 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) The CVC regulates the use of motor vehicles in California, including motor vehicles used on the national forests. The CVC sets safety standards for motor vehicles and vehicle operators. It defines the safety equipment needed for highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. It also defines the roads and trails where non-highway-legal motor vehicles may be operated.

3.14.3 Affected Environment

3.14.3.1 History/Background The Inyo National Forest was established in 1907. The current National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads hereafter referred to as “system roads” have developed over time and to some extent reflect the history of the area. The first settlers arrived in the Owens and Bridgeport Valleys in the late 1850s and were interested in farming the Owens Valley, tapping into the abundant water flowing from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and grazing cattle and sheep over the vast unclaimed lands in the Owens Valley and surrounding areas. Roads were mainly wagon tracks to reach their ranches and farms. Some private road development of toll roads occurred during the pioneer era. The most notable of these accessed the mines at Bodie in Mono County and another served the Cerro Gordo Mine in Inyo County. In most cases, these roads are a part of today’s State and County road systems. The discovery of gold at Dog Town on Virginia Creek to the North and silver and gold at other camps such as Bodie, Aurora, Masonic, and the famed Cerro Gordo Mine near Owens Lake created the need for additional roads to transport supplies and ore. The advent of mining activity brought two railroads to the area to serve the needs of the mines. The Bodie and Benton Railroad was constructed from Bodie to a sawmill located in the Jeffery pine forest to the south and east of Mono Lake. The second railroad to arrive in the area was the Carson and Colorado stretching from a junction at Mound House, Nevada, with the Virginia and Truckee Railroad. The C&C reached its southern terminus at Keeler, California in 1883. The C&C served the gold, silver, and soda mines along its three hundred mile length. It also served the cattle and sheep ranches at various stations along its mainline. The Bodie and Benton Railroad ended service in 1919 and the last remaining trackage of the Carson and Colorado Railroad was removed in the 1960s. Portions of the beds of these former railroads became system NFS roads or part of the unauthorized route network being considered in this analysis. With the dawn of the 20th Century and the advent of the automobile, new road and highway construction added to the network of existing roads, and provided improved access to the area. The 20th Century also saw increased leisure time and the construction of resorts and campgrounds for those seeking to recreate in the Eastern Sierra region. U.S. Highway 395 was constructed and ran from the border of Mexico to the border of Canada and still serves as the main highway for the movement of goods, people, and services into and out of the Eastern Sierra. The Sierra Nevada mountains are not transected by any year-round highway within the boundary of the Inyo National Forest. U.S. Highway 6 has its western terminus in Bishop, California, and follows the White Mountains. It traverses Montgomery Pass and intersects with U.S. Highway 95, the Reno to Las Vegas highway. U.S. Highway 6 serves as an alternate route into the Owens Valley, bypassing some of the worst road conditions during the winter.

Transportation Facilities – 520 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

During the Depression Era, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCCs) constructed roads to Whitney Portal, Reds Meadow, Devils Postpile National Monument, and Tioga Pass into Yosemite National Park. A number of these roads are now part of the NFTS but many are managed by other entities and are not a part of this analysis. The 1940s and 1950s saw some roads constructed for national defense and more mining roads developed to tap into the vast tungsten deposits in the area. These roads were generally constructed to higher standards than the mining roads of the past and are located at higher elevations. Some, but not all, of these roads are part of the current system. After World War II, cheap 4WD vehicles became available to the public and were initially used by farmers, ranchers, hunters, and fishermen. The 1960s saw more and more civilian 4WD vehicles offering greater comfort and other improvements. The widespread availability of off road vehicles of various types caused a shift from transportation for the purposes of commerce and access to transportation for recreation and exploring. The activities discussed in the foregoing paragraphs have led to the development of a network of 1,355 miles of NFTS road managed and maintained by the Forest Service, 685 miles of NFTS roads maintained by County or State agencies, and 1,695 miles of non-system or unauthorized routes (27 miles of which are within newly designated wilderness) within the boundary of the Inyo National Forest. The unauthorized routes are currently being analyzed for inclusion in the NFTS in the six alternatives. Most unauthorized routes were gradually worn in by the travel of four wheel drive (4WD) vehicles and All Terrain or Off Highway (ATV/OHV) vehicles using the same wheel tracks repeatedly. Because most of these routes were not engineered, they lack features such as drainage structures, signage, and other items associated with constructed roads.

3.14.3.2 Maintenance and Administration of the NFTS The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.55) requires consideration of the need for maintenance and administration of the designated NFTS. Costs associated with administration of NFTS facilities include costs for needed maintenance work that has not been completed for various reasons (deferred maintenance) and costs of maintenance that should be performed routinely to maintain the facility to its current standard (annual maintenance). Routine maintenance includes items like the repair of drainage features such as water bars and the repair and/or replacement of signage. Deferred maintenance is work that can be deferred, without loss of road or motorized trail serviceability. Deferred maintenance is incurred when either routine maintenance items or high value items such as replacing a bridge or culvert is deferred due to funding constraints. In addition, there may be additional costs associated with proposed changes to the NFTS (implementation costs). These costs may be for improving unauthorized routes that will be added to the NFTS, costs for proposed safety and resource improvements, costs for changing maintenance levels, and costs for closing routes to use by motor vehicles.

Transportation Facilities – 521

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

An annual maintenance plan for all system roads is developed prior to the road maintenance season, which typically lasts for six months of the year. The maintenance plan takes into account roads that require maintenance prior to opening for traffic and those that typically require spot maintenance due to spring run-off, winter tree and snag fall, and other environmental factors. Roads requiring maintenance prior to opening are the first priority. Later in the season, road maintenance focuses on maintaining high traffic volume roads; major repairs such as culvert replacement; and repairs required to prevent or mitigate resource damage. The majority of the Forest’s annual road maintenance budget goes to maintenance of roads for passenger vehicles (Maintenance Levels 3 – 5). Roads maintained for passenger vehicles bring expectations from the public of greater comfort, speed, and safety. Moderate grades, well drained soils, and relatively light use have contributed to the overall low level of maintenance required to prevent resource damage on existing NFTS roads. Further, many of the roads have a limited season of use or winter “rest period” due to snowfall and inclement conditions that close routes to vehicle travel during the winter months. High clearance vehicle roads are managed as Maintenance Level 2. Maintenance of these roads includes drainage maintenance, repair to heavily rutted areas, limited brushing for clearance and sight distance, and maintenance of signage. Because these roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles, the focus is on preventing or mitigating resource damage rather than maintaining the road for public comfort or speed. This means that needed maintenance is generally less costly and is not performed as frequently as on higher standard roads. Motorized trail maintenance differs from road maintenance in that the mechanized equipment that can be used for such maintenance is limited due to the narrower width of the trail and the terrain over which the equipment must travel. Therefore, motorized trails require considerable hand work and more time to maintain than an equivalent mile of road. Currently the Forest system roads are maintained using annual appropriated road maintenance funding and OHV grant funding from the State. Appropriated funding for system road maintenance is approximately $800,000 and $180,000 for trails. Appropriated trails funding is currently used to maintain a system of 1,250 miles of non-motorized trails. The annual Forest budget for roads and motorized and non-motorized trails is not expected to change appreciably in the foreseeable future or increase if facilities are added to the NFTS as proposed by Alternatives 2-6. In addition to appropriated road maintenance funds, the Forest performs some route maintenance and stabilization using State OHV funds. Typically the Forest receives from $200,000 to $300,000 in grant funds annually. State OHV grants are typically targeted for specific projects that may or may not involve annual maintenance. For example, construction of a stream crossing would reduce deferred maintenance if it was identified as a deferred maintenance item. However, it would not significantly contribute to the number of miles maintained in a given year. In addition some OHV funding is used for patrols, law enforcement and other items associated with OHV use on the Forest Other funding is available in the event of natural disasters (emergency) or events. Funding is available for road repair for damage occurring from a natural disaster, during a fire, or from a fire suppression effort. The Forest receives Legacy Roads and Trails funding, which can be used on authorized and unauthorized roads impacting specific natural resources such as stream channels, wetlands, and watersheds. Projects are nominated for funding at the Regional level and may or may

Transportation Facilities – 522 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 not be funded based on the merit of the proposal and availability of funds. Some road and trail maintenance is performed annually by volunteers. While difficult to quantify, volunteer efforts contribute significantly to the completion of various specific projects. A current estimate of system road deferred maintenance on the Inyo National Forest is $26,850,000. The deferred maintenance total reflects items identified during actual road inventories. However, the amount reflects nationally estimated costs developed for various road maintenance items. Deferred maintenance is work that can be deferred without loss of road serviceability. As explained below, the following table shows the funding required to perform routine and periodic maintenance for all existing system roads on an annual basis. It does not show actual funding. The annual cost shown below would maintain the roads in their current condition and begin to address the backlog of deferred maintenance.

Table 3-221 : Routine and Deferred Maintenance Cost Estimates for Existing NFTS Roads Based on the INFRA Database Operational Maintenance Existing Miles Regional/National Annual Cost Level in NFTS Estimate (Cost per Mile) 1 0 $0 $0 2 1,185 $975 $1,155,375 3 89 $5,450 $485,050 4 32 $14,120 $451,840 5 25 $14,120 $353,000 Total $2,445,265

The ability to perform road and motorized trail maintenance is limited by the availability of time, personnel, equipment, materials, and funding. The amount of road maintenance accomplished per day or per season is dependent on the road maintenance level and condition of the road of the road or motorized trail being maintained. The condition of the road or motorized trail is affected by both the environment and the volume of traffic over the road between maintenance cycles. Environmental factors include soil moisture, tree and brush growth, storm and spring run-off, and other natural events such as high winds and floods. The vast majority of high clearance 4WD, Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2) roads have natural surfaces. When a ML 2 road is maintained, native materials are used to resurface and repair the road as required. In some situations, aggregate surfacing is used to prevent resource damage or facilitate traffic on steep inclines. ML 3 roads are mostly native surfaced; however, they are graded on a yearly cycle to maintain the running surface to accommodate passenger vehicles. ML 4 and ML 5 roads are largely paved and require more extensive maintenance to conform to the public’s expectations of higher comfort and safety. The ML 4 and 5 roads are either in developed recreation sites or are roads leading to popular destinations. Traffic ranges from passenger cars to large motor homes. These roads are also used by commercial vehicles delivering goods to various resorts and other commercial enterprises.

Limitations of the INFRA Database Maintenance Estimates The Forest Service uses a computer database to maintain an inventory of its infrastructure. This database is commonly referred to as INFRA. Infrastructure includes buildings, roads, bridges,

Transportation Facilities – 523

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

recreational facilities such as campgrounds, land management units, trails, trail bridges, and other items for which accountability is required. For roads, INFRA records the route number, maintenance level, beginning and ending mileposts, and other linear events. Linear events are items associated with the road and may be either in the road or in the road right-of-way. These include signage, mile markers, delineators, culverts, side drains, and other items that occur at a fixed point. It also may include measurable items such as drainage ditches that stop and start at fixed points. Maintenance of these items is considered a part of the cost of road maintenance. INFRA provides a record of maintenance accomplishments, planned maintenance, and deferred maintenance. As defined earlier, deferred maintenance is required maintenance that can be deferred without loss of road serviceability, until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed. The estimated road maintenance costs in INFRA provide a planning tool for all levels of the Forest Service. There are limitations to these estimates, including: 1. INFRA includes cost estimates for both routine and deferred maintenance items. The amounts shown in Table 3-221 reflect the “ideal” situation where maintenance is performed on every mile of road every year. These maintenance costs also reflect annualized costs for regularly occurring items such as repaving, pavement marking, and culvert replacement. Annualized costs can be likened to straight line depreciation. For example, if a road costs $100,000 per mile to repave, then the annualized cost over a 20 year service life is $5,000 per mile. This is reflected as part of the annual maintenance cost per mile of road. 2. The Forest Service does not receive funding to match the estimates in INFRA. Annualized items are funded on a project-by-project basis and are competed for regionally and nationally through a program known as the Major Project List. Funding is not assured as a result of submitting a project for consideration on the Major Project List. For example, the Forest can provide information on a projected cost to pave a certain section of road or replace a culvert. 3. The INFRA maintenance costs shown in Table 3-221 are listed as annual maintenance costs. This does not reflect the way the Forest actually maintains its road system. Every mile of road does not need to be maintained every year. Rather, roads are maintained on a cyclic basis and in response to safety hazards and situations where resource damage may occur. There are some high use roads that receive maintenance every year to repair winter and storm run-off damage and damage due to heavy traffic loads. Other roads do not require more than periodic inspection and occasional maintenance to repair damage to the road surface and road structures, eliminate traffic hazards, and prevent resource damage. This is true of most of the existing ML 2 NFTS roads and the roads and motorized trails proposed for addition to the system under the action alternatives.

Because of the limitations described above, the INFRA maintenance estimates shown in Table 3- 221 will not be used to describe and compare the effects of the alternatives. The following table presents a more accurate estimate of actual road maintenance costs. It reflects the costs associated with maintaining a mile of each maintenance level of road to standard. The cost shown per

Transportation Facilities – 524 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 maintenance level are not an annual cost and do not reflect the annualized costs included in the INFRA estimates. As explained earlier in this section, road maintenance over the entire system is cyclic in nature rather than annual. Although the Forest performs road maintenance every year, not every mile of road is maintained annually, nor is such maintenance needed. The table below shows direct costs associated with maintaining the existing NFTS on a 5-year cycle for ML 2 roads and a 1- year cycle for ML 3, 4, and 5 roads. These costs are for actual on-the-ground work and overhead costs associated with road management and planning and for maintaining an adequate workforce and equipment.

Table 3-222: Yearly Maintenance Cost Estimates for Existing NFTS Roads on the INF (Actual Costs) Operational Maintenance Level Total System Miles Maintenance Cost Per Mile Cyclic Cost Miles Maintence Per Year Motorized Trails 0 0 $0 $0 Maintenance Level 1 0 0 $0 $0 Maintenance Level 2 1185 237 $535 $126,795 Maintenance Level 3 89 89 $3,389 $301,621 Maintenance Level 4 32 32 $6,778 $216,896 Maintenance Level 5 25 25 $6,778 $169,450 Total 1331 383 $814,762

3.14.3.3 Public Safety 36 CFR 212.55(a) requires public safety be considered when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. The proposed additions and changes to the NFTS have been evaluated for the effects on public safety. The Forest contacted the various law enforcement agencies concerned with vehicle accident response and reporting. In the State of California accident reporting is the purview of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). In Nevada, vehicle accident reporting is the responsibility of the County Sheriff. CHP provided the Forest with a five-year record of accidents occurring off of State Highways (Letters dated May 15, 2008, File Code 7710). During that time period, no accidents on NFTS roads or unauthorized routes were reported for Inyo National Forest land in California. In Nevada as well, no accidents are known to have occurred on NFTS roads or unauthorized routes on Forest (Letter dated May 20, 2008, File Code 7710). Contact with Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management law enforcement and Ranger District OHV patrols confirmed the information provided by the CHP and County Sheriffs’ offices. There are a number of factors that may contribute to the lack of accidents. The relatively low use levels on most routes, combined with the number of routes and variety of available experiences, mean that users can disperse across vast areas. Many of the routes cannot be driven at high speeds due to the steepness of terrain, side slope, and roughness of the road surface. Finally, there is a degree of law enforcement and OHV patrol presence that likely contributes to safe driving practices. The Bishop Field Office of the BLM and the Forest Service cooperate in providing law enforcement coverage across Forest and BLM lands.

Transportation Facilities – 525

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on public safety were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in all action alternatives. For all action alternatives, the continued use of the unauthorized routes as either Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails is determined to be generally safe. This determination is based on the low accident history previously mentioned in this section. Further, it assumes that most users are prudent drivers, observe “the rules of the road” and practice safe driving. Therefore, safety will not be discussed on an alternative to alternative basis. The Forest will consult with CALTRANS and appropriate county and local government road agencies on encroachment on State, county, or local government, highways, roads and streets. Encroachment is defined as the intersection of a Forest road with a State, county, or local government, highway, road, or street. An intersection is a point where traffic may be entering a Forest road, exiting (leaving) a Forest road, or crossing a road under the jurisdiction of another government agency.

Motorized Mixed Use Forest Service Manual 7705 defines motorized mixed use as the as the designation of an NFTS road for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires motor vehicles operated on highways be highway- legal and be operated by licensed drivers. The CVC allows the operation of non-highway-legal vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers on roughly graded roads. The Inyo National Forest considers roads maintained for high clearance vehicles (Maintenance Level 2) as roughly graded and considers operation of OHVs on these roads as consistent with state law.

Motorized mixed use (MMU) on routes added to the NFTS as high clearance roads. Motorized mixed use would be authorized for all routes added to the NFTS as “roads open to all vehicle classes.” All of the unauthorized routes proposed to be added to the NFTS as high clearance roads: • Will be maintained for high clearance vehicles; passenger car traffic will be discouraged. • Do not have documented crash history involving motorized mixed use on the road or similar roads in the vicinity.

Depending on the alternative selected, some unauthorized routes will be added to the NFTS as full-size vehicle trails (open to all trail vehicles), motorcycle (single track) trails, and ATV (quad – double track) trails. The mixed use designation does not apply to routes added to the NFTS as motorized trails. Use by non-highway-legal trail vehicles would be allowed on motorized trails.

Motorized mixed use on existing NFTS high clearance roads. Low standard, high clearance NFTS roads (generally Maintenance Level 2) are maintained for use by high clearance 4WD vehicles rather than passenger car travel. Use levels are generally low, consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Maintenance Level 2 roads have the following attributes: • Roads have low traffic volume and low speed.

Transportation Facilities – 526 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Typically local roads. • Typically connect collectors or other local roads. • Dips are the preferred drainage treatment. • Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act. • Surface smoothness is not a consideration. • Not suitable for passenger cars.

All existing high clearance NFTS 4WD roads have been determined to have minimal safety concerns. These roads will be open to all vehicle classes (highway-legal and non-highway-legal) in all action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6). This is because the roads: • Are and will be maintained for high clearance vehicles; passenger car traffic is and will continue to be discouraged. • Do not have documented crash history involving motorized mixed use on the road or similar roads in the vicinity.

Motorized mixed use on existing NFTS passenger car roads. Maintenance Level 3 (7709.59, 62. 32) is assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, with spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Maintenance Level 3 roads have the following attributes: • Subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). • Low- to moderate-traffic volume. • Typically connect to arterial and collector roads. • A combination of dips and culverts provide drainage. • May include some dispersed recreation roads. • Pot-holing or wash boarding may occur.

A motorized mixed use analysis was performed to determine the number of miles and the extent to which such use would be permitted (Engineering Analysis, on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Bishop, CA). As shown in the tables below, seven passenger car system roads (all Maintenance Level 3) for a total of 32.5 miles were considered for mixed use. Of the 32.5 miles actually analyzed, 22.9 are being proposed for motorized mixed vehicle use. The 22.9 miles include 5.6 miles of passenger car roads allowing motorized mixed vehicle use (combined use) in accordance with the Regional Forester’s Letter dated January 13, 2009, see Table 3-223 and the California Vehicle Code. The remaining 17.3 miles of passenger cars roads will be downgraded to high clearance, 4WD, Maintenance Level – 2 roads, see Table 3-224. These roads have no accident history and very few safety concerns. They are largely native surface (dirt) roads, although a few have stretches of

Transportation Facilities – 527

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

pavement on steep grades to facilitate travel by passenger cars. Mitigation measures for Maintenance Level 3 roads designated for motorized mixed use including signing may be implemented based on the results of the Motorized Mixed Use Analysis. Pending the final Regional Office approval of the Engineering Analysis and review and concurrence by the California Highway Patrol, motorized mixed use would be authorized on these roads or a portion of these roads in all action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6). No Maintenance Level 4 or 5 roads are proposed for motorized mixed use.

Table 3-223: Passenger Car Roads Proposed for Motorized Mixed Use Miles Miles System Road No. Road Name Ranger District Action/Remarks Analyzed Proposed Designate for 02S49 Glass Creek Mono Lake 0.33 0.33 motorized mixed vehicle use

Designate 3.0 miles (MP 0.46 to MP 3.46) 03S08 Sawmill Cutoff Mammoth 3.93 3 for motorized mixed vehicle use.

Designate 2.25 miles (MP 17.2 to MP 19.45) 04S01 White Mountain White Mountain 9.3 2.25 for motorized mixed vehicle use.

Total 13.6 5.6

Table 3-224: Passenger Car Roads Proposed for Reduction of Maintenance Level and Motorized Mixed Use Miles Miles System Road No. Road Name Ranger District Action/Remarks Analyzed Proposed Reduce to ML 2. Allow motorized 01S38 Devil's Punch Bowl Mono Lake 3 3 mixed vehicle use. Reduce to ML 2. Allow motorized 01S52 West Portal Mono Lake 1.79 1.79 mixed vehicle use. Reduce 1.39 miles to ML 2 (MP 1.66 to MP 3.05). 02S10 Glass Flow/Hartley Springs Mono Lake 3.05 1.39 Allow motorized mixed vehicle use. Reduce to operational ML 2. 03S06 Antelope Bench Mammoth 11.1 11.1 Allow motorized mixed vehicle use. Total 18.9 17.3

Transportation Facilities – 528 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.14.4 Environmental Consequences The Affected Environment outlined in the previous section reflects the status of transportation facilities under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) in the short term. The following section evaluates the effects of the proposed additions and changes to the NFTS on public safety and sustainability of the NFTS road and trail network. It also describes the current proposals for motorized mixed use. Assumptions specific to the analysis of transportation facilities include: 1. Motor vehicle use authorized by state law is occurring on the existing NFTS unless there are Forest-specific prohibitions. 2. Motor vehicle use by special use permit or other permitted activities are outside the scope of this proposal (fuel wood gathering, motorized SUP event, recreation residences, and mining activities). 3. Eligible vehicle classes for motorized trails are high clearance full-size trail vehicles (4WD etc), ATVs, and motorcycles. Trails will not be managed for use by low clearance highway- legal vehicles. 4. There is some cost for maintenance that will have to be born by the Forest Service for any route open to motor vehicle use by the public. See Table 3-221 for annual road and motorized trail maintenance cost estimates. 5. State law regulating motor vehicle drivers sets the standard of care for the safety of themselves and other users for the NFTS.

3.14.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Introduction A total of 1,699 miles of unauthorized routes within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest are being analyzed under this study. Routes added to the NFTS as Maintenance Level 2 roads generally vary from 8 to 12 feet in width. Unauthorized routes added to the system as trails open to all trail vehicles (4WD trails), single track (motorcycle), or double track (ATV) trails will be maintained in accordance with Forest Service maintenance guidelines for motorized trails. Routes classified as full size vehicle (4WD) trails will be approximately 74 to 96 inches wide, compared to 50 inches for ATV trails and 18 inches for motorcycle trails. Table 3-224 shows the miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as Maintenance Level 2 roads, full size vehicle (4WD) trails, ATV trails, and motorcycle trails under each alternative. It also shows the annual maintenance cost associated with each alternative. This maintenance cost will be added to the maintenance costs for the existing system. Added annual maintenance costs vary from $0 for Alternative 1 to $124,085 for Alternative 3.

Effects of Alternative 1 – No Action While Alternative 1 includes the most unauthorized route mileage of all the alternatives (1,699 miles), it would not add any new facilities to the existing NFTS. Maintenance, signing, and

Transportation Facilities – 529

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

improvements of unauthorized routes would not occur because appropriated road and trail maintenance funds are restricted to expenditure for system roads and trails. Initially this alternative requires the least expenditure of funds. However, it has the potential to increase the need for resource funding to repair damage and degradation caused by continued motorized use of existing unauthorized routes and the creation of new unauthorized routes through continued cross-country travel. To support the existing NFTS with current and projected appropriated and non-appropriated maintenance funding, routine maintenance is being reduced, maintenance cycles are extended, and selective repairs are made to ensure public safety and prevent resource damage. Major repairs such as resurfacing or new bridges are funded by special appropriations outside of the annual Forest budget.

Effects of Alternative 2 Alternative 2 adds 929 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS. Except in the Poleta Open Area, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited under this alternative. Estimated additional annual road and motorized trail maintenance costs for currently unauthorized routes added to the NFTS are $98,025. This cost is for maintaining approximately 186 miles of roads and motorized trails per year. The costs to either add or remove unauthorized routes from service are summarized in Tables 3-226 and 3-225. Alternative 2 removes 769 miles of unauthorized routes from motorized use. Decommissioning of unauthorized routes is not being considered under this study. To support the existing NFTS with current and projected appropriated and non-appropriated maintenance funding, routine maintenance is being reduced, maintenance cycles are extended, and selective repairs are made to ensure public safety and prevent resource damage. Major repairs such as resurfacing or new bridges are funded by special appropriations outside of the annual Forest budget. Current and projected funding levels do not cover deferred maintenance, which means that the deferred maintenance backlog grows annually. The additional 929 miles of roads and motorized trails added under this alternative will further increase the maintenance return cycle (i.e., roads that are maintained once every five years may be maintained only once every 10 years). Over time, roads may develop severe public safety or resource damage issues and may need to be evaluated for closure to public motorized use. Major repairs such as resurfacing or new bridges would continue to be funded by special appropriations outside of the Forest budget.

Effects of Alternative 3 Alternative 3 adds 1,191 miles of roads and trails to the NFTS. Except in the Poleta Open Area, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited under this alternative. The estimated additional annual road and motorized trail maintenance costs for currently unauthorized routes added to the NFTS are $124,085. This cost is for maintaining approximately 239 miles of roads and motorized trails per year. This is the highest additional annual road and motorized trail maintenance cost of the alternatives being considered. The costs to either add or remove unauthorized routes from service are summarized in Tables 3- 224 and 3-226. Alternative 3 removes 509 miles of unauthorized routes from motorized use. This is

Transportation Facilities – 530 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 the least amount removed by the action alternatives. Decommissioning of unauthorized routes is not being considered under this study. See Effects of Alternative 2 for a discussion of long-term maintenance of proposed additions to the NFTS.

Effects of Alternative 4 Alternative 4 adds 695 miles of roads and trails to the NFTS. Motorized cross-country travel is prohibited under this alternative, including the NFTS Poleta Open Area. The NFTS roads in the Poleta Open Area would remain open for motor vehicle use. The estimated additional annual maintenance cost is $74,225. This cost is for maintaining approximately 140 miles of roads and motorized trails per year. This is the lowest additional annual road and motorized trail maintenance cost for the action alternatives. The costs to either add or remove unauthorized routes from service are summarized in Tables 3- 224 and 3-226. Alternative 4 removes 1,004 miles of unauthorized roads and trails from motorized use. Decommissioning of unauthorized routes is not being considered under this study. See Effects of Alternative 2 for a discussion of long-term maintenance of proposed additions to the NFTS.

Effects of Alternative 5 Alternative 5 does not add any roads and trails to the NFTS. Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited cross-country as well as on all 1,699 miles of existing unauthorized routes. The Poleta Open Area will remain open to motorized cross-country travel. This alternative does not increase the annual road maintenance costs or propose resource mitigation measures on any unauthorized routes. However, routes that are not added to the NFTS would require signage (e.g., “No motorized use beyond this point.”) and, in some cases, concealment of the route or limited barrier construction. Decommissioning of unauthorized routes is not being considered under this study. Although adoption of this alternative does not incure additional road and motorized trail maintenance costs, it will incur an initial estimated implementation cost of $630,000 to sign unauthorized routes and publish motor vehicle use maps. See Effects of Alternative 2 for a discussion of long-term maintenance of the existing NFTS.

Effects of Alternative 6 Alternative 6 adds 1,005 miles of roads and trails to the NFTS. Except in the Poleta Open Area, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited under this alternative. The estimated additional annual road and motorized trail maintenance cost for the proposed NFTS additions is $105,115. This cost is for maintaining approximately 199 miles of roads and motorized trails per year. The costs to either add or remove unauthorized routes from service are summarized in Tables 3- 224 and 3-226. Alternative 6 removes 709 miles of unauthorized routes from public motorized use. Implementation may require signage (e.g., “No motorized use beyond this point.”) and, in some cases, concealment of the route or limited barrier construction. Decommissioning of unauthorized routes is not being considered under this study.

Transportation Facilities – 531

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

See Effects of Alternative 2 for a discussion of long-term maintenance of proposed additions to the NFTS.

Effects of All Alternatives - Mitigation Costs The Inyo National Forest has considered the effects of the unauthorized routes on natural resources and has developed mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those effects in the action alternatives. Mitigation measures are divided into two categories: 1. Those measures that must be implemented before a road or trail is opened to vehicle travel (pre-designation mitigations) 2. Those that can be implemented after a road or trail is opened to vehicle travel (post- designation mitigations).

Average costs for the mitigation measures proposed for each alternative are listed in Table 3-226 These cost estimates are based on typical situations on the Inyo National Forest. Actual size and cost may vary depending on the specific conditions in the area requiring mitigation. Proposed mitigations expected to cost substantially more than the average are identified in the table as “high cost” mitigations. The cost of the pre-designation mitigation measures ranges from $0 for Alternatives 1 and 5 to $216,100 for Alternative 3. The cost of post-designation mitigation measures ranges from $0 for Alternatives 1 and 5 to $530,450 for Alternative 3. Table 3-225 shows the complete range of mitigation measures and associated costs.

3.14.4.2 Cumulative Effects Tables 3-225 and 3-226 show the cumulative economic effect of each alternative in terms of the additional monetary resources needed to complete routine maintenance when new facilities (currently unauthorized routes) are added to the existing NFTS. Table 3-225 also compares the resource mitigation and implementation costs (e.g., signage and MVUM publication) for each of the six alternatives. Based on the current appropriated annual road maintenance budget of $800,000 for Fiscal Year 2009 plus anticipated State OHV funds of $200,000, there is adequate funding to complete all routine maintenance on the existing NFTS as illustrated in Table 3-222. Annualized items such as repaving higher standard roads are and will continue to be funded on a project-by-project basis through the Major Project List. Using Alternative 3 as an example, the proposed addition of 1,191 miles of roads and motorized trails to the NFTS produces a routine maintenance shortfall of $124,085 for Fiscal Year 2009, based on appropriated road maintenance funding. Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 would all create maintenance funding shortfalls, but to lesser degrees than Alternative 3. Not performing routine annual maintenance on time may increase the amount of deferred maintenance. Also, not performing routine annual maintenance may increase the amount of resource damage and/or safety issues caused by the use of the road or motorized trail.

Transportation Facilities – 532 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-225: Proposed Mitigations by Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Pre-Designation Mitigations Unit Cost Mitigations Est. Cost Mitigations Est. Cost Mititgation Est. Cost Mitigations Est. Cost Barrier $1,300 21 $27,300 33 $42,900 7 $9,100 25 $32,500 Creek Crossing/Ford $5,000 1 $5,000 3 $15,000 7 $35,000 1 $5,000 Drainage Work $1,500 2 $3,000 0 $0 1 $1,500 0 $0 Hardening $5,000 3 $15,000 2 $10,000 1 $5,000 2 $10,000 High Cost Drainage $3,000 0 $0 2 $6,000 1 $3,000 2 $6,000 High Cost Hardening $50,000 0 $0 2 $100,000 1 $50,000 2 $100,000 Reroute to New Alignment $5,000 0 $0 4 $20,000 0 $0 2 $10,000 Riparian/Meadow Stabilization $3,600 1 $3,600 2 $7,200 1 $3,600 3 $10,800 Seasonal Restriction $5,000 0 $0 1 $5,000 0 $0 1 $5,000 Signage $250 32 $8,000 40 $10,000 28 $7,000 37 $9,250 Weed Treatments $1,700 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1,700 0 $0 Subtotal Cost for Pre-Designation Mitigations $61,900 $216,100 $115,900 $188,550

Post-Designation Mitigations Barrier $1,300 13 $16,900 17 $22,100 8 $10,400 17 $22,100 Creek Crossing/Ford $5,000 20 $100,000 27 $135,000 2 $10,000 23 $115,000 Drainage Work $1,500 70 $105,000 89 $133,500 20 $30,000 72 $108,000 Hardening $5,000 15 $75,000 23 $115,000 6 $30,000 17 $85,000 High Cost Barrier $5,000 1 $5,000 2 $10,000 1 $5,000 2 $10,000 High Cost Drainage $3,000 1 $3,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $3,000 High Cost Hardening $50,000 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0 1 $50,000 Riparian/Meadow Stabilization $3,600 2 $7,200 4 $14,400 1 $3,600 4 $14,400 Seasonal Restriction $5,000 1 $5,000 3 $15,000 0 $0 3 $15,000 Signage $250 47 $11,750 67 $16,750 13 $3,250 59 $14,750 Weed Treatments $1,700 2 $3,400 11 $18,700 2 $3,400 8 $13,600 Subtotal Cost for Post-Designation Mitigations $382,250 $530,450 $95,650 $450,850 Total Mitigation Cost by Alternative $444,150 $746,550 $211,550 $639,400

Transportation Facilities – 533 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

If annual maintenance was fully funded, it would still leave a large amount of deferred maintenance that would only be completed upon identification of danger to the public or the potential for severe resource damage. For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, adding new facilities to the NFTS will increase the amount of deferred maintenance and increase the maintenance cycle. The maintenance cycle is the frequency at which a road is entered and maintenance is performed.

Table 3- 226: Maintenance and Implementation Cumulative Economic Effects Existing NFTS New Total Added Annual Mitigation Route Markers Publish Alternative Annual Maint. Annual Maint. Maint. Cost Costs and Signage MVUM Cost Cost

1 $814,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $814,762 $98,025 $912,787 $444,150 $600,000 $30,000 3 $814,762 $124,085 $938,847 $746,550 $600,000 $30,000 4 $814,762 $74,225 $888,987 $211,550 $600,000 $30,000 5 $814,762 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $30,000 6 $814,762 $105,115 $919,877 $639,400 $600,000 $30,000

3.14.4.3 Compliance with Regulatory Direction In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a), effects on public safety were considered in the development of the road and trail additions proposed in all action alternatives. For all action alternatives, the continued use of the unauthorized routes as either Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails is determined to be generally safe. This determination is based on the low accident history previously mentioned in this section. Further, it assumes that most users are prudent drivers, observe “the rules of the road,” and practice safe driving. The Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(a) require consideration of the need for and availability of resources for maintenance and administration of designated roads, trails, and areas. Proposed road and trail additions would result in an annual maintenance cost of approximately $74,000 in Alternative 4 to $124,000 in Alternative 3, in addition to the $815,000 needed to maintain the existing NFTS. Currently, the Forest receives from $200,000 to $300,000 in OHV grant funds annually, in addition to approximately $800,000 in appropriated road maintenance funding. Unless appropriated funding increases, the Forest may need to pursue grant funding more aggressively, further prioritize needed maintenance, or enter into road maintenance agreements or volunteer trail adoption programs in order to complete recommended mitigations and maintenance needed to maintain roads and trails to assigned management objectives. The Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(b) require that conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses on National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal Lands be considered in the designation of roads and trails. Each alternative was evaluated for its environmental effects as well as the recreational opportunities provided to the public. This analysis considered the existing roads on Forest lands, roads under the jurisdiction of other government entities, and roads originating on BLM lands. Consideration of the vehicle class and use on routes beginning and ending on BLM lands led the Forest Service to propose compatible designations for the adjoining route segments on National Forest System lands.

Transportation Facilities – 534 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-227: Unauthorized Routes Added to the NFTS and Additional Maintenance Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6

Miles of Miles Annual Miles of Miles Miles of Miles Annual Miles of Miles Annual Annual New Maint Per Maint. New Maint. New Maint. Maint. New Maint. Maint. Maint Cost Facilities Year Cost Facilities Per Year Facilities Per Year Cost Facilities Per Year Cost ROADS Open to All 850 170 $90,950 827 165 $88,275 641 128 $68,480 837 167 $89,345 Vehicles Open to All 26 5 $2,675 20 4 $2,140 19 4 $2,140 24 5 $2,675 Vehicles with Pre- designation Mitigation TRAILS 4WD Trail 0 0 $0 214 42 $22,470 15 3 $1,605 85 17 $9,095 ATV Trail 40 8 $3,200 73 15 $6,000 12 3 $1,200 19 4 $1,600 Motorcycle Trail 13 3 $1,200 36 7 $2,800 8 2 $800 20 4 $1,600 4WD Trail with Pre- 0 0 $0 17 4 $1,600 0 0 $0 10 2 $800 Designation Mitigation ATV Trail with Pre- 0 0 $0 3 1 $400 0 0 $0 0 0 $0 Designation Mitigation Motorcycle Trail 0 0 $0 1 1 $400 0 0 $0 0 0 $0 with Pre- Designation Mitigation Total 929 186 $98,025 1191 239 $124,085 695 140 $74,225 995 199 $105,115

Transportation Facilities – 535 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

In compliance with the Travel Management regulations at 36 CFR 212.55(c), the speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic were considered in the road additions and mixed use proposals. Limitations dictated by the terrain, site distance, and condition of the road surface make the routes suitable for addition to the NFTS as low standard roads or motorized trails rather than higher standard roads, and also drove the proposals to change existing NFTS roads to motorized trails. A motorized mixed vehicle use analysis was performed for each Maintenance Level 3 road proposed for motorized mixed vehicle use. These reports are available in the project record. The number of roads and trails available for use generally results in a low traffic density on most of the NFTS and unauthorized routes. There is some congestion near staging areas and on more popular routes. The width of the road or trail limits the number and type of vehicles using that route and leads to further distribution of users. Signs to warn drivers of the class of vehicles authorized and expected on particular routes will be posted as part of the implementation of the route designation process. Maintenance Level 3 NFTS routes designated for mixed use will be signed appropriately to warn drivers of mixed use. In compliance with 36 CFR 212.55(c), the compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing was considered in the development of the road additions proposed in the action alternatives. Routes added to the NFTS will be entered into the system as either Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails based on vehicle compatibility considerations and the need to provide a range of different recreational opportunities. Analysis was performed for each Maintenance Level 3 road proposed for motorized mixed use. The compatibility of each vehicle class with the road geometry and surfacing is generally determined by the type, size, and vehicle in conjunction with the driver’s level of skill. Road geometry affects the speed and safety of the vehicle and its occupants. Road surfacing affects the speed at which a given vehicle can safely travel. Road surface conditions directly affect the comfort of the vehicle occupants. Passenger and driver comfort as well as driver competency directly affect vehicle speed.

Transportation Facilities – 536 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.15 Authorized Uses and Lands

3.15.1 Affected Environment

3.15.1.1 Authorized Uses, Mining, and Grazing Authorized uses on the Inyo National Forest consist of a variety of commercial and individual uses such as hydroelectric power generation; communication sites; power lines; telephone lines; water lines for domestic purposes; apiaries; and road permits for individual access to private lands, ski resorts, recreation events (including wheeled motor vehicle events), organization camps, recreation residences, and grazing allotment management. These uses of NFS lands occur across much of the Forest. The permitted use and any associated activities, such as operation and maintenance of facilities, are conducted under a special use permit or other form of authorization either from the Forest Service or some other agency, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The majority of these permitted facilities and activities are accessed by either system roads or unauthorized routes. Locatable mineral commodities that have been produced from the Inyo National Forest include gold, silver, tin, lead, tungsten, copper, molybdenum, block pumice, sericite mica, andelusite, and barite. With the exception of several specific industrial minerals, mineral production has gradually decreased since World War II. High gold and silver prices in the early 1980s fueled an increase in claim activity, especially by individuals and small mining companies. When prices later dropped, exploration and development activity gradually decreased, but a large number of mining claims continued to be maintained by claimants. In 1994 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) modified the requirements to maintain mining claims and as a result, the number of active mining claims has gradually decreased since that time. Larger mining companies continue to target specific areas of the Forest in Nevada as sites for exploration drilling.

3.15.1.2 Lands Compared to other national forests in California, there are relatively few non-federal inholdings within the Inyo National Forest (INF) administrative boundary. The gross area within the INF boundary is approximately 1,965,100 acres. Non-federal lands comprise approximately 3% of this total. These parcels are mostly the result of historic homesteads, Desert Land Act grants, and land grants to states. Of this 3%, approximately 1.5% is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the other 1.5% is owned by the State or private individuals or corporations. Many of the routes that cross private land are part of the larger network of routes on the INF and adjacent public lands. Where the Forest Service holds a right-of-way across private property providing access to the National Forest, these routes are NFS roads or trails, and can be considered for designation as part of this process. Unauthorized routes will not be considered for designation unless legal public access has been granted by the landowner. Many private landowners, such as LADWP, allow recreational use of their lands, including use by OHVs. However, the Inyo National Forest does not have easements for the majority of forest roads (both system and unauthorized) that cross private parcels. Consequently, the landowner can

Authorized Uses and Lands – 537 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

block public access across their land. It is the policy of the Forest Service to acquire road and trail rights-of-way that are adequate for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System. The Forest Service may acquire rights-of-way from private landowners through negotiated purchase, exchange, donation, reciprocal arrangement, condemnation, or cooperative agreement. The communities of Lee Vining, Mono City, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Crowley Lake, Sunny Slopes, Starlite, Swall Meadows, Aspendell, and Habeaggers are wholly or partially surrounded by National Forest System lands. Much of the non-wilderness land adjacent to the Forest boundary is administered by other land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Sierra and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests.

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences

3.15.2.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Authorized Uses (Special Uses, Mining, and Grazing) The Travel Management Rule specifically allows for motor vehicle use off the designated transportation system where specifically authorized by a written authorization issued by the Forest Service. As such, holders of written authorizations (e.g., special use permit) may use routes that are otherwise not open for general public use and would not be affected by any of the alternatives. However, there may be an indirect effect of the action alternatives in that permit holders may have an increased responsibility for maintenance or protection of those routes not otherwise open to the general public. In some cases, permit holders may be using routes not authorized for public motorized use to access their permitted facilities. In cases where routes are not open for public use, permit holders may be responsible for maintaining routes and may need to install and maintain barriers or gates to restrict unauthorized public use. In all action alternatives, valid existing rights held by miners and others will be recognized (§ 212.55(d) of the final rule) as would rights to reasonable access under the Mining Laws. Where the use of motor vehicles may be reasonable and necessary to conduct authorized uses such as mining operations pursuant to the Mining Laws (including exploration), written authorization would be provided to provide motor vehicle access as needed as described in 36 CFR 228 Subpart A – Locatable Minerals. The prohibitions in 36 CFR 261.13 and the designations for motor vehicle use that will be shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) therefore do not preclude use of motorized vehicles where reasonable and necessary to conduct mineral exploration or operations pursuant to the Mining Laws. In summary, the designation of motor vehicle routes for public use as proposed in Alternatives 2 through 6 will not have any direct effects on authorized uses or activities. Alternative 1 would not add any unauthorized routes to the transportation system. Use of all existing unauthorized routes by the public and permit holders would continue unchanged. There would be no change in access for permitted uses under this alternative.

Authorized Uses and Lands – 538 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.15.2.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Lands There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on adjacent land ownership. This is based upon the following: • Many of the unauthorized routes on the INF terminate on or cross private property. In all of the alternatives, the Inyo National Forest is not proposing to add any unauthorized routes to the transportation system where they cross private property because easements have not been acquired for any of these routes. If a determination is made that an easement across private land may be necessary to allow public access to National Forest System lands, and the private landowner is willing to grant an easement across the property, site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted before the route is added to the NFTS. • Conversely, none of the alternatives are expected to adversely affect private landowners’ access to their property. As described in Chapter 2, the action alternatives would prohibit public motorized use on some or all of the unauthorized routes on the INF. Some of these routes are used by landowners to access their property. If such a route is closed to public motorized use, the property owner could apply for a special use authorization from the Forest Service to use and maintain the route to access their property. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted prior to the issuance of any special use authorization. Use of all unauthorized routes would continue unchanged under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1). • County-maintained roads provide access to the communities of Lee Vining, Mono City, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Crowley Lake, Sunny Slopes, Starlite, Swall Meadows, Aspendell, and Habeaggers. These county-maintained roads are not part of this analysis, and therefore there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to access on these communities for all alternatives. • There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on adjacent public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management because of the similar multiple use missions of the two agencies, and the fact that existing system roads provide the primary access to these public lands.

Authorized Uses and Lands – 539

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Authorized Uses and Lands – 540 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers

3.16.1 Introduction This section of the Motorized Travel Management environmental analysis compares the effects of the six alternative transportation systems on eligible and designated wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo National Forest.

3.16.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers includes:

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 identifies and protects free-flowing river corridors that possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values. Outstandingly remarkable values are defined as unique, rare, or exemplary features that are significant at a comparative regional or national scale. Section 3 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, requires that three distinct actions be taken for designated wild and scenic rivers: • Establish detailed corridor boundaries to include an average of not more than 320 acres per mile on both sides of the river. • Determine the classifications applicable to each segment of the river. Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies and defines three classification categories for eligible rivers: o Wild rivers – Free of impoundment, essentially primitive with little or no evidence of human activities. o Scenic rivers – Free of impoundment. Largely primitive and undeveloped with no substantial evidence of human activity. o Recreational rivers – Some existing impoundment or diversion. Some development, with substantial evidence of human activity. • Prepare a management plan to address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of the Act. The Forest completed the Comprehensive Management Plan for the North and South Forks of the Kern River, described below, in 1994. Management plans have not yet been prepared for the Owens River Headwaters and Cottonwood Creek, which were added to the wild and scenic river system in March, 2009.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 80 – Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. This chapter of the handbook provides direction for the identification, assessment, and review of rivers for wild and scenic river study. It also provides management guidelines for river segments found to be eligible or suitable—but not yet designated—for wild and scenic river status. Section 82.5 states that

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 541 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Responsible Officials may authorize site-specific projects and activities on NFS lands within eligible or suitable river corridors only where the project and activities are consistent with all of the following: 1. The free-flowing character of the identified river is not modified by the construction or development of stream impoundments, diversions, or other water resources projects. 2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river are protected. 3. For all legislatively mandated study rivers, classification must be maintained as inventoried until the study report is received by Congress and for the protection period specified in the act, even if the study report recommends managing the river at a less restrictive class (such as from wild to scenic or scenic to recreational). 4. For all Forest Service identified study rivers, classification must be maintained as inventoried unless a suitability study (decision) is completed that recommends management at a less restrictive classification (such as from wild to scenic or scenic to recreational).

The assessment of a river identified as having potential for wild and scenic river designation follows a three-step process: • Determination of eligibility, • Potential classification (wild, scenic, or recreational), and • Determination of suitability. Eligibility determinations and potential classifications have been completed for several streams on the Forest, as described in the Affected Environment section below.

Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; 1988). The LRMP applies Management Prescription #8 to river segments recommended or designated as wild and scenic rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. This prescription applies to segments of the North and South Forks of the Kern, the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin, Deadman Creek, Glass Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. It does not apply to eligible river segments. Management direction for Prescription #8 is found on pages 126-127 of the LRMP.

Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the North and South Forks of the Kern Wild and Scenic River (LRMP Amendment #4) (1994). On November 24, 1987, Public Law 100-174 placed portions of the North and South Forks of the Kern into the National Wild and Scenic River System. The CMP provides direction for managing all national forest lands within the designated Kern River corridor. It provides more specific management direction to provide for the protection of the river values. Applicable management direction includes: • Within wild segments of the river outside of wilderness, motorized uses are prohibited unless authorized for emergency or safety purposes. Recreational activities are to be compatible with Primitive through Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 542 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Within the scenic segment, OHV use and trails are to be planned and managed in accordance with the Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan for the INF. Recreational activities are to be compatible with Primitive through Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classes. • For recreation segments, trail management objectives will emphasize foot travel, equestrian, and mechanized modes of travel over motorized use. Motorized use will continue to be allowed within specific locations and on designated trails. Recreational activities are to be compatible with Primitive through Rural ROS classes (CMP, pp. 24-36; 38-39).

3.16.3 Affected Environment There are three designated wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo National Forest: the Kern (P.L. 100-174, November 24, 1987), Owens River Headwaters (includes parts of Deadman and Glass Creeks; P.L. 111-11, March 30, 2009), and Cottonwood Creek (P.L. 111-11, March 30, 2009). Segments of the Middle Fork San Joaquin were recommended for wild and scenic river status in the Sierra National Forest Plan (1991). Since the major part of the river, including part of the Middle Fork, lies on the Sierra National Forest, the Sierra National Forest has the lead in conducting assessments and making recommendations. Although the river has not yet been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System, the portion on the Inyo National Forest was assigned to Management Prescription #8 (Wild and Scenic Rivers) by the Forest Plan and is being managed by the Inyo National Forest to maintain its unique values. The following table displays the classifications for each wild and scenic river segment, as well as the miles of existing unauthorized routes and system roads. All of these river segments are managed according to LRMP Prescription #8 – Wild and Scenic Rivers. As shown, there are no unauthorized routes within the corridors for Cottonwood Creek and Middle Fork San Joaquin; these two rivers will not be considered further in this analysis.

Table 3-228: Existing Conditions for Designated and Recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Inyo National Forest River Name Classification Length of Area of Total Total System Corridor a Corridor Unauthorized Routes (mi) (Miles) (Acres) Routes (mi) Recreational 0 0 0 0 Cottonwood Creek Scenic 0 0 0 0 Wild 17.8 5,421 0 0.1 Recreational 4.4 1,352 0 1.59 Middle Fork San Joaquin Scenic 2.0 621 0 0 Wild 12.5 4,022 0 0 Recreational 6.2 1,800 11.10 5.34 Owens River Headwaters Scenic 6.5 1,945 9.50 3.06 Wild 5.5 1,735 0 0 Recreational 1.6 258 0.50 1.58 South Fork Kern River Scenic 6.4 1,795 0.08 6.31 Wild 37.7 9,236* 0 0 a Includes lands managed by the Inyo National Forest. Corridor lengths for Cottonwood Creek and Owens River Headwaters (designated March 2009) are based on preliminary data provided by Region 5 GIS Program. Final GIS data are not yet available on the national wild and scenic river website (www.rivers.gov).

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 543

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Of the 21.2 miles of unauthorized routes in designated wild, scenic, or recreational river corridors, the vast majority (20.6 mi) are within the corridor for the Owens River Headwaters. Less than 0.6 miles of unauthorized routes are located within the designated Kern River corridor. This difference reflects the different recreational uses of each river corridor. That is, the majority of the Kern River corridor is within designated wilderness (Golden Trout Wilderness) and receives less motorized recreational use than the Owens River Headwaters, which is located near the popular recreation hubs of June Lake and Mammoth Lakes. From 1989 to 1991, the Forest Service completed eligibility studies of several creeks on National Forest and adjacent private land. For those river segments found to be eligible, the team also specified potential classification as either wild, scenic, or recreational. The following table summarizes the results of the eligibility studies.

Table 3-229: Eligible River Segments on the Inyo National Forest River Date of Location Recommended Outstandingly Eligibility (Township & Classification Remarkable Value(s) Review Range) Big Pine Creek (headwaters Wilderness, Recreation, 8/10/90 T9S, R32E N/A to private land) Fish/Wildlife Convict Creek 3/22/91 T4S, R28E Wild Scenic, Geologic Segment 1 - Scenic, Fish/Wildlife Scenic Segment 2 - Cottonwood Creek (Mt. T17S, R35E Recreation 3/22/91 Recreational Whitney Ranger District) and R36E Segment 3 - Wild Historic Segment 4 - Recreation Recreational T5S, R34E, Cottonwood Creek (White a 3/22/91 R35E, and Scenic Fish/Wildlife, Ecologic Mountain Ranger District) R36E T17S and Scenic, Recreation, Golden Trout Creek 3/22/91 T18S, R33E Wild Geologic and R34E Hot Creek (from State of Scenic, Recreation, California fish hatchery to FS 8/10/90 N/A Geologic, Fish/Wildlife 2S07) Scenic, Recreation, Laurel Creek 3/22/91 T4S, R28E Scenic Geologic, Fish/Wildlife Segment 1 - Wild Scenic Lee Vining Creek T1N, R24E and 3/22/91 (headwaters) R25E Segment 2 - Scenic, Geologic, Recreational Historic Segment 1 - Wild Scenic, Recreation T15S, R34E Lone Pine Creek 3/22/91 Segment 2 - and R35E Scenic, Recreation Recreational Lower Lee Vining Creek T1N, R25E and Scenic, Recreation, (powerhouse to LADWP 8/10/90 Recreational R26E Geology, Fish/Wildlife diversion) T5S and T4S, McGee Creek 3/22/91 R28E and Wild Scenic, Geologic R29E

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 544 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

River Date of Location Recommended Outstandingly Eligibility (Township & Classification Remarkable Value(s) Review Range) Scenic, Geologic, Segment 1 - Wild Vegetation T2N, R24E and Mill Creek 3/22/91 Segment 2 - Scenic, Geologic, R25E Scenic Historic, Vegetation Segment 3 - Scenic, Historic Recreational Rock Creek (headwaters to Wilderness, Scenic, 8/10/90 N/A FS boundary) Recreation, Fish/Wildlife Segment 1 - Wild Scenic, Minerals T9S and T8S, South Fork Bishop Creek 3/22/91 Segment 2- R31E Scenic, Minerals Recreational Scenic, Geologic, Segment 1 - Wild Historic South Fork of Mill Creek 3/22/91 T2N, R25E Segment 2 - Scenic, Geologic, Scenic Historic Segment 1 - Scenic, Geologic, Upper Owens River (Glass T3S, R27E, Scenic Fish/Wildlife, Vegetation Creek and private segments, 3/22/91 Sec. 5; a Segment 2 - excluding Deadman) T2S, R28E Recreation Recreational Scenic, Geology, Walker Creek 3/22/91 T1S, R25E Wild Historic, Cultural, Vegetation a In March 2009, portions of Cottonwood Creek, Deadman Creek, and Glass Creek were designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System (P.L. 111-11).

Suitability studies to determine which rivers to recommend to Congress as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System have not been completed for the eligible river segments. The creeks listed in the table above are to be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values until such studies are completed (although they were not assigned to Prescription #8 in the LRMP). In March 2009, however, parts of Deadman Creek, Glass Creek, and Cottonwood Creek (White Mountain Ranger District) were designated by Congress as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. Management guidelines for eligible rivers are listed in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82.51. The guidelines specify the types of projects and activities that can be authorized within eligible wild, scenic, and recreational river segments. Of those, guidelines related to development of the transportation system (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 82.51(4)) and motorized travel (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 82.51(7)) are applicable to the actions proposed as part of the Travel Management Project.

3.16.4 Environmental Consequences The alternatives have been analyzed for their potential to affect each eligible or designated river’s 1) free-flowing character, 2) outstandingly remarkable values, and 3) classification (wild, scenic, recreational).

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 545

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

3.16.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers

Effects of Prohibiting Cross-Country Travel Alternative 1 would not implement a permanent forestwide prohibition on cross-country travel. Under this alternative, the temporary Forest Order currently in place prohibits the possession or use of a motorized vehicle off National Forest System roads, except for the unauthorized routes and Poleta open OHV area shown on the maps attached to the Order. The temporary Order will expire in June 2010; no permanent Forest Order prohibiting cross-country travel will be in place after that time. Although it is currently prohibited for drivers to operate vehicles off NFTS roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15(h)), allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate using this prohibition. As a result, there is a higher potential for the creation of new unauthorized routes under Alternative 1, both forestwide and within designated river corridors. In contrast, the action alternatives would implement a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel (including travel on any routes not added to the NFTS) forestwide, including the 17,000 acres within the Kern River and Owens River Headwaters corridors. This should result in a positive effect on river values (especially Scenic values) because new unauthorized routes would not be created and existing routes not added to the NFTS would gradually revegetate.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS Kern River. The designated Kern River corridor will not be directly or indirectly affected by any of the action alternatives because none of the existing unauthorized routes is proposed for addition to the NFTS.

Table 3-230: Classification Categories and Existing Unauthorized Routes in the Kern River Designated Wild and Scenic River Corridor River Name Classification Length of Area of Corridor Total Unauthorized Corridor on INF (Acres) Routes (mi) (Miles) Recreational 1.6 258 0.50 South Fork Kern River Scenic 6.4 1,795 0.08 Wild 37.7 9,236 0

Owens River Headwaters. The actions proposed by the alternatives will not affect the free- flowing character of the Owens River Headwaters. The action of adding existing routes to the NFTS as low standard roads or motorized trails will not involve the construction of dams, diversions, or any other structure below the high water line of any stream channel that could impound water or reduce water quality. Proposed mitigations to improve drainage on specific routes or stabilize meadows (Appendix A and Section 3.7.4.2) would occur outside of the stream channel and would have a beneficial effect on meadow vegetation and water quality by reducing loss of vegetation outside of the route tread and the potential for localized sediment input into stream channels. No mitigations to harden stream crossings are proposed within designated river corridors.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 546 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Table 3-231: Classification Categories and Existing Unauthorized Routes in the Owens River Headwaters Designated Wild and Scenic River Corridor River Name Classification Length of Area of Corridor Total Unauthorized Corridor a (Miles) (Acres) Routes (mi) Recreational 6.2 1,800 11.10 Owens River Headwaters Scenic 6.5 1,945 9.50 Wild 5.5 1,735 0 a Corridor lengths for Owens River Headwaters (designated March 2009) are based on preliminary data provided by Region 5 GIS Program. Final GIS data are not yet available on the national wild and scenic river website (www.rivers.gov).

Within the recreational segment of the Owens River Headwaters, there are a total of 11.1 miles of unauthorized routes (Alternative 1). Of these, Alternative 3 would add 9.7 miles to the NFTS, slightly more than Alternatives 6 (9.6 mi) and 2 (9.5 mi). Alternative 4 would add 5 miles, and Alternative 5 would not add any of the routes to the NFTS. Within the scenic segment, Alternatives 2 and 3 would add 7.1 miles of the existing 9.6 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, slightly more than Alternative 6 (6.8 mi). Alternative 4 would add 4.3 miles while Alternative 5 would not add any of the routes to the NFTS. Motorized travel may be permitted, prohibited, or restricted as needed within recreational and scenic river corridors to protect the river values (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 82.51(7)).

Table 3-232: Miles of Routes Available for Public Motorized Use in the Owens River Headwaters Designated Wild and Scenic River, by Alternative Alternative

1a 2 3 4 5 6 Recreational 11.6 9.5 9.7 5.0 0 9.6 Classification Scenic 9.6 7.1 7.1 4.3 0 6.8 Wild 0 0 0 0 0 0 aAll existing unauthorized routes would be available for use in Alternative 1, but would not be added to the NFTS.

River values within scenic and recreational segments of the Owens River Headwaters would not be adversely affected by the addition of routes to the NFTS as proposed by any of the action alternatives, or the continued use of existing routes as proposed by Alternative 1. This is because: • The routes enhance public access to the rivers’ recreational values, including fishing (Fish/Wildlife value) and unique geologic and historic features. Recreational values for the Owens River Headwaters could be adversely affected by Alternative 5, which would close all unauthorized routes to motorized use. However, these effects are expected to be minor because public access by non-motorized means would still be allowed. • Scenic values are maintained. Routes proposed for addition to the NFTS in the action alternatives meet the minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations assigned for their individual viewsheds (Visual Resources analysis, Section 3.4). The proposed additions are either not visible or the additions are visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. The action alternatives meet the route-specific requirement for compliance with Partial Retention and Retention VQOs as specified by Prescription #8 (p. 129). • Vegetation values are protected. Routes with insufficient drainage and routes causing impacts to riparian or meadow vegetation are proposed for mitigation to reduce or eliminate loss of vegetation caused by erosion or tread widening.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 547

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Proposed mitigations to improve drainage on specific routes or stabilize meadows (Appendix A and Wild and Scenic River Analysis spreadsheet (7/26/09), project record) would occur outside of the stream channel and would have a direct beneficial effect on riparian vegetation and fish habitat by reducing loss of vegetation outside of the route tread and the potential for localized sediment input into stream channels.

Because there are no unauthorized routes within the wild segments of the Owens River Headwaters, none of the alternatives would directly or indirectly affect wild river values.

3.16.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Effects of Prohibiting Cross-Country Travel Alternative 1 would not implement a permanent forestwide prohibition on cross-country travel. Under this alternative, the temporary Forest Order currently in place prohibits the possession or use of a motorized vehicle off National Forest System roads, except for the unauthorized routes and Poleta open OHV area shown on the maps attached to the Order. The temporary Order will expire in June 2010; no permanent Forest Order prohibiting cross-country travel will be in place after that time. Although it is currently prohibited for drivers to operate vehicles off NFTS roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15(h)), allegations of resource damage are difficult to substantiate using this prohibition. As a result, there is a higher potential for the creation of new unauthorized routes under Alternative 1, both forestwide and within designated river corridors. In contrast, the action alternatives would implement a permanent prohibition on cross-country travel (including travel on any routes not added to the NFTS) forestwide, including eligible river corridors. This would result in a positive effect on river values (especially Scenic values) because new unauthorized routes would not be created and existing routes not added to the NFTS would gradually revegetate.

Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS The actions proposed by the alternatives will not affect the free-flowing character of any of the eligible rivers. The action of adding existing routes to the NFTS as low standard roads or motorized trails will not involve the construction of dams, diversions, or any other structure below the high water line of any stream channel, which could impound water or reduce water quality. Proposed mitigations to stabilize stream crossings on specific routes (Appendix A and Section 3.7.4.2) would have a direct beneficial effect on water quality by reducing localized sediment input into stream channels. Similarly, none of the alternatives is expected to adversely affect the “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other values identified for the eligible river segments. According to the management guidelines for eligible river segments classified as wild, motorized travel on land may be permitted, but is generally not compatible with this classification. The presence of a few existing roads leading to the boundary of the river corridor and limited motorized uses that are compatible with identified values may be allowed (FSH 1909.12,

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 548 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Ch. 82.51(4)). Within scenic or recreational corridors, motorized travel may be permitted, prohibited, or restricted as needed to protect the river values (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 82.51(7)). The majority of the river corridors assigned to the wild classification are not currently accessible by motor vehicles (i.e., located within designated wilderness) and would not be directly or indirectly affected by the alternatives. For the eligible wild, scenic, and recreational river segments outside of designated wilderness, existing routes facilitate public access to the rivers’ recreational values, including fishing (Fish/Wildlife value), and unique geologic and historic features (Eligibility Report, 3/22/91). Scenic values would not be affected by proposed route additions, as those routes proposed in the action alternatives meet the minimum acceptable thresholds for landscape alterations assigned for their individual viewsheds (Visual Resources analysis, Section 3.4). For those reasons, adding routes to the NFTS within eligible wild, scenic, and recreational river corridors is considered to be compatible with each river’s unique values. Recreational values within eligible scenic or recreational corridors could be adversely affected by Alternative 5, which would close all unauthorized routes to motorized use. However, these effects are expectedly to be minor because public access by non- motorized means and any existing system roads would still be allowed.

3.16.4.3 Cumulative Effects Because there are no adverse direct or indirect effects on river values, cumulative effects are not expected under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Alternative 5 would result in minor adverse effects on recreational river values (effects on all other values are expected to be beneficial). When existing system roads are considered, cumulative effects on recreational values under Alternative 5 are expected to be negligible. Existing system roads provide primary public access to or near those river corridors accessible by motor vehicles (whereas many unauthorized routes facilitate dispersal of visitors). As a result, public access to enjoy the unique recreational values provided by scenic and recreational river corridors would be maintained. Miles of system roads and trails within designated wild, scenic, and recreational river corridors are shown in the table below.

Table 3-233: Cumulative Designated Transportation System within Designated Wild and Scenic River Corridors, by Alternative Cumulative Designated Transportation System (Existing system plus new route additions) River Name Classification Existing Existing System Unauthorized Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Routes Routes (mi) (mi) Recreational 5.34 11.10 14.84 15.0 10.34 5.34 14.94 Owens River Headwaters Scenic 3.06 9.50 10.16 10.16 7.36 3.06 9.86 Wild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recreational 1.58 0.50 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 South Fork Kern River Scenic 6.31 0.08 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 Wild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 21.2 33.2 33.36 25.9 16.6 33.0

The majority of the river corridors assigned to the wild classification are located within designated wilderness. They are not accessible by motor vehicles (either system roads or

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 549

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

unauthorized routes) and would not be affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by the alternatives. None of the activities listed on the inventory of Present and Foreseeable Future Actions (Appendix D) are expected to add cumulatively to the effects of the alternatives because projects and activities within eligible or designated suitable river corridor will be designed to avoid modification of the river’s free-flowing character and to protect the outstandingly remarkable values.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – 550 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

Letters and news releases announcing the availability of this EIS have been sent to numerous individuals, federal agencies, state and local governments, organizations, and media outlets. This EIS is being primarily distributed online (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/ohvroute5.shtml) and on compact disc or hard copy upon request. The complete mailing list is on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Bishop, CA. This EIS has been distributed to federal agencies as instructed on the current EIS distribution list (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/includes/distlist.pdf). Copies of the EIS have also been provided to the following federally recognized and unacknowledged American Indian Tribes: • Walker Lake Paiute Tribe of Shurz, NV • Bridgeport Indian Colony of Bridgeport, CA • Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Benton, CA • Bishop Paiute Tribe, Bishop, CA • Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley, Big Pine, CA • Fort Independence Tribe, Independence, CA • Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Lone Pine, CA • Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Death Valley, CA • Mono Lake Kutzedikaa, Mono Lake, CA • Kern Valley Indian Community of Weldon, CA

4.2 List of Preparers

The following is a list of primary contributors to this EIS. Numerous other people have contributed in many ways to this document. Their help is greatly appreciated. • Recreation Resources: Jonathan Cook-Fisher, Recreation Specialist (M.S. Resource Management, 7 years) • Visuals and Authorized Uses: Lynn Oliver, Minerals and Geology Program Manager (Minerals, Geology, Landscape Architecture, 16 years) • Cultural Resources: Sarah Johnston, Heritage Resources Program Manager (M.A.) • Cultural Resources: Michael Hilton, Assistant Heritage Resource Program Manager (Ph.D. Archaeology, 15 years) • Soils, Water Resources, and Air Quality: Todd Ellsworth, Watershed Program Manager (B.S. Soil and Water Science, 21 years) • Rare Plants and Noxious Weeds: Kathleen Nelson, Forest Botanist (Renewable Natural Resources, Botany and Wildlife emphasis, 25 years) • Terrestrial Biota: Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist (B.S. Biology, 24 years)

Chapter 4 – 551 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

• Aquatic Biota: Lisa Sims, Forest Fisheries Biologist (Conservation Biology, Botany, and Fisheries emphasis, 20 years) • Inventoried Roadless Areas: Ben Lara, Recreation Planner (M.S. Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, 6 years) • Transportation Facilities: Olin Beall, Forest Engineer (Forest Engineering, 21 years) • Authorized Uses and Lands: Sheila Irons, Lands and Special Uses (B.A. Biology, Environmental Conservation emphasis, 22 years) • Socioeconomics and Document Format: Megan Mullowney, Editorial Assistant (B.A. History, background in Visitor Use and Park Administration, 7 years) • Project Co-Leader: Marty Hornick, Forest Trails Coordinator (Trails Construction and Maintenance, 29 years) • Project Co-Leader: Susan Joyce, Forest Planner (M.S. Forestry, Planning emphasis, 7 years) • GIS Analysis and Maps: o Michèle Slaton, Assistant GIS Coordinator o Kimberly Forkner, Cartographic Technician o Dan Yarborough, GIS Coordinator o Bob Elston, GIS Contractor o Scott Hatch, Cartographic Technician

Chapter 4 – 552 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Glossary of Acronyms

Introduction

The following is a list of terms and acronyms frequently referenced in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Terms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AML Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) AMS Aquatic Management Strategy APE Area of Potential Effect AQRV Air Quality Related Values ATV All-terrain vehicle BA Biological Assessment BAER Burned Area Emergency Response BE Biological Evaluation BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CalIPC California Invasive Plant Council CAR Critical Aquatic Refuge CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CRA Concentrated Recreation Area CESA Cumulative Effects Analysis Area CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHP California Highway Patrol CIRA Citizen-inventoried Roadless Area CMP Comprehensive Management Plan CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CVC California Vehicle Code CWC California Wilderness Coalition CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationship CDFG California Department of Fish and Game EA Environmental Assessment

Glossary – 553 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

EHR Erosion Hazard Rating EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres ESA Endangered Species Act FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act FRTA Forest Roads and Trails Act FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FSS Forest Service Sensitive (species) GBUAPCD Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District GIS Geographic Information Systems HUC Hydrologic Unit Code INF Inyo National Forest IRA Inventoried Roadless Areas LCT Lahontan Cutthroat Trout LRMP Long Range Management Plan MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship MIS Management Indicator Species MMU Motorized Mixed Use MOI Memorandum of Intent MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map MYLF Mountain yellow-legged frog NAAQs National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NFTS National Forest Transportation System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOx Nitrogen Oxide NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring survey OHV Off-highway vehicle

Glossary – 554 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

ORTCA Off-road Travel Concern Areas OSV Over-the-Snow Vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement PAC Protected Activity Center PCE Primary Constituent Element PFC Proper Functioning Condition PFFA Present or Foreseeable Future Actions PM Particulate Matter RACR Roadless Area Conservation Rule RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation RCA Riparian Conservation Areas RCO Riparian Conservation Objectives RMO Road Management Objective RMP Resource Management Plan RNA Research Natural Areas ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SJUAPCD San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District SNEP Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment SRI Soil Resource Inventory SUV Sport Utility Vehicle TEPS Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive (species) TES Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (species) TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMECA Travel Management Economic Contribution Application TMO Trail Management Objective USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VQO Visual Quality Objective WUI Wildland Urban Interface

Glossary – 555

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Glossary – 556 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

A 262, 263, 267, 268, 269, 271, Greater sage-grouse, 401, 276, 286, 288, 290, 300, 301, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408 Air quality, 473, 474, 475, 302, 306, 310, 319, 322, 323, 476, 477, 478, 480 335, 356, 413, 414, 423, 428, American marten, 45, 324, H 429, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 325, 326, 332, 333, 339, 347, Habitat guilds, 253, 256, 260, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 444, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354 262 451, 454, 458, 460, 462, 468, Aquatic macroinvertebrates, Historic property, 148, 150, 477, 530, 531, 546, 548 418, 420, 426, 428, 441, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157 Cultural resource sites, 33, At-risk historic properties, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 150 I 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 161,

Inventoried Roadless Area, B 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170 14, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 46, Bald eagle, 323, 328, 330, 483, 487, 491, 492 333, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, D 380 L Dispersed recreation Big Pine Creek, 544 opportunities, 7, 20, 36, 68, Labor income, 65, 66, 69, 70,

72, 75 C 84, 91, 97, 98, 99, 114, 117 Laurel Creek, 544 Carnivores, 323, 325, 326, E Lee Vining Creek, 544 334, 349, 355 Lone Pine Creek, 544 Enforcement, 29, 31, 52, 54, Cavity dependent species, 78, 79, 92, 102, 162, 335, 336, 325, 395, 398 M 431, 525 Citizen-inventoried Roadless Management indicator Areas, 40 species, 321, 324, 325, 331, Class I Airsheds, 476, 477, F 352, 355, 386, 389, 400, 407, 478, 479 Fens, 45, 203, 217, 245, 247, 412, 418, 426, 428, 441 Climate change, 50, 261, 302, 254, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, Mass Wasting, 180, 181, 187, 481 263, 265, 266, 268, 269, 271, 217 Conflicts, 24, 26, 79, 83, 84, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, Meadows, 38, 127, 159, 182, 86, 92, 101, 191, 206, 248, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 183, 185, 194, 195, 201, 202, 322, 323, 356, 413, 414 286, 288, 289, 290 207, 208, 212, 213, 216, 217, Convict Creek, 544 Fugitive dust, 266, 334, 344, 218, 219, 222, 226, 228, 235, Cottonwood Creek, 541, 542, 350, 358, 365, 404, 406, 475, 237, 241, 243, 254, 259, 260, 543, 544, 545 478, 479, 480 261, 266, 268, 322, 330, 335, Cross-country travel, 6, 7, 337, 338, 349, 351, 356, 359, 14, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 44, 52, G 360, 361, 367, 381, 383, 384, 53, 54, 83, 86, 87, 89, 92, 94, Geomorphology, 175 405, 417, 419, 427, 429, 430, 102, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115, Gilman’s goldenbush, 249, 431, 432, 435, 437, 440, 442, 116, 117, 128, 130, 132, 133, 255, 256, 268, 270, 272, 274, 446, 449, 452, 455, 459, 462, 134, 142, 158, 162, 167, 170, 276, 277, 287, 288 465, 521 171, 172, 180, 183, 184, 187, Glass Creek, 542, 545 Middle Fork San Joaquin, 188, 198, 200, 211, 214, 215, Golden Trout Creek, 544 543 216, 217, 218, 219, 236, 260,

Index – 557 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Mill Creek, 545 Northern goshawk, 45, 322, Rock Creek, 545 Mitigations, 1, 30, 31, 32, 33, 324, 326, 330, 336, 337, 339, 103, 126, 135, 136, 137, 139, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, S 140, 141, 159, 160, 161, 168, 346, 347, 351 Sagebrush obligates, 325, 170, 188, 192, 193, 195, 218, Noxious weeds, 33, 61, 66, 77, 326, 401 220, 221, 223, 227, 228, 230, 247, 266, 297, 298, 300, 302, Sensitive species, 32, 40, 205, 234, 237, 275, 276, 278, 279, 319 246, 247, 249, 252, 256, 260, 280, 290, 313, 318, 319, 336, 263, 266, 278, 283, 284, 286, 337, 413, 433, 434, 459, 468, O 287, 288, 290, 321, 323, 324, 479, 532, 533 Off-road Travel Concern 325, 332, 333, 339, 347, 353, Monitoring, 14, 33, 84, 87, Areas, 126, 262, 303 360, 375, 380, 381, 385, 390, 90, 102, 128, 170, 196, 196, Owens River Headwaters 394, 397, 400, 401, 408, 413, 238, 278, 279, 288, 289, 312, 541, 543, 544, 546, 547, 548, 417 328, 336, 340, 343, 352, 353, 549 Sierra Nevada bighorn 355, 370, 381, 386, 389, 390, Owens tui chub, 420, 432, sheep, 45, 324, 326, 361, 362, 400, 407, 412, 466, 487, 488 433, 434, 435, 464, 466, 469 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, Mono Lake lupine, 249, 255, Ozone, 476, 477, 479, 480 414 256, 268, 270, 272, 274, 276, Sierra Nevada red fox, 324, 277, 279, 287, 288 P 326, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, Mono milkvetch, 249, 255, 360 256, 268, 270, 272, 274, 276, Paiute cutthroat trout, 418, Significant issues, 13, 14, 17, 277, 287, 288 419, 438, 439, 468 79, 88 Mono phacelia, 250, 253, 255, Particulate matter, 474, 475, Soil productivity, 176, 180, 256, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 477, 480 183, 184, 185, 193, 194, 195, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, Purpose and need, 1, 2, 6, 7, 196, 197, 198, 374 287, 288, 289 13, 14, 17, 35 South Fork Bishop Creek, Motorized mixed use, 28, 46, 545 519, 526, 527, 528, 529, 531 R South Fork Kern River, 543, Motorized recreation Rare plants, 14, 30, 31, 33, 546, 549 opportunities, 9, 20, 36, 85, 191, 245, 246, 259, 261, 262, South Fork Mill Creek, 545 90, 94, 104, 114, 164, 170 263, 267, 272, 273, 275, 276, Special interest areas, 38 Mountain yellow-legged frog, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, Special status aquatic 419, 424, 429, 430, 431, 464, 286, 288, 289, 290, 299, 417 species, 21, 419, 425, 428 469 Recreation Opportunity Special uses, 9, 83, 106, 198, Mule deer, 323, 325, 326, Spectrum, 22, 23, 24, 27, 40, 236, 280, 314, 464 328, 337, 361, 369, 370, 371, 83, 106 Surface erosion, 175, 180, 372, 373, 374, 375, 413 Research Natural Areas, 38, 181, 182, 183, 215

39, 245, 335, 428 N Riparian Conservation U National Wild and Scenic Areas, 38, 39, 40, 176, 182, Ungulates, 325, 326, 334, 361 River System, 542, 543, 545 212, 223, 444, 445, 446, 448,

Northern flying squirrel, 325, 451, 458 326, 339, 353, 354, 355 Roadless characteristics, 46, 487, 495, 502, 517

Index – 558 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

V Visual Quality Objectives, 119, 120, 121, 122,

W Walker Creek, 545 Weed risk assessment, 297, 298, 301, 320 Wild and Scenic River Corridors, 549 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 541, 542 Willow flycatcher, 324, 326, 330, 375, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 392

Y Yellow warbler, 325, 326, 336, 375, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390

Index – 559 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Index – 560 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

References

The following references have been organized by section (e.g., Water Resources, Terrestrial Biota, etc.). As various references may be cited multiple times throughout the document, please refer to the individual citation within each section. For example, “USDA Forest Service 2007b,” cited in the Botanical Resources section may refer to a different document than the same citation in the Terrestrial Biota section.

Society, Culture, and the Economy Headwaters Economics. 2008. Economic Profiles System. www.headwaterseconomics.org Harris, Thomas R., Riggs, William W., and Zimmerman, John. 1999. Public Lands in the State of Nevada: An Overview. University Center for Economic Development, University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension. Inyo County. 2001. Inyo County General Plan Update. Mono County. 1997. Mono County General Plan. Stynes et al. 2006. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity. (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/spending_profiles_2006.pdf) U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 and 1990. State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov USDA Forest Service. 2003. National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) Project. Inyo National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2008. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results National Summary Report. (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum)

Recreation Resources USDA Forest Service. 1988. Environmental Impact Statement for the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 2003. National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) Project. Inyo National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United State and its Regions and States: An Update National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.

Visual Resources

CA Department of Transportation. 2008. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ scenic_highways. Friends of the Inyo. 2008. http:// www.friendsoftheinyo.org/routesurvey/. USDA Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 1, Agriculture Handbook Number 434. USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Agriculture Handbook Number 462. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook of Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701.

References – 561 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Vegetation map of the Inyo National Forest, completed by the Remote Sensing Lab (RSL) of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Region 5 - Inyo National Forest - National Visitor Use Monitoring Project. US Department of Transportation, FHA. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054.

Cultural Resources USDA Forest Service. 1988. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS: 2004 Field Season Preliminary Report. Report number R2004050401073a. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS: 2005 Field Season Preliminary Report. Report number R2004050401073b. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS: 2006 Field Season Preliminary Report. Report number R2004050401073c. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS: 2007 Field Season Preliminary Report. Report number R2004050401073d on file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Weed Eradication and Control on the Inyo National Forest: Environmental Assessment. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS: 2008 Field Season Preliminary Report. Report number R2004050401073e on file, Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office, Bishop, California. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Inyo National Forest and the Nevada Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Designating A National Forest Transportation System on Inyo National Forest Lands in Nevada. USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Heritage Resources Report for the Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel management Project (Nevada Portion). File No. R2009050401073a. Document on file with Heritage Resources Program, Supervisors Office, Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA.

References – 562 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Heritage Resources Report for the Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel management Project (California Portion). File No. R2009050401073b. Document on file with Heritage Resources Program, Supervisors Office, Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA.

Soil and Geologic Resources FAO, 1998. Watershed Management Field Guide. FAO Conservation Guide 13-5. 1998. Access from the Web on September 22,2008. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/T0099E/T0099e01.htm Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats edited by W.R. Meehan. Pages 297-323. Special Publication No. 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H.2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p. Harr, R.D. and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: a northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18(4):18-22. Lutrick, E. 2003. Inyo National Forest Best Management Practices Evaluation Report 1992-2002. On File at Supervisors Office Lutrick E. 2008. Inyo National Forest Best Management Practices Evaluation Report. 2007. On File at Supervisors Office. McCashion, J.D. and R. M. Rice. 1983. Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California: How much is avoidable? Journal of Forestry 81 (1): 23-26. Megahan, W.F.; Kidd, W.J. 1972. Effect of logging roads on sediment production ratesin the Idaho batholith. Res. Pap. INT-123. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. 1977. Megahan, W.F. 1977. Reducing erosional impacts of roads. In: Guidelines for Watershed Management. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. Rome. p 237-261. Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research, 20:1753–1761. USDA Forest Service 1994. Soil Survey, East Part, Inyo National Forest Area, California. USDA Forest Service 1995. Soil Survey of the Inyo National jForest, West Area California. USDA Forest Service, 1996. Soil Survey, Sequioa National Forest. USDA Forest Service, 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p. Zeedyk, W. 1996. Managing roads for wet meadow ecosystem recovery. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Report No. FHWA-FLP-96-016.

Water Resources Best, D. W. 1995. History of timber harvest in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. Pages C1-C7, in: Nolan, K.M., H.M. Kelsey and D.C. Marron, eds., Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, D.C. 11 pp. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2008. California Data Exchange. Retreived from website: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snowQuery on May 30, 2008.

References – 563 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Cedarholm, C.J., L. M. Reid, and E.O Salo. 1980. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road Sediment on Salmonid Populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. Contribution No. 543 College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle Washington. Coe, D.B.R. 2006. Graduate Thesis: Sediment Production and Delivery from Forest Roads in the Sierra Nevada, CA. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 106p. Dissmeyer, George E. 2000. Drinking water from forests and grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 p. Retreived from website: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs039/index.htm on May 29, 2008. Ellsworth, 2008. Personal Communication Foltz, R.B., 2006, Erosion from all terrain vehicle (ATV) trails on national forest lands: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2006 Annual International Meeting, Paper 068012, 10 p. Fulton, S. and B. West. 2002. Forestry Impacts on Water Quality. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats edited by W.R. Meehan. Pages 297-323. Special Publication No. 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Furniss, M.J., M.A. Love, and S.A. Flanagan. 1997. Diversion Potential at Road-stream Crossings. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. Publication 9777. USDA, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. 12p. Graves, S.R. and W.J. Elliot. Road erosion estimation equations derived using a WEPP database. In: Flug, Marshal; Watkins, David W., Jr; Frevert, Donald, Eds. Watershed Management and operations management 2000; proceedings; 2000 Une 20-24; Fort Collins, Co. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 9p. Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) 1997. Evaluation of the EIS Alternatives by the Science Interaction Team. Volumne II. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-406. Jemison, R. and D. Neary. 2000. Stream Channel Designs for Riparian and Wet Meadow Rangelands in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS– P–13. Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow response to clear-cutting and roads in small and larges basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, April 1996, pp 959-974. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). 2008. Current Eastern Sierra Precipitation Conditions as of May 27, 2008. Retreived from website: http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/snow/PrecipConditions/laprecip.htm on May 30, 2008. Lutrick, E. 2003. Inyo National Forest Best Management Practices Evaluation Report 1992-2002. On File at Supervisors Office Lutrick E. 2008. Inyo National Forest Best Management Practices Evaluation Report. 2007. On File at Supervisors Office.

References – 564 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region North and South Basins. KRIS, unknown date. Roads in the Battle Creek Watershed and Potential Linkage to Changes in Aquatic Habitat. Retrieved from website: Http:www.krisweb.com/battleck_bg/roads_battle.htm on December 18,2008 McGurk, Bruce J.; Fong, Darren R. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative effect of logging. Environmental Management 19: 609-621. Montgomery, D.R., 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1994, pp 1925-1932 Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (2008) Retrieved from website: http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/stdsw.htm on October 16,2008. Ruiz, L. 2005. Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels. USDA FS Technology and Development Program. 54p. Sidle, R.C., A.J. Pearce, and C.L. O’Loughlin. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water resource Monographs. Series II, Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. USDA Forest Service. 1988a. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA- Forest Service, Bishop, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality management for National Forest System lands in California – Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California. USDA Forest Service 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. U.S.D.A. - Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-046. January 2004 USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS). 2004. Rock: Clime Rocky Mountain Research Station Cimate Generator. Moscow, Idaho. Retreived from website: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/rc/rockclim.pl on May 29, 2008 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2006. 2006 CWA Section 303 (d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. Retreived from website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/approved/state_06_303d_reqtmdls.p df on June 18, 2008. Watterson, N. and J.A. Jones. 2006. Flood and debris flow interactions with roads promote the invasion of exotic plants along steep mountain streams, western Oregon. Geomorphology 78, 107 ¬ 123 Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A, and G.E Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 32: 1195-1207. West, Ben. Water Quality in the South. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p. Zeedyk, W. 1996. Managing roads for wet meadow ecosystem recovery. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Report No. FHWA-FLP-96-016.

Botanical Resources Bedford, BL and KS Godwin. 2003. Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands: Vol. 23, No 3, pp. 608-629. Bolling, John D. and Lawrence R. Walker. 2000. Plant and soil recovery along a series of abandoned desert roads: Journal of Arid Environments. V. 46, no. 11. pp. 1-24.

References – 565 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Brooks, Matthew L. 1995. Benefits of protective fencing to plant and rodent communities of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Environmental Management. V. 19. no. 1, pp. 65-74. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. RAREFIND database. Electronic database managed by the Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2008. Online inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp. Cooper, DJ and EC Wolf. 2005. Fens of the Sierra Nevada, California. Unpublished report for USDA FS Region 5. Davidson, Eric and Martha Fox. 1974. Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert vegetation and soil: Madrono. V. 22, no. 8, pp. 381-390. Frenkel, Robert E. 1970. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. University of California Publications in Geography. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. V. 20. 140 pp. Griggs, Gary B. and Barbara L. Walsh. 1981. The impact, control, and mitigation of off-road vehicle activity in Hungry Valley, California: Environmental Geology. V. 3, no. 4. pp. 229-243. Hickman, James C., editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles. CA. 1400 pp. Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, and R.M. Webb. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular disturbances on arid landscapes: Science. V. 212, no. 4497. pp. 915-917. Johnston, Frances M, and Stuart W. Johnston. 2004. Impacts of road disturbance on soil properties and on exotic plant occurrence in subalpine areas of the Australian Alps: Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research. V. 36, no. 2. pp. 201-207. Kassar, Chris. 2005. Motorized recreation at a crossroads: lessons from the past converge with management practices of the future, off-road vehicle use on public lands. Friends of the Inyo. Bishop, CA. 66 pp. Kay, Jeanne, and students. 1981. Evaluating environmental impacts of off-road vehicles: Journal of Geography. V. 80, no. 1, pp. 10-18. Lathrop, Earl W. 1983. The effect of vehicle use on desert vegetation. In: Webb, R.H., and Wilshire, H.G., eds. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles – Impacts and management in arid regions: New York, Springer-Verlag. Pp. 153-166. Munger, James C., Bruce R. Barnett, Stephen J. Novak and Aaron A. Ames. 2003. Impacts of off- highway motorized vehicle trails on the reptiles and vegetation of the Owyhee Front: Idaho, U.S. Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 03-3. 27 pp. Ouren, Douglas S., Christopher Haas, Cynthia P. Melcher, Susan C. Stewart, Phadrea D. Ponds, Natalie R. Sexton, Lucy Burris, Tammy Fancher, and Zachary H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353. 225 pp. Parendes, Laurie A., and Julia A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon: Conservation Biology. V. 14, no. 1, pp. 64-75.

References – 566 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Powell, B.E. 2001. Rare Plant Management on the National Forests and Grasslands in California. In: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California – 6th edition. California Native Plant Society Press. 386 pp. (direct link to article: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/usfs.php). Prose, D.V., S.K. Metzger, and H.G. Wilshire. 1987. Effects of substrate disturbance on secondary plant succession – Mojave Desert, California: Journal of Applied Ecology. V. 24, no. 1, pp. 305-313. Snyder, C.T., D.G. Frickel, R.F. Hadley, and R.F. Miller. 1976. Effects of off-road vehicle use on the hydrology and landscape of arid environments in central and southern California: U.S Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report USGS/WRI-76-99. 52 pp. Stanton, Alison E. and Bruce M. Pavlik. 2006. Surveys of known and potential occurrences of William’s combleaf (Polyctenium williamsiae Rollins) and an update on distribution and management. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Nevada Division of Forestry, and Bureau of Land Management Carson City Field Office. December 13, 2006. On file, Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA. 27 pp. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Conservation Assessment for Lupinus padre-crowleyi C.P. Smith, Father Crowley’s lupine. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 21 pp. plus Appendices. ------. 2007. Environmental Assessment for weed eradication and control on the Inyo National Forest. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 79 pp. ------. 2006. Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Plant List. USFS Region 5. Vallejo, CA. ------. 2006. Inyo National Forest Watch List. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA. ------. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-046. 72 pp. ------. 2001. Conservation Strategy for Mono Phacelia – Phacelia monoensis R. Halse. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. 23 pp. ------. 2001. Existing Vegetation Map for Inyo National Forest. Produced by: Remote Sensing Laboratory. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. McClellan, CA. ------. 1994. Dedeckera eurekensis Interim Species Management Guide. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. 20 pp. + appendices. ------. 1994. Draba monoensis Interim Species Management Guide. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. 7 pp. + appendices. ------. 1994. Erigeron multiceps Interim Species Management Guide. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. 9 pp. + appendices. ------. 1994. Inyo National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. ------. 1994. Potentilla morefieldii Interim Species Management Guide. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Bishop, CA: USFS. 7 pp. + appendices. ------. 1991. Management Direction for the Sensitive Plants on the Inyo National Forest. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 71pp. ------. 1988. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bishop, Ca: USFS. 317pp

References – 567 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

------. Various dates. Sensitive plant files. Inyo National Forest Supervisor's Office, Bishop, CA. USDA NRCS, 1999. Soil Taxonomy. ftp//ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Soil Taxonomy/tax.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Letter from USFWS to USFS, 2007. Bishop, CA. Webb, Robert H., Howard G. Wilshire, and Mary Ann Henry. 1983. Natural recovery of soils and vegetation following human disturbance. In: Webb, R.H., and Wilshire, H.G., eds. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles – Impacts and management in arid regions: New York, Springer-Verlag. Pp. 279-302. Wilshire, Howard G., G.B. Bodman, D. Brober, W.J. Kockelman, J. Major, H.E. Malde, C.T. Snyder, and R.C. Stebbins. 1977. Impacts and management of off-road vehicles. Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Policy. The Geological Society of America. Boulder, CO. 8 pp. Wilshire, Howard G., and J. K. Nakata. 1976. Off-road vehicle effects on California’s Mojave Desert: California Geology. June 1976. pp. 123-132. Wilshire, Howard G., J.K. Nakata, Susan Shipley, and Karen Prestegaard. 1978b. Impacts of vehicles on natural terrain at seven sites in the San Francisco Bay area: Environmental Geology. V. 2, no. 5, pp. 295-319. Wilshire, Howard G., Susan Shipley, and John K. Nakata. 1978a. Impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. V. 43, pp. 131-139.

Noxious Weeds Belcher, Joyce W. and Scott D. Wilson. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed- grass prairie. Journal of Range Management. V. 42, no. 2, pp. 172-175. Best, K.F., G.G. Bowes, A.G. Thomas, and M.G. Shaw. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 39. Euphorbia esula L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. No. 60. pp. 651-663. Bossard, Carla C., John M. Randall, and Marc C. Hoshovsky, eds. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England. 360 pp. California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2008. Noxious weed list. Available online. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/enycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm. California Invasive Plant Council. Online resource. Interactive database. Date unknown. http://www.cal-ipc.org D’Antonio, Carla M., Eric L. Berlow, and Karen L. Haubensak. 2004. Invasive exotic plant species in Sierra Nevada ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. In: Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium. D.D. Murphy and P.A. Stine, eds. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, in collaboration with the University of Nevada at Reno. Pp. 175 – 184. Dark, Shawna J. 2004. The biogeography of invasive alien plants in California: an application of GIS and spatial regression analysis. Diversity and Distributions. No. 10. pp. 1-9. Ferguson, Leslie, Celestine L. Duncan, and Kathleen Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry road maintenance and weed management. Tech. Rep. 0371-2811-MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 22 pp.

References – 568 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Frenkel, Robert E. 1970. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. University of California Publications in Geography. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. V. 20. 140 pp. Gelbard, Jonathan L. and Susan Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications. V. 13, no. 2, pp. 404- 415. Greensberg, Cathryn H., Stanley H. Crownover, and Doria R. Gordon. 1997. Roadside soils: a corridor for invasion of xeric scrub by nonindigenous plants. Natural Areas Journal. V. 17, no. 2, pp. 99-109. Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 pp. Jensen, Peter K. 1995. Effect of light environment during soil disturbance on germination and emergence pattern of weeds. Annals of Applied Biology. No. 127, pp. 561-571. Lonsdale, W.M., and A.M. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation. No. 69, pp. 277-283. Mack, Richard N., Daniel Simberloff, W. Mark Lonsdale, Harry Evans, Michael Clout, and Fakhri Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Issues in Ecology, Spring 2000, no. 5, 20 pp. Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2008. Noxious weed list. Available online. http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm Ouren, Douglas S., Christopher Haas, Cynthia P. Melcher, Susan C. Stewart, Phadrea D. Ponds, Natalie R. Sexton, Lucy Burris, Tammy Fancher, and Zachary H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353. 225 pp. Parendes, Laurie A., and Julia A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon: Conservation Biology. V. 14, no. 1, pp. 64-75. Pauchard, Anibal, and Paul B. Alaback. 2006. Edge type defines alien plant species invasions along Pinus contorta burned, highway and clearcut forest edges. Forest Ecology and Management. No. 223. pp. 327-335. Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor cars. Vegetatio no. 80. pp. 147-152. Sheley, Roger L. and Janet K. Petroff, eds. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 438 pp. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. Tyser, Robin W. and Christopher A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. V. 6, no. 2, June 1992. pp. 253-262. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for weed eradication and control on the Inyo National Forest. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 79 pp. ------. 2005. Integrated Weed Management Strategy, Inyo National Forest. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 19 pp. ------. 2004a. National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species management. FS-805. 17 pp.

References – 569 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

------. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-046. 72 pp. ------. 1999. Stemming the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy for Noxious and Nonnative Invasive Plant Management. Washington D.C. 31 pp. USDA Forest Service, FSM. Various dates. Forest Service Manual. Von der Lippe, Moritz and Ingo Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. V. 21, no. 4, pp. 986-996. Wilshire, Howard G., Susan Shipley, and John K. Nakata. 1978. Impacts of off-road vehicles on vegetation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. V. 43, pp. 131-139.

Terrestrial Biota Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366. Andrew J.M. and J. A. Mosher. 1982. Bald eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat in Maryland. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:382-390. Anthony, R.G.; and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1): 148-159. Anthony, R.G.; Steidl, R.J.; McGarigal, K. 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: 223–241. Banta, B.H., Mahrdt, C.R. and Beaman, K.R. 1996. Elgaria panamintina. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 629: 1-4. Beier, P., and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological applications. 7(2): 564-571. Bissonette, J.A., D.J. Harrison, C.D. Hargis, and T.G. Chapin. 1997. The influence of spatial scale and scale-sensitive properties on habitat selection by American marten. Pages 368–385 in J. A. Bissonette, editor.Wildlife and Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag,New York, NY, USA. Bissonette, J. A., R. J. Fredrickson, and B.J. Tucker. 1988. The effects of forest harvesting on marten and small mammals in western Newfoundland. Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Wildl. Div. and Corner Brook (Newf.) Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd. Utah Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Utah State Univ., Logan. 109pp. Bleich, V. C., Becky M. Pierce, Jennifer L. Hones, R. Terry Bowyer. 2006. Variance in survival of young mule deer in the Sierra Nevada, California. California Fish and Game 92(1):24-38. Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156. Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002. Oil and gas development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349. Brody, A.J., and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 5-10. Brothers, T.S. 1984. Historical vegetation change in the Owens River riparian woodland. Pp. 75-84 in R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. UC Press, Berkeley, CA.

References – 570 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, J.K.D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human activity on bald eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. J. of Wildl. Manage. 55:282-290. Bull, E.L.; Holthausen, R.S. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57: 335–345. Bull, Evelyn L.; Parks, Catherine G.; Torgersen, Torolf R. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Burnett, R. D., and D. L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: Results from the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997-2002). PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 1069. 36pp. Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen National Forest 2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 1242. 96pp. Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283- 96 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. NY. Buskirk, S.W.; and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Marten. In The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-254. Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. In: Zabel, C.J.; Anthony, R.G., editors. Mammalian community dynamics: Management and conservation in the coniferous forests of western North America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 207-249. Canfield, J.E.; Lyon, L.J.; Hillis, J.M.; Thompson, M.J. 1999. Ungulates. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coords. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 6.1–6.25. Carey, A.B. 1995. Sciurids in Pacific Northwest managed and old-growth forests. Ecological Applications. 5: 648–661. Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological Applications. 10(1): 248–257. Carey, A.B.; Colgan, W., III; Trappe, J.M.; Molina, R. 2002. Effects of forest management on truffle abundance and squirrel diets. Northwest Science. 76(2): 148–157. Carey, A.B.; Wilson, T.M.; Maguire, C.C.; Biswell, B.L. 1997. Dens of northern flying squirrels in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3): 684–699. Cassier, E.F.; Freddy, D.J.; Ables, E.D. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20(4): 375–381. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. February 1998. 57pp. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2003. Deer Hunting Draft Enviornmental Document, February 3, 2003. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 269pp + appendices. CDFG. 2004a. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) in Status of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals of California, 2000-2004. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. CDFG. 2004b. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 182 pp + appendices.

References – 571 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

CDFG. 2004c. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp. CDFG. 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. CDFG. 2006. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, California’s Plants and Animals Web Site. Species Accounts. Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/cgibin/read_one.asp?specy=birds&idNum=26). Chandler, Sheri K., James D. Fraser, David A. Buehler, Janis K. D. Seegar. 1995. Perch Trees and Shoreline Development as Predictors of Bald Eagle Distribution on Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 325-332. Claar, J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, and H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. Pages 7.1-7.63 in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee of Effects of Recreation and Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Cline, Steven P., A. B. Berg, H. M. Wight. 1980. Snag characteristics and dynamics in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(4):1980. Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Cheyenne, WY: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. 610 p. CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/bbwomap2002.html. CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2004. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/riparian/2004/ywarmap2004.htm Craig, D. and Williams, P.L. 1988. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii), in California Partners in Flight riparian conservation plan. http://www.prbo.org/CPIF/Riparian/Wifl.html. Daw, S.K., S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and postfledging areas in Oregon. Journal of wildlife Management. 65(1): 59-65. DeStefano, S. 1998. Determining status of Northern Goshawks in the west: is our conceptual model correct? J. Raptor Res. 32:342-348. EMA (Environmental Management Associates). 2003. Analysis of Caltrans deer kill data U. S. Highway 395, Mono County, California. EMA Report No. 1829-01. March 2003. Prepared for Mammoth Pacific, L. P. Erickson, G. L., J. R. Heffelfinger and J. H. Ellenberger. 2003. Potential effects of hunting and hunt strubture on mule deer abuncance and demographics. Pages 119-138 in deVos, J.C., M.R. Conover, and N.E. Headrick. 2003. Mule deer conservation: Issues and management strategies. Jack H. Berryman Institute Press. Logan, UT. Ferguson, M.A.D.; Keith, L.B. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 96(1): 69–78. Foppen, R., and R. Reijnen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland: II. Breeding dispersal of male willow warblers in relation to the proximity of a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology. 31: 95-101.

References – 572 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. Freddy, D.J.; Bronaugh, W.M.; Fowler, M.C. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14(1): 63–68. Gaines, W.L.; Singleton, P.H.; Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79p. Graber, D.M. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. Pgs. 709 -726. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments, Commissioned Reports,and Background Information (Davis, University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996). Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and M.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing Mammals of California: their Natural History, Systematic Status, and Relations to Man. Volumes 1 & 2. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA. Grubb, T.G.; King, R.M. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55: 500–511. Grubb, T.G., L.L. Pater, and D.K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern goshawks. Res. Note RMRS-RN-3. For Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2p. Hamann, B.; Johnston, H.; McClelland, P. [et al.]. 1999. Birds. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coords. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 3.1–3.34. Hargis, C.D., and J.A. Bissonette. 1997. Effects of forest fragmentation on populations of American marten in the intermountain west. Pp. 473-451 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, eds. Martes: Taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Hargis, C.D., and D.R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48: 140-146. Heath, S.K., and G. Ballard. 2003. Bird species composition, phenology, nesting substrate, and productivity for the Owens Valley alluvial fan, Eastern Sierra Nevada, California 1998-2002. Great Basin Birds 6(1):18-35. Hejl, S. J. 1994. Human-induced changes in bird populations in coniferous forests in western North America during the past 100 years. Studies in Avian Biology 15:232-246. Hicks, L.L.; Elder, J.M. 1979. Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 909–915. Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9(5): 1041-1058. 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. 115pp. Johnson, B.K., K.W. Kern, and M.J. Wisdom. 2000. Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 685-697. Joslin, G., Youmans, H., cords. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 p.

References – 573 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Kamler JF, Ballard WB. 2002. A review of native and nonnative red foxes in North America. Wildl Soc Bull 30:370–379 King, M.M.; Workman, G.W. 1986. Response of desert bighorn sheep to human harassment: management implications. Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 74–85. Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 372 p. Knight, R.L. and S. K. Skagen. 1987. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Lewis J.C., Sallee K.L., Golightly R.T. 1999. Introduction and range expansion of nonnative red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in California. Am Midl Nat 142:372–381 Leslie, D.M.; Douglas, C.L. 1980. Human disturbance at water sources of desert bighorn sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 8(4): 284–290. Loos G., and P. Kerlinger. 1993. Road mortality of saw-whet and screech-owls on the Cape May peninsula. J. Raptor Res. 27(4):210–213. Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin. 31(2):486-491. MacArthur, R.A.; Johnston, R.H.; Geist, V. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 57: 2010–2021. MacArthur, R.A.; Geist, V.; Johnston, R.H. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2): 351–358. McCreedy, C. 2008. Mono Basin willow flycatcher project, 2008 progress report. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science contribution #1645. 15p. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and K.C. Miller, 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications. N 8:162-169. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. J. Wildl. Manage. 65(3):573-582. Patterson, R. L. 1952. Pages 79-80 in The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver, CO. Perrine, J.D. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, USA. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley Perrine, J.D., J.P. Pollinger, B.N. Sacks, R.H. Barrett, R.K. Wayne. 2007. Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. Conservation Genetics; 8:1083-1095. Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1977. Impacts of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington, 1972-1973. Appl. Res. Sect. Bull. No. 11. Wa. Game Dept. Olympia, Wash. 39p. PRBO (Point Reyes Bird Observatory) 2004. Riparian songbird monitoring in the eastern Sierra Nevada. January 2004. 62p. Potvin, F., L. Belanger, and K. Lowell. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clear-cut boreal landscape. Conservation Biology 14:844-857. Raphael, Martin G., and Marshall White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86: 1-66.

References – 574 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology. 10: 1098-1106. Romin, L.A., and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):276-283. Robitaille, J.F., and K. Aubry. 2000. Occurrence and activity of American martens Martes Americana in relation to roads and other routes. Acta Theriologica 45(1): 137-143. Rost, G.R., and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 43(3):634-641 Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Hohnson and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Manage. 64(3):2000. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at : http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2006.html Scott, Virgil E., and John L. Oldemeyer. 1983. Cavity-nesting bird requirements and response to snag cutting in ponderosa pine. pp. 19-23 in Snag habitat management: proceedings of the symposium, Jerry W. Davis, Gregory A. Goodwin, and Richard A. Ockenfels [technical coordinators], U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report, RM-99. Shackelton, D.M. 1985. Ovis canadensis. No. 230. Mammalian Species. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists. Serena, M. 1982. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) in selected portions of the Sierra Nevada, 1982. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report No. 82-5. 28 pp. Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the Western Bat Working Group Workshop. Feb. 9-13. Reno, Nevada. Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. Siegel, R.B. and D.R. Kaschube. 2007. Landbird Monitoring Results from the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program in the Sierra Nevada. Final report in fulfillment of Forest Service Agreement No. 05-PA-11052007-141. The Institute for Bird Populations. February 13, 2007. 33pp. Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 182pp. SNEP (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project). 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Executive Summary. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report. Web site: http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/exec_sum.pdf University of California, Davis. Davis, California. Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 1181-1186. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of bald eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42: 506-513. Stine, S., D. Gaines, and P. Vorster. 1984. Destruction of riparian systems due to water development in the Mono Lake watershed. Pp. 528-533 in R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (eds.).

References – 575 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

California riparian systems, ecology, conservation, and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Szewczak, Joseph, Susan M. Szewczak, Michael L. Morrison and Linnea S. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo Mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 58, No.1 pp 66-75. Thompson, I.D. and AS. Harestad. 1994. Effects of logging on American martens with models for habitat management. Pages 355-367 in Buskirk S. W., AS. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. USDA Forest Service 1988. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bishop, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. USDA Forest Service 1998b. Sierra Nevada Science Review, Report of the Science Review Team charged to synthesize new information of rangewide urgency to the national forests of the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species. Written by Seona Brown and Ron Archuleta and signed on 11/13/2000. Unpublished. 90 pages. Available at: http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specrep/index.shtml USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Forest Roads: A synthesis of scientific information. Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. 103p. USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Pacific Southwest Region. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Pacific Southwest Region. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/am/monitoringreport2004/ USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/am/monitoringreport2005/ USDA Forest Service 2006a. Route designation: project design criteria for “no effect” or “may affect not likely to adversely affect” determination for TE Species – October 2006 version 1. USDA Forest Service 2006b. Inyo National Forest Danger Tree Guide. July 2006 Revision. 8p. USDA Forest Service 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests, Management Indicator Species Amendment. Pacific Southwest Region. 18p. USDA Forest Service 2007b. Biological Evaluation for the Jeffrey Pine Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project. Written by Richard Perloff and signed on 2/15/2007. Unpublished. 22 pages. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Environmental Assessment for weed eradication and control on the Inyo National Forest. Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA: USFS. 79 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp.

References – 576 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) National Core Field Guide, Volume 1: Field Data Collection Procedures for Phase 2 Plots, National Core Field Guide, Version 4.0, October 2007. USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. 128pp. USDA Forest Service 2008b. Management Indicator Species Report, June Fire restoration project. USDA Forest Service 2009a. Biological Assessment for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management Project. Prepared by Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist. June 16, 2009. 14pp. USDA Forest Service 2009b. Biological Evaluation – terrestrial biota, motorized travel management project, Inyo National Forest. Prepared by Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist. June 29, 2009. 84pp. USDA Forest Service 2009c. Management Indicator Species Report Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management. Prepared by Lisa Renee Sims, Forest Fisheries Biologist, and Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist. July 2, 2009. 51pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. Portland, Oregon. 163 p. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, April 8. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Letter to Regional Forester Bernard Weingardt. Received December 27, 2006. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Species list for Inyo National Forest, California (2670). Reference number 2008-SL-0158. Ventura, California. December 20, 2007. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. National bald eagle management guidelines. May, 2007. Van Dyke, F.G., Brocke R.H, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:95-102. Verner, Jared, and Allen S. Boss. Technical coordinators. 1982. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-37, 439p., illus. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Forest Serv., U. S. Dep. Agric., Berkeley, Calif. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr037/ Wasser, S.K., K. Bevis, G. King and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 11(4):1019-1022. Wehausen, J. D. 1979. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: An analysis of management alternatives. Cooperative Administrative Report, Inyo National Forest. Wehausen, J. D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wisdom, Michael J., and Lisa J. Bate. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and human access. Forest Ecology and Management 255(2008) 2085-2093. Wisdom, Michael J., Richard S. Holthausen, Barbara C. Wales, Christina D. Hargis, Victoria A. Saab, Danny C. Lee, Wendel J. Hann, Terrell D. Rich, Mary M. Rowland, Wally J. Murphy, and Michelle R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale Trends and Management Implications. Volume 1 – Overview.

References – 577 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment). Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69: in press. Zielinski, W. J., K. Slauson and A. Bowles. 2008. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the American Marten. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(7):1558–1571; 2008. Zielinski W.J., Kucera, T.E. (Eds). 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey Methods for their Detection. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technology Report PSW-GTR-157.

Aquatic Wildlife Briggs, C., Vredenberg, V., Knapp, R., and Rachowicz, L. 2005. Investigating the population-level effects of chytridiomycosis: an emerging infectious disease of amphibians. Ecology 86(12): 3149-3159. Di Rosa, I., Simoncelli, F., Fagotti, A., & Pascolini, R. 2007. The proximate cause of frog declines? Nature 447: E4-E5. Garner, T., Perkins, M., Govindarajulu, P., Seglie, D., Walker, S., Cunningham, A., & Fisher, M. 2006. The emerging amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis globally infects introduced populations of the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Biology Letters 2: 455-459. Johnson, M. & Speare, R. 2005. Possible modes of dissemination of the amphibian chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the environment Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 65:181- 186. Johnson, M., Berger, L., Philips, L., & Speare, R. 2003. Fungicidal effects of chemical disinfectants, UV light, desiccation and heat on the amphibian chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 57: 255-260. Pauza, M. & Driessen, M. 2008. Distribution and potential spread of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Report for the Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania (downloaded October 9, 2008 from http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LJEM- 7BY3CR/$FILE/Chytrid%20Report%20Feb%202008.pdf). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Revised Recovery Plan for the Paiute Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris). Region 1, USFWS, Portland, OR Cedarholm, C.J.; Reid, LM; Edie, BG; Salo, EO. 1982. Effects of Forest Road Erosion on Salmonid Spawning Gravel Composition and Population of the Clearwater River, Washington. In: Proceedings of a Symposium, Habitat Disturbance and Recovery; 1981 January 29; San Luis Obispo, CA. California Trout, Inc. and the American Fisheries Society’s California-Nevada Chapter, California State University: 1-17. Cedarholm, CJ; LM Reid, EO Salo. 1980. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road Sediment on Salmonid Populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington.Contribution No. 543, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. 35pp.

References – 578 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Chen,Yongjiu and Bernie May. 2003. Introgressive Hybridization and Genetic Differentiation of Endangered Owens Tui Chub Populations. Final Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game #P016006. June 30, 2003. Chin, A., Rohrer, DM, Marion, DA and Clingenpeel, JA. 2004. Ouachita and Ozark Mountains symposim: ecosystem management research. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-74. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Souther Research Station, 321 p. Clinton, B. D.; Vose, J. M. 2003. Differences in Surface Water Quality Draining Four Road Surface Types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 27, No. 2, May 2003. p. 100-106. Gucinski, H.; MJ Furniss; RR Ziener; MH Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR- 509. pp103. 2001. Maholland, BL. 2002. Geomorphic assessment of natural and anthropogenic sediment sources on an eastern Sierra Nevada watershed. Masters Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno. Meehan, William R. 1991. Influences of Rorest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 1991. Moyle P. B. and P. J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chap 34. Davis: niversity of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Moyle, Peter B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. p. 122 – 127. Murphy, J.F., Simandle, E.T, Becker, D.E. 2003 Population Status and Conservation for the Black Toad, Bufo exsul. The Southwestern Naturalist, 48(1):54-60, pp54-60. Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2000. p 18-30. USDA Forest Service 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests, Management Indicator Species Amendment. Pacific Southwest Region. 18p. USDA Forest Service 2009. Management Indicator Species Report Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management. Prepared by Lisa Renee Sims, Forest Fisheries Biologist, and Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist. July 2, 2009. 51pp. Wagner, Eric J. 2002. Whirling Disease Prevention, Control, and Management: A Review. American Fisheries Society Symposium 29:217-225, 2002. Maholland and Bullard 2005 Dissmeyer et al

Air Quality California Air Resources Board (a). 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act. Web site http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/fcaa.htm. Accessed January 14, 2008. California Air Resources Board (c). 2006. Off-road Recreation Vehicle Background. Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/orrec/background.htm. Accessed January 15, 2008. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District “OwensValley PM10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan” January (2008) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. "Air Quality Management Plan for the Town of Mammoth Lakes." November 1990.

References – 579 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. "Mono Basin PM10 Planning Area State Implementation Plan” May 1995 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District “State Implementation Plan for the Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area. November 2004 Ono, Duane, 2008, Personnel communication, 9/11/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. General Conformity. Web site: http://www.U.S. EPA.gov/oar/genconform/. Accessed March 21,2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. State of Knowledge-Climate Change. Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. Accessed 5/26/2009

References – 580