MODOC Master3 4311

DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 CHAPTER 3 - NATURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 3 - Natural resources Existing conditions........................................................................1

3.1.1 Approach......................................................................................................................3
3.1.2 Scale ............................................................................................................................3
3.1.3 Field surveys................................................................................................................3
3.2 Property description.............................................................................................................4
3.2.1 Maps and geospatial data.............................................................................................4
3.2.2 Parcels..........................................................................................................................5
3.3 Regional Climate.................................................................................................................8
3.4 Natural Resources.............................................................................................................11
3.4.1 Ecosystem geography.................................................................................................11
3.4.2 Topography and Geomorphology..............................................................................13
3.4.3 Soils..........................................................................................................................15
3.4.3.1 Soil surveys........................................................................................................15
3.4.3.2 Farmland.............................................................................................................16
3.4.3.3 Soil types............................................................................................................16
3.4.3.4 Soil stability .......................................................................................................16
3.4.4 Hydrology..................................................................................................................17
3.4.4.1 Watersheds..........................................................................................................17
3.4.4.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas..............................................................................19
3.4.5 Fire.............................................................................................................................24
3.4.5.1 Fire history.........................................................................................................24
3.4.5.2 Fire regime condition.........................................................................................25
3.4.6 Vegetation...................................................................................................................28
3.4.6.1 Vegetation communities.....................................................................................28
3.4.6.2 Plant species of concern.....................................................................................33
3.4.7 Wildlife Species.........................................................................................................37
3.4.7.1 Sage grouse........................................................................................................37
3.4.7.2 Pronghorn and Mule deer...................................................................................39
3.4.7.3 Other species......................................................................................................41
TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1 / 59

Chapter 4 - Cultural Resources and STRUCTURAL Condition.................................................44

4.1 Cultural resources..............................................................................................................44
4.1.1 Pre-European Cultural resources...............................................................................44
4.1.2 Historic Sites and Resources......................................................................................45
4.1.2.1 Wendel................................................................................................................45
4.1.2.2 Karlo...................................................................................................................45
4.1.2.3 Horse Lake Station:............................................................................................45
4.1.2.4 ............................................................................................................................46
4.1.3 MLRT Structures........................................................................................................58
4.1.3.1 Bridges & Culverts.............................................................................................58
4.1.3.2 Surface conditions..............................................................................................58
4.1.3.3 Wells, buildings and other..................................................................................58
4.1.4 Road crossings, Easements and Access Points..........................................................58
4.2 Associated parcels..............................................................................................................58
4.3 Adjacent landownership ....................................................................................................58
1
TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 2 / 59
13.1.1 Approach
2This Chapter of the MLRT Plan provides an overview, or inventory, of the biological and
3resource conditions of the Planning area. It is a compilation of all pertinent data relative to the
4trail, including ecological conditions, operational activity, surface and recreational conditions.
5The inventory involved data collection over an array of data sources. These include:
6
7 • a review of the geomorphology, ecosystem, natural plant and wildlife communities,
8 • maps and GIS data that are available from various sources, including county, state
9 and federal agency databases, and the geospatial data collected during field
10 inventories
11
12This Baseline and Existing Conditions inventory has been prepared to facilitate understanding
13of the current and future needs associated with the MLRT as they relate to the ecology of the
14landscape and natural communities that underlie the trail corridor. This inventory is a summary
15of existing conditions of the natural environment, and the ecological framework of the adjacent
16environment. The Baseline and Existing conditions inventory draws heavily on existing maps
17and databases showing characteristics of vegetation, soils, wildlife communities and habitats.
18We have surveyed existing databases related to rare and protected species and wetlands, in an
19effort to provide managers with a clear view of potential permitting requirements for capital
20improvement projects.
213.1.2 Scale
22For the purpose of this Chapter, two spatial scales were considered: First, all parcels that are
23associated with the MLRT were combined to form the actual property; thus, the parcel boundary
24defines the Property Scale, or the extent of the area that is directly under the managerial control
25and influence of the landowner (LLTT). However, ecological conditions rarely change at an
26arbitrary property boundary, but generally are present as gradients across the landscape.
27Species ranges, climatic conditions, vegetation communities and soils all extend far beyond the
28immediate parcel but exert substantial influences on the parcel’s resource conditions.
29Therefore, we developed a 500m-buffer around the outer property boundary, to reflect
30conditions at the Corridor Scale. While conditions at the Corridor Scale are important when
31considering the interaction between the parcel and the landscape, they are not directly under the
32control of the property owner, and thus operate as constraints.
333.1.3 Field surveys

34Baseline conditions data were also collected through numerous detailed field surveys and on-
35site visits during 3 months from June-September 2010 by project staff. The information
36collected in this effort was utilized throughout the planning process to assess, project and

1recommend a comprehensive management plan for the MLRT. The primary purpose of the
2field inventory was to develop a detailed database relating to the parcel scale of the MLRT, such
3as structures (primarily bridges and culverts), surface conditions (and their level of service for
4non-motorized recreational access), special habitats (such as wetlands) and access-related issues
5(road crossings, parking, potential facility development). An important portion of the field
6inventory was to develop a structural inspection record for all bridges, culverts and buildings
7that are currently on the property (Appendix C, Condition report). In addition, the report
8summarizes trail conditions, potential parking and trailhead facilities, and other use
9considerations.
103.2 Property description

11Existing geospatial data that were available for this Plan were obtained from Lassen and Modoc
12county GIS departments in 2010. However, several inconsistencies and errors were detected
13when comparing data layers and aerial imagery in a GIS system. Thus, the actual county
14records as represented in the Assessor’s books should be consulted when making decisions on
15parcel boundaries or parcel disposition, as the mapped parcel boundaries may not be accurate.
16
17The MLRT is a 94.68 mile long railroad corridor in Northern California (Figure 3-1), located
18approximately 88 percent in Lassen County, and 12 percent in southern Modoc County. The
19trail begins at 10 N 734425 4472123 UTM near the town of Wendel, CA in Lassen County, and
20ends at 10 N 706221 4576922 UTM approximately 11.5 miles south of the City of Alturas, in
21Modoc County, CA. The entire MLRT property encompasses 2087 acres. The MLRT Corridor
22(i.e., a 500 m-wide buffer around the property) comprises 37,677 acres.
233.2.1 Maps and geospatial data

24
25The MLRT intersects 17 USGS 7.5 min quadrangles (Table 3-1). Geospatial data for this
26project were obtained from various sources, predominantly county governments (Lassen and
27Modoc County parcel databases), federal agencies (natural resource layers, such as LANDFIRE,
28Ecosystem classifications, hydrology, soils etc), and from LLTT’s own databases compiled
29during the 2010 structural inventory field survey.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 4 / 59
1
Table 3-1: Names of 7.5 Min USGS Quadrangle maps that intersect portions of the MLRT.
USGS_QUAD_ QUAD_NAME
41120C5 Bayley
41120C4 Little Juniper Reservoir
41120B5 Likely
41120B4 Tule Mountain
41120A4 Madeline
40120H5 Anderson Mountain
40120H4 McDonald Peak
40120G4 Termo
40120G3 Ravendale
40120F4 West of Snowstorm Mount
40120F3 Snowstorm Mountain
40120E4 Petes Valley
40120E3 Karlo
40120D3 Shaffer Mountain
40120D2 Little Mud Flat
40120C3 Wendel Hot Springs
40120C2 Wendel
23.2.2 Parcels
3The property includes 75 legal parcels, most of which are situated on the trail. However, 18
4parcels are considered “nonessential” parcels (i.e., they do not contribute to the cohesive
5integrity of the trail corridor), and are located adjacent to the trail’s surface, sometimes a
6considerable distance from the trail. Size ranges of these nonessential parcels ranges from 1.7
7to 40 acres and the total acreage encompassed of these parcels is approximately 265 acres
8(Figure 3-2).

1
Figure 3-1: Location of Modoc Line Rail Trail management planning area. Extent of property
owned is shown on left panel in red.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 6 / 59
1
Figure 3-2: Location and configuration of some nonessential parcels along the MLRT.

