Mammoth Lakes City Council
October 4, 2023

Town Council Agenda

Wednesday, October 4, 2023, 3:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members of the Town Council:

Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (760) 965-3602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 13.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Offices located at 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Mammoth Lakes website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

NOTE: You may attend the Town Council meetings in person or watch them on the Town of Mammoth Lakes' website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov , on the local government cable channel 18, or via Zoom. Public comments can be submitted to the Town Clerk at [email protected]. before and during the meeting, or may be made in person or via Zoom.

NOTE: All comments will be limited to a speaking time of five minutes.

ZOOM INFORMATION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device:

Please type in or cut and paste in this URL to join. https://monocounty.zoom.us/s/92958002088 Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 876 9923
Webinar ID: 929 5800 2088
International numbers available: https://monocounty.zoom.us/u/acobwlnMsm

1. RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY

1.1 At 3:00 p.m. the Town Council will conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Town's community tennis courts located at 1000 Forest Trail and new pickleball courts located at 416 Sierra Park Road.

2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment portion of the agenda provides the public with an opportunity to address the Town Council on matters not otherwise listed on the agenda. Under California law the Town Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Town Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Town Council will listen to all public comment, but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it. Requests for service from the Town may also be made at the Town offices during regular business hours.

Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration.

5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Opportunity to add urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)2, if necessary.

6. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED)

6.1 October 2023 Public Works Engineering CIP Update.

6.2 Did you Know? Dogs (August 2023).

6.3 Did you Know? Recreation Investments (September 2023).

6.4 Planning update on potential federal shutdown.

7. INTRODUCTIONS

7.1 Introduce new Police Department K9 Jax.

8. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS

8.1 Recognition of Town Manager Daniel C. Holler for ten years of service.

9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

9.1 October Community Recreation Center (CRC) Update.

10. CONSENT AGENDA

10.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 6, 2023.

10.2 Accept the Project Closeout Report for the Ballfields Rehabilitation Project.

10.3 Approve the resolution authorizing the Town’s participation in the CSCDA Commercial Open Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program to provide commercial property owners access to financing for renewable energy and building efficiency upgrades.

10.4 Accept Check Register 8/30/23 in the amount of $530,400.24. Accept Check Register 9/7/23 in the amount of $793,992.39. Accept Check Register 9/14/23 in the amount of $3,433,620.93. Accept Check Register 9/19/23 in the amount of $44,574.68.

Accept Check Register 9/27/23 in the amount of $1,689,112.75.

11. POLICY MATTERS

11.1 Waive the reading and introduce by title only the ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Parking.

11.2 Inyo National Forest OSV Subpart-C Engagement & Public Comment.

11.3 Council finds and determine that Emergency Work Authorized by Resolutions 23-29 and 23-54 continues to be necessary for public welfare and safety.

11.4 Review of Town Manager Recruitment Information and Schedule.

12. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on committees, commissions, and organizations; general reports on Councilmember activities

13. ADJOURNMENT
The Town Council will adjourn to a special meeting to be held jointly with the Mono County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: October 2023 Public Works Engineering CIP Update.

Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Public Works Engineering Department
Recommended Motion: None
Summary: The October 2023 CIP update includes most of the active construction projects managed by the Town including emergency contract work. Several projects have recently started and more are scheduled to bid later in the year.

1 Capital Project Update
October Update
Created 9-25-23
Project Notes
2023 Emergency
Infrastructure Repair
Contractor has completed repairs on damaged sidewalk, drains, and the majority of the Lake Mary Road & Lakes Basin MUP fences. Contractor is replacing concrete piers along Lake Mary Road MUP. Contractor expects to complete all wooden fence work this week and will transition to working on steel railing and truncated dome replacement at the pedestrian ramps along Main St/Hwy 203.

CRC Overhead lights have been installed, with installation of ductwork underway. Exterior mechanical and trash enclosure which contains the chiller and other equipment is complete. Drywall and tile finishes are being installed in the bathrooms and locker rooms. Contractor is currently installing doors and storefront glazing. The fabric membranes are complete.

CRC - Mobility Hub Site work is substantially complete, with minor details to be addressed this fall.

CRC - Interior TI Work Staff continues to wait for CRC completion so interior work can be bid for construction separately, later this fall or winter.

The Parcel Phase 1 Siding is being installed on Building B, preparation for siding is under way on Building A. The exterior of Building B will be painted in the upcoming weeks, with Building A following. Interior utility installation is wrapping up, and drywall touch-up work is complete with final painting expected to begin this week. Elevators and trash chutes have been installed. Building A roof insulation and membrane installation is in progress. Interior framing and utility fitout is underway in the childcare and community areas.

On site, underground utilities are nearly complete, and concrete curb and gutter is being installed this week, to be followed by sidewalks. Asphalt paving is expected to be complete before winter.

Landscaping and public playground installation will likely occur next spring.

The Parcel Phase 2 Removal of trees in anticipation of receiving funding and starting construction next year may occur this fall, depending on weather.

Chaparral Extension (The
Parcel)
Installation of underground sewer, water, and storm drain utilities is in progress. Concrete curb and gutter, and paving may be completed this year, weather permitting. 60 Joaquin Staff has issued a grading permit, and tree clearing work, rough grading, and building pad construction is complete. Building permits have not yet been issued, although the outside plan checker is working through final plan approval with the third party that reviews and approves the modular units.

OMR Beautification Phase 1 Negotiations with potential contractors have not been successful thus far. Town is considering combining phase 1 of this project with the landscaping work anticipated to be completed at The Parcel next summer.

Main Street Landscaping
Phase 1
Staff has just started negotiating with a contractor for the completion of this work, with the intent of starting with confirmation of existing irrigation system this fall, to be followed by new irrigation and planting installation next spring and summer.

Negotiations with potential contractors have not been successful thus far. Town is considering combining phase 1 of the project with the landscaping work anticipated to be completed at The Parcel next summer.

2 HSIP Intersection crossings Town staff held a pre-construction meeting with the contractor and Caltrans. Work was delayed due to equipment lead time, but is expected to take place on or about the week of October 16, and last for less than a week.

Laurel Mountain Rd Rehab
& Sidewalk
Installation of underground sewer, storm drain, and conduit is complete, as is construction of the concrete sidewalk. The contractor began grinding and hauling off the old asphalt pavement this week, and will continue to excavate then, compact material in preparation for placement of new asphalt, which is anticipated to occur the week of October 9. Final items to be completed will include installation of Town standard street lights and a flashing pedestrian beacon at Tavern Road.

Fuel Island The Contract has been executed and work is expected to begin the week of October 2nd or possibly October 9th. There are some unknowns in the timeline due to material availability but as a more concrete timeline comes into place over the next few days, we will continue updating affected agencies. The fuel island may be closed for up to a month, with both gasoline and diesel unavailable.

New Civic Center Staff has been given direction to proceed working with HMC architects on more detailed design of the building, to include construction drawings and specifications adequate for bidding. The Town has previously applied for a $12.6M grant to provide an Emergency Operations Center and is still awaiting the results. In the meantime, the team is working towards Planning Design Review in December, with permit submittal and bidding in April 2024. Construction on site – including grading, utilities, and building foundations - could begin as early as July 2024.

Foundation Childcare Staff conducted a second site walk of the existing portable units at the High School campus with the architect last week to review some final details before the completion of 100% design/bid documents. We plan to go out to bid in mid-November, with the goal of awarding a contract before the end of this year. Construction on site could begin in early spring, with re-location of the portable units in late June, corresponding with the end of the school year. This project currently consists of providing a core and shell building only. The details of childcare facility operation are in progress.

Dog Park Infrastructure The contract has been executed and staff conducted a pre-construction meeting on site with the contractor last week. Work is expected to start this week and continue for a couple of months, weather permitting.

SHARP Trailhead
Infrastructure
Staff is working with an engineering consultant on final design and specifications with the goal of going out to bed in mid-November and award a contract before the end of this year. Construction on site could start in spring of next year.

Town Facility
Maintenance/Repair
Staff is working with contractors to define scope and schedule for miscellaneous facility repairs, fence work, and road/MUP patching.

Laurel Mountain Road Construction Photos

3

4 The Parcel Construction Photos

5

6

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Did you Know? Dogs (August 2023)
Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Pam Kobylarz, Assistant to the Town Manager Recommended Motion: No Action.

Summary: Each month the Town publishes a “Did you Know?” piece that highlights aspects of the Town’s programs and services that the public may not be familiar with. August’s piece focused on dog-related rules and safety practices. It was published in The Sheet, the Mammoth Times, and el Sol on the weekend of August 18.

Did you know that it is dog owners’
responsibility to comply with the rules
and regulations of the Town?
• Every person owning a dog six months of age or older must license the dog within 30 days of acquisition or within 30 days of moving to Mammoth Lakes.

Licenses can be purchased or renewed by visiting mammothlakes.docupet.com. • Dog licensing is required by State and County Ordinances to control rabies and provide information to support investigations of cruelty, neglect, abandonment, and dog bites, A license aids us in getting a lost dog back to you quickly. A portion of all license sales support animal welfare initiatives in Mammoth Lakes! • Dog owners are responsible for cleaning up any feces deposited by the dog within the Town of Mammoth Lakes and disposing of it in a waste receptacle. • It is unlawful for dog owners to allow their dog to run at large within the Town of Mammoth Lakes. All dogs must be kept on-leash unless securely confined within private property.
• Safe pet care includes proper use of poisons used to manage mice or other rodents. Pets can become sick or even die if they attempt to eat a poisoned animal. Make sure rodent control poison used meets legal requirements or use other means.

Always use care in handling any dead rodents.

TownofMammothLakes.ca.gov Town of Mammoth Lakes

DID YOU
KNOW?
Visit: townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/832/Dog-Services Page 12 of 198 TownofMammothLakes.ca.gov Town of Mammoth Lakes
¿Sabía que es responsabilidad de
los dueños de perros cumplir con las
normas y reglamentos del Pueblo?
• Toda persona que tenga un perro de seis meses de edad o más debe obtener la licencia del perro dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la adquisición o dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la mudanza a Mammoth Lakes. Las licencias se pueden comprar o renovar visitando mammothlakes.docupet.com.
• Las ordenanzas estatales y del condado requieren licencias para perros para controlar la rabia y proporcionar información para respaldar investigaciones de crueldad, negligencia, abandono y mordeduras de perros. Una licencia nos ayuda a devolverle un perro perdido rápidamente. ¡Una parte de todas las ventas de licencias apoyan iniciativas de bienestar animal en Mammoth Lakes! • Los dueños de perros son responsables de limpiar las heces depositadas por el perro dentro del Pueblo de Mammoth Lakes y desecharlas en un recipiente para desechos.
• Es ilegal que los dueños de perros permitan que su perro corra libremente dentro del pueblo de Mammoth Lakes. Todos los perros deben mantenerse con correa a menos que estén confinados de manera segura dentro de una propiedad privada. • El cuidado seguro de las mascotas incluye el uso adecuado de los venenos utilizados para controlar ratones u otros roedores. Las mascotas pueden enfermarse o incluso morir si intentan comerse un animal envenenado. Asegúrese de que el veneno para el control de roedores utilizado cumpla con los requisitos legales o utilice otros medios. Siempre tenga cuidado al manipular cualquier roedor muerto.
¿SABÍAS QUE?
Visite: townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/832/Dog-Services

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Did you Know? Recreation Investments (Sept. 2023) Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Pam Kobylarz, Assistant to the Town Manager Recommended Motion: No Action.

Summary: Each month the Town publishes a “Did you Know?” piece that highlights aspects of the Town’s programs and services that the public may not be familiar with. September’s piece focused on the numerous investments the Town has made into its Recreation amenities. It was published in The Sheet, the Mammoth Times, and el Sol on the weekend of September 22, as well as being posted on the Town’s social media and website.

Did you know that the Town
is working hard to enhance our
recreation amenities?
The Town has completed or is working to complete the
following recreation amenities for our residents and visitors:
• The Town has invested over $1.1 Million in our parks and recreation infrastructure since 2017.
• Reopened Tennis Courts 5 and 6 with a new Sport Court modular system that suspends over the existing court surface offering excellent traction, ball response, superior shock absorption and lateral forgiveness.
• Installed a new fixed height tempered-glass basketball system at the Community Courts and replaced the old hoop at
Shady Rest Park.
• Repurposed the old outdoor ice rink to a Community Pickleball Complex with six regulation courts.
• Building a year-round Community Recreation Center (CRC) offering ice sports in winter at LA Kings Ice, and court sports, summer camps and adult programming in summer.
• Constructing a new park at The Parcel with a 2–5-yearold playground to support the new Mono County Office of Education operated childcare facility, and a 5–12-year-old playground for the community.
• A 1-acre community dog park, sponsored by T-Mobile, will open later this fall on the Mammoth Lakes Foundation
leased site with parking for 40 vehicles.
• Completed the expansive Ballfield Rehabilitation Project on softball field #2 (lower field) at the Whitmore Recreation Area. The field was leveled and resized to Little League and High School Softball dimensions with new outfield fencing and infield mix.

TownofMammothLakes.ca.gov Town of Mammoth Lakes

DID YOU
KNOW?

• El pueblo de Mammoth Lakes ha invertido más de 1.1
millones de dólares en nuestra infraestructura de parques y recreación desde 2017.
• Reabrimos las canchas 5 y 6, con un nuevo sistema modular Sport Court que se suspende sobre la superficie existente de la cancha, ofreciendo una excelente tracción, respuesta de la pelota, amortiguación y tolerancia lateral.
• Se ha instalado un nuevo sistema de baloncesto de altura fija y vidrio templado en las canchas comunitarias y se ha sustituido la vieja canasta del parque Shady Rest.
• Reacondicionamos la antigua pista de hielo al aire libre para convertirla en un Complejo Comunitario de Pickleball con seis canchas reglamentarias.
• Estamos construyendo un Centro Recreativo Comunitario (CRC) que funcione todo el año y ofrezca deportes sobre hielo en invierno en LA Kings Ice, y deportes en cancha, campamentos y programación para adultos en verano.
• Estamos construyendo un nuevo parque en The Parcel con un área de juegos para niños de 2 a 5 años para apoyar las instalaciones de cuidado infantil operadas por la Oficina de Educación del Condado de Mono, y un área de juegos para niños de 5 a 12 años para la comunidad.
• Un parque canino comunitario de 1 acre, patrocinado por T-Mobile, abrirá sus puertas a finales de otoño en el terreno arrendado a la Fundación Mammoth Lakes, con aparcamiento para 40 vehículos.
• Se ha finalizado el proyecto ampliado de rehabilitación del campo de softball #2 (campo inferior) del área recreativa de Whitmore.

El campo se niveló y redimensionó para adaptarlo a las
dimensiones de las Ligas Menores y la High School Softball, con nuevas vallas en el campo exterior y mezcla en el cuadro interior. ¿SABÍAS QUE?
TownofMammothLakes.ca.gov Town of Mammoth Lakes
¿Sabía que el pueblo de Mammoth
Lakes está trabajando duro para mejorar
nuestras instalaciones recreativas?

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Planning update on potential federal shutdown and impacts on Forest Service and other agency operations
Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Update information only.

Summary:

With the potential Federal Government shutdown, staff identified plans to assist the Forest Service as needed pending the level of impacts. After meeting with Forest Service leadership, we are prepared to assist with providing basic services of restrooms and trash collection in several areas (i.e., Lakes Basin, Minaret Vista, Shady Rest, etc.) if needed. The Police Department will add additional patrols around closed campground areas and will coordinate with any USFS law enforcement personnel. Coordination to Reds Meadow and the Post Pile for administrative access related to the road construction work is also being reviewed. The status of the Welcome Center is not certain but will likely be closed. We offered to assist with messaging as needed. The regional office is meeting with the Forest Supervisors on shut down protocols. Law Enforcement and defined staff officers with the Forest will continue to work. The seasonal closure of campgrounds is proceeding with only lower elevations ones currently open. The status of concessionaires continuing to operate under a federal shutdown was uncertain.

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: October Community Recreation Center (CRC) Update Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Haislip Hayes, PE Public Works Director
Recommended Motion: Receive a presentation from staff on the status of the CRC.

Summary:

This is an update on the status of the construction project. Work since the September update has continued to focus on critical path items. Hamel Contracting has provided an updated schedule which staff will outline during the presentation. Staff will provide an estimated opening date as well as progress photos.

Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 6, 2023, 3:30 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea,
Councilmember Amanda Rice
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CLOSED SESSION
At 3:35 p.m. the Mayor announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.

1.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One case)

1.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph 1 of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of case:

JT2 EC v. Hamel Contracting, Inc, Town of Mammoth Lakes, and Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation (Case No: 23UCM76)

2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 4:02 p.m. and announced that there was no reportable action taken.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

3. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Wentworth led the flag salute.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
David Eichman spoke about mobility issues in Town, including trolley service to Old Mammoth Road, pedestrian countdowns, and fire hydrant water pressure.

John Urdi, Executive Director of Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT), introduced new MLT Director of Marketing Sarah Winters to the Council and the community. Mr.