1While adjacent parcels may be considered when locating specific recreational or access
2facilities, such as trailheads, parking areas, camp grounds or rest areas, remote parcels do not
3have a connection with the trail and thus are less valuable for trail users. However, remote
4parcels may be important elements in developing a land-consolidation strategy and may be
5swapped, traded or sold to bolster the MLRT’s spatial and functional integrity. Nonessential
6parcels are discussed here simply to present complete information on the entire property.
7However, the Management Plan does not make explicit recommendations as to their purpose,
8disposal or value.
93.3 Regional Climate

10The regional climate of the MLRT is typical of the Mediterranean Zone with generally dry,
11warm summers and cold winters. The moisture regime is characterized by the rain shadow of
12the Cascade-Sierra ranges, which buffers the area from Pacific storms. Precipitation ranges
13from less than 5 inches near the southern end near Wendel, CA to a maximum of 18 inches in
14valleys near the northern terminus of the MLRT (Figure 3-3).
15
16Most precipitation falls between October and May, with snow falling from November to April,
17and snow-melt runoff occurring as late as July (). Precipitation increases with elevation and at
18the western edge of the region, notably the Warner Mountains, which rise to approximately
193000 m and parallel the California/Nevada border for almost 90 miles. Summer thunderstorms
20can be locally significant sources of precipitation, and are often the source of lightning
21ignitions.
22
23Climatic conditions of the area are important considerations for recreational use restrictions.
24During the primary wet season (Nov- Apr), erosion of the MLRT grade is likely in places where
25vehicles traverse the grade or enter it from off-grade trails. Rutting of the trail surface is also an
26issue in places where surface conditions permit standing water, thus the Managing Entity must
27pay close attention to surface conditions and illicit trails crossing or accessing the MLRT
28during the dry season, such that possible damage to te grade can be repaired before costly
29erosion issues arise. Management decisions regarding the closure of the trail to motorized
30vehicles also should consider weather conditions, especially when snow depth is sufficient for
31cross-country skiing (see Chapter XYZ, Management Recommendations).
32
33Annual daily temperature extremes range from 31 to 60oF () January is typically the coldest
34month and July the hottest. The mean freeze-free period ranges from 100 to 125 days along
35basin floors and valleys and between 50-100 days on higher elevations of the plateau. Drought
36and warm temperatures are limiting plant growth in the summer months. Thus, plant
37productivity is low, and vegetation relatively sparse for these precipitation levels. Climatic
38features that can affect fire behavior and ignition patterns are prefrontal winds, lightning
39ignition with low precipitation, monsoonal patterns, and strong subsidence/low humidity
40patterns (Sugihara et al. 2006).
OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 8 / 59
1Climate change predictions for precipitation and temperature regimes in the Planning Area over
2the current century include a general elevational shift upward by vegetation zones, with the
3advancement of forest vegetation types into the Modoc Plateau. Forest expansion is thought to
4result from increases in temperature and dormant season precipitation. This transition would
5likely be characterized by replacement of Northern Juniper Woodland and Great Basin
6Sagebrush scrub by ponderosa pine–Jeffrey pine systems (Lenihan et al. 2003) However, other
7factors such as soil characteristics and topography also influence vegetation, and may create
8variable changes that do cause uniform, systematic upslope shifts. Changing fire regimes,
9landuse practices and landscape vulnerability to invasive species may produce additional
10complexity in these patterns.
11
12
Figure 3-3: Precipitation regime for the MLRT Planning area.
13Climatic conditions of the area are important considerations for recreational use restrictions.
14During the primary wet season (Nov- Apr), erosion of the MLRT grade is likely in places where
15vehicles traverse the grade or enter it from off-grade trails. Rutting of the trail surface is also an

1issue in places where surface conditions permit standing water, thus the Managing Entity must
2pay close attention to surface conditions and illicit trails crossing or accessing the MLRT
3during the dry season, such that possible damage to te grade can be repaired before costly
4erosion issues arise. Management decisions regarding the closure of the trail to motorized
5vehicles also should consider weather conditions, especially when snow depth is sufficient for
6cross-country skiing (see Chapter XYZ, Management Recommendations).
7
Table 3-2. Annual averages (1971-2000) for temperature extremes (tmin and tmax) and
precipitation (ppt, in inches) for the MLRT planning Area (Data from Western Regional Climate
Center, wrcc@dri.edu)
8
Fleming
Fish and
Game
(043087) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max. 41.7 48.9 54.3 61.5 72 80.9 89.3 87.6 81 67.7 52.4 42 65
Temperature (F)
Average Min. 17.9 24 26.3 30.8 39.1 46 48.9 46.7 40 31.6 26.2 19 33
Temperature (F)
Average Total 1.4 0.95 0.76 0.43 0.78 0.81 0.33 0.31 0.27 0.69 0.97 1.35 9.05
Precipitation
(in.)
Average Total 2.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 4.1
SnowFall (in.)
Average Snow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Depth (in.)
9
Madeline, Ann
CA (045231) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ual
Average Max.
Temperature (F) 36.4 39.7 47.6 56 64 73.3 83.6 83.7 75.6 63.9 51.5 40.3 59.6
Average Min.
Temperature (F) 10.3 13.9 20.4 26.5 32.4 37.4 43.3 42 34.9 27.2 20.6 13.3 26.9
Average Total
Precipitation
(in.) 1.78 1.27 0.91 0.85 1.13 0.87 0.39 0.33 0.4 0.87 1.08 1.35 11.2
Average Total
SnowFall (in.) 17 9.9 9.9 4.7 2.7 0.2 0 0 0 1.3 3.6 9.4 58.6
Average Snow
Depth (in.) 7 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 10 / 59
13.4 Natural Resources
23.4.1 Ecosystem geography

3The MLRT corridor traverses an ecologically diverse region of Northeastern California, where
4numerous ecosystem classifications meet and overlap (Figure 3-4). Depending on their
5purpose, these classifications detail common features of the area, such as geological and
6biological features, vegetation communities, disturbance regimes and watershed characteristics.
7Data presented here ( ) were combined from several sources and are summarized below.
8References to different ecological classification systems are presented here to alert managers of
9the different ecosystem descriptions that have been developed for the land units underlying the
10MLRT corridor. Much useful information can be gleaned from these for management purposes,
11especially about relevant natural resource characteristics. The interested reader is referred to the
12online sources identified in for more detailed descriptions of their eco-geographical
13characteristics.

1
2Table 3-3: Land and vegetation classification systems describing the MLRT corridor.
Classification System System name Subsystem Name Acreage
Parcel
Corridor
NRCS Land Resource MLRA 21Klamath and Shasta
NRCS 46.3%
Unit1 D—Western Valleys and Basins
(http://www.cei.psu.e
Range and Irrigated
du/mlra/) MLRA 23Malheur Basin 53.7%
Region
Subsection, M261Gg, “Pit River
14%
Valley
USFS Ecological
Subsection M261Gi, “Likely
Section2 M261G, 16%
US Forest Service Mountain”
“Modoc Plateau”
Subsection M261Gm, “Eagle
(http://www.fs.fed.us/ 16%
Lake – Observation Peak”
r5/projects/ecoregions Subsection 342Be, “Madeline 30%
/) USFS Ecological Plains”
Section 3 342B, Subsection 342Bd, “Cottonwood- 22%
“Northwestern Basin Skedaddle Mountains
and Range”
Subsection 342Bc, “Honey Lake
2%
Basin
1
NRCS has identified Land Resource Units (LRUs) which form the basic units from which Major Land Resource
Areas (MLRAs) are determined. LRUs are typically coextensive with State general soil map units, but some
general soil map units are subdivided into LRUs because of significant geographic differences in soils, climate,
water resources, or land use. LRUs generally are several thousand acres in size. Major land resource areas
(MLRA) are geographically associated land resource units
2
The USDA Forest Service provides a general description of the ecosystem geography of the Nation following
Bailey (1983). In 1993, as part of the Forest Service's National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units
(ECOMAP 1993), ecoregions were adopted for use in ecosystem management. By July, an Ecological
Classification and Mapping Task Team (ECOMAP) was formed to develop a consistent approach to ecosystem
classification and mapping at multiple geographic scales.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 12 / 59
13.4.2 Topography and Geomorphology
2
Figure 3-4: Ecological classifications for the Planning area from NRCS (red labels) and USFS
(black labels). The MLRT is outlined in orange.
3
4The MLRT traverses varied terrain, ranging from relatively flat basin floors to steep grades
5along mountains sides. The lowest point of the MLRT is at the beginning of the Corridor near
6Wendel, CA at 4013 ft. From there, the trail climbs to 4373 ft at Karlo, 5466 ft at Crest, 5365 ft
7at Madeline, 5544 ft at its highest elevation at Sage Hen, and then descends into Likely (4454 ft)
8and McArthur siding (4373 ft) at the current end of the trail.

1The Planning Area intersects a geologically active and diverse region of Northern California
2where two geomorphic provinces meet (Basin and Range Province, Modoc Plateau Province),
3while two others are extending their influences into the Planning Area (The Cascade Range
4Province with its volcanic features, and granitic rocks of the Sierra Nevada province which form
5the western boundary of the Honey Lake Valley).
6
7In the Basin and Range portion of the MLRT (roughly from Honey Lake through the Madeline
8Plains) the main landform is gently sloping to moderately steep plains and hills on slightly to
9moderately eroded and dissected lava flows and non-marine sedimentary deposits, adjacent to
10and nearly level floodplains and basin floors (Figure 3-5) . The valley areas of the Basin and
11Range have interior drainage, often draining to a terminal lake, like Honey Lake.
12
13As the MLRT gains elevation and ascends onto the Modoc Plateau, the topographic profile
14includes gently to moderately sloping volcanic plateaus and moderately steep to steep shield
15volcanoes, intersected by basin-fill on basin floors in the small depressions, such as those along
16the Pit River north of Likely (Figure 3-6). Faulting, fluvial erosion and deposition and freeze-
17thaw are the main geomorphic processes.
18
19
Figure 3-5: Basin and Range geomorphology along the MLRT near Wendel. CA.
20

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 14 / 59
1
Figure 3-6. Typical basin floor geomorphology of the Modoc Plateau (near Likely, CA)
2
3The bedrock is predominantly Miocene and some Pleistocene basalts, mixed with Tertiary
4pyroclastic rocks. Pliocene nonmarine sedimentary deposits and Quaternary alluvial and
5lacustrine deposits are the main deposits in small valleys and basin floors. Most faults are
6running north-south east of the northwest-trending Likely Fault and toward the northwest west
7of the fault.
83.4.3 Soils
93.4.3.1 Soil surveys
10Soil information for the Planning area was obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic
11(SSURGO) databases for Susanville Area, Parts of Lassen and Plumas Counties, California
12(CA608), and Modoc County, California (CA603). Soil map units are generally not accurate at
13the property or parcel level. Detailed soil surveys were not available for the property, thus, soil
14map units were analyzed at the Corridor Scale to derive landscape-level characteristics of soil
15resources underlying the MLRT as a basis for management decisions and improvement projects
16(Appendix B, Soils). It must be noted, however, that there are stil significant inaccuracies
17possible and that these values are at best guidelines and should be verified by site-specific soil
18studies.

13.4.3.2 Farmland
2The majority of the MLRT is not considered prime farmland. However, about 11 percent of the
3corridor is considered prime farmland or could be considered prime farmland if irrigated (Table
43-4: Percentages of soil classes within the MLRT corridor.). Interestingly, Modoc County
5showed a relatively high proportion of farmland soils of some importance, whereas soils within
6the MLRT corridor in Lassen County were considered “not prime farmland”.
Table 3-4: Percentages of soil classes within the MLRT corridor.
Farmland of statewide importance 5%
Not prime farmland 89%
Prime farmland if irrigated 5%
Prime farmland if irrigated and either 1%

protected from flooding or not
frequently flooded during the growing
season
Grand Total 100%
83.4.3.3 Soil types

9Seventy-four soil types were identified based on SSURGO maps (Appendix B, Soils list). The
10most frequent soil types were Ravendale silty clay (15.8%), Searles-Devada-Fivesprings
11association (10.1%), and Longcreek-Devada-Rubble land complex (4.5%, see Appendix B,
12Soils list).
133.4.3.4 Soil stability

14Soil stability is the primary factor determining the amount of erosion and damage vehicular
15activity for maintenance and recreation might cause. Therefore, soil attributes were compiled to
16identify areas of sensitive soil stability. SSURGO data for the planning area contained the K
17factor, an expression of the inherent instability of the soil or surface material at a particular site.
18The value of "K" is a function of the particle-size distribution, organic-matter content, structure,
19and permeability of the soil or surface material. Three categories of soil erosion potential were
20used (slight, moderate, and severe).
21
22

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 16 / 59
Table 3-5: Soil stability rating summary for the MLRT corridor.
Rating K-factor Percent of

area
slight .10 6%
.15 11%
.17 9%
moderate .20 4%
.24 37%
.28 13%
.32 5%
.37 10%
severe .43 1%
.49 0%
none 3%
2
3Approximately 26 % of the planning area is classified as having a “slight” erosion risk, and 69%
4as moderate. Only 1 % are in severe danger of erosion; these sites were primarily located at
5near water courses. Three sites were mapped with severe erosion potential, one in snorstorm
6canyon, one near Madeline and one north of Likely ( Figure 3-7).
73.4.4 Hydrology
8The majority of the planning area is part of the North Lahontan Hydrologic Region. The
9northern portion of the MLRT (predominantly in Modoc County) drains through the Sacramento
10River Hydrologic Region toward the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Hydrologic regions are
11defined as "major drainage basins".
123.4.4.1 Watersheds
13The MLRT traverses three major watersheds: the Susan River Watershed, the Madeline Plains
14Watershed and the Pit River watershed. The Pitt River is the major drainage vector in the
15portion of the MLRT that is within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. In addition to the
16Pitt River, the Susan River and its northern tributaries are important hydrological features of the
17planning area.

Figure 3-7: Locations of sites with high erosion potential (K-factor > 0.37) along the MLRT.
Note that extent of areas is based on soil surveys and thus may need additional field verification.
2Throughout the Planning Area, runoff from uplands is generally rapid, but slow on basin floors.
3There are few stream and most of those are dry during summer. Permanent streams that flow
4from the Planning Area drain to the Susan River, Honey Lake, the Pit River or the Madeline
5Plains. There is no overland drainage from the Madeline Plain (a pleistocene lakebed), and

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 18 / 59
1streams from the surrounding area carry insufficient amounts of water to the plain. Downward
2drainage through fissures and joints in the underlying basalt to the ground water reservoir is
3more prominent than overland flow of water and development of stream channels. Some of the
4drainage is internal, to closed depressions in and around the subsection, and water ponds
5seasonally in many small depressions.
63.4.4.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas
7Most of the MLRT corridor is upland habitat, however, portions of the trail intersect or parallel
8minor wetlands, riparian habitats or streams (e.g., near Karlo, Snowstorm Canyon, Likely to
9McArthur Siding). Within the MLRT corridor, no wetlands are registered in the National
10Wetland Inventory. A total of 47 streams intersect the MLRT corridor, but only 17 are known
11by name of are draining into a named stream (Table 3-6). Irrigation ditches and other flood
12conveyances are frequent along the trail and the majority of bridges and culvers of the MLRT
13are designed to facilitate seasonal flows only.
Table 3-6: Streams within the MLRT corridor.
Drains into Stream name Length (m) within

MLRT Corridor
Balls Canyon Secret Creek 2270
Big Juniper Creek unknown 2368
Big Juniper Creek 1075
Dry Creek unknown 10850
Dry Creek 8689
Fitzhugh Creek unknown 8342
Pit River South Fork Pit River 4378
Secret Creek Deep Creek 1142
Snowstorm Creek 21263
Snowstorm Creek unknown 4852
South Fork Pit River Warm Creek 873
unknown 2441
Warm Creek unknown 1899
Willow Creek Petes Creek 929
Romero Creek 504
Van Loan Creek 1091
unknown 20311
Grand Total 93276
14


OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 20 / 59
Figure 3-8: Seasonal (irrigation) drainage crossing the MLRT in the Plains of Madeline.
1
2The MLRT crosses or parallels several minor wetlands along its course. Grading and other
3maintenance activities should consider the prevention of possible material inputs into these
4water sources. Floristic surveys may be necessary to identify important plant resources.
5Possible pollution from recreational activities could also occur. This is a high-quality wetland
6and, with proper management should be integrated as a wildlife observation point of interest.
7The following descriptions are based on observations during the summer of 2010 and may need
8to revised depending on precipitation for any given water year.
9
10Karlo Wetlands (Figure 3-9): This sensitive area is an overflow wet meadow resulting from a
11seasonal drainage from a privately owned reservoir. The MLRT forms the western boundary of
12this wetland, the grade effectively confining the wetted area. There are no culvers or bridges
13that permit water to cross the MLRT grade in this portion of the trail. The system includes a
14artificial reservoir approximately 1,450 m northeast of Karlo, braided intermittent stream
15channels and wet meadows which terminate viain a playa-like evaporation basin. The wetted
16area stretches approximately 3350 ft along the MLRT on its eastern periphery (Appendix B,
17map XYZ).
18
Figure 3-9: Seasonal wetlands near Karlo, looking north along the MLRT.

1Snowstorm Wetlands: The MLRT traverses and intersect the extensive wet meadows and
2seasonal wetted areas that are associated with Snowstorm creek. Although the majority of the
3wet meadows are on the western boundary of the MLRT, the trail corsses wet meadows on 3
4occasions, and standing water may be found pooling on the eastern boundary within the MLRT,
5where the grade may retard sheet flow and drainage towards the streambed during spring and
6early summer. In the upper portuions of Snowstorm Creek, there is one bridge (Figure 3-10)
7spanning the drainage channel (Appendix B, map XYZ).
8
Figure 3-10: Bridge spanning Upper Snowstorm Creek.

9

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 22 / 59
1Ravendale Borrow Pits: These artificial seasonal wetlands are located approximately 4,300 m
2south-east of Ravendale. The pits are located within one of the non-essential parcels (North of
3Crest). The deepest pit measures approximately 2700 m2. The pits may need to be surveyed for
4protected species, especially amphibians and plants (Appendix B, map XYZ).
5
6Likely Station Wetlands: The former railroad station at Likely contains several artificial
7wetlands associated with drainage ditches that are crossed by MLRT at the southern and
8northern end of the parcel. There is evidence that some amy be artificial wetlands, resulting
9from excavations are possibly leaking water pipes. In addition, there are two depressions within
10the Likely station that have wetland vegetation characteristics, one near the old scale building
11and the other an elongated depression along the grade near the industrial building (Appendix B,
12map XYZ)
13
14Pit River Valley: North of Likely, the MLRT traverses extensive wet meadows and former
15wetlands, most of which have been degraded by agriculture. The modern day hydrology of this
16area is characterized by seasonal irrigation, with an extensive network of conveyance ditches
17and water control structures (Figure 3-11). Standing water and a high ground water table are
18prominent ecological characteristics throughout the area, which spans almost 15 km, from the
19crossing of the Pit River to the MLRT terminus at McArthur siding. A floristic survey for
20special status plants may need to be conducted for the MLRT corridor.
21

1
Figure 3-11: Irrigation canals alongside the MLRT corridor in the Pit River Valley. Note water
control structures and wetland vegetation.
23.4.5 Fire
33.4.5.1 Fire history

4Historically, human activities had a profound impact on natural disturbance regimes. Little is
5known about the use of fire in land management by native peoples, primarily the Pit River
6tribes. However, the changes following the settlement of the region by Euro-Americans are
7well documented. In the 1880, over 16000 beef cattle, 23000 sheep, and 6000 horses grazed in
8Modoc County, and by u 1909 this number had increased to 44000 beef cattle, 76500 sheep, and
915,000 horses (Laudenslayer et al 1989), plus transient sheep from Oregon and Nevada during
10spring and summer. Unmanaged open-range grazing reduced fuel sources, primarily perennial
11bunchgrasses and palatable shrubs (Bitterbrush), shifting the vegetation towards increasing
12sagebrush and western juniper. At the time, stands of pine and fir were generally described as
13open stands of widely scattered large trees (Laudenslayer et al 1989).
14
15

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 24 / 59
1Historic occurrence of fire has changed from frequent, low intensity ground fires to infrequent,
2high intensity stand-replacing fires. Prehistoric fire frequency is characterized mainly by a dry
3climatic region for at least 1 million years. Vegetation has remained relatively stable across this
4time, oscillating from grasslands to sagebrush and juniper pine woodlands depending on the
5moisture regime. In the region around Eagle Lake, fire frequency appears to have been variable
6in prehistoric times, increasing slowly as moister conditions increased vegetation growth and
7juniper woodlands gave way to eastside yellow pine dominated forests that are typical today for
8the area. In the Warner mountains fire frequency may have increased as drying and warming
9trends increased first sagebrush expansion, then later fir and pine increases.
10
11Fire history and Modoc Line railroad history became linked on July 22, 1929, when sparks form
12a southern pacific Railroad train on the west side of the North Warner mountains ignited the
13Sugar Hill fire, the largest and probably most destructive fire in the region during recorded
14history. It was finally controlled by 600 men after it had burned more than 600 acres in two
15days (Sugihara et al 2006). The perimeters of seven historic fires reached the MLRT corridor,
16the largest of which burned 11668 acres in 1957 (Table 3-7, Error: Reference source not found).
Table 3-7: Recorded historic Fires within the MLRT corridor
YEAR FIRE_NAME CAUSE ACRES

1958 S.P.R.R. unknown 761
1958 S.P.R.R. #2 unknown 829
1957 SPRR MAINLINE #20 unknown 11668
1996 RAVE lightning 140
1987 None unknown 39
1990 None unknown 8504
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
253.4.5.2 Fire regime condition

26A fire regime condition class (FRCC, Barrett, et al 2010) shows the amount of departure from
27the natural regime (Hann and Bunnell 2001). This departure results from a combination of
28several ecological characteristics, such as vegetation (species composition, structural stages,
29stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and

1pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and diseased mortality, grazing, and
2drought).
3
4There are three classes of departure from the natural (historical) regime: low (FRCC 1),
5moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3). Low departure is considered to be within the natural
6(historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside and pose
7significant threats of systemic ecological change. Within the MLRT corridor, fire regime
8conditions are generally within the natural historic range of variation (Table 3-8).

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 26 / 59
Table 3-8: Fire Regime Conditions within the MLRT corridor

Fire regime Condition Class Percent of area
0 (undetermined) 17%
1 (low) 78%
2 (moderate) 5%
Grand Total 100 %
1
1
Table 3-9: Fire regime class Descriptions (from:
http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/wfewt/message/FrccDefinitions.pdf)

13.4.6 Vegetation
23.4.6.1 Vegetation communities

3Vegetation communities were identified from current LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type
4(EVT) layer, which represents the vegetation currently present at a given site. LANDFIRE
5vegetation map units are derived from NatureServe’s Ecological Systems classification, which
6is a nationally consistent set of mid-scale ecological units (Comer et al. 2003). The hierarchical
7structure of the LANDFIRE vegetation maps facilitates a scaled approach to classifying
8vegetation, however, since the classification is base on remotely sensed land cover data, rare and
9or small patches of vegetation may be mis-categorized. Thus, as the vegetation classification
10becomes finer-scales, the potential of errors increases.
11
12LANDFIRE identified 10 vegetation “systems” (Figure 3-12), the most common being
13“shrubland”, followed by “Agricultural” and “Developed” (Table 3-10).
Table 3-10: LANDFIRE vegetation systems found within the MLRT corridor (MLRT property
with a 500 m buffer).
System Percent
Agricultural 11.38%
Conifer 4.75%
Developed 5.47%
Exotic Herbaceous 0.91%
Grassland 1.13%
Hardwood 0.01%
Non-vegetated 0.73%
Riparian 0.64%
Shrubland 72.79%
Sparsely Vegetated 2.18%
Grand Total 100.00%
14
15A total of 53 vegetation types were identified for the MLRT corridor, of which 30 comprised
16less than 0.5 % of the area within the corridor (Table 3-11). The predominant vegetation types
17were sagebrush dominated shrub steppe types, such as the “Inter-Mountain Basins Big
18Sagebrush Shrubland” and the Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland”. These types
19include Big sagebrush series, Low sagebrush series, Bitterbrush series, Parry rabbitbrush series,
20and Rubber rabbitbrush series. Of the woodland systems, juniper-dominated vegetation types
21were the most prominent, while agriculture and developed/disturbed types made up a significant

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 28 / 59
1portion of the corridor (Table 3-11). Commonly found grassland types include Ashy ryegrass
2series, Bluebunch wheatgrass series, California oatgrass series, Creeping ryegrass series, Idaho
3fescue series, Indian ricegrass series, Nebraska sedge series, Needle-and-thread series (Beaked
4sedge series in the Madeline Plain).
5
6Table 3-11: Vegetation communities and the percent of occurrence within the MLRT corridor,
7as classified by LANDFIRE.
8
System Existing Vegetation Type name Percent
Agricultural Agriculture-Cultivated Crops and Irrigated Agriculture 1.39%
Agriculture-Pasture and Hay 3.42%
3
NASS -Close Grown Crop 5.93%
NASS-Fallow/Idle Cropland 0.06%
NASS-Pasture and Hayland 0.31%
NASS-Row Crop 0.25%
NASS-Row Crop-Close Grown Crop 0.02%
Agricultural Total 11.38%
Conifer California Montane Jeffrey Pine(-Ponderosa Pine) Woodland 0.04%
Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and Savanna 0.26%
Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 2.53%
Juniperus occidentalis Wooded Herbaceous Alliance 0.15%
Juniperus occidentalis Woodland Alliance 1.03%
Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and
Woodland 0.05%
Mediterranean California Mixed Evergreen Forest 0.00%
North Pacific Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock
Forest 0.02%
Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 0.66%
Sierran-Intermontane Desert Western White Pine-White Fir
Woodland 0.00%
Conifer Total 4.75%
Developed Developed-Medium Intensity 0.01%
Developed-Roads 2.21%
Developed-Upland Deciduous Forest 0.01%
Developed-Upland Evergreen Forest 1.74%
Developed-Upland Herbaceous 0.61%
Developed-Upland Mixed Forest 0.01%
Developed-Upland Shrubland 0.84%
Quarries-Strip Mines-Gravel Pits 0.05%
Developed Total 5.47%
3
NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service

System Existing Vegetation Type name Percent

Exotic
Herbaceous Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual and Biennial Forbland 0.19%
Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland 0.72%
Exotic Herbaceous Total 0.91%
Grassland Herbaceous Semi-dry 0.10%
Herbaceous Wetlands 0.49%
Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 0.54%
North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland or Fell-
field or Meadow 0.00%
Recently Disturbed Forest 0.00%
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 0.00%
Grassland Total 1.13%
Hardwood North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland 0.00%
Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 0.01%
Hardwood Total 0.01%
Non-vegetated Barren 0.57%
Open Water 0.16%
Non-vegetated Total 0.73%
Riparian Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian Systems 0.63%
North Pacific Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0.01%
Riparian Total 0.64%
Shrubland Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.99%
California Montane Woodland and Chaparral 0.01%
Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 2.56%
Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland 0.00%
Grayia spinosa Shrubland Alliance 0.00%
Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 10.82%
Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 49.32%
Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1.33%
Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland
and Shrubland 0.24%
Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 3.75%
Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2.58%
Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1.18%
Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 0.01%
Shrubland Total 72.79%
Sparsely
Vegetated Inter-Mountain Basins Sparsely Vegetated Systems 2.18%
Sparsely Vegetated Total 2.18%
Grand Total 100.00%

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 30 / 59

Figure 3-12: Vegetation types for Northeastern California and the MLRT corridor.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 32 / 59
13.4.6.2 Plant species of concern

2Lassen and Modoc counties both comprise a dynamic intersection of several floristic provinces
3and geomorphologic systems. The California Native Plant Society’s database (CNPS 2010) and
4the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010) were consulted for species of special
5concern that may be found within the MLRT. Both searches were conducted on individual
6USGS quadrangles (Table 3-1).
Table 3-12: List of Plant Species of Concern recorded for USGS map quadrangles of the
MLRT Planning Area.
Occurrence Status
(USG Feder CNP
Common name Scientific name quadrangle) al State DFG s
Ivesia baileyi
Bailey's ivesia var. baileyi Wendel None None None 2.3
Baker's globe McDonald
mallow Iliamna bakeri Peak,Termo None None None 4.2
West of
Boggs Lake Gratiola Snowstorm Endan
hedge-hyssop heterosepala Mtn. None gered None 1B.2
cruciform Camissonia
evening- claviformis ssp. Karlo,Shaffer
primrose cruciformis Mtn.,Wendel None None None 2.3
currant-leaved Sphaeralcea
desert mallow grossulariifolia Wendel None None None 2.3
Dimeresia Infernal
doublet howellii Caverns None None None 2.3
Eriogonum
Dugway wild nutans var.
buckwheat nutans Wendel None None None 2.3
West of
dwarf Micromonolepi Snowstorm
monolepis s pusilla Mtn. None None None 2.3
Infernal
eel-grass Potamogeton Caverns,Wende
pondweed zosteriformis l None None None 2.2
ephemeral Mimulus Likely,McDona
monkeyflower evanescens ld Peak None None None 1B.2
Atriplex
gardneri var.
falcate saltbush falcata Karlo None None None 2.2

Anderson
Astragalus Mtn.,McDonal
field milk-vetch agrestis d Peak None None None 2.2
Astragalus
Geyer's milk- geyeri var.
vetch geyeri Wendel None None None 2.2
Alisma
grass alisma gramineum Likely None None None 2.2
Karlo,Ravendal
e,West of
Great Basin Downingia Snowstorm
downingia laeta Mtn. None None None 2.2
Great Basin Pedicularis
lousewort centranthera Karlo None None None 2.3
Allium Little Mud
Great Basin atrorubens var. Flat,Shaffer
onion atrorubens Mtn.,Wendel None None None 2.3
green-flowered Stanleya
prince's plume viridiflora Karlo None None None 2.3
Infernal
Stachys Caverns,Little
hairy marsh palustris ssp. Juniper
hedge-nettle pilosa Reservoir None None None 2.3
Henderson's Lomatium Infernal
lomatium hendersonii Caverns,Likely None None None 2.3
Little Mud
Eriogonum Flat,Shaffer
hill buckwheat collinum Mtn. None None None 4.3
Hillman's Atriplex Karlo None None None 2.2

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 34 / 59
argentea var.
silverscale hillmanii
Likely,Madelin
hillside arnica Arnica fulgens e None None None 2.2
Holmgren's Scutellaria Karlo,Shaffer
skullcap holmgreniorum Mtn. None None None 2.2
Karlo,Little
Lupinus Juniper
intermontane pusillus var. Reservoir,Wen
lupine intermontanus del None None None 4.3
Lupinus Infernal
lilliput lupine uncialis Caverns None None None 2.3
many-flowered Thelypodium
thelypodium milleflorum Wendel None None None 2.2
Astragalus Petes
Modoc Plateau pulsiferae var. Valley,Shaffer
milk-vetch coronensis Mtn. None None None 2.2
naked-stemmed Phacelia
phacelia gymnoclada Wendel None None None 4.2
Nelson's
evening- Camissonia
primrose minor Wendel None None None 2.3
Lupinus
Nevada lupine nevadensis Karlo None None None 2.3
ornate dalea Dalea ornata Petes Valley None None None 4.3
Pine Creek Camissonia Karlo,Litchfiel None None None 2.1
evening- boothii ssp. d,Little Mud
primrose alyssoides Flat,Shaffer
Mtn.,Spencer
Creek,Wendel,

Wendel Hot
Springs
Phacelia
playa phacelia inundata Karlo None None None 4.3
Trifolium McDonald
Plummer's gymnocarpon Peak,Ravendal
clover ssp. plummerae e,Termo None None None 1B.3
prostrate Eriogonum Infernal
buckwheat prociduum Caverns None None None 2.3
Karlo,McDonal
d
Peak,Ravendal
Raven's Lomatium e,Shaffer
lomatium ravenii Mtn.,Termo None None None 1B.2
Standish,Wend
Robbins' Potamogeton el,Wendel Hot
pondweed robbinsii Springs None None None 2.3
Infernal
Sheldon's sedge Carex sheldonii Caverns,Likely None None None 2.3
slender-leaved Stuckenia Infernal
pondweed filiformis Caverns,Likely None None None 2.2
Karlo,Little
Astragalus Mud
snake milk- iodanthus var. Flat,Shaffer
vetch diaphanoides Mtn.,Wendel None None None 2.2
Polygala
spiny milkwort subspinosa Karlo None None None 4.3
Suksdorf's Orobanche Karlo None None None 2.2
broom-rape ludoviciana var.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 36 / 59
arenosa
Karlo,Petes
Valley,Termo,
West of
Susanville Penstemon Snowstorm
beardtongue sudans Mtn. None None None 2.3
Susanville Astragalus
milk-vetch inversus Litchfield None None None 1B.3
Williams' Polyctenium
combleaf williamsiae Anderson Mtn. None None None 4.3
winged dock Rumex venosus Wendel None None None 1B.2
Stenotus
woolly stenotus lanuginosus Madeline None None None 2.3
1
2Not all species are equally likely to occur within MLRT property parcels, especially where
3small margins of undisturbed habitat exist. Floristic surveys should be conducted before
4vegetation is disturbed by surface maintenance or other repair work.
53.4.7 Wildlife Species

6The faunal composition of the planning Area is characterized largely by typical Great Basin
7species. Many species are highly visible, such as mule deer, pronghorn, mountain lion, coyote,
8bobcat, jack rabbit, and sage grouse. The Planning Area contains wetlands that are important
9resting, feeding, and nesting areas for migrating waterfowl.
13.4.7.1 Sage grouse

2The primary species of concern within the planning area is the greater sage grouse. Sage-grouse
3(Centrocercus urophasianus) is a sagebrush obligate species found in all the western states
4except Arizona and New Mexico. Breeding populations have declined by 17 – 47% throughout
5much of its range (Connelly and Braun 1997). A recent petition to list Greater sage-grouse has
6been found to not to warrant listing, but the species is currently declared a Candidate species.
7The California Department of Fish & Game considers sage-grouse as a Species of Special
8Concern and an Upland Game Bird. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California and
9Nevada, considers the sage-grouse a BLM Sensitive Species. Within BLM policy (USDI 2001)
10the minimum level of protection must be consistent with the policy for protection of candidate
11species.
12
13The MLRT traverses the Buffalo - Skedaddle Population Management Unit (PMU), with an
14estimated sage grouse population of 1,500 to 4,500 sage-grouse. The number of active leks in
15the California portion of the PMU was 32 in 2004. Population trend since 1987 has not
16markedly increased or declined but does cycle considerably. Potential sage grouse habitat based

1on Wildlife Habitat Relationship modeling (CWHR, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/)

2is presented in Figure 3-15.
3
4Radio-telemetry studies within the Buffalo – Skedaddle PMU showed that transmission lines
5had an significant negative effect on nest survival. Aerial nest predators and raptors use
6transmission lines to perch and scan the environment for sage grouse nests. Data for sage
7grouse are largely considered classified and thus no detailed analysis of sage grouse abundance,
8distribution and threats could be conducted for the MLRT. However, sage grouse are likely to
9play an increasing role in land use and management decisions and thus must be considered in
10managing the MLRT. The BLM has mapped habitat condition4 for the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU
11( Figure 3-13). The majority of the MLRT corridor is within severely degraded habitat, and
12where patches of good habitat exist along the line the patches are small and fragmented, thereby
13providing little support to sage grouse populations.
14
4
The habitat valuation classifies sage grouse habitat into 4 classes:
Quality Habitats (R0): Areas of intact sagebrush dominated habitats with good understory components. Meets the
acceptable criteria for both sagebrush canopy and grass/forb understory. High priority habitats for protection.
Restoration Habitats: Areas that currently are, historically were, or potentially could be Sage Grouse habitat, and
that if restored, would provide better habitat at sometime in the future.
R1: Areas with limited sagebrush, with acceptable grass and forb understory composition May include native and
seeded perennial grass rangelands.
R2: Areas with inadequate grass/forb understory composition, with or without adequate sagebrush cover.
Expensive management treatments are needed for restoration.
R3: Areas where natural sagebrush rangeland sites that have been encroached upon by Pinyon/Juniper. These are
sagebrush rangelands, not natural woodland sites that predominately favor trees.
R4: Areas where natural sagebrush rangeland sites have been type converted for private alternative use to
agricultural annual grasslands/forbs (could be bare and fallow ground).
Potential sagebrush habitats for restoration, but only at the discretion of the landowner.
OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 38 / 59
1
Figure 3-13: R-values (habitat condition) for sage grouse in the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU (data
from BLM). Left panel depicts the northern portion of the MLRT from Likely to Ravendale,
right Panel the southern Portion from Wendel to Ravendale.
23.4.7.2 Pronghorn and Mule deer

3Pronghorn in the planning area are frequently observed, even by casual observers. Similar to
4sage grouse, pronghorn are sagebrush obligate species and are sensitive to conversion and
5deterioration of the sage brush habitat. Like sage grouse, pronghorn rely at least part of the year
6on sage brush as forage, but they also require a vigorous herbaceous layer within the sage brush
7community. Herbaceous understory tends to disappear when sage brush communities are
8grazed extensively by wild and domestic livestock, and when fire regimes shift away from that
9historic condition (see Section 3.4.5, Fire). Especially during the spring fawning season,
10pronghorn require vegetation height of 18-24 in, most of which should be perennial grasses and
11forbs, to conceal newborn fawns during their hiding period. Coyote predation is a significant
12source of mortality of neonate pronghorn and coyotes are more efficient in finding fawns when
13vegetation is low due to grazing or sagebrush maturation. Pronghorn distribution within the
14Planning area is similar to that of sage grouse, due to the tight correlation of the two species’ life
15history requirements. Pronghorn move seasonally in response to water availability, forage
16resources and snow. Pronghorn generally avoid stand of trees or woodlands, but are frequently

1observed on agricultural field, if not disturbed. Most of the MLRT below Snowstorm Canyon
2has been classified as winter range by BLM (Figure 3-14).
3
4Mule deer are an important resource of the MLRT Planning area, and can frequently be
5observed while traveling along the trail. Mule deer in this area are part of the Lassen Interstate
6herd (Clements and Young 1997) that ranges from the Honey Lake basin to the east slope of the
7Warner Mountains in Nevada. Mule deer herds exhibited a considerable population expansion
8peaking in the 1950s. More recently, mule deer numbers have sharply declined. The reason for
9this decline is a general degradation of habitat quality, especially the loss of forbs and
10herbaceous understory and the negative impacts of wildfires at lower elevations In addition,
11invasion of exotic annual grasses in lower elevational sites has contributed to a greatly
12accelerated fire return interval which is detrimental to browse species such as bitterbrush and
13Big sage. Lastly, the ultimate transition of former sagebrush habitat to juniper-dominated
14woodlands has permanently altered these habitats with little to no opportunity for returning to
15historic conditions. Mule deer are also susceptible to disturbance during winter when energy
16balances are negative. Mule deer bucks in Lassen County are highly valued by trophy hunters
17for their large antlers. Most of the MLRT below Snowstorm Canyon has been classified as
18winter range by BLM (Figure 3-14).
19
20
Figure 3-14: Habitat and use categories for mule deer (left panel) and pronghorn (right panel)
for the MLRT (data source BLM).
OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 40 / 59
13.4.7.3 Other species

2
3The CNDB database search identified 15 vertebrates and 4 invertebrate species of concern that
4may be present within the MLRT corridor and therefore may warrant further consideration.
5Mobile species, such as birds and large mammals generally can evade temporal disturbances at
6the trail (e.g., during an event or while maintenance is conducted), while small mammals and
7species tied to rare habitat features (e.g., burrowing owls are reliant on nesting cavities) often
8are impacted by such activities.
9
10Of the species listed in Table 3-13, several may be ruled out as likely occurrences, since their
11habitat requirements are not expected to be met by conditions within the MLRT corridor.
12These species include grayhead pika, burrowing owl, bank swallow, and aquatic species such as
13hardhead, pit roach, and the two pyrg species.
Figure 3-15: Potential distribution of sage grouse within the MLRT planning Area, based on
wildlife habitat relationship modeling.
Table 3-13: Species of concern recorded for the Planning Area

Taxon
omic Common Scientific Quadrangle Feder
group name name (recorded) al State DFG CNPS
Karlo, Madeline,
Verte American Taxidea Petes Valley,
brate badger taxus Wendel None None SSC None
bank Riparia Shaffer Mtn., Threa
swallow riparia Standish None tened None None
burrowing Athene
owl cunicularia Wendel None None SSC None
golden Aquila Infernal Caverns, FP |
eagle chrysaetos Likely, Wendel None None WL None
gray- Ochotona
headed princeps
pika schisticeps McDonald Peak None None None None
Centrocerc
greater us Infernal Caverns,
sage- urophasian Little Juniper Candi
grouse us Reservoir date None SSC None
greater Grus Infernal Caverns, None Threa FP None
sandhill canadensis Karlo, Likely, tened
crane tabida Little Juniper
Reservoir,

Madeline, Wendel,
Wendel Hot
Springs, West of
Snowstorm Mtn.
Mylopharo
don
conocepha
hardhead lus Likely None None SSC None
long-eared
owl Asio otus Wendel None None SSC None
Lavinia USF
symmetric Infernal Caverns, WS -
Pit roach us mitrulus Likely SoC None SSC None
Infernal Caverns,
Likely, Little
prairie Falco Juniper Reservoir,
falcon mexicanus Wendel None None WL None
Brachylag Ravendale, Termo,
pygmy us West of
rabbit idahoensis Snowstorm Mtn. None None SSC None
Infernal Caverns,
Karlo, Likely,
Little Juniper
Reservoir,
Madeline,
Swainson's Buteo Ravendale, Threa
hawk swainsoni Standish, Termo None tened None None
Townsend' Corynorhi
s big-eared nus
bat townsendii Wendel None None SSC None
willow Empidona Endan
flycatcher x traillii Likely None gered None None
Pseudocop
Carson aeodes
Invert wandering eunus
ebate skipper obscurus Wendel None None None None
Likely Pyrgulopsi
pyrg s falciglans Likely None None None None
Smoke Pyrgulopsi Karlo, West of
Creek pyrg s eremica Snowstorm Mtn. None None None None
Juga
topaz juga acutifilosa Karlo None None None None
OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 42 / 59

1 CHAPTER 4 - CULTURAL RESOURCES AND STRUCTURAL

2 CONDITION
34.1 Cultural resources
44.1.1 Pre-European Cultural resources.
5Humans have been utilizing the Honey Lake Basin and the Modoc Pplateau for at least 10,000
6years, and have been an integral part of its ecology for 3,000 to 5,000 years. Extensive
7prehistoric use of obsidian can be found throughout the region, predominantly as shards and
8Clovis-like projectile points (Jones and Klar, 2007). Two major tribes were present in the
9Planning Area at the time of European contact, the Pit-River tribe which settled a large area
10ranging from the southern end of Goose lake to south of the Plains of Madeline (including Eagle
11Lake), and the Mountain Maidu, which were located primarily south of Eagle Lake, in the
12Honey Lake Basin and southwards to Sierra Buttes.
13There are no indications of any major climatic changes of long duration in the Honey Lake
14Valley-Madeline Plains area in the past several millennia. Thus, fauna and flora of the last three
15or four thousand years were probably very similar to today’s climate, and people probably lived
16similar to the lifestyle reported for the ethnographic Wadatkut Paiute (Riddel 1960).
17One of Northern California’s important archaeological site (CA-LAS-7) is located within the
18Planning Area near Karlo. This site had been reported in 1936 or 1937 by Edwin H Allison,
19who had lived at Karlo, when it was a Southern Pacific Railroad water stop. His accounts of the
20site ultimately prompted excavation in the 1950’s. The site has been dated as early as 3000-
214000 BP (Riddell 1960) based on shell bead ornaments, and charcoal found at the site was
22carbon dated as 150-775 B.C. The site contains human remains, projectile points, grind stones,
23stone tools, ornaments, pipes and clay figurines. Bone remains show evidence of substantial use
24of rabbit, coyote, ungulate (elk, deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep) and fish (Riddel 1956,
25Riddell, Francis A. 1956. Summary Report of the Excavation of the Karlo Site. University of
26Utah Anthropological Papers No. 26:63-73. 1960 The Archaeology of the Karlo Site (Las-7),
27California. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 53.; , Follett,
281980; Follett, W. 1080. Fish Remains from the Karlo Site (CA-Las-7), Lassen County,
29California, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 2(1), Krantz, Grover S. (1960)
30Description of the Human Skeletal Remains from the Karlo Site. In The Archaeology of the

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 44 / 59
1Karlo Site (Las-7), California, edited by F. Riddell. Reports of the University of California
2Archaeological Survey, No. 53.).
3
4Similar evidence of human occupation have been recorded at LAS-45, an extensive habitation
5site at the northeast corner of Honey Lake, a mile or more from the present shore and in the
6vicinity of some hot springs. LAS-45 contains burials with square abalone shell beads which are
7identical with those found with burials at Las-7 (Riddell 1960). Another site near Wendel is
8Tommy Tucker Cave, recorded as CA-LAS-1 which was excavated in the 1940's. It provided
9evidence of prehistoric and early historical use " for special purposes which excluded women,
10or at least women preparing foods requiring grinding implements in that cave" (Riddell 1956).
11The excavation had produced “numerous shell beads and ornaments, sandals of twisted
12sagebrush bark, a large number of game counters used in gambling, bone tools and ornaments,
13basketry fragments and numerous other articles." (Riddell 1978).
144.1.2 Historic Sites and Resources
15Chapter 1 provides a summary of the recent history of the Modoc Line. Virtually all structures
16of the railroad ear have been removed. However, a few interesting sites offer opportunities for
17interpretive signage. Cultural resource surveys may be considered prior to soil disturbance in
18areas where previous disturbance by railroad construction had not occurred.
194.1.2.1 Wendel
204.1.2.2 Karlo
214.1.2.3 Horse Lake Station:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

14.1.2.4
Figure 4-16: The Water tank, yards and buildings at Horse Lake, 1926. From “Railroads of
Nevada and Eastern California: The northern roads” By David F. Myrick.
2
3Crest
4
5Madeline
6
7Sage hen
8
9Likely
10
11Bayley
12
13
14
15MLRT Conditions
16Note: this section is largely based on Dale Brown's report, and will identify structural
17deficiencies and management issues/ maintenance schedules
18
19This report will discuss the features of the Modoc Line gathered in August of 2010.
20A map of the features discussed has been produced using a Trimble Juno SB mobile GIS/GPS
21receiver utilizing a database developed by Dale Brown, a GIS field technician employed by
22LLTT, and Ralph Wagnitz, GIS specialist at Eagle Lake BLM field office. The map was post-
23processed using Pathfinder Office 4.1 and has an accuracy level of +/- 2 meters for 94% of the
24features gathered.
25
26
27
28Trail Conditions:

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 46 / 59
1The conditions vary widely and change quickly on virtually 100% of the Line. Features were
2graded based on the amount of ballast vs cinder for each section. The criteria for grading kept in
3mind it's usability for cyclists primarily, and motorized vehicles secondly. Much of the line is
4passable in a 2 wheel drive vehicle but is limited by the sections of heavy ballast which occur
5randomly. To encounter these areas on a grade that provides few areas to turn a vehicle around
6requires a driver to back up for long distances before being able to reverse the direction of the
7vehicle. Naturally this also limits the ability for 2 full size vehicles to pass each other and may
8mandate that some sections of the grade be limited to one way traffic or possibly no motorized
9vehicles at all. The most notable area where passing is impossible is along the section from
10Crest, traveling north, to Horse Lake Rd. The grade is elevated and is only wide enough to
11accommodate vehicles traveling in one direction. This is also the case on the Sage Hen grade
12traveling north from Madeline, but the reasons differ. The Sage Hen grade is 100% ballast and
13control of a motorized vehicle is a challenge. Traveling in reverse on this section would be risky
14at best and not a safe scenario for the motoring public in general. Additional areas of 100%
15ballast also exist at many places including but not limited to: a section of grade between the first
16Hwy 395 crossing and the Karlo south access road, a section between Biscar and the south entry
17to Snowstorm Ranch, a section between Mendiboure Rd and Madeline, and a section of grade
18between Likely and the third crossing of Hwy 395. There are other small areas of dense ballast
19but these are the worst areas. For cycling use the entire length of the grade would need
20reconditioning to pass from Likely to Wendel.
21Invasive Plant Species:

1More than a dozen areas were noted as 'areas of concern' and some have been previously noted
2and treated. The worst of these areas would be the 'mud flats' between the first Hwy 395
3crossing and Karlo, as well as the wetland areas delineated on the Modoc Line map. At a large
4number of culverts and bridges, and along the route in general, there are indications of invasive
5plants making a foothold. This is the case even at, or on the way to, the LLTT 'offline parcels',
6indicating that the spread of invasive species is fairly widespread throughout both Lassen and
7Modoc counties. A continuous coordinated effort to control and/or eradicate these plants appears
8to be a necessary part of maintenance of the Right of Way (ROW).
10Gates:
11The issue of gates on the ROW may well be one of the most complex parts of establishing a
12riding trail from Wendel to Likely. With a total of nearly two dozen gates, the need to find a
13workable solution for the individual requirements at each one will be necessary. At present the
14ranchers along the grade are concerned about keeping their livestock 'in bounds' so to speak and
15the idea of cyclists or the general motoring public leaving gates open is foremost in their minds.
16There are two properties that are the most concerned about access: Snowstorm Ranch and the
17property at gates G-13 and G-14 on the Likely Loop. Likely Land and Cattle Co. (John
18Flournoy and his partners) is also concerned but seems willing to find a way to make the ROW
19accessible to all. The same cannot be said for the owner of the property between G-13 and G-14.
20A solid fence was constructed across the ROW at both G-13 and 14 and the owner posted
21'Private Property' and 'No Trespassing' signs and appears to have no intention of allowing public
OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 48 / 59
1access to the ROW. This one property will require special handling by LLTT management or
2BLM. Cattle guards may be suitable in most locations but certainly not all and creative trail
3construction will be an interesting venture on this route.
4Fences:
5Along the vast majority of the route the fencing is in very good shape, indicating that
6neighboring land owners take the issue seriously. In the 'mud flats' area a small amount of
7maintenance would be a neighborly gesture on the part of LLTT, or possibly some type of cost
8sharing agreement. The worst area of disrepair is in the Snowstorm Ranch section of the grade.
9In part this is because the volcanic flows have created buttes that are pretty difficult to fence
10properly. In others, the ground has shifted or eroded or is saturated and fence posts are falling
11over, but in general it appears that fence maintenance has not been a pressing issue on this
12property recently. A more comprehensive study and estimate of repairs in this one area should
13be conducted if repairs are desired.
14
15Culverts:
16The culverts along the grade have done an excellent job over the years and were constructed
17well and in sufficient numbers to prevent any massive washouts of the grade. A small dip on the
18south end of Snowstorm Ranch (just south of the 'substation' feature) and minor erosion in spots
19along the Likely Loop are the only areas where any immediate attention may be necessary if
20heavy rains occur. These areas would no doubt be corrected if the grade is mechanically

1reconditioned for cyclists since they are very small at this time. Debris removal at the openings
2of the culverts will be necessary to maintain their effectiveness and many are already partially
3blocked. The areas of immediate concern have been noted in the 'Comments' field in the culvert
4attribute table of the Modoc Line map as 'partially obstructed' or 'obstructed' and can be labeled
5using the appropriate field in the table for easy identification in the mxd.
9Bridges and Bridge Culverts:
10These features have been reviewed in the 'Structural Report' and are in need of varying repairs,
11but in terms of structural support they remain very safe and function well. For use by the
12general public some safety issues do exist. The need for railings is the most pressing and
13obvious detail. Some of the bridges and bridge culverts are high enough to cause serious injury
14if a person were to accidentally ride over the edge on a bicycle. The same could be said for a
15motorized vehicle (especially a quad) but at the present time the road conditions mandate fairly
16moderate to slow speeds and the risk of a deadly collision or roll over is somewhat remote. But,
17as with any off road area, some drivers may push the limits of safe conduct and it is these
18individuals that require some special consideration in the area of vehicle safety on the ROW.
19
20Campgrounds and Parking:

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 50 / 59
1At present there are no areas that are set up for camping but there is evidence of usage at the
2Karlo area. Additional areas have been identified on the Modoc Line map and starting from the
3south end of the grade (Wendel) are as follows:
4Karlo: This is possibly the best area for improvement due to the existence of a well casing that
5may allow water to be provided. The biggest hurdle to setting up a water supply will actually be
6power to run the pump. Because no power lines exist anywhere near this area a generator would
7be required.
8The water table is shallow as evidenced by the wetlands surrounding the old train station
9location and that makes this area inviting. Some mosquito control would be a nice idea for
10campers. The property directly west of the old station area is large enough, with no appreciable
11slope, to accommodate parking for horse trailers and car trailers, allowing the public close and
12easy access to the Biscar Wildlife Management Area.
13
14Snowstorm 1: This area is only a short distance west of the ROW and makes for another
15inviting area. The seeming remoteness is quite attractive to some folks and hunters would be
16sure to frequent the campgrounds. It is large enough to accommodate both horse and car trailers
17although the car trailers may find Horse Lake Rd a bit rough, and a little too far, for towing.
18
19Crest: This area is ready made for camping and parking. With no appreciable slope, this old
20corral area is directly adjacent to the ROW and is only a mile or so off Hwy 395 on Horse Lake
21Road. An existing access trail from Horse Lake Road to the ROW could easily be improved to

1allow access that would not require transiting the elevated section of ROW where no passing of
2vehicles is possible. From this location a downhill ride through the Snowstorm section of the
3ROW leads to the upper Biscar access road and eventually Karlo, a very “ride friendly” section
4for cyclists or horse back riders. This area should receive serious consideration for
5improvement. Lots of wildlife to be seen here!
7Ravendale; This area is not highly suitable for a campground although at one time a small trailer
8park existed for railroad employees. The small town boasted a cafe and saloon but the lack of
9trains and bus traffic have contributed to their demise and both succumbed to fires. It may be
10possible to renovate the trailer park for car trailers and the access to water and power is on-site.
11An effort to document the importance of Ravendale to the Modoc Line and install interpretive
12signs detailing the areas used by the railroad would be of importance and is immediately
13accessible from Hwy 395. This would lend high visibility to the existence of the Rails to Trails
14program for the Modoc Line. Any additional economic activity brought to Ravendale by the
15program would be much appreciated by the local motel owner and may even lead to re-
16establishment of a cafe and local watering hole to accommodate the residents and users of the
17Trail and the general public using the highway.
18
19

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 52 / 59
1Madeline: This area holds possibilities but would be best if improved for horse back riders. The
2largest section of property is west of Hwy 395 and has easy access. The less fortunate part is the
3fact that it lies across the highway from the grade and would result in people needing to cross
4high speed traffic to use the area. The speed limit is not reduced at Madeline, making this much
5less than ideal for use with the ROW. The historic value of Madeline to the Modoc lies in its
6sheep ranches and as a water stop for steam engines. An interpretive sign or area similar to
7Ravendale would be of use and again would bring high visibility to the program. Any additional
8economic traffic may make reopening the cafe a viable opportunity that this community would
9surely appreciate.
10
11Sage Hen Summit: This area, already in the hands of BLM, lends itself to serious consideration
12for a trail head, campground and parking area. Located at the top of the grade it allows downhill
13travel in both directions, north to Likely and south to the Madeline plains. A trip down the
14Likely Loop provides spectacular views and a remote experience. A trip to the south is possibly
15the steepest, fastest, ride on the Modoc Line for bicyclists.
16
17Likely: In Likely, facilities to buy supplies and view historic portions of the Modoc exist and
18once again interpretive signs reiterating the areas significance to the Modoc should be
19considered and high visibility for the Rails to Trails program can be achieved. John Flournoy
20mentioned some interesting facts about the grainery: his father built it out of salvaged lumber
21from a train wreck and it boasts a lift system that can raise the entire front end of a truck to

1dump grain in the hopper well. This was very useful in the days before hydraulic dump trucks
2and would be a nice feature for a small museum type facility once the storage use of the
3warehouse has run it's course. John intends to retain his lease for the foreseeable future, so this
4is just a future use idea.
7Structures:
8Well houses: Three of these buildings still exist and are in use today. The towns of Ravendale,
9Madeline and Likely rely on water from the wells installed for the Modoc Line. Madeline has
10recently installed new pumps and a bladder tank and a 2” connection to refill their firetruck. A
11similar stub-out for Ravendale would be highly advantageous for the refilling of fire trucks due
12to the existing 4” main.
13Water Tanks: Originally used to refill steam locomotives, two tanks still exist. One at Madeline
14that is out of service, and one at Likely that functions to this day. The foundations for two other
15tanks exist at Ravendale and Karlo but the tanks themselves are long gone.
16Commercial buildings: Currently the only habitable buildings are those leased at Likely. John
17Flournoy and Walt Scharr Trucking use the buildings, but all are in need of renovation or repair.
18The grainery building boasts solid 2x6 wooden walls but the corrugated sheet metal covering it
19is loose and is a serious hazard in high winds. It also needs to have some improvement made to
20its perimeter, as there are several ways a child or homeless transient could be hurt here. The

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 54 / 59
1buildings used by Walt are primarily for storage but are in a far more serious state of decay. The
2corrugated sheet metal on wooden framing has holes shot in it, both in the roof and the walls.
3Spilled oil and diesel fuel contaminate the area inside and around these structures and the
4scrapped truck bodies are a horrible eyesore to the town of Likely. It is a shame to see such
5disregard for the environment so close to viable waterways.
6As previously reported, the Crew Quarters and Scale House need full renovation or to be
7removed entirely. In the interim these buildings need to be boarded up and fenced. These
8structures pose the highest exposure to liability of any, but all the structures at Likely, excepting
9the well house, need serious review to remain viable.
10The last remaining livestock loading ramp exists just a mile south of the northern end point (the
11EOL feature) and any effort to retain it would be time well spent. Quite a find at the journey's
12end!
13
14
15
16Cultural Features:
17The possibilities for identification of cultural features abounds on the Modoc. From basaltic
18post piles in the Snowstorm Ranch region to the many historic features produced to make the
19Modoc Line a reality, there is much to inform the general public about. Scenic view spots are at

1nearly every turn in the grade and wildlife viewing begins and ends at every trail head or access
2point.
4Signs:
5Interpretive: Signs boasting the importance of towns and structures and cultural features will be
6needed at Likely, Madeline and Ravendale. A little indication of the significance of the Rails to
7Trails venture and the Modoc Line itself at each end of the line would be a nice touch.
8Mile Posts: Mile posts are only indicated where either a sign or a post are still in existence.
9No Trespassing: Reminders of proper use of the trail and respect for our neighbors...
10Trail head: Needed at each campground or parking area constructed for use of the trail.
11
12Wetlands:
13Whether natural, as in the surrounding areas of Karlo and the areas north of Likely, or the
14trenches created when the grade was built, the value of these areas speaks for itself. The
15inadvertent creation of watering holes for resident, as well as transient, game animals and birds
16has produced a game rich environment to be enjoyed for many future generations. To have these
17areas preserved by LLTT is very likely the best possible protection available and a gem in the
18crown of the north state.
19

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 56 / 59
2Appendix:
3Abbreviation Code Index-( Abbv_Code) is a field in the attribute tables for all features in the
4Modoc Line mxd. It can be used to label and identify any list of features in the map document.
5B- bridges
6BC- bridge culverts
7C- culverts
8Inv- invasive species
9Hwy- highway intersection
10R- road intersection
11T- trail intersection
12G- stretch gates
13HG- hard gates
14Wet- wetlands
15Camp- campgrounds and/or parking areas
16Parcel- offline parcel identification
17Park- parking lot number
18S- signs

1Pic_Num – is a field that lists the numbers of the pictures relating to the feature viewed.
2Used as a labeling field it will show the features picture numbers on the mxd.
3GIS Notes:
4All features and layers used in the mxd reside in the 'Modoc Line Masters' file. This allows all
5the features in the map to use relative path names instead of absolute path names for file
6reproduction. Any forwarding of maps or documents should involve the entire file to avoid
7broken links in the mxd!
94.1.3 MLRT Structures
104.1.3.1 Bridges & Culverts
114.1.3.2 Surface conditions
124.1.3.3 Wells, buildings and other
134.1.4 Road crossings, Easements and Access Points
144.2 Associated parcels

15Note: this section will describe the location, attributes and condition of each non-essential
16parcel
174.3 Adjacent landownership

18Note: this section will describe adjacent landowners, land use and property conflicts or
19possible management concerns.

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 58 / 59

MODOC Master3 4311

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODOC Master3 4311

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

1 CHAPTER 3 - NATURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS

Chapter 3 - Natural resources Existing conditions........................................................................1

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1 / 59

Chapter 4 - Cultural Resources and STRUCTURAL Condition.................................................44

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

333.1.3 Field surveys

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 3 / 59

103.2 Property description

233.2.1 Maps and geospatial data

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 5 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 7 / 59

93.3 Regional Climate

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 9 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

13.4 Natural Resources

23.4.1 Ecosystem geography

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 11 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

13.4.2 Topography and Geomorphology

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 13 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

93.4.3.1 Soil surveys

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 15 / 59

Table 3-4: Percentages of soil classes within the MLRT corridor.

Farmland of statewide importance 5%

Not prime farmland 89%

Prime farmland if irrigated 5%

Prime farmland if irrigated and either 1%

Grand Total 100%

83.4.3.3 Soil types

133.4.3.4 Soil stability

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Rating K-factor Percent of

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 17 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

63.4.4.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Table 3-6: Streams within the MLRT corridor.

Drains into Stream name Length (m) within

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 19 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 21 / 59

Figure 3-10: Bridge spanning Upper Snowstorm Creek.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 23 / 59

33.4.5.1 Fire history

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

YEAR FIRE_NAME CAUSE ACRES

253.4.5.2 Fire regime condition

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 25 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Table 3-8: Fire Regime Conditions within the MLRT corridor

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 27 / 59

23.4.6.1 Vegetation communities

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 29 / 59

System Existing Vegetation Type name Percent

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PAGE 31 / 59

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

13.4.6.2 Plant species of concern