Urdi gave an update regarding today's MLT meeting. There was discussion among members of Council and Mr. Urdi.

6. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.

7. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED) Office of Outdoor Recreation Manager Lawson Reif gave an update regarding outdoor recreation activities.

Administrative Services/Finance Director Rob Patterson gave an update regarding Congressman Kiley's visit to our region. There was discussion among members of Council and staff. Mr. Patterson gave an update regarding the Town's upcoming audit.

Town Attorney Andrew Morris reported that the legislation to relinquish Highway 203 was continuing to move through the legislature.

8. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS

8.1 Recognition of Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Pat Vargas for twenty years of service.

Public Works Director Haislip Hayes thanked Mr. Vargas for his years of services.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

8.2 Recognition of retiring Public Works Maintenance Manager Todd Murphy.

Public Works Director Haislip Hayes thanked Mr. Murphy for his years of services.

8.3 Approve the proclamation declaring September 2023 as General Aviation Month.

Mayor Wentworth read the proposed proclamation.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Approve the proclamation declaring September 2023 as General Aviation Month in the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (5 to 0)

9. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

9.1 Presentation from Mammoth Lakes Housing on the Winter 2023 Emergency Relief and Response Program.

Executive Director of Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) Patricia Robertson and Housing Navigators Olya Egerov outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and MLH staff.

10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

10.1 The Parcel Affordable Housing Construction Update.

Engineering Manager Amy Callanan gave a presentation regarding The Parcel Construction Update. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

11. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Chris Bubser
Approve the Consent Agenda.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice Carried (5 to 0)

11.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 16, 2023.

11.2 Adopt the resolution authorizing submittal of applications for all Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants for which the Town of Mammoth Lakes is eligible.

11.3 Adopt the resolution authorizing the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG) to submit an application to the California Department of Transportation Reconnecting Communities Highways to Boulevards Grant.

11.4 Agreement with Constant Associates to develop an After Action Report (AAR).

11.5 Award contract for the Dog Park & MLF (Mammoth Lakes Foundation) Infrastructure Project to DG Construction, Inc.

11.6 Award contract for the Fuel Island Improvements Project to L.A.

Perks Petroleum Specialists.

11.7 Approve the resolution authorizing the submittal of a California Strategic Growth Council Community Resilience Center
Implementation Grant application.

11.8 Approve Side Letter No. 03-2023 between the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the Mammoth Lakes Police Officers' Association amending the current Memorandum of Understanding to include specific language for Police Corporal Position.

11.9 Approve the contract with Group Delta Consultants Inc. for Per and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Environmental Site Assessment at Mammoth Yosemite Airport.

11.10 Accept Check Register 8/15/23 in the amount of $1, 861,586.18.

Accept Check Register 8/23/23 in the amount of $717,431.84.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

12. POLICY MATTERS

12.1 Authorize staff to develop a new logo for the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Assistant to the Town Manager Pam Kobylarz and Town Attorney Andrew Morris outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

John Urdi, Mammoth Lakes Tourism Executive Director, outlined the history of the current logo. He said that the ownership of the logo could be given to the Town, or the logo could be changed for the Town to add “Town of” Mammoth Lakes. He recommended that the Town keep the current logo.

There was discussion among members of Council, staff, and Mr. Urdi.

Moved by Mayor John Wentworth
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Authorize staff to develop a new logo for the Town of Mammoth Lakes using an iteration of the current Town logo that clearly defines the Town of Mammoth. Direct staff to work with Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) and bring the item back to Council for implementation.

For (4): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, and Councilmember Amanda Rice Against (1): Councilmember Sarah Rea
Carried (4 to 1)

12.2 Community Recreation Center (CRC) Update and Direction to Staff.

Public Works Director Haislip Hayes outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Authorize the Town Manager to unilaterally administer future contract changes with Hamel Contracting regarding the Community Recreation Center (CRC).

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (5 to 0)

12.3 Determine that Emergency Work Authorized by Resolutions 23-29 and 23-54 continues to be necessary for public welfare and safety.

Town Manager Daniel C. Holler outlined the information in the staff report.

There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Council finds and determines that the emergency repair work authorized by Resolutions 23-29 and 23-54 continues to be necessary for public welfare and safety.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (5 to 0)

12.4 Town of Mammoth Lakes priorities for the FY24 Inyo National Forest Program of Work.

Office of Outdoor Recreation Manager Lawson Reif outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Moved by Mayor John Wentworth
Seconded by Councilmember Chris Bubser
Approve the proposed Town priority areas of work to be submitted to the Inyo National Forest for consideration for inclusion in their FY24 Program of Work, as modified to reduce the list to four items and include them in the following order:

1. Extension of "Snow Pit" Use Permit and longer-term land tenure.

2. Continued Sherwin's Meadow (SHARP) trail planning and implementation.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

3. Collaborative efforts on Fuels Management.

4. Mammoth Creek Park (East) - Bike Park.

For (4): Mayor John Wentworth, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Against (1): Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Carried (4 to 1)

12.5 Resolution to Increase Parking Citation Fines.

Town Attorney Andrew Morris outlined the information in the staff report.

There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Patrick Bernard, Manager of Snowbird Condos, spoke in support of the increase in the parking citations.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Sarah Rea
Adopt the Resolution increasing Parking Related Citation Fines.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (5 to 0)

13. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Bubser said that she appreciated the efforts of everyone working together for Congressman Kiley's visit.

Mayor Pro Tem Sauser attended the Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Board meeting, the Congressman's visit, and the JLL lunch hosted by the Chamber.

Mayor Wentworth attended the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments meeting.

Town Council Minutes
September 6, 2023

14. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.

Jamie Gray, Town Clerk

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Subject: Project Closeout Report for the Ballfields Rehabilitation Project Meeting Date: October 4, 2023
Written by: Riley Griesenbeck, Engineering Technician,
Amy Callanan, PE, Engineering Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Town Council accept the project closeout report for the Ballfields Rehabilitation Project.

BACKGROUND:

Town staff determined in fall of 2021 that the Whitmore Sports Complex ballfields needed repair, particularly Field 2, where landfill material protruded through the infield mix and created hazards. Additionally, Field 2 had improper playing field dimensions for high school softball and little league play as the infield was too large. Town staff worked with Mammoth High School to ensure new dimensions corresponded to correct high school softball playing field size. The initial project scope addressed the hazardous playing field and corrected field dimensions on Whitmore Field 2, included minor repairs on Whitmore Field 3, and an alternate option for deferred maintenance work on Shady Rest Ballfields.

Town staff designed and bid the project to include the basic site improvements necessary for the intended function. Construction started in August of 2022 and was completed in June of 2023 after a winter suspension that lasted from November 9, 2022 to May 18, 2023.

Project closeout was delayed as Contractor and Town staff attempted to secure hauling to bring in additional infield mix to complete work on Whitmore Field 3, however, after two months of unsuccessful attempts the decision was made to close the project.

The base bid contract was awarded to Walker Industries on April 20, 2022. During the Contractor’s initial assessment of Field 2 it was determined that changes needed to be made to the project scope to better address existing conditions, including the outfield of Field 2 having an elevation 8” higher than the existing infield. The final project scope included:
 Installation of 6”x8” pressure treated lumber to contain new infield mix and decomposed granite.
 Installation of 4” of decomposed granite to create a cost-effective barrier between existing, contaminated infield mix and future playing surface and to raise the overall playing surface to better match existing outfield sod height.  Installation of 4” of infield mix to create pristine playing surface.  Removal of existing sod at infield-outfield interface and removal of built-up material.

2  Installation of ~500 yds of topsoil and 10,000 SF of new sod to create proper playing field dimensions.
 Installation of 378 LF of 6’ tall chain link fence with equipment and personnel gates to enclose playing field and 310 LF of 4’ tall chain link fence with equipment and personnel gates to enclose non-playing area for other recreational uses.  No work on Whitmore Field 3 or Shady Rest Ballfields.

Notice of Completion was sent to the County recorder on September 15, 2023.

PROJECT LOCATION:

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The engineer’s construction estimate for the original project scope as bid was $350,000 and the Town received one bid. At the Town Council meeting on April 20, 2022, the contract was awarded to Walker Industries, Inc. for $354,452.00 including authorization of up to an additional 10% of the award amount.

Including the cost for the additions and changes to the original project scope, the final project costs totaled $373,667.45 which came in under the original project allocation of $400,000. Funding for this project was allocated from Parks Deferred Maintenance (FD

3 990) and General Fund (FD 100). The remaining $42,611.55 allocated to this project that was not spent will be returned to Parks Deferred Maintenance (FD 990).

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS:

4 CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS:

5

6 POST-CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS:

7

8

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Approve the resolution authorizing the Town’s participation in the CSCDA Commercial Open Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program to provide commercial property owners access to financing for renewable energy and building efficiency upgrades
Meeting Date: October 4, 2023
Prepared by: Nolan Bobroff, Acting Community & Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the resolution authorizing the Town’s participation in the CSCDA Commercial Open Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program to provide commercial property owners access to financing for renewable energy and building efficiency upgrades BACKGROUND:

CSCDA1, the largest Joint Powers Authority in California, founded and sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, has implemented Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) under the provisions of Chapter 29 of Division 7 of the Streets & Highways Code (commonly referred to as “AB 811”) on behalf of its member counties and cities. AB 811 authorizes a legislative body to designate an area within which authorized public officials (including a joint powers authority like CSCDA) and property owners may enter into voluntary contractual assessments to finance the installation of renewable energy, energy efficiency, water efficiency, seismic strengthening and wildfire mitigation improvements as well as electric vehicle charging infrastructure, in each case affixed to real property (the “Improvements”).

CSCDA’s Commissioners have pre-qualified and appointed several Commercial PACE Administrators to manage the CSCDA Open PACE program and offer members turn-key PACE solutions that provide commercial property owners the choice among prequalified PACE financing providers, thereby creating competition on terms, service, and interest rates. The pre-qualified Commercial PACE Administrators that are eligible to offer commercial property owners within the Town access to the PACE financing are:

CounterPointe Sustainable Real Estate, Nuveen Green Capital, White Oak Advisors, Stonehill PACE, LordCap PACE, Green PACE Capital, Poppy Bank, PACE Loan Group, GreenRock Healthcare Capital, CastleGreen Finance, Bayview Asset Management, Petros PACE Finance, Citizens Business Bank, and Benefit Street Partners.

1 The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) was created in 1988, under California’s Joint Exercise of Powers Act, to provide California’s local governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of community-based public benefit projects. CSCDA has over 530 member agencies (the Town has been a member since 2005) and is the Joint Powers Authority and conduit bond issuer founded and sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. More information about CSCDA is available at www.cscda.org.

2 CSCDA’s Open PACE program offers turnkey solutions to save California cities and counties the time and resources of developing standalone PACE programs. Jurisdictions only need to adopt the form of resolution accompanying this staff report related to the CSCDA Open PACE program to begin the process.

More information about CSCDA and CSCDA’s commercial Open PACE Program Administrators is available at www.cscda.org.

ANALYSIS:

CSCDA commercial Open PACE is being offered to allow property owners in participating cities and counties access to financing for renewable energy and water efficiency improvements, seismic improvements, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure on their property. Participation in the assessment is 100% voluntary by the property owner. The improvements installed on the owner’s property are financed by the issuance of bonds by CSCDA. The bonds are secured by a voluntary contractual assessment levied on the owner’s property. Property owners who wish to participate in PACE agree to repay the money through the voluntary contractual assessment collected with property taxes. The voluntary contractual assessments will be levied by CSCDA and collected in annual installments through the applicable county secured property tax bill.

The benefits to the property owner include:
 Competition: CSCDA commercial Open PACE provides commercial property owners access to multiple financial institutions thereby creating competition on terms, service, and interest rates.
 Eligibility: In today’s economic environment, alternatives for property owners to finance renewable improvements may not be available.
 Savings: Energy prices continue to rise and installing energy efficient, water efficient, and renewable energy improvements will lower utility bills.  100% voluntary: Only property owners who choose to finance improvements will have assessments placed on their property.
 Payment obligation can stay with the property: Under Chapter 29, a voluntary contractual assessment stays with the property upon transfer of ownership.  Favorable Terms: The economic terms of PACE financing will often be more favorable than other options. Competition in the marketplace is a good thing and cities and counties are encouraged to approve multiple providers to create a competitive environment.
 Not a personal loan or mortgage: The PACE assessment in effect is not a personal obligation of the property owner through a conventional loan or mortgage but an assessment on the property secured by an assessment lien and collected as part of the regular tax roll on the property.

The benefits to the Town include:
 Prequalified PACE Administrators: CSCDA has pre-qualified the commercial PACE Administrators based on their business practices, qualifications, experience, and capital commitment to the PACE market.

3  Single Resolution: The Town can pass a single resolution and provide access to commercial property owners to highly qualified PACE administrators. There is no need to pass multiple resolutions to approve the administrators.  Increase local jobs: Property improvements can provide jobs in the local economy.  Increase Revenue to the Town of Mammoth Lakes: Property improvements may result in an increase in sales, payroll, and property tax revenue to the Town.  No Town Obligation: Similar to conventional assessment financing, the Town is not obligated to repay the bonds or to pay the assessments levied on the participating properties. Unlike conventional assessment financing, the Town has no administrative duties, and its name is not on the bonds; only CSCDA’s name is on the bonds.
 No Town staff support required: All CSCDA Open PACE and assessment administration, bond issuance, and bond administration functions are handled by CSCDA. No Town staff time is needed to participate in CSCDA Open PACE.  No internal management requirements: The Town can provide access for its commercial property owners to CSCDA Open PACE without the higher staff costs that an independent program established by the Town would require.  Availability of Information on Projects Financed: The Town will receive periodic updates on CSCDA Open PACE projects that have been completed in their community.

CSCDA, and not the Town, will be responsible for entering into voluntary contractual assessment agreements with participating property owners, levying the voluntary contractual assessments, issuing bonds to finance the Improvements, and taking remedial actions in the event of delinquent assessment payments. The resolution expressly provides that the county or town will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings, the levy of assessments, any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in assessment payments, or the issuance, sale or administration of any bonds issued in connection with CSCDA Open PACE.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

There is no negative fiscal impact to the Town’s general fund by consenting to the inclusion of commercial properties within the Town limits in CSCDA Open PACE. All CSCDA Open PACE administrative costs are covered through an initial administrative fee included in the property owner’s voluntary contractual assessment and an annual administrative fee, which is also collected on the property owner’s tax bill.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The Town Attorney has reviewed the resolution and does not object to the Town’s participation in the CSCDA Open PACE Program.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING

TO THE INCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
TOWN BOUNDARIES IN THE CSCDA OPEN PACE PROGRAMS;

AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL

ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL
ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE TOWN; AND

AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) is a joint exercise of powers authority, the members of which include numerous cities and counties in the State of California, including the Town of Mammoth Lakes (the “Town”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority is implementing Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, which it has designated CSCDA Open PACE, consisting of CSCDA Open PACE programs each administered by a separate program administrator (collectively with any successors, assigns, replacements or additions, the “Programs”), to allow the financing or refinancing of renewable energy, energy efficiency, water efficiency and seismic strengthening improvements, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and such other improvements, infrastructure or other work as may be authorized by law from time to time (collectively, the “Improvements”) through the levy of contractual assessments pursuant to Chapter 29 of Division 7 of the Streets & Highways Code (“Chapter 29”) within counties and cities throughout the State of California that consent to the inclusion of properties within their respective territories in the Programs and the issuance of bonds from time to time; and WHEREAS, the program administrators currently active in administering commercial PACE Programs are CounterPointe Sustainable Real Estate (CA) LLC), Nuveen Green Capital, White Oak Advisors, Stonehill PACE, LLC, LordCap PACE, Green PACE Capital, Poppy Bank, PACE Loan Group, GreenRock Healthcare Capital, CastleGreen Finance, Bayview Asset Management. Petros PACE Finance, Citizens Business Bank, and Benefit Street Partners; and WHEREAS, the Authority may also administer certain projects itself, working directly with third-party capital providers; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 29 provides that assessments may be levied under its provisions only with the free and willing consent of the owner or owners of each lot or parcel on which an assessment is levied at the time the assessment is levied; and WHEREAS, the Town has the opportunity to work in partnership with private property owners to further the availability of workforce housing by purchasing vacant land that is appropriately zoned and sized to allow for the future development of affordable, deed-restricted multi-family housing; and

Resolution No. 23-__

WHEREAS, the Town desires to allow the owners of commercial property only (“Participating Property Owners”) within its territory to participate in the Programs and to allow the Authority to conduct assessment proceedings under Chapter 29 within its territory and to issue bonds to finance or refinance Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the territory within which assessments may be levied for the Programs shall include all of the territory within the Town’s official boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Authority will conduct all assessment proceedings under Chapter 29 for the Programs and issue any bonds issued in connection with the Programs; and WHEREAS, the Town will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings; the levy of assessments; any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of any bonds issued in connection with the Programs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth as follows:

Section 1. This Town Council hereby finds and declares that commercial properties in the territory of the Town will benefit from the availability of the Programs within the territory of the Town and, pursuant thereto, the conduct of special assessment proceedings by the Authority pursuant to Chapter 29 and the issuance of bonds to finance or refinance Improvements.

Section 2. In connection with the Programs, the Town hereby consents to the conduct of special assessment proceedings by the Authority pursuant to Chapter 29 on any commercial property within the territory of the Town and the issuance of bonds to finance or refinance Improvements; provided that:
(1) The Participating Property Owners, who shall be the legal owners of such property, execute a contract pursuant to Chapter 29 and comply with other applicable provisions of California law in order to accomplish the valid levy of assessments; and (2) The Town will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings; the levy of assessments; any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of any bonds issued in connection with the Programs.

Section 3. The appropriate officials and staff of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to make applications for the Programs available to all commercial property owners who wish to finance or refinance Improvements; provided, that the Authority shall be responsible for providing such applications and related materials at its own expense. The following staff persons, together with any other staff persons chosen by the Community and Economic Development Director of the Town from time to time, are hereby designated as the contact persons for the Authority in connection with the Programs: Community and Economic Development Director.

Resolution No. 23-__

Section 4. The appropriate officials and staff of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such certificates, requisitions, agreements, and related documents as are reasonably required by the Authority to implement the Programs.

Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds that adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because the Resolution does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4).

Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Authority at: Secretary of the Board, California Statewide Communities Development Authority, 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Section 7. The Town may discontinue its participation in the Programs at any time.

Written notice shall be provided to the Authority in the event that the Town elects to discontinue its participation.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4
th day of October 2023 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Waive the reading and introduce by title only the ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Parking.

Meeting Date: October 4, 2023
Prepared by: Sierra Shultz, Deputy Airport Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the reading and introduce by title only the ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Parking.

BACKGROUND:

The Mammoth Yosemite Airport parking lot is extremely deteriorated and needs to be reconstructed. The Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) includes a project for the reconstruction of the parking lot. When meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last year to discuss the ACIP, they mentioned that construction or rehabilitation of a revenue producing parking lot at a nonhub airport is not eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG) grant funding per the Airport Improvement Program Handbook – Order 5100.38D, Change 1. Parking lot rehabilitation is only eligible for non-revenue producing parking lots.

ANALYSIS:

Therefore, in October of 2022, staff removed parking lot signage and stopped collecting fees for overnight parking at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport parking lot so that it would be eligible for grant funding. The Town was previously collecting a fee of $8/night per ordinance 10.12.200. The fee was used to discourage people from leaving their cars parked for extended periods of time when they were not using the airport services. The fees collected were not substantial enough to pay for any major maintenance. The ordinance needs to be updated to reflect the new operating procedure which does not include collecting a fee. If adopted, the operations will include a permit free of charge for airport users that wish to park overnight. Airport users, as proposed in the new ordinance, are all persons utilizing the Airport for legitimate purposes, including, but not limited to passengers, tenants, airlines, vendors, contractors, and subcontractors. In the event of a town emergency and if temporary overflow parking is needed at Mammoth Yosemite Airport, staff will open the parking lot for everyone and assist with the emergency as needed.

The ordinance to be amended is Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Parking. The majority of the chapter will remain as is. The proposed amendment will consist of the following components:
 Defining what an “Airport User” is.

2  Addition or alteration of text regarding the new overnight permit process.  Vehicle size limitations.
 Defining what hours are considered overnight and not day use hours.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

In Fiscal Year 2023 the Town received an Airport Infrastructure Grant in the amount of $108,701 for the design of the parking lot reconstruction. In Fiscal Year 2024, staff will apply for an AIG grant of approximately $1,500,000 for the construction phase of the parking lot rehabilitation. The funding acquired through FAA grants greatly outweighs the funding that would ever be collected from overnight parking fees.

ORDINANCE NO. 23-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF

MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

10.12 PARKING
WHEREAS, Chapter 10.12 of the Town of Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code comprises the Town’s parking ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the parking procedures at Mammoth Yosemite Airport have changed and Town staff will no longer be collecting overnight parking fees at the Airport parking lot; and WHEREAS, Town staff has reviewed Chapter 10.12, Parking, of the Town of Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code and proposes the attached revisions based on updating the Code to comply with new operating procedures.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth lakes, State of California, does ordain as follows:

Section 1: Amend Municipal Code Chapter 10.12, Parking, which is hereby amended as set forth in Exbibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Section 2: EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall before effective and enforceable thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.

Section 3: POSTING
The Town Clerk shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted at the duly designated posting places established by resolution of the Town Council, published once in a newspaper of general circulation, and entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Town.

Section 4: SEVERABILITY
If any provisions of this Ordinance of the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

The foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 18th day of October 2023.
_____________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

EXHBIT “A”

10.12.010 – Definitions.

Except as specifically provided in this section, the words used in this article shall be as defined in the California Vehicle Code.
“Airport User” means all persons utilizing the Airport for legitimate purposes, including, but not limited to passengers, tenants, airlines, vendors, contractors, and subcontractors.

10.12.030 – No parking for more than seventy-two hours.

A. No person shall cause or allow any vehicle owned by him or in his possession, custody or control, to be parked upon any street (including the right-of-way thereof), alley, or publicly owned parking lot for more than seventy-two consecutive hours, unless a permit is provided to do so.

B. Any member of the Police Department may remove any vehicle parked upon any street right-ofway, alley, or publicly owned parking lot for more than seventy-two consecutive hours and shall, upon such removal, deal with such vehicle as provided in Sections 22650 through 22856 of the vehicle code of the state.

10.12.086 – Vehicle Size Limitations
Vehicles parked at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport parking lot, not including the long-term parking lot, shall not include trailers and shall not exceed 20 feet in length unless the Town Manager, Public Works Director, or Airport Manager or his designee approves it.

10.12.200 – Overnight Parking at Mammoth Yosemite Airport A. No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport between the hours of eight p.m. and eight a.m., unless such vehicle is parked in an area designated for overnight parking and displays the required parking permit for such parking for airport users.

B. No person shall leave a permitted vehicle in the area designated for overnight parking for longer than seven consecutive nights. The Town Manager, Airport Manager or his designee may allow longer periods of time if they deem it to be an extenuating circumstance and approve it beforehand.

C. Any person who fails to display a parking permit required for overnight parking shall be cited or towed and liable to the Town for such fees.

D. Citation charges may be collected by the Town Manager or his designee, the Mammoth Lakes Police Department, or the Airport Manager or his designee, by any means available for the collection of citation charges. Such enforcement may include the issuance of parking tickets and the use of administrative collection processes as are available under State law.

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Inyo National Forest OSV Subpart-C Engagement & Public Comment.

Meeting Date: October 4, 2023
Prepared by: Lawson Reif, Outdoor Recreation Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Review, comment and provide direction on comments current proposed action in preparation for an official Town of Mammoth Lakes public comment, to be submitted no later than October 19, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of Subpart-C is to effectively manage over-the-snow (OSV) vehicle use on the Inyo National Forest using the required criteria.
 Provide Access and recreational opportunities.
 Ensure that OSV use is designated only where there is adequate snow.  Promote the safety of all users.
 Minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources.
 Minimize conflicts among the various users.

The Subpart-C process is projected to occur until 2025 with several upcoming comment periods and objection opportunities. The result of the project will effectively be a map, showing specifically where OSVs can go, and all other areas will be closed to OSV use. This is in contrast to the current situation, wherein the entire Forest is open to OSV use, except where it is specifically prohibited.

Currently, staff were able to find one reference to a recommendation related to OSV use and that is from the 2009 Sherwins Working Group. To summarize, the document effectively states that if the Town were to groom the Western Sherwins Meadow the recommendation would be for that meadow to be non-motorized only. But as shown, this was not incorporated into the initial proposed action.

Attached is overview information on the proposed action and Mammoth specific data. The proposed action contains many files with additional information. To view the entire proposed action visit: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/inyo/?project=61466 ANALYSIS:

The initial proposed action reflects the existing condition, with a few access changes outside of the Town boundary. While much of the proposed action is a reflection of the existing condition, there are a few items of note:
 The Inyo has proposed a trailhead at New Shady Rest dump station parking area along with a groomed trail to the Shady Rest Park Area. Staff recommends supporting this proposed action. Final alignments and separation from groomed trails will need to be addressed.

2  In this initial proposed action, there is no reference to a higher elevation trailhead. Staff is recommending that such a trailhead be supported with a proposed location at the Cinder Shed off of Hwy 203.
 There is no reference to an alternative staging area on the Scenic Loop. Staff supports consideration for staging areas off of the Scenic Loop to enhance safety and reduce potential conflict areas.
 The recommendation of the Sherwins Working Group was not included in the initial proposed action, as noted above.
 No delineation of uses was included on the way to Minaret Vista. This is a heavily used route and some use delineation will be beneficial to the ongoing multi-use nature of the corridor.
 The Inyo used a snow depth requirement to determine if an area would be eligible to be considered for OSV use. Data was compiled from the NOAA Snow Data Assimilation System to model average snow depth. In this initial proposed action, only areas receiving on average at least 12 inches of snow, 5 days per year were considered.
 Compliance with OSV related requirements in the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project 2-67 June 2013 - Final EIS/EIR should also be reviewed for consistency with the proposed action.

The Town’s expanded grooming proposal will also be considered by the Inyo National Forest as part of this Subpart C analysis. This includes additional trails in the Sherwins meadow area and an expanded set of trails between the Shady Rest campground and Shady Rest Park area.

Public comment is due on October 20, 2023. Once this is completed the Inyo will, using public input, develop alternatives to the proposed action and begin their effects analysis. Sometime in 2024 a draft EA or EIS will be released with another 30-day comment period. Based on comments, a revised analysis will be developed resulting in a final EA or EIS draft decision to be released. This will be followed by another 45-day objection period and a period for the USFS to review these objections (usually 45-75 days). Once this process is completed, a final Decision Notice will be released with the hope of a final OSV Use Map released for winter 2025/2026.

SUMMARY
Staff is requesting comment and authorization to draft an initial comment letter related to the bullet points provided above. Council may also provide direction to add any general comment on the overall plan. The comment letter will be filed in a timely manner. As noted, this will inform the development of alternatives to the proposed action which will go through additional public comment periods. Staff will also be looking at options to coordinate some user-focused public meetings on the proposed plan.

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Pacific
Southwest
Region
Inyo National Forest
351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200
Bishop, CA 93514
(760) 873-2400 Voice
(760) 873-2538 Text (TDD)
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper File Code: 7700/1950
Date: September 6, 2023
Dear Interested Citizen:

The Inyo National Forest is initiating the environmental analysis process for the proposed OverSnow Vehicle Use Designation Process. The proposed action designates areas and trails on the Inyo National Forest for public over-snow vehicle (OSV) use, consistent with the Travel Management Rule, Subpart C. About 305,000 of the 2 million-acre Inyo National Forest would be designated for OSV use. About 1,400 miles of non-groomed OSV trails would be designated (over NFS roads and motorized trails), for transportation purposes. The proposed action also includes grooming up to 107 miles of OSV trails, and a requirement of a minimum snow depth of 12 inches of supportable snow for cross-country OSV travel. There would be no minimum snow depth for on-road OSV use. It also includes management actions to minimize effects to natural resources, as well as conflicts between different recreation uses.

You can view the proposed action, along with detailed maps, on the project website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/inyo/?project=61466.

The Forest has held multiple public meetings and spoken with various stakeholders to understand concerns, issues, and desires for over-snow vehicle use across the Forest. I considered this input when developing the proposed action with my staff. In general, we have heard that current OSV management has few natural or cultural resource impacts, and our work over the past few decades to minimize impacts to those resources and other recreational uses has been generally successful. There are some local exceptions to this. Therefore, our proposed action is similar to current OSV management on the Forest, with some modifications.

We plan to complete an Environmental Assessment, to determine whether there are significant effects that would require us to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. This project is subject to comment pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Only those who submit timely project-specific written comments during a public comment period, including this scoping period, are eligible to file an objection. Individuals or representatives of an entity submitting comments must sign the comments or verify identity upon request.

The proposed action is currently available for a formal public scoping period. With this scoping notice we would like to invite your comments regarding issues, opportunities, concerns, and suggestions for the proposed project. Input from the public and analysis of effects will help us determine on which resources to focus our analysis and whether there are reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Please submit your comments on the project website by clicking on the “Comment/Object on Project” link on the right side of the page. We estimate that the next comment period, which will be a review of the Environmental Assessment, will occur in Fall 2024. We expect the decision to be made in early 2025.

We will also hold two public meetings: one virtual and one in-person. The virtual public meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams, on September 20, from 1:00-2:30. It can be accessed by this link (which is also on the project website): https://tinyurl.com/OSVpublicmeeting.

The in-person meeting will be at the Mammoth Lakes Community Center on Thursday, September 21, from 6-8 pm. The Address is 1000 Forest Trail, Mammoth lakes, CA 93546.

While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, the formal scoping period ends on October 20th and comments received by then will be especially useful in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Please contact Erin Noesser at [email protected], or (760) 920-3048 if you need more specific information about how to provide comments on the project.

Sincerely,

LESLEY YEN
Forest Supervisor
Digitally signed by LESLEY
YEN
Date: 2023.09.05 11:15:53
-07'00'

1 Inyo National Forest Over Snow Vehicle Use
Designation Process
Proposed Action Package
Summary........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Existing Over-Snow Vehicle Use.......................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................................ 3 Scope of this Action.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Decision Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Action................................................................................................................................................ 6 Proposed Action Process Summary................................................................................................................ 10 Definitions....................................................................................................................................................... 13 References....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A – Minimum Snow Depth Rationale............................................................................................ 17 Appendix B: Proposed Action Process Detail ................................................................................................ 20 Travel Management Regulations – 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C: Over- Snow Vehicle Use...................... 20 Applying the Minimization Criteria and Other Specific Designation Criteria............................................ 24 Consistency with the Area Size Definition ................................................................................................. 27 Snowfall Adequacy..................................................................................................................................... 28 Snow Depth..................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Area Boundary Determinations.................................................................................................................. 31 Applying the Rights of Access Designation Criteria .................................................................................. 31 Applying the Wilderness Areas and Primitive Areas Designation Criteria ................................................ 31 Land Management Plan Direction .............................................................................................................. 31 Appendix C –Minimization Criteria Screening Questions............................................................................... 34 Appendix D - Minimization Criteria Management Requirements by resource and area.................................. 40

2 Summary
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing to designate over-snow vehicle (OSV) trails, and OSV open riding areas on NFS lands within the Inyo National Forest; and to identify snow trails for grooming within the Inyo National Forest. Based on preliminary effects analysis, we plan to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to fully analyze effects of the proposed action and determine whether there is a significant effect on the human environment, such that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be prepared.

The Forest Service proposes to designate about 1,300 miles of NFS trails and 305,000 acres of areas for public OSV use. These designations would occur on parts of administrative units or ranger districts of the Inyo National Forest where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur. These designations would be consistent with the requirements of Subpart C of the Forest Service’s Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR 212.

In addition, the Forest Service is proposing management requirements to minimize effects to natural and cultural resources, where they have been preliminarily identified as needed, such as setting a 12- inch minimum snow depth, for cross-country OSV travel. These designations and management requirements are needed in order to formalize and clarify OSV management on the Inyo National Forest, and to meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule Subpart C.

The Forest Service is seeking initial scoping comments on the proposed Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Process. This proposed action, and the steps taken to develop it, are described in more detail below.

Background and Existing Over-Snow Vehicle Use
The final Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule went into effect on February 27, 2015. The final rule states: ‘‘Over-snow vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands shall be designated by the Responsible Official on administrative units or Ranger Districts, or parts of administrative units or Ranger Districts, of the NFS where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur, and, if appropriate, shall be designated by class of vehicle and time of year .. .”(36 CFR 212.81 (a)).

Further, under 36 CFR 261.14, it is prohibited to possess or operate an OSV on NFS lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations. More detailed explanation of the Travel Management Rule as it drives this project is included in Appendix A of this document.

OSV designations as described in this proposed action would conform to the final Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule.

On the Inyo National Forest, there is no consolidated Forest-wide direction for allowable OSV use. There are rules for OSV use in areas of the Forest, where law or land management plans provide direction. OSV use is not allowed, by law, in designated Wilderness or on the Pacific Crest Trail. The Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) also prohibits any OSV use in Recommended Wilderness or Research Natural Areas. It restricts cross-country OSV travel in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Special Interest Area. The Mono Basin Scenic Area Comprehensive Management Plan (1989) included a

3 restriction on OSV use in portions of within that scenic area, which has not been superseded by any written direction. Therefore, we consider that as current direction in that area.

Beyond existing law and management plan direction, the Inyo National Forest has developed an OSV system over the years, to provide opportunities for high quality OSV experiences, as well as areas set aside for a high quality non-motorized winter recreation experience. Most OSV use occurs on the Mono Lake and Mammoth Ranger Districts. In portions of these Ranger Districts, the Forest has worked with the public to create an OSV management program and a groomed OSV trail system since in the 1990s. The Forest closed some areas in the highest over-snow recreational use areas to reduce conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists, and to provide groomed Nordic ski trails and other areas where users could have a non-motorized experience. We consider the winter recreation map (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd984959.pdf) to be the current management direction on the portion of the Forest covered by that map. For the rest of the Forest, including the eastern portion of the Forest in the White and Inyo Mountains, and the portion of the Forest south of Rock Creek, there is no map or management direction currently available to the public for OSV regulations. Therefore, we assume that all of those areas not closed by other regulations (Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Research Natural Areas), are currently open to cross-country OSV use.

Grooming for OSV currently occurs on up to 106 miles of OSV trails, with the mileage varying based on snowfall and snow conditions. A portion of the designated groomed trail system is maintained by commercial snowmobile operators, but all of the 106 miles are available to public OSV users.

Purpose and Need
Based on the regulations for the management of OSV use on National Forest System (NFS) lands (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C and Part 261, Subpart A), the purpose and need of this project is to:

Establish a manageable system of designated NFS trails and areas on NFS lands for OSV use on the Inyo National Forest to:
• provide access,
• ensure that OSV use occurs when and where there is adequate snow for that use to occur, • promote the safety of all users,
• enhance public enjoyment,
• minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, and • minimize conflicts among the various uses of NFS lands.

All potential areas and routes were reviewed to consider and minimize effects to resources and uses identified in 36 CFR 212.55(b). The Forest has not identified OSV use as a substantial impact to natural or cultural resources, or other recreational uses on a Forest-wide scale. There are local areas with potential impacts, and the proposed action includes management requirements to minimize such potential impacts.

4 There is a need to codify and clarify OSV regulations and communicate them effectively to the public.

Current OSV management is a result of many decisions and gradual changes over decades, and there is not a Forest-wide map that includes all of those decisions. Some of those decisions were made with no documented public involvement or NEPA analysis, while others have 20- to 40- year-old NEPA analyses.

There is a need to have a consolidated management plan and clear direction that is understandable to the public, and manageable by the Forest Service.

This analysis responds to requirements in the Federal regulations for the management of OSV use on national forests (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C).

Further detailed explanation of the travel management regulations and how we considered them in this proposed action is included in the “Proposed Action Process” section below, and in Appendix A of this document.

Scope of this Action
This action would manage the use of OSVs on NFS land. An OSV is defined in the Forest Service’s Travel Management Regulations as “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow” (36 CFR §212.1, see appendix F, Glossary).

The Inyo National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation project is not intended to be a comprehensive, holistic winter recreation planning effort. The designations resulting from this analysis would define the trails and areas for the public use of OSVs on National Forest System lands within the Inyo National Forest.

As with the evaluation of areas, roads, and trails for other types of motor vehicle use (i.e., wheeled), the requirements governing designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands as described in Subpart B at 36 CFR §212.52 (public involvement); 36 CFR §212.53 (coordination with Federal, state, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments); 36 CFR §212.55 (designation criteria (including the minimization criteria)); 36 CFR §212.56 (OSVUM); 36 CFR §212.57 (monitoring), shall apply to decisions made as a result of the Inyo National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation project under Subpart C of the Final Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) pursuant to 36 CFR §212.81(d) of the final rule.

The following uses of OSVs would be exempt from these designations and the prohibition in 36 CFR §261.14 (a–f):
(a) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;
(b) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; (c) Authorized use of any combat or combatsupport vehicle for national defense purposes; (d) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; (e) Over-snow vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations [such as for managing permitted livestock or for access under a special use permit (36 CFR §212.81(a)]; and
(f) Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority (36 CFR §261.14).

5 The agency does not recognize a need to designate OSV trails in areas that would be designated for crosscountry OSV use, except for groomed OSV trails. The Forest Service recognizes that the act of grooming a trail and OSV use of groomed trails may impact forest resources due to snow compaction and higher use levels (than non-groomed cross-country OSV-use areas). Groomed OSV trails proposed for designation, located within proposed OSV-use areas, will be identified and the potential impacts of designating and grooming these trails will be analyzed.

Outside of open riding areas, we would designate OSV trails where suitable (ungroomed). For these trails, we considered only routes over existing National Forest System roads and motorized trails.

With respect to the identification of snow trails groomed for OSV use, there are variables such as financial limitations and staffing capacity that influence the number of miles and frequency grooming. The INYO National Forest’s current snow trail grooming program is funded by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off- Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division. We expect that funding to continue in the future. The proposed action reflects the maximum length that could be groomed for public OSV use.

Managing the use of wheeled, motorized vehicles or bicycles is not within the scope of this action, other than where such management is identified as a method to minimize impacts. For example, closing groomed OSV trails to wheeled vehicle use, in order to minimize conflicts between different classes of motor vehicles, is part of this proposed action. Other types of motor vehicles that may operate over snow, but that do not meet the definition of an OSV, are managed under Subpart B of the Travel Management Regulations. Routes and areas for these types of vehicles were previously designated and these designations have been published on a motor vehicle use map as the result of a separate environmental analysis and decision (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Non-motorized winter recreational opportunities and uses will be considered in the analysis in terms of the effects that designating snow trails and areas for public OSV use may have on non-motorized recreational opportunities. However, this decision will not designate non-motorized winter recreational opportunities.

There may be exceptions if they are identified as a method for minimizing impacts between recreational uses, or addressing other minimization criteria.

Non- FS Land and Roads
This decision applies only to land managed by the Inyo National Forest. It does not make any decisions for non-Forest Service land. Further, this decision does not apply to roads that cross Inyo National Forest, but are under the jurisdiction of another agency. Examples of these are highways that are closed to wheeled vehicles when covered with snow. These roads are shown on detailed maps as “Roads not under USFS jurisdiction” and this action does not apply to those roads.

Project Location
The Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation project area spans all the NFS lands across each ranger district (Mono Lake, Mammoth, White Mountain and Mount Whitney) within the Inyo National Forest in Inyo, Mono, Tulare and Madera Counties, California (figure 1). It does not include wilderness or any private, State or other Federal Lands.

6 Decision Framework
This is the initial proposed action for OSV designation. We plan to analyze this action in an Environmental Assessment (EA), to determine whether there are significant effects that would require analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the public or resource specialist identify a different approach to achieving a desired condition or meeting an underlying need, then alternatives will be developed and given full consideration. Action alternatives will be developed based on unresolved conflicts and issues identified by the public, through analysis, and by Inyo National Forest staff. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action should fulfill the purpose and need and address unresolved conflicts related to the proposed action.

Through this scoping process, we hope to hear from private parties, organizations, agencies, and tribes about any issues related to this proposal, the scope of the analysis, and alternatives or portions of alternatives these parties develop that address unresolved conflicts to resources.

Proposed Action
The Forest Service proposes the following:

1. To designate OSV areas on NFS lands within the Inyo National Forest where snowfall depth is adequate for that use to occur. OSV use would then be prohibited in all areas and trails not designated for OSV use, and the resulting designations would be included on an over-snow vehicle use map (OSVUM). Areas would have a season of use where required to minimize impacts to resources. In the proposed action, seasons of use were applied to two areas; a. To designate 16 areas, covering about 305,000 acres, for open OSV riding. These areas are where there is adequate snowfall to support cross-country OSV use on a regular basis, and where identified effects to resources and other recreational uses can be reasonably minimized. (Map 1, Table 1 and Table 2 – more detailed maps can be found on the project website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/inyo/?project=61466, under Scoping/Maps).

2. To designate about 1,300 miles of OSV trails (ungroomed), for use by OSVs when they are snow covered. These are in areas outside of designated open riding areas and provide an OSV transportation system when roads and motorized trails are snow-covered. OSV use would be allowed on these roads when snow depth is adequate to prevent damage to the roadbed. This could be as little as two inches or less depending on the road surface conditions, soil types, and snow conditions. The designated, un-groomed OSV trails would all overlie designated national forest system roads and motorized trails. The list of National Forest system roads and motorized trails that would be designated as OSV trails can be found on the project website.

3. To identify up to 107 miles of designated OSV trails that could be groomed on the Inyo National Forest. Trail mileages are estimates;
a. To groom trails when there is a minimum of between 12 to 18 inches of snow, following California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division snow depth grooming standards;

7 4. To implement a Forest-wide snow depth requirement for OSV use that would provide for natural and cultural resource protection by allowing cross-country OSV use in designated areas when there is a minimum of 12 inches of condensed1 snow covering the landscape, and there is no contact with the soil or other resource damage. This minimum snow depth requirement would apply to areas off of NFS roads, motorized trails, and parking areas. When the snow-depth requirement is not met, cross-country OSV use would be prohibited. All maps and educational material will include this requirement, and methods such as measuring sticks will be posted to trailheads and heavy use play areas for educational purposes and to help users understand the requirement.

5. To require management actions to minimize effects to the resources described in specific criteria for designated trails and areas (36 CFR 212.55 (b)). We propose management actions to minimize effects to resources in designated areas and trails where effects to resources were specifically identified. Actions include mainly education, signage, and monitoring to identify any needed changes in management. They also include speed limits, seasonal closures, requiring a greater minimum snow depth and avoiding designation in areas where effects may not be reasonably minimized through other methods.

6. To perform activities associated with the designated OSV areas and trails, and the groomed OSV trail system, including: maintaining facilities, installing signs, educating, patrolling, and monitoring. a. Specific design criteria will be developed, based on analysis findings, in order to ensure these activities sufficiently protect resources.

OSV use inconsistent with these designations would be prohibited under 36 CFR part 261 once the decision is issued and OSV use maps are made available to the public.

Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and OSV use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations would be exempt from these designations (36 CFR 212.81(a)).

These actions would begin immediately upon the issuance of the record of decision, which is expected by March 2025. The Forest Service would produce an OSV use map (OSVUM) that would resemble the existing motor vehicle use map for the Inyo National Forest. Such a map would allow the public to identify the routes and areas where OSV is allowed on the Inyo National Forest. Additional information and maps of this proposal can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=61466. 1 For the purposes of this project, we defined “condensed” snow as moderately dense snow capable of supporting an OSV without the OSV sinking through to the ground. It does not suggest that the snow is compacted by an outside force, such as an OSV, but is used to describe snow that either falls as wet snow and is therefore moderately dense, or snow that has settled after falling as light powdery snow.

8 Figure 1. Map showing the proposed action for the entire Inyo National Forest. The map shows designated areas, designated ungroomed OSV trails, and the groomed OSV trail system. More detailed maps can be found on the project website.

9 Table 1. Areas designated for cross-country OSV use in this proposed action, including the Ranger District they are within, their acreage, and any season of use restrictions that would apply. The designated areas are rounded to the nearest 100 acres.

Table 2. Approximate percent of each Ranger District designated as an OSV use area in the proposed action.

Ranger District Name
Acres
(approximate)
Percent
Designated in
Proposed Action
Ranger District Acres
outside of
Wilderness
(approximate)
Percent Designated
Outside of
Wilderness
Mono Lake 485,000 30% 405,000 37%
Mammoth 161,000 36% 75,500 79%
White Mountain 850,000 9% 458,000 17%
Mt. Whitney 465,000 5% 194,000 11%
Designated Area
Name
Acres
(approx.) Ranger District
Ranger District
Size (acres)
Season of Use/Other
Restrictions
Coyote Flat 31,700 White Mountain 850,000
Crowley Basin 26,700
Mono Lake / White
Mountain
485,000 /
850,000
Glass 77,100
Mono Lake /
White Mountain
485,000 /
850,000
June Loop 10,200 Mono Lake 485,000
Kennedy Meadows 5,700 Mt. Whitney 469,000
Lee Vining 24,200 Mono Lake 485,000
Tioga and Saddlebag
portions open before
April 15 only
Mammoth to June
East 33,900 Mono Lake / Mammoth
485,000 /
161,000
Mammoth to June
West 20,500 Mono Lake / Mammoth
485,000 /
161,000
McGee 9,300
Mammoth / White
Mountain
161,000 /
850,000
Monache 16,100 Mt. Whitney 469,000
Mono Craters 17,700 Mono Lake 485,000
Reds Meadow 2,500 Mammoth 161,000
Rock Creek 15,200 White Mountain 850,000
Sherwin to Laurel 11,700 Mammoth 161,000
Tamarack Ski Area 1,400 Mammoth 161,000
Open after April 17
only
White Mountains 1,300 White Mountain 850,000
Total 305,200

10 Proposed Action Process Summary
We developed the proposed action using the general process shown in the flowchart in Figure 2 below. The process is explained more thoroughly in Appendix B of this Scoping Package. We began with a simple screening to determine which areas have prohibitions on motorized use in general, or OSV use specifically, according to law or the Inyo National Forest land management plan. We did not consider those areas for designation.

We then screened areas for adequate snowfall, as explained in more detail in the “Snowfall Adequacy” section in Appendix B. If an area was not found to receive adequate snowfall, we did not designate it for OSV use. Next, we applied the minimization criteria, as required in the Travel Management Rule, to determine which areas and trails should be designated, and how any identified impacts could be minimized. We went through a six-step screening process for each area and trail, and used that information to determine which areas to designate, using management requirements to minimize impacts where possible. How we applied the minimization criteria to designated areas and trails is explained in further detail in the “Minimization Criteria” section in Appendix B of this document.

The screening process used existing information and knowledge of conditions on the ground. Analysis has not yet been completed for NEPA compliance. After analysis is completed, we will refine and provide more detailed information to describe how the proposed action and any alternatives apply the minimization criteria.

11 Figure 2. Flowchart showing the generalized process of developing the proposed action, and future alternatives. The boxes with red outlines indicate where we are in the process as of the time of this proposed action.

12 Identification of the Need to Change the Plan (36 CFR 219.13(b)(1)) We did not identify a need to change the Land Management Plan.

Beyond the Forest Plan, we reviewed all other management area plans which are currently in place. One, the Mono Basin Scenic Area Management Plan (Mono Basin Plan), contains specific direction about areas open and closed to OSV use. The map showing OSV prohibitions in that plan can be found on the project website at: https://usfs-public.app.box.com/v/PinyonPublic/file/1189993920964.

Based on our method used to define adequate snowfall for OSV use, some of the OSV areas currently designated as open to cross-country OSV use in the existing Mono Basin Plan have not received adequate snowfall over the past twenty years. We determined there is adequate snowfall over the entire Mono Basin to consider on-road use. However, the area rarely receives 12 in of snowfall directly around Mono Lake (Map 3, Appendix B). Therefore, it does not meet our criteria for adequate snowfall for cross-country OSV use. We are therefore proposing to not designate an OSV use area here, only designating OSV trails over existing roads. This change to the Mono Basin Plan may require a Plan Amendment to that plan only.

Substantive Requirement Review (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5))
In accordance with 36 CFR 219.13(b)(5), the responsible official must “[d]etermine which specific substantive requirement(s) within 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 are directly related to the plan direction being added, modified, or removed by the amendment and apply such requirement(s) within the scope and scale of the amendment”. The substantive requirements address sustainability (36 CFR 219.8), diversity of plant and animal communities (36 CFR 219.9), multiple use (36 CFR 219.10), and timber requirements based on the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.11). Determining which of the Planning Rule’s substantive requirements are directly related to the amendment is based on the amendment’s purpose and effects (beneficial or adverse) as informed by best available scientific information, scoping, effects analysis, monitoring data, or other rationale (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)(i)). When basing the responsible official’s determination for whether a substantive requirement is directly related to the plan amendment on the presence of adverse effect: “[t]he responsible official must determine that a specific substantive requirement is directly related to the amendment when scoping or NEPA effects analysis for the proposed amendment reveals substantial adverse effects associated with that requirement, or when the proposed amendment would substantially lessen protections for a specific resource or use.” (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)(ii)(A)). The responsible official is not required to apply any substantive requirements that are not directly related to the amendment. Based on the proposed amendments’ purpose and need and anticipated effects, the Responsible Official has determined the following substantive provisions may be directly related to the proposed amendments to the Mono Basin Scenic Area Management Plan:
• 36 CFR 219.8 (b)(2) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character;
• 36 CFR 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses (emphasis added).

13 Definitions
Administrative Unit - A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System.

Area - A discrete,specifically delineated space that issmaller, and, exceptfor over-snow vehicle use, in most cases much smaller, than a Ranger District.

Backcountry skiing –Skiing outside of the boundaries of a resort. This could mean accessing the backcountry from the bounds of a resort through an access-point or gate; but, more often, backcountry skiing involves touring and climbing up mountains and skiing down them. It is usually done on slopes, or mountains, not in flat areas, though the slopes are often accessed through flatter areas.

Compacted Snow - For the purposes of this project, we defined “compacted” snow (also described as condensed snow) as moderately dense snow capable of support an OSV without that OSV sinking through to the ground. It does not suggest that the snow is compacted by an outside force, such as an OSV, but is used to describe snow that either falls as wet snow and is therefore moderately dense, or snow that has settled after falling as light powdery snow.

Cross-country OSV travel – Cross-country OSV use is when OSVs are used in an area, and do not operating on a national forest system road or motorized trail, or a groomed OSV trail. The use is occurring over snow, but across areas that are not travel ways when the snow is gone.

Designation of over-snow vehicle use - Designation of a National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area on National Forest System lands where over-snow vehicle use is allowed pursuant to § 212.81.

Groomed Nordic trail – A trail groomed specifically for cross-country ski use. It can be a firm, smoothed out trail, usually 5-6 feet wide or wider, and can also have a set of two narrow tracks that each ski fits in, to guide skiers. These trails are generally in relatively flat, or slightly hilly terrain. On the Inyo National Forest, Nordic trails are groomed by local agencies, private entities, or the Forest Service.

Groomed Over-snow vehicle trail - A trail groomed specifically for OSV use. The trail is groomed by a snowcat or other large equipment that compacts and flattens a trail, usually 8-10 feet wide. Groomed trails allow for a stable surface for OSV use.

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

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

On-road over-snow vehicle use – OSV use that occurs directly over a road or motorized trail that was designated for motor vehicle use in the Subpart B of Travel Management (as shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map). While these may be indistinguishable from non-roaded areas when there are many feet of snow on the ground, they are likely to be obvious in most vegetation types when there are only a few feet of snow on the ground.

14 Over-snow vehicle parking area – An area where OSV users are able to park in the winter to access OSV opportunities. These must be plowed in order to usable for parking, and must be large enough for parking with a trailer, or to allow an OSV to drive off the back of a truck with a ramp. A staging area, or parking lot, would accommodate multiple vehicles with trailers, while road shoulder parking may occur on a plowed roadside. We have both types of parking on the Inyo National Forest that are commonly used for vehicles carrying OSVs.

Off-highway vehicle - Anymotor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on orimmediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.

Over-snow vehicle - A motor vehicle that is designed for use oversnow and that runs on a track ortracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow.

Over-snow vehicle trail – A trail that is designated for over-snow vehicle use. It may be groomed (a flat surface created by a snowcat or other groomer), or ungroomed (natural snow surface).

Over-snow vehicle use map - A map reflecting roads,trails, and areas designated for over-snow vehicle use on an administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System.

15 References
Arnold, J.L. and T.M. Koel. 2006. Effects of Snowmobile Emission on the Chemistry of Snowmelt Runoff in Yellowstone National Park. Final Report. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section, Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. YCR-2006-1.

Fahey, B. and K. Wardle. 1998. Likely impacts ofsnow grooming and related activities in the West Otago ski fields. Science for Conservation: 85. New Zealand Department of Conservation.

Hatchett, B.J and H.G. Eisen. 2019. Early season snowpack loss and implications for oversnow vehicle recreation travel planning. European Geosciences Untion, Vol. 13, Issue 1, p. 21-18 Holecek, D.F. 1974. Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile and off-the-road vehicle research symposium.

East Lansing, Mich. Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. Michigan State University.

Ingersoll, G.P. 1999: Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4148. 24 pp.

Lang, T.E, 1976. Measurements of acoustic properties of hard-pack snow. J. Glaciol., 17 (1976), pp. 269- 276
National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. (2004). Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) Data Products at NSIDC, Version 1. Boulder, Colorado USA. National Snow and Ice Data Center. https://doi.org/10.7265/N5TB14TC. Date Accessed 03/25/2023 OHMVR Division. 2010. California OSV Program Draft EIR. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Sacramento, CA. October 2010. http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/25010/files/osv%20program%20public%20deir%20oct%202010.p df. Accessed 6/22/18.

Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, editors. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 pp.

Searle, C.L., J.H. Ochs, C.E. Caceres, S.L. Chiang, N.M. Gerardo, S.R. Hall, and M.A. Duffy. 2015.

Plasticity, not genetic variation, drives infection success of a fungal parasite. Parasitology (2015), 142, 839–848. doi:10.1017/S0031182015000013.

Sturm, M., B. Taras, G.E. Liston, C. Derksen, T. Jonas, J. Lea. 2010. Estimating Snow Water Equivalent Using Snow Depth Data and Climate Classes. Journal of Hydrometeorology, Vol. 11: Issue 6, p. 1380- 1394.

Sweeney, B. W., and Newbold, J. D. (2014). Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: A literature review. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 50 (3), 560–584. doi:10.1111/jawr.12203

16 Tattersall, G.J. and G.R. Ultsch. 2008. Physiological ecology of aquatic overwintering in Ranid frogs.

Biological Review 83(2): 119-140.

USDA Forest Service. 2019. Land Management Plan for the Inyo National Forest. R5-MB-323a. September 2019. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd664404.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2018. Programmatic Agreement Among USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. FSH 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook. https://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?1909.12. Accessed 6/22/18.

USGPO. 2015. 80 FR, No. 18, January 28, 2015. Use by Over-Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Rule). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-28/pdf/2015-01573.pdf. Accessed 6/22/18.

USGPO. 2017. 36 CFR Part 219. Planning. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017-title36- vol2/pdf/CFR-2017-title36-vol2-part219.pdf. 7/1/17 edition accessed 6/22/18.

USGPO. 2017. 36 CFR Part 261. Prohibitions. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017-title36- vol2/pdf/CFR-2017-title36-vol2-part261-subpartA.pdf. 7/1/17 edition accessed 6/22/18.

17 Appendix A – Minimum Snow Depth Rationale
We determined designating a minimum snow depth for off-road OSV use was beneficial and provided a means in which to minimize the likelihood of resource damage occurring as a result of OSV use. We chose 12 inches of condensed snow to be the minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use, based on the rationale below. Each resource specialist was able to provide a narrative or citation to support why a minimum snow depth requirement was necessary, or beneficial for their resource. Each resource specialist described that resources of concern are most vulnerable in the early and late winter season when snow depths are most variable. Designating a minimum snow depth requirement provides a quantifiable and tangible mechanism for managing when OSV use occurs during these vulnerable periods of time. The minimum snow depth requirement was developed as a result of interdisciplinary input as a Forest wide method to minimize the potential for OSV use to cause an impact to each resource. This minimum snow depth only applies to crosscountry OSV use, which is use off National Forest System roads and trails.

We did not determine that a specific minimum snow depth was necessary for OSV use on roads, motorized trails, parking lots and road shoulders, as long as snow depth is sufficient to prevent damage to the road surface. This depth can be two inches or less, or up to to six inches, depending on the road surface conditions, soil types, and snow conditions. Since there will be no new or additional ground disturbance on top of the existing road or motorized trail, and they already experience wheeled vehicle travel, the only resource that we found would have impacts from that use is the road surface itself. Because we do have a basis for a set specific snow depth to prevent road surface damage, the proposed action does not include a specific minimum snow depth for OSV use over roads, motorized trails, parking lots, or other surfaces designated for wheeled vehicle use.

Table 2. Natural and cultural resource specialist support for the inclusion of a minimum snow depth requirement for cross-country OSV use.

Resource Potential Impact Minimum Snow Depth Support
Wildlife
Habitat
Wildlife habitat impacts for most species are
dependent on effects to vegetation and soils,
which provide food, cover, and nesting/denning
habitat for most species. The rationale below for
vegetation, soil and watershed explains potential
effects to those resources, which can be used as
a proxy for habitat effects.

Potential for mortality and injury risk Yosemite
toad is discussed separately due to its federally
listed status and potential risk of direct effects.

The risk of impacts from OSV use is greatest
during snowmelt when snow cover is
discontinuous. The species begins to make
movements to suitable breeding areas, typically
in meadows, and begin vocalizations when snow
cover is substantially reduced. Yosemite toad
may make long distance (up to 1 mile) overland,
including over snow, to reach breeding areas.

Physical disturbance is a product of noise and
vibration related issues that would have the
12- inch minimum snow depth requirements would
reduce the effects of OSVs compacting or disturbing
riparian vegetation (bending / breaking of leaders), soils, and/or snow. See the rationale below for vegetation,
soil, and watershed for more detailed support.

A 12-inch minimum snow depth would also provide
additional noise attenuation. Vegetation trampling from snowmobiles and potential impacts to riparian resources from OSV use would be discountable and extremely
unlikely to occur with adequate snow cover.

18 greatest risk during overwintering or at the onset
of breeding. There is very little literature to
support adverse impacts, but they are vulnerable
to additional stressors during overwintering
(Tattersall and Ultsch 2008) because they spend
a prolonged period of time at low temperatures,
consume substantial portions of body mass to
support physiology at low oxygen levels. Stress
hormones are typically elevated during winter in
amphibians due to these factors and disturbance
from snow machines may add to that stress.

Most adults are thought to overwinter in rodent
burrows, sometimes at extensive depths under
the ground. However, the overwintering
behaviors and locations of first year and subadult
individuals is poorly known. The noise and
vibrations may affect adults less than earlier life
stages.

Sound is attenuated by the snowpack and
factors such as snow depth and density affect
the transfer of sound through the snowpack
(Lang 1976). Noise may affect vocalizations
during the early breeding season when males
are establishing territories for mating.

Any activity that destabilizes streambanks could
result in increased erosion and sedimentation of
aquatic habitats.

Vegetation The potential impacts identified ranged from habitat damage due to soil compaction or direct
plant damage (e.g., riding over perennial,
evergreen, or woody plant parts emergent from
the snow)
One of the few empirical studies identifying a critical snow depth indicates that where snow cover exceeded 3 inches in depth there were no detrimental effects on grass or
vegetation stands, although these were largely
non-forest species (Holecek 1974). The forest botanist
determined that a 12-inch minimum snow depth would be
sufficient to protect the majority of botanical resources and minimize the likelihood of habitat damage and extent of direct plant damage as a result of OSV use (for all OSVuse areas included in the proposed action). This requirement would not be necessary on roads because
road are already vegetation-free.

Soil OSV use off-road may cause soil compaction,
rutting, displacement, and ultimately lead to
sedimentation into nearby waterbodies.

Disturbance to soil can be caused by OSV use that
alters snow conditions, but disturbance or damage to soil is much more likely when OSV use is concentrated and
occurs on shallow snow (Fahey and Wardle 1998).

Although OSV use is avoided on bare soil or ground
because OSVs are meant to travel on snow, OSV tracks
can break through thin snow cover, disturb soil, and
create isolated ruts in the soil surface, especially after repeated passes that may displace snow cover. Modern
OSVs with deep lugs on their treads can displace over 4 inches of snow each pass, depending on snow moisture
amounts. These ruts can channelize surface runoff and
churned soil can become mobilized, leading to increases in stream sedimentation. Complicating the minimum
depth requirement is the density of the snow, which
varies seasonally and as a function of weather
conditions that drive snowpack metamorphism
processes (Sturm et al., 2010). There may be some risk
of inadvertent and isolated disturbance to soils when
OSV use occurs when snow depths vary such as on

19 high wind- exposed ridges or southern-facing slopes and are below 4 to 6 inches in some locations along travel
pathways off of existing roads. Although all of these
variables affect potential soil impacts, a minimum snow depth requirement of 12 inches is expected to prevent
damage to soil and vegetation (Hatchett and Eisen
2019). Snow depth sufficient to prevent road surface
damage should be sufficient to prevent soil impacts from use on roads and motorized trails. Most roads on the
Inyo National Forest are relatively sandy, and do not get as muddy as roads in soil with higher clay content.

Therefore, little snow is needed to protect their surface from damage by OSV use.

Watershed OSV use may indirectly affect water resources thorough contamination related to emissions or
spills, or by causing erosion and sedimentation
when OSVs travel cross-country. If steep slopes
are intensively used, snow may be removed, and
the ground surface exposed to extreme weather
conditions and increased erosion by continued
snowmobile traffic.

A minimum snow depth requirement for cross-country
travel would prevent or greatly reduce the potential for OSVs to contact undisturbed soil, reducing risk of erosion and sedimentation. It is necessary for cross-country travel to protect beneficial uses of water since erosion can lead to sedimentation in streams and Special Aquatic
Features. Avoiding a snow depth requirement could lead
to increased erosion and sedimentation of streams and
SAFs and potential impacts to beneficial uses of water. A minimum snow depth requirement can protect beneficial
uses of water to comply with the Clean Water Act. Snow
depth sufficient to prevent road surface damage should be sufficient to prevent soil and water quality impacts from use on roads and motorized trails.

Cultural
Resources
A cultural resource is most at risk of directly being
affected (e.g., damaged, disturbed) by OSV use if
an OSV makes direct contact with intact
archaeological deposits or features, off of existing
roads..

Since anticipated potential direct adverse effects to
cultural resources relate to direct contact with OSVs that may result in disturbance to intact archaeological
deposits and features, enforcing a 12-inch minimum
snow depth for cross-country OSV use avoids and
minimizes potential effects and meets standard
protection measure criteria in the Programmatic
Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region (Region 5) California State Historic
Preservation Officer Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act for Management of Historic Properties by the
National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (2018; R5 PA). This requirement is not necessary on existing
roads and motorized trails because they have already
been disturbed and do not have intact archaeologic
deposits or features in the road prism.

20 Appendix B: Proposed Action Process Detail
The process used for evaluating compliance with Travel Management regulations, snowfall adequacy requirements, and land management plan direction.

Travel Management Regulations – 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C:

Over- Snow Vehicle Use
The Forest Service published its final rule for Subpart C of its Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR Part 212) in the Federal Register on January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4511). The rule became effective on February 27, 2015. The final rule revised 36 CFR 212.80(a) (Purpose) to read as follows:

This subpart [Subpart C] provides for a system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for oversnow vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, over-snow vehicle use not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.14. Over-snow vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.14.

The final rule also revised 36 CFR 212.81(a) to read as follows:

Over-snow vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by the Responsible Official on administrative units or Ranger Districts, or parts of administrative units or Ranger Districts, of the National Forest System where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur, and, if appropriate, shall be designated by class of vehicle and time of year. . . .

Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulations require that designated public OSV areas and trails shall be identified on a publicly available OSV-use map (OSVUM) (36 CFR 212.81(c)). Once issued, these designations would be made enforceable under 36 CFR 261.14, which prohibits the possession or operation of an OSV on NFS lands other than in accordance with the Subpart C designations, subject to the exceptions listed at 36 CFR 261.14(a-f).

Designation Criteria
The Travel Management Regulations set forth designation criteria that are to guide the responsible official’s designation of trails and areas for OSV use (see 36 CFR 212.55(a)-(e)).2 These criteria delineate certain elements and resources, the effects on which the responsible official must consider.

The Travel Management Regulations describe the general designation criteria (36 CFR 212.55(a)) as follows:
2 Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulations incorporatesthe designation criteria found at 36 CFR §212.55 along with certain other requirements found in Subpart B. Specifically, 36 CFR §212.81(d) provides that: “the requirements governing designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in §§212.52 (public involvement), 212.53 (coordination), 212.54 (revision), 212.55 (designation criteria (including minimization)), and 212.57 (monitoring), shall apply to decisions made under [Subpart C].

21 In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.

The Travel Management Regulations describe the specific criteria for designation of trails and areas (36 CFR 212.55(b)) as follows:

In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:
1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; 2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; 3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and 4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.

In addition, the responsible officialshall consider:
5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.

Additionally, 36 CFR 212.55(d) requiresthe responsible official to recognize:
1) Valid existing rights; and
2) The rights of use of National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails under §212.6(b).

And 36 CFR 212.55(e) provides that:

National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in wilderness areas or primitive areas shall not be designated for motor vehicle use…unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for those areas.

Minimization Criteria
The term “minimization criteria,” as used throughout this document, refers to the subset of the specific criteria for designation of trails and areas for motorized use that the responsible official is to consider “with the objective of minimizing” the four categories of impacts set forth in 36 CFR 212.55(b)(1) – (4).

The process of considering the effects of designating trails and areas for OSV use with the objective

22 of minimizing the four categories of impacts set forth at 36 CFR 212.55(b)(1)-(4) is referred to as “applying the minimization criteria”. It is further explained throughout this appendix, and is detailed by resource in Appendix C, and by location in appendix D.

The Travel Management Regulationsimplement Executive Order(E.O.) 11644 (1972), as amended by E.O. 11989 (1977), from which the minimization criteria originate. E.O. 11644 states that “each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions… to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted….” Thus, both the Travel Management Regulations (TMR) and E.O. 11644 support the application of the minimization criteria to each specific area and trail.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reiterated this point:
[T]he TMR requires the Forest Service to apply the minimization criteria to each area it designated for snowmobile use…. [T]he Forest Service must apply the data it has compiled to show how it designed the areas open to snowmobile use ‘with the objective of minimizing’[the impacts set forth in 36 CFR 21.55(b)(1)-(4). [T]he Forest Service cannot rely upon a forest-wide reduction in the total area open to snowmobiles as a basisfor demonstrating compliance with the minimization criteria. The TMR is concerned with the effects of each particularized area and trail designation. The minimization criteria must be applied accordingly.” WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass’n, 790 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original).

However, the court clarified that the requirement to apply the minimization criteria to each area and trail designated for OSV use3 does not require the agency to complete a separate environmental review for each area and trail designated for uses.

Our conclusion does not require the Forest Service to conduct an entirely separate environmental review for each area and trail it designates for snowmobile use. The TMR does not prevent the Forest Service from conducting an analysis of multiple areas and trails at once, nor from integrating NEPA and TMR compliance into a single process What is required is that the Forest Service document how it evaluated and applied the data on an area-by-area basis with the objective of minimizing impacts as specified in the TMR.

WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass’n, 790 F.3d 920, 931 (9th Cir. 2015).

It is also important to note that applying the minimization criteria should not be interpreted as strictly requiring the prevention of all impacts. Instead, in applying the minimization criteria, the Forest Service maintains the flexibility to manage for a reasonable reduction of impacts while still addressing the need to provide trails and areas for public OSV experiences. This point is clarified in the preamble to the Travel Management Regulations Final Rule published on November 9, 2005:

An extreme interpretation of “minimize” would preclude any use at all, since impacts always can be reduced further by preventing themaltogether. Such an interpretation would notreflect the full context of E.O. 11644 or other laws and policies related to multiple use of NFS lands. 3 The Court characterized this requirement as “a more granular minimization analysis” than what had been done in the Subpart C designations at issue in that case. 790 F.3d at 931.

23 Neither E.O. 11644, nor these other laws and policies, establish the primacy of any particular use of trails and areas over any other. The Department believes ‘‘shall consider … with the objective of minimizing…’’ will assure that environmental impacts are properly taken into account, without categorically precluding motor vehicle use. 70 FR 68281.

Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, Chapter 10, Section 14, includes Forest Service policy for minimization of impacts. This policy reiterates that minimization of impacts can include management actions, and not necessarily only closures, but should be a balanced approach to meeting the minimization criteria. It also includes direction to include analysis of how management actions minimize impacts, within the environmental analysis, and explained in the decision.

4. For trails and areas, consideration of damage, harassment, and conflicts as provided in 36 CFR 212.55(b) and efforts to minimize those impacts, if impacts exist, should be documented in the environmental analysis and decision document. Typically, efforts to minimize damage, harassment, or conflicts as provided in 36 CFR 212.55(b) may be documented through identification and analysis of appropriate mitigation measures or other management actions.

The environmental analysis should explicitly address the minimization criteria (36 CFR 212.55 (b)) and should explain how mitigation measures or other management actions minimize any damage, harassment, and conflicts that were identified through the effects analysis of the proposed action and alternatives.

5. Minimization of damage, harassment, and conflicts under 36 CFR 212.55(b) occurs in the context of the Forest Service’s statutory obligation under National Forest Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, which includes balancing competing uses of NFS lands and providing for outdoor recreation. Minimization of damage, harassment, and conflicts as provided in 36 CFR 212.55(b) does not mean that they have to be eliminated, nor does minimization in this context mean reducing designated routes to a particular number or mileage.

6. The decision should explain how the identified damage, harassment, and conflicts will be minimized in the designation of trails and areas, utilizing the information provided in the environmental analysis, which could include a description of mitigation measures, seasonal or vehicle class restrictions, and any other management actions that will be implemented as part of the decision to minimize damage, harassment, and conflicts as provided in 36 CFR 212.55(b).

Consistent with these authorities, the Forest Service has applied the minimization criteria in each area and trail, as documented in Appendix D of this proposed action, and summarized here to describe the general approach.

24 Applying the Minimization Criteria and Other Specific Designation Criteria
To apply the minimization criteria (36 CFR 212.55(b) (1-4)) and the other specific criteria for designating trails and areas for OSV use (“Specific Designation Criteria”) (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5); (d) and (e)) the Forest Service conducted a preliminary Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise, which included 6 main steps.

Results of this exercise helped to identify potential impacts and conflicts that may occur as a result of designating public OSV use of proposed NFS lands and trails and which NFS lands and trails were ultimately proposed to be designated for OSV use in the proposed action. The screening questions used are presented in Appendix C, and the results of the preliminary Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise are summarized in appendix D.

The Forest Service considered, pursuant to the final travel management rule (36 CFR 212 Part 212), the potential effects of designating NFS trails and areas on NFS lands for OSV use with the objective of minimizing:
• Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources(36 CFR 212.55(b)(1)); • Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats(36 CFR 212.55(b)(2)); • Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands (36 CFR 212.55(b)(3)); and
• Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands (36 CFR 212.55(b)(4)).

In addition to these Minimization Criteria, the Forest Service also considered other specific designation criteria pertaining to:
• The compatibility of OSV use with existing conditions in populated areas, specifically sound, emissions, and other factors (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5));
• Rights of Access(36 CFR 212.55(d)); and
• Wilderness areas and primitive areas(36 CFR 212.55(e)).

All management requirements, minimization, and monitoring features are described in the ResourceSpecific Management requirements in the Appendix D tables.

To accomplish the objective of applying the Minimization Criteria (36 CFR 212.55(b) (1-4)) and the other Specific Designation Criteria (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5); 212.55(d); and 212.55(e)) when designating areas and trails for OSV use, the Forest Service conducted a Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise that included the following 6 main steps. These steps will repeated after full analysis is completed, so all discussion below applies to preliminary findings and may change after more thorough analysis and public input.

25 STEP 1: Development of the Resource-specific Minimization Criteria Screening Questions The Forest’s development and use of resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions allowed the forest to obtain specific information regarding the potential impacts of OSV use within each potentially designated OSV-use area and along each potentially designated OSV-use trail. Resourcespecific Minimization Criteria Screening Questions were developed for the four Minimization Criteria (36 CR 212.55(b) (1-4)) and Specific Designation Criteria (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5)) (Appendix C).

STEP 2: Rationale for Resource-specific Minimization Criteria Screening Questions For each Resource-specific minimization criteria screening question, a written description providing the rationale for or purpose of each question was developed. These rationales are included in Appendix C.

Each rationale includes information explaining why a question was chosen and what specifically each question is screening for. The rationale also provide insight into the potential impacts the questions are screening for.

STEP 3: Area-by-Area Screening Exercise
Existing data sources were used by each resource specialist to “screen” each OSV-use area and OSV-use trail being considered for designation using the questions (described in appendix D, tables D-1 through D-8). The primary data sources used during this screening process were geographic information system (GIS)-based spatial representations of historical and current survey data or personal knowledge of Forest Service staff and the public. The process of screening each OSV-use area and OSV-use trail being considered for designation using the Resource-specific minimization criteria questions provided the mechanism for resource specialists to systematically consider each OSV-use area and OSV-use trail, determine where OSV use within OSV-use areas or along OSV-use trails may potentially impact a forest resource, and document those results. Results are displayed in appendix D.

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.55) requires the consideration of motor vehicle use in areas on NFS land and on NFS trails with the objective of minimizing damage to soils, watersheds, and other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, significant disruption of wildlife habitat, and conflicts between recreation uses or among motor vehicle classes. Damage is generally defined as physical harm that impairs value, usefulness, or normal function (https//en.oxforddictionaries.com, 4 February 2019).

Harassment of wildlife (as defined in the Endangered Species Act) is an “intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to a species by annoying the species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt its normal behavioral patterns.”
Significant disruption and conflicts are less clearly defined as they relate to forest resources.

Nonetheless, the resource-specific minimization criteria questions were established to identify where OSV use within an OSV-use area or along an OSV-use trail would cause any effect to soils, watersheds, vegetation, cultural resources, wildlife or their habitats, and recreation opportunities and experiences.

Because OSV use could have an effect without impairing value, usefulness, or normal function or without significantly disrupting a species’ normal behavior or habitat, the resource-specific minimization criteria questions used by the forest in its area-by-area screening exercise used a more sensitive threshold than is required by Subpart B, CFR 212.55(b) of the Travel Management Rule.

26 STEP 4: Management Requirement Prescription
After potential impacts or conflicts were identified in STEP 2, we considered whether a management requirement could be prescribed to reduce that impact or conflict and whether a management requirement was necessary. If so, we developed measures to minimize the impact or conflict. Each prescribed management requirement was specifically tied to a potential (or occurring) impact or conflict. In some instances, the identified management requirement became a component of the proposed action (e.g., minimum snow depth requirements; season of use designations). In other instances, the only mitigation identified was to avoid designating a trail or portion of an OSV-use area and those trails or areas were eliminated from the proposed action. Each management requirement prescribed for each area considered for designation is displayed in Appendix D.

Note that we have only developed the proposed action as of now. Because “minimization” can be defined in many ways, and different management requirements could be used to minimize impacts, we will develop alternatives that present varying ways to minimize impacts as warranted. These alternatives will be driven by issues brought up by the public, organizations, agencies or tribes, as a results of analysis, or if we find new information that we have not yet considered. We will not examine an infinite number of ways to minimize impacts, but will include a range of reasonable alternatives to this proposed action as warranted by the issues identified.

STEP 5: Rationale for Management Requirements
For each management requirement prescribed, a written description providing the rationale or purpose was developed. This rationale includes: (1) How the management requirement (or measures) specifically minimizes the impacts or conflicts it was designed to mitigate; (2) Why it is necessary; and (3) The risk of not implementing the prescribed management requirement. If a potential impact or conflict was identified, but no management requirement was prescribed, a narrative explaining why a management requirement was not necessary was also developed during this step. Rationale for Management Requirements are described in Appendix D.

STEP 6: Designation Recommendation
The final step in the Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise was to make a designation recommendation. The designation recommendations included the following:
• Designate with no Management Requirement;
• Designate with Management Requirement; or
• Do not Designate
Applying the General Designation Criteria
The general designation criteria (36 CFR 212.55(a)) were applied in developing this proposed action. The effects of the proposed actions on NFS natural and cultural resources, public safety, and conflicts among uses of NFS lands has not been fully analyzed, but currently known information and a general screening was used to apply the minimization criteria to development of the proposed action. The effects of the proposed actions on the provision of recreational opportunities were also considered during the application of the minimization criteria (see appendices C and D). They will be further considered during development of any action alternatives. We also considered access needs and the need for maintenance and administration of the NFS lands and the availability of resources for that maintenance and

27 administration of the lands proposed for designation. This will be discussed in the effects analysis in more detail.

Summary of the Application of the Minimization Criteria and Other Specific Criteria and relationship to NEPA Analysis
Steps 1 through 6 described above were used to apply the minimization criteria and the other specific designation criteria to satisfy the requirements of 36 CFR 212.55(b), (d), and (e) of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. This six-step “screening” process informed the development of the proposed action and will be used when developing any alternatives. Applying the Minimization Criteria through the sixstep screening process provided the forest the means to consider where public OSV use could occur using reasonable management requirements to minimize impacts.

Areas on NFS lands and trails where we have initially determined there are no reasonable methods for minimizing impacts were removed from the proposed action.

A thorough NEPA analysis considers the effect(s) of each action proposed it itself and in relation to one another. In contrast, the six-step application of the minimization criteria and other specific designation criteria focused specifically on those areas on NFS lands and trails on NFS lands being considered for public OSV use. As such, the NEPA analysis that will occur after scoping allows the Forest Service an opportunity to confirm (or reject) whether the six-step Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise had appropriately identified which areas on NFS lands and NFS trails would be acceptable for designation for public OSV use.

New information, input from scoping or other analysis may suggest that there are reasonable alternative methods for minimizing impacts. If those specific impacts are identified as relevant issues, then those alternative methods to minimize impacts to those resources may be included in an alternative to the proposed action, or modified proposed action.

Although the six-step Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise was conducted completely separate from, and prior to the upcoming NEPA analysis, information gathered while completing those six-steps will be used during the NEPA analysis. As part of that analysis, more thorough and detailed minimization criteria worksheets will be developed, to document the minimization screening results for every trail and every area. The next iteration will be informed by further public input and analysis findings.

Consistency with the Area Size Definition
The Final Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR 212.1 states: an area is a discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and except for OSV use, in most cases much smaller, than a Ranger District. The 16 OSV-use areas proposed for designation in the proposed action are smaller than even the smallest ranger district (Mammoth Ranger District) in the Inyo National Forest. Ranger districts in the Inyo National Forest range in size from 161,000 to 850,000 acres. The 16 proposed OSV-use areas included in this analysis range in size from 1,219 to 77,000 acres. Each proposed OSV-use area and its size are summarized in Table 1.

28 The largest area we are proposing to designate is the Glass OSV area, which is about 77,000 acres. We have created discrete areas delineated by roads, or obvious vegetation or topographic changes.

However, we acknowledge that multiple areas east of Highway 395 in the Mono Lake and Mammoth Ranger Districts are directly adjacent and could all be used as one OSV area with few crossings of plowed roads. The Mono Craters, Glass, Mammoth to June East, and Crowley Basin together cover about 155,600 acres, which is smaller, but similar in size to the Mammoth Ranger District (161,000 acres). However, this contiguous area is split by two Ranger Districts, Mammoth and Mono Lake. Table 3 shows the percentage of each Ranger District designated, showing that the designated portion of each Ranger District is much smaller than its total size. Further, there are obvious boundaries, such as roads and groomed OSV trails, as well as different resource issues and OSV opportunities in these areas.

Therefore, they meet the requirement of, “discrete, specifically delineated space”. More detailed maps showing these areas can be found on the project website.

Table 3. Percent of each Ranger District designated as an OSV use area in the proposed action.

Ranger District Name
Acres
(approximate)
Percent
Designated in
Proposed Action
Ranger District Acres
outside of
Wilderness
(approximate)
Percent of
Ranger District
Outside of
Wilderness
Designated as
OSV areas
Mono Lake 485,000 30% 405,000 36%
Mammoth 161,000 36% 75,500 77%
White Mountain 850,000 9% 458,000 17%
Mt. Whitney 465,000 5% 194,000 11%
Snowfall Adequacy
The regulations do not include a definition of adequate snowfall (36 CFR 212.81(a)) to support OSV use.

The snowline across the Inyo National Forest is highly variable, based on elevation, topography, and distance from the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It is also highly variable from year-to-year, even more so than the wetter west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

The Inyo National Forest is in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Precipitation rapidly decreases east of these mountains, since most storms move in from west to east. However, there are anomalies based on the shape of the Sierra Nevada crest which may allow storms to pass through, or block storms from a certain area. The Forest also spans about 150 miles from north to south, with corresponding temperature and precipitation differences.

For all of these reasons, there is not a clear elevational line that can be used to define areas of “adequate” snowfall on the Inyo National Forest. We reviewed models of snow depth from the Snow Assimilation System (SNODAS) Data Product, and used those to determine which areas receive adequate

29 snow for consideration. That source provides modeled snow depth data from 2003 through 2022. The model is calibrated using actual snow depth measurements, but is a model and does not necessarily mimic actual snow depth at every location on the Forest (National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center, 2004). Based on the information shared in Appendix A, we considered 12 inches of condensed snow to be the minimum required depth for cross-country OSV use. However, one day with 12 inches of snow would not be sufficient, since it would likely not be condensed enough to support an OSV, or would melt too quickly for real availability for OSV use. Using our knowledge of local conditions, we estimated that if an area has at least 12 inches of snow cover, which lasts at least 5 days, on average over the past 20 years, then we consider it to be an area with adequate snowfall for OSV use. Figure 3 shows the resulting “adequate snowfall” map. The average is not an indication of what may happen in any year, given the wide variability in snowfall, but we assume it paints a reasonable picture of snow conditions.

For National Forest System roads and motorized trails designated for OSV use, we considered the entire Forest as receiving adequate snowfall. That is because we did not determine that any particular minimum snow depth was required to protect road surfaces, or to allow OSV use on roads. Snowfall is adequate on roads and motorized trails when it is deep enough to prevent damage to the road surface.

Roads are generally a smoother surface, with no vegetation. With just a few inches of snow, an OSV can use a road. Our preliminary determination is that any area that receives snow could be considered adequate for OSV designation over the top of a National Forest System road or motorized trail. The entire Forest does receive snow, and therefore we considered the entire Forest as having adequate snowfall for on-road OSV use.

30 Figure 3. Map showing the areas estimated to have adequate snow depth for cross-country OSV use. For this purpose, “adequate snowfall” for cross-country OSV use is defined as having at least 5 days per year with at least 12 inches of snow depth, on average over the past 20 years. Estimated number of days with at least 12 inches of snow cover was averaged from the winter of 2003/2004 through 2021/2022. This is a model output using the SNODAS system developed by the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center.

31 Area Boundary Determinations
We based our initial areas of consideration on the SNODAS snow depth method described above.

However, we did not automatically use the boundary of “adequate” snowfall as the boundary for designated areas. We used the adequate snowfall map as a guide, and then delineated areas based not only on the minimization screening criteria, but also natural, obvious breaks on the landscape. One of the purposes of the project is to create a manageable system of OSV designations, therefore, we strove to create boundaries that were easily discernable on the ground, and understandable on a map.

To that end, we created boundaries mostly on roads, as well as at major vegetation changes that are visible when the area is snow covered, major topographic changes, or obvious rivers or other natural features. We also considered how OSV users may access an area. In some cases, our boundaries may not include an area that was modeled to receive adequate snowfall. Often, this was because there was no obvious boundary that could encompass that area. In other instances, we did not include an area modeled to receive “adequate” snowfall because it barely received adequate snowfall, and did not connect to an area with greater snowfall and therefore a higher quality OSV opportunity. In other cases, Inyo National Forest staff identified that those areas have vegetation types that require more than 12 inches of snow to be passable by an OSV (such as high sage brush).

A few designated area boundaries contain portions that are modeled as not having adequate snowfall to support OSV use, on their outer edge. This occurred when we could not determine a logical boundary within modeled adequate snowfall, or when we were confident that the area actually does receive adequate snowfall that was not captured in the model. These areas are relatively small and adjacent to an area with more consistent modeled snowpack.

Applying the Rights of Access Designation Criteria
As required by 36 CFR 212.55(d), the proposed OSV-use area and trail designations included in this Proposed Action would not violate any valid existing rights or the rights of use (ingress and egress) of NFS lands and trails by actual settlers and other persons residing within the national forests (or other areas administered by the Forest Service) in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property (36 CFR 212.6(b)).

Applying the Wilderness Areas and Primitive Areas Designation Criteria
As required by 36 CFR 212.55(e), no trails or areas are proposed to be designated for OSV use in Wilderness Areas in this Proposed Action. There are no designated Primitive Areas on the Inyo National Forest.

Land Management Plan Direction
The Inyo National Forest land management plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 2019) contains little direction specific to OSV use. It contains general direction related to recreation experiences and desired conditions. The Forest Plan is relatively new, and we designed our proposed action to be consistent with Forest Plan direction. Therefore, there is no identified need to amend our Forest Plan for this project.

32 The following direction included in the Forest Plan is directly relevant this proposed action. Other direction in the Forest Plan is relevant to general recreation, and was reviewed to determine plan compliance. Table 2 includes the direction that was most directly useful to guide this proposed action.

All plan components were reviewed for plan consistency, and the proposed action was found to be consistent with the Forest Plan.

Table 4. Forest Plan components that directly informed this proposed action, and how each of the plan components was incorporated into the proposed action.

Forest Plan Direction Relevant Area Page
#
How direction was incorporated into
this proposed action
Work with local partners and
municipalities to achieve timely
opening and closing of access and
facilities based on snowpack and
other seasonal considerations
rather than a fixed administrative
calendar. (REC-FW-GOAL 10)
Forestwide 56 We set specific dates for OSV use in
areas based on existing permitted
dates for commercial ski area
operators or wildlife, not a fixed
administrative calendar.

Within 10 years of plan approval
add up to five new recreation sites
in the general recreation area to
provide access to dispersed
recreational activities (such as
hiking, biking, stock use, and use of
off-highway vehicles and oversnow vehicles) if partnerships are available to assist with the
maintenance and management of
new facilities. (MA-GRA-OBJ 01)
General
Recreation
Management
Area
92 One new staging area is proposed to
be plowed and connected with the
groomed OSV trail system, near
Shady Rest Park. This is not a new
recreation site, but a new use of an
existing sites. It meets the intent of
this objective.

Mechanized transport and
motorized use are not suitable in
recommended wilderness areas;
motorized travel and uses shall not
be allowed unless specifically
authorized for emergency or
administrative needs. (MA-RWLDSUIT 06)
Recommended
Wilderness
95 No OSV areas or trails designated in
Recommended Wilderness.

Cross-country over snow vehicle
travel is not suitable (DA-ABPF-SUIT
01e)
Ancient
Bristlecone
Pine Forest
(National
Protection
Area)
107 No cross-country OSV travel (areas)
designated in the Ancient Bristlecone
Pine Forest
Over-snow vehicle travel is not
suitable (DA-RNA-SUIT)
Research
Natural Areas
110 No OSV trails or areas designated
within Research Natural Areas

33 The recreation experience is
consistent with or complements a
nonmotorized recreation setting.

The trail may intermittently pass
through more developed settings
to provide for a continuous route.

In winter, the trail has a natural
appearing setting with few sights,
sounds, and resource impacts from
motorized use. (MA-PCT-DC 03)
Pacific Crest
Trail
97 The only locations where the PCT is
outside of Wilderness on the Inyo
National Forest are in Reds Meadow,
near Mammoth Lakes, and near the
community of Kennedy Meadows.

These are both more developed
areas, with paved roads parallel to
the PCT and stores, houses,
bathrooms, and other developments.

OSV use would be allowed in these
developed areas.

Authorized roads and trails within
the corridor, including crossings of
the Pacific Crest National Scenic
Trail are suitable. (MA-PCT-SUIT 04)
Pacific Crest
Trail
99 The only OSV crossings of the PCT
that would be designated on the Inyo
National Forest are on National Forest
system roads, which are authorized
roads. These will be marked on the
OSVUM,
Year-round motorized or
mechanized transport on the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail is
not suitable. (MA-PCT-SUIT 05).

Pacific Crest
Trail
99 No areas would be designated that
cross or directly abut the PCT. The
only crossings would be ungroomed
designated OSV trails that overlie
National Forest System roads. These
measures implement this suitability
requirement.

34 Appendix C –Minimization Criteria Screening Questions Table C- 1. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – soil Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use occur in or within 150 feet of
a meadow, pumice flats or barren area with low
vegetative cover (sensitive soil)?
For a potential impact to occur, OSV use must occur on or within a short distance of sensitive soils. This question provides the initial screening to identify areas of potential concern associated with OSV use areas and OSV use trails for which question 1a will be applied. Impacts to soil resources are more likely on sensitive soils that either lack protective cover shallow soils, barren areas), or have low bearing capacity and are at risk of displacement (pumice flat areas, meadows).
1a. If yes to 1, do slopes greater than 30 percent occur within 150 feet of meadow, pumice flats or other area
with sensitive soil?
Slopes greater than 30 percent are more prone to snow removal during intensive use, leading to a risk of erosion or soil loss during snowmelt (Olliff et al. 1999).

Steep slopes above sensitive soils may create runoff onto barren areas or create deposition on soils that can lead to degradation.

2. Would high levels of use occur on the identified
sensitive soils, (over 30 feet off of roads) (from 1a)? This question is intended to identify threats to soil productivity on sensitive soils within OSV use areas. High use areas can compact snow, which reduces its insulating properties. This can lead to deeper freezing depths in soil profiles, and delayed melting in the spring (Olliff et al. 1999). Areas that repeatedly receive these impacts could have reduced vegetation vigor, particularly on meadows (wet and dry), fens or pumice flat, high elevation or shallow soils where the growing season is short.

Table C- 2. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – watersheds Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use occur within 150 feet of a
mapped perennial or intermittent stream or
spring?
This question provides the initial screening to identify areas of potential erosion/sedimentation concern associated with OSV use areas and OSV use trails for which questions 1a through 1c will be applied.

Streamside buffers of at least 100 feet (30 meters) traps approximately 85 percent of sediments (Sweeney et al. 2014). Therefore, sedimentation risk is low if trail/use area is greater than 100 feet from streams or Special Aquatic Feature (SAF). Special Aquatic Feature is a term used in the Land Management Plan and refers to such features as wet meadows, fens, lakes, wetlands and springs. For this analysis, distances of 150 feet will be used instead of 100 feet. This distance of 150 feet is a protective buffer given to streams and SAF’s per direction in the Forest’s Land Management Plan (USDA 2019).

For hydrocarbons, research in Yellowstone indicated that sampling sites 50 meters from snowmobile trails had similar concentrations of all major ions as sampling sites 1,000 meters from snowmobile trails (Ingersoll, 1999).

However, due to the relatively low amount of OSV use on the Inyo National Forest, even in the areas deemed “high

35 use” for this project, hydrocarbon pollution isn’t expected to impact streams and SAF’s. For this reason, hydrocarbons will not be monitored.
1a. If yes to 1. and within a use area, do slopes
greater than 3 0 percent occur within the 150-
foot buffer?
Research in Yellowstone indicated that snowmobile activities may indirectly contribute to erosion of trails and steep slopes (Olliff et al. 1999). On the Inyo National Forest, sedimentation risk is higher on slopes which exceed 30 percent. A majority of the high use area on the Forest consists of pumiceous soils. These soils lack the aggregate stability of the soils found on the westside of the Sierra Nevada. Pumiceous soils are more easily displaced, which allows for erosion to occur more easily. This is why areas greater than 30% will be screened and monitored where these areas overlap with high use.

2. If yes to 1(a): Would high levels of use occur
within those acres or miles?
The risk of contamination is proportional to use levels. Research in Yellowstone indicated that where snowmobile traffic volumes were greater, so were chemical concentrations (Ingersoll, 1999). Acres/miles of high use within 50 meters of streams or SAF is used to gage the extent of this risk.

Table C- 3. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – At-Risk Plants and Special Habitats Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use occur within any At-Risk Plant
Species populations, or Special Habitats?
In order for a potential impact to occur, OSV use must occur within occupied habitat. This question provides the initial screening to identify areas of potential concern associated with OSV use areas and OSV use trails for which questions 1a through 1d will be applied.
1a. For each species identified in 1a, describe any
potential impacts that OSV use may inflict on the
species or their habitat. What is the concern?
Decipher between direct or indirect impacts. If no
potential impacts, state NONE and explain why.

Motorized use within or near at-risk plants and their habitats has the potential to affect at-risk plant species (both individuals and habitat; both directly and indirectly). Potential impacts of OSV use within occupied or suitable habitats include mortality, damage, soil compaction, impacts to other plants that may provide shade, and other habitat destruction. Plants that are tall enough to be exposed above the snow can have their growing tips damaged; this may stunt and alter the form of growth or result in damage to limbs or branches (e.g., Pinus albicaulis). Some damage will not impact growth, but major damage could impact individuals. Perennial and woody plants with live tissue persisting above the ground over winter may not be entirely covered by snow (even with a minimum snow depth requirement) and therefore could be impacted by OSV use (e.g., Tetradymia tetramers, Sclerocactus polyancistrus). Plants that have perennating structures below ground but initiate growth at the time of snow melt can start growing during warm periods mid-winter and have tender new growth (cell wall not yet strong) above ground where they are particularly vulnerable. It is not known if the proposed snow depth will be adequate protection for this very vulnerable stage (e.g., Lomatium foeniculaceum ssp. inyoense, Viola purpurea ssp. aurea). Meadows and pumice flats may have snowmobiles crossing bare patches, since these habitats receive high snowmobile use in the winter, and they do not have many impediments such as rocks/boulders that deter OSV travel on bare ground; plants that may be affected include Astragalus monoensis and Lupinus duranii).

36 1b. For each potential impact identified in 1b,
describe the level of risk to the species or the
likelihood of it occurring.

Although the same suite of potential impacts may be possible wherever OSV use would occur within suitable or occupied habitat, the risk or likelihood of it occurring may vary based on: (1) the total area or miles of habitat potentially impacted; (2) whether the area of concern is occupied; (3) and the habitat type where the potential impact may occur (all quantified in response to question 1a); or some other unique factor to a particular OSV use area or trail not yet identified. Considering the level of risk to the species or the likelihood of it occurring area-byarea and trail-by-trail helps to inform the need for mitigation and development of the proposed action.

Table C- 4. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – cultural resources Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use or development adversely
affect significant cultural resource sites*?
For a potential impact to occur, OSV use or development must occur at a significant cultural resource site or within the viewshed or auditory range of a significant site. This question provides the initial screening to identify areas of potential concern associated with OSV use or proposed development to which questions 1a and 1b will be applied. 1a. If yes to 1 above, describe potential impacts to
significant cultural resource sites. What is the
concern? Distinguish between direct or indirect
impacts. If no potential impacts, state NONE and
explain why.

The effects of an activity or undertaking on cultural resources is assessed by considering whether significant physical characteristics that qualify a cultural property for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), such as location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, association and scientific value, will be diminished or destroyed.

OSV use over sufficient snow depths to prevent soil disturbance protects the physical integrity of significant archaeological deposits and cultural features below the snow. Sites projecting above the snowline such as cabins, modified trees and large milling boulders are protected through avoidance. Proposed OSV development with new ground disturbance can directly affect the physical integrity of archaeological deposits and features. Sites susceptible to potential indirect effects of altered visual or auditory characteristics from OSV use and development are not presently known but could be identified through tribal consultation and public scoping. 1b. If yes to 1a, to what magnitude would OSV use
potentially affect the integrity of the cultural
resource(s)?
The magnitude of effect for ongoing OSV uses and grooming is considered low. The magnitude of effect for proposed new development is also considered low since potential adverse effects may be avoided through project design and implementation. Should an unavoidable adverse effect be identified, consultation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966 as amended) will occur to resolve it. Monitoring for off-road soil disturbance and enforcement of OSV activities minimizes the potential for unplanned adverse effects on significant cultural sites.
*A significant cultural resource is a cultural resource site that is unevaluated (assumed eligible), eligible to or listed on the National Register of Historic Places, also known as an “historic property” pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

37 Table C- 5. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – fish & wildlife Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use (includes grooming operations)
occur within occupied, suitable, or critical habitat
for at-risk species* and other wildlife called out
in the land management plan (e.g., bats, deer,
pollinators).

In order for a potential impact to occur, OSV use must occur within occupied, suitable or designated critical habitat.

This question provides the initial screening to identify areas of potential concern associated with OSV use areas and OSV use trails for which questions 1a through 1c will be applied. 1a. For each species identified in 1, describe
any potential impacts that OSV use may inflict
on the species, or their persistence potential.

What is the concern? Decipher between direct
or indirect impacts. If no potential impacts, state
NONE and explain why.

In order for an impact to occur, there must be a negative impact of OSV use on the species or its habitat. To determine which at-risk could be negatively impacted by OSV and during OSV seasonal use, we completed a preliminary at-risk species review. It is based on best available science, local knowledge, life history, known occurrences, seasonal use, migration patterns, critical life stages and important habitats. We then consider potential direct and indirect impacts for each At-risk species (documented in OSV at-Risk Review). Identify specific locations and species that have potential impacts from OSV use.
1b. For each potential impact identified in 1a,
describe the level of risk to the species’
persistence or the likelihood of it occurring.

As it relates to OSV use, assess at-risk species and the need for management requirements as they relate to maintaining distribution to be resilient* (footnote The word “resilient” suggests that when disturbance events or stressors result in the local disappearance of individuals or extirpation from an area, recolonization of suitable habitat may occur in the future to facilitate long-term persistence in the plan area (FSH 1909.12 section 23.13c(1)(e)) and adaptable (I.e., species is able to adjust to new conditions) to stressors and likely future environments. *(Footnote 36 CFR 219.19). If the level of risk is very low, management requirements can be put in place to minimize impacts. If the level of risk is higher, more restrictive management may be put into place, or the area may not have OSV use designated. * At-risk species also include federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. Species of conservation concern are a subset of at-risk species.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)), the Regional Forester determined the terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, and plant species meeting the criteria for species of conservation concern (SCC) for the Inyo National Forests' Land Management Plan.

38 Table C-6. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – recreation (36 CFR 212.55(b)(3)) – Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use occur in the same location
as other existing, or proposed, high recreational
use of National Forest System lands or
Neighboring Federal Lands?
Locations with both OSV use, and other existing or proposed recreational use of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands, may have the potential to generate inter-user conflict. Screening where OSV use would overlap with other existing, or proposed use, is the first step in identifying potential conflict that may occur in OSV use areas or along OSV use trails. Questions 1a and 1b will be applied. NOTE: Overlap between OSV use, and other existing and recreational use, does not necessarily indicate a conflict will occur. Questions 1a and 1b help determine whether the potential for conflict exists and document any conflicts that have occurred or are occurring. Apply mitigations efforts and/or exclusions and/or monitoring in areas with high use overlap, not just general recreation. 1a. If yes to 1, is there a potential for conflicts
between OSV use and other existing, or
proposed, recreational use to occur?
Describe any potential conflicts that may occur.

Identifying whether a conflict may occur, and between who, is important for assessing the potential impacts of designating an area or trail for OSV use and in identifying the need for mitigation. Identifying the suite of potential conflicts may inform the level of risk, likelihood of, or frequency of conflict occurring and indicates a need for mitigation.
1b Have any conflicts between OSV use, and
other existing or proposed recreational use,
been reported or are they occurring within the
OSV use area or along the OSV use trail being
considered for designation? Describe each
reported or occurring conflict.
1b differs from 1a by differentiating between potential conflicts and those that have occurred or are occurring.

Providing this distinction helps to document conflicts with a greater risk of occurring, or likelihood of occurring, and those that may require some sort of mitigation to minimize the frequency, or impact of the conflict. Identifying the specific conflicts that have occurred, or are currently occurring, is critical when determining the need for mitigation.

Conflicts known to have occurred, or those currently occurring, may present a greater need for mitigation than those that may occur.

2. Would OSV use occur within

0.5 miles of a (a) a neighboring Federal land
boundary, (b) wilderness boundary, (c) popular
non-motorized recreation destination (area or
trail), or (d) the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT)? If yes,
which ones (a., b, c or d)?
Identifying where OSV use may occur within 0.5 miles of neighboring Federal lands, wilderness boundary, or popular non-motorized recreation destinations (area or trail) provides a conservative threshold to identify locations that have the potential for conflict between OSVs operating on National Forest System lands and other recreational use / recreationists on National Forest System lands or Neighboring Federal Lands. Screening where OSV use may occur within 0.5 miles of a neighboring Federal land boundary, wilderness, or a designated or popular non-motorized recreation destination is the first step in identifying where conflict may occur within OSV use areas or along OSV use trails, for which, questions 2a and 2b will be applied. NOTE: OSV use that may occur within 0.5 mile of a, b, or c does not necessarily indicate a conflict will occur. Questions 2a and 2b will help determine whether the potential for conflict exists and document any conflict.
2a. If yes to 2, would OSV use within 0.5 mile of
(a), (b), (c) or (d) cause conflict between OSV
use / recreationists and other existing or
proposed recreational use / recreationists
occurring in (a), (b), (c) or (d)? If yes, describe
potential conflicts.

Identifying whether a conflict may occur, and between which types of uses, is important for assessing the potential impact of designating an area, or trail, for OSV use and in identifying the need for mitigation. Identifying potential conflict may inform the level of risk, likelihood of conflict, or frequency of conflict and the need for mitigation. 2b. Has conflict been reported or, is it occurring
between OSV use/recreationists and other
recreational use within 0.5 mile of (a); (b), (c) or
(d)? If yes, describe the conflicts that have been
reported or are occurring.

Differs from 2a by differentiating between potential conflicts and those that have occurred or are occurring. Providing this distinction helps to document conflicts with a greater risk, or likelihood, of occurring and those that may require some sort of mitigation to minimize the frequency or impact of the conflict. Identifying the specific conflict that has occurred, or is occurring, is critical to determining the need for mitigation. Conflict that is known to have occurred or is occurring may have a greater need for mitigation than that which may occur.

39 Table C-7. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale –conflicts between different classes of motor vehicles (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5))
Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would the OSV use area, or OSV use trail,
conflict with roads plowed for wheeled vehicle
travel? Would any plowed road crossings occur?
Locations where OSV use may conflict with roads plowed for wheeled vehicles have the potential to generate conflicts related to safety because drivers on plowed roads may not expect OSVs on a road, and there could be an accident or a diminished experience for the wheeled vehicle or OSV user. Screening where this overlap may occur is important to prevent collisions and other safety concerns.

Table C-8. Resource-specific minimization criteria screening questions and rationale – communities and private land (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5))
Resource-Specific Minimization Criteria
Screening Questions
Screening Question Rationale / Purpose

1. Would OSV use occur within

0.5 mile of a (a) populated area, neighborhood,
or community, or
(b) private land boundary?
Identifying where OSV use may occur within 0.5 mile of (a) populated area, neighborhood, or community, or (b) private land boundary provides a conservative threshold to identify where OSVs operating on National Forest System lands may affect the existing condition, quality of life, or expectations of people residing in, or utilizing, these areas. This question provides the initial screening to identify conflict for which questions 2, 3, and 3a will be applied.

2. Would sound, emissions, or other factors from
OSV use of the area or trail be compatible with
the nearby populated area, neighborhood, or
community or private land?
Assessing whether sound, emissions, or other factors from OSV use in designated OSV use areas or along OSV use trails would be compatible with the nearby populated area, neighborhood, community, or private land are important aspects to consider when determining the appropriateness of designating OSV use areas or OSV trails 2a. If no, why not? If yes, why? Describing why OSV use would not be compatible with a populated area, neighborhood, community, or private land within 0.5 mile of an area or trail being considered for OSV use designation is an important component to consider during the development of the proposed action (and future alternatives), identifying the need for management requirements, and ultimately for the responsible official to make their final decision.

40 Appendix D - Minimization Criteria Management Requirements by resource and area As described in the description of STEP 5 of the Minimization Criteria Screening Exercise in the proposed action package, a management requirement may or may not have been prescribed for any given area or trail included in the proposed action. In some instances, no potential impacts or conflicts were identified for a particular area or trail, and therefore, required no specific management requirements.

For all designated areas (cross-country OSV travel), the 12-inch minimum snow depth is a management requirement. It is a Forest wide requirement, not a specific requirement. While we considered a deeper snow depth requirement for some specific resource issues, we did not consider a shallower snow depth requirement anywhere.

For other areas and trails, despite the potential for an impact or conflict to occur, resource specialists determined no specific management requirements were required to minimize impacts. In other circumstances, where a potential impact or conflict was identified and a management requirement prescribed, the identified management requirement became a component of the proposed action (e.g., seasonal restrictions; signage or speed limits) or led to the elimination of the area or trail (or portions thereof) from the proposed action.

The information currently in this appendix applies to the proposed action only. For areas where issues are identified through public and internal scoping, and for which there are reasonable alternatives for minimizing impacts, there may be an alternative developed for analysis. Since full analysis has not yet been completed, some of the potential impacts or management requirements may change for these areas.

Tables D-1 through D-8 below describe each potential impact, by area, and which management requirement was prescribed in order to minimize impacts. A detailed description of the process that led to each management requirement and a summary of the management requirements is provided below; organized first by the Specific Designation Criteria the management requirements apply to and secondly by the prescribing resource area.

We reviewed all proposed designated f OSV trails in the proposed action, and none met the criteria for requiring a management requirement beyond education and possibly increased signage. OSV use on existing National Forest System roads and trails does not have the potential to negatively impact soils, watershed, vegetation, or cultural resources, because the roads are already denuded of vegetation and have lost soil productivity. OSV use cannot have effects greater than the road itself for those resources. For recreation and wildlife resources, the presence of OSVs, or their noise, might affect resources. However, because OSV use on these roads and trails is expected to be sporadic, and use is for transportation that passes any point quickly, these impacts did not rise to the level of needing a management requirement to minimize impacts from OSV use. Analysis completed in the Environmental Assessment may bring issues to light. We plan to list every designated OSV trail, and any identified impacts or management requirements identified through that analysis, in the Environmental Assessment.

41 For many of the resources considered below, we did not identify any need to make a management action to minimize negative effects of OSV use, as long as cross-country travel occurs over at least 12 inches of condensed snow and use patterns remain similar to today.

In many areas where there is a potential for impacts, but they are currently minor or not known to be occurring, we are listing “monitoring” as a management requirement to minimize impacts. Monitoring itself does not minimize impacts, but can identify trends and possible issues that may arise. Through adaptive management, we can address any impacts identified through monitoring, using management actions appropriate to the impact. The following list includes actions that may be into put into place if monitoring identifies a need. These adaptive management actions are included as part of this proposed action, and will be analyzed in the Environmental Assessment. This list includes actions that could address issues with any resource.

Adaptive management actions may include (in order of increasing restriction):

1. Increased education

2. Increased signage (mixed-use areas, private land boundaries, Wilderness boundaries, regulation reminders, or others)

3. Increased patrols and/or monitoring

4. Deeper snow-depth requirements

5. Seasonal Restrictions

6. Speed Limits

7. Restrict use to existing system roads and motorized trails

8. Restrict use to groomed OSV trails

9. Close to OSV use temporarily

10. Close to OSV use permanently (Remove designation)
Note: We will analyze the degree of adaptive management only for the above management changes when they are over a small area, or have minor impacts to recreation uses. Once actual effects are outside of what we analyzed, a new or supplemental environmental analysis may be completed.

Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources 36 CFR § 212.55(b)(1)
Soil
For the majority of the OSV use areas and OSV use trails screened by the Team’s soil specialist, no specific risks to soil were identified. The 12- inch minimum snow depth requirement, in conjunction with prohibiting contact with native soil or vegetation, should be sufficient to protect soil resources and minimize the likelihood of soil damage occurring as a result of OSV use. An additional requirement was only added if a designated

42 use area or length of a trail would result in OSV use within 150 feet of a meadow, fen, or other barren area with low vegetative cover; slopes in the vicinity of that meadow, fen, or other barren area with low vegetation were calculated to be greater than 30 percent; and/or the area or trail is expected to experience high levels of use (Minimization Criteria Screening Questions 1 and 2). Table D-1 lists the one OSV-use area where a management requirement was prescribed, provides a summary response for each of the Minimization Criteria Screening Questions and describes the management requirement and why it was prescribed.

Table D- 1. Management requirements prescribed to minimize damage to soil resources Area /
Trail
Screening Question Driving
need for minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
All
designated
areas
Yes to 1, 1a, and 2. 12 inches of compacted minimum
snow depth
12 inches of compacted snow will protect sensitive soil resources because this snow depth is adequate for cross-country travel and to mitigate and eliminate contact with soil surface, compaction, rutting or disturbance of organic matter on ungroomed trails.

There is little to no chance that soil would be exposed on groomed OSV trails with 12 inches of compacted snow.

Crater Flats Yes to 1, 1a, and 2. In
summary, this pumice
flat receives very high
levels of OSV use, and
has adjacent slopes over
30 percent.

Monitoring for soil disturbance,
and actions taken if disturbance
found to have adverse effects.

With 12 inches minimum snow depth, we do not expect to see any effects to soil stability or productivity; however, there could be unseen or currently unknown effects. Monitoring can identify what issues may be occurring, whether use is increasing, and help us determine which, if any, management actions need to be taken to minimize effects to soil.

Watershed
For the majority of the OSV use areas and OSV use trails screened by the Team’s hydrologist, it was determined that the 12-inch minimum snow depth requirement for cross-country use, in conjunction with prohibiting contact with native soil or vegetation, would be sufficient to protect water resources and minimize the likelihood of erosion / sedimentation or contamination occurring as a result of OSV use. A specific management requirement was only considered if OSV use would occur within 150 feet of a stream or Special Aquatic Feature ( SAF), slopes exceed 30 percent, and/or use levels are high to very high. (Minimization Criteria Screening Question 2, Table C- 2, Appendix C). Appendix C lists all of the Minimization Criteria Screening Questions and describes the purpose of each.) Table D- 2 below lists the OSV-use areas and OSV-use trails in which the Minimization Criteria screening exercise indicated a management requirement may be necessary. Table D-2 also provides a summary response for each of the Minimization Criteria Screening and explains how the prescribed management requirement minimizes the risk of damage to water resources, or why one was not required.

43 Table D- 2. Management requirements prescribed to minimize damage to water resources Area /
Trail
Screening Question Driving need
for minimization
Management
Requirement Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
All
designated
areas
Yes to 1, and 1a. In summary, there
would be OSV use near streams, and
with steep slopes, but rarely in areas
with high levels of OSV use.
12 inches minimum snow
depth
Over-snow vehicle use on steep slopes within proximity (<150ft) to waterbodies and special aquatic features (SAFs) can indirectly impact water quality if there is not a minimum snow depth to keep the vehicles from contacting the native soil. When there is not adequate snow depth bare soil can be exposed from OSV use especially on steeper slopes. This could allow for sediment to be eroded into adjacent waterbodies during storm events, impacting water quality. By requiring that there be at least 12 inches of compacted snow, these impacts from OSV use will be mitigated.

Deadman
Creek East of
Hwy 395
Yes to 1, 1a and 2. In summary, there
would be OSV use near streams, in
areas of steep slopes, and OSV use may
be high or very high in some areas.
12-inches minimum snow
depth
Monitoring along streams with
steep slopes, and meadows
near steep slopes
In addition to requiring a minimum of 12 inches of compacted snow, monitoring will also be implemented in selected areas where “high” OSV use overlaps with steep slopes adjacent to waterbodies and SAFs. This monitoring will help validate if our assumptions that a 12-inch snow depth is adequate or not. If problems are observed during monitoring, adaptive management actions will be prescribed to mitigate any issues.

Reds
Meadow
Yes to 1, 1a and 2. In summary, there
would be OSV use near streams, in
areas of steep slopes, and OSV use may
be high in some areas.
12-inch compacted minimum
snow depth
Monitoring along streams with
steep slopes, and meadows
near steep slopes, and
corrective actions if needed
In addition to requiring a minimum of 12 inches of compacted snow, monitoring will also be implemented in selected areas where “high” OSV use overlaps with steep slopes adjacent to waterbodies and SAFs. This monitoring will help validate if our assumptions that a 12-inch snow depth is adequate or not. If problems are observed during monitoring, adaptive management actions will be prescribed to mitigate any issues.

Mammoth
Lakes Basin
Yes to 1, 1a and 2. In summary, there
would be OSV use near streams, in
areas of steep slopes, and OSV use may
be high in some areas during the spring.
12-inch compacted minimum
snow depth
Monitoring in meadows near
steep slopes, and corrective
actions if needed.

In addition to requiring a minimum of 12 inches of compacted snow, monitoring will also be implemented in three selected areas where “high” OSV use overlaps with steep slopes adjacent to waterbodies and SAFs. This monitoring will help validate if our assumptions that a 12-inch snow depth is adequate or not. If problems are observed during monitoring, adaptive management actions will be prescribed to mitigate any issues.

Vegetation
It was determined that for damage to occur to botanical resources, OSV use must occur within suitable or occupied habitat for at-risk species.

The first screening effort was to determine which OSV- use areas and trails would overlap with suitable or occupied at-risk plant habitat (Minimization Criteria Screening Question 1, Table C- 3, Appendix C). We then considered which species were potentially impacted and the type of habitat OSV use would occur within or through (Minimization Criteria Question 1a, Table C- 3, Appendix C). The potential impacts identified ranged from habitat damage due to soil compaction or direct plant damage (e.g., riding over seedling tops) (Minimization Criteria Screening

44 Question 1b,). For the majority of OSV-use areas and trails identified as requiring a management requirement, the Team’s botanist determined that the 12-inch minimum cross-country snow depth requirement in conjunction with prohibiting contact with native soil or vegetation, included as a Forestwide requirement in the proposed action, would be sufficient to protect botanical resources and minimize the likelihood of habitat damage or direct plant damage as a result of OSV use (Table C- 3 in Appendix C). For others, the Team’s botanist prescribed monitoring to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to botanical resources (especially whitebark pine and pumice flats).

Table D-3 shows the results of the vegetation screening process.

Table D- 3. Management requirements prescribed to minimize damage to vegetation Area / Trail
Screening Question
driving need for
minimization
Management
Requirement Prescribed
How does this management requirement
minimize impacts to the identified resource
All designated
areas
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. In
summary, there would be
OSV use in areas with at-risk
plant species populations
and special habitats.

However, there is a very low
risk of impacts with
minimum snow depth.
12-inch compacted minimum snow
depth
Twelve inches of compacted snow is protective of most vegetation because plants are unlikely to be directly affected by authorized OSV use when their living tissues are not present above ground. Perennial herbaceous species, whose living tissues are at or below the soil surface during winter, are unlikely to experience direct effects from authorized OSV use. Annual plant species are generally not growing during the period of authorized OSV use, and thus, would not experience direct effects.

San Joaquin
Ridge;
Mammoth
Lakes Basin
Yes to 1a, 1b, and 1c. There
is concentrated whitebark
pine, a federally listed
species, in areas that may
have very high OSV use.

Monitoring for impacts to whitebark
pine (tree) in very high/high use
areas and taking corrective actions
as needed.

Trees and shrub species, whose living tissues may be present above or within the snow column, may experience direct effects from authorized cross-country OSV uses (e.g. physical damage to exposed or shallowly buried branches).

Corrective action in this area would not include snow depth requirements, because portions of these trees will always be above the snow surface. Education may be the best way to reduce tree damage
Pumice Flats:

Smokey Bear,
Crater, other
pumice flats
Yes to 1a, 1b, and 1c. In
summary, there would be
very high OSV use in these
pumice flats, which are a
Special Habitat.

Monitoring for impacts to special
habitats and associated SCC plants in
very high/high use areas, and taking
corrective actions as needed.

Indirect effects, such as those possibly resulting from snow compaction and vehicle emissions, are most likely to occur in areas of concentrated use. Pumice flats are popular for cross-country “play areas” due to being large open flat areas with few obstacles and a smooth underlying ground surface (gravel). Therefore, these areas are where we are most likely to detect effects from snow compaction, or contamination.

45 Cultural Resources
The 12-inch off-road minimum compact snow or ice depth requirement for cross-country travel, in conjunction with prohibiting contact being made with native soil or vegetation in the proposed action would be sufficient to protect cultural resources and minimize the likelihood of damage occurring as a result of OSV use (Table D- 4 below, and Table C- 4 in Appendix C).

Table D- 4. Management requirements prescribed to minimize damage to cultural resources Management
Requirement Prescribed How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource 12-inch compact snow or ice
off-road minimum snow depth
(Minimum Snow Depth
Requirement)
Potential adverse effects to significant cultural resource sites from OSV use could only occur if there was contact with undisturbed ground surfaces and damage to intact archeological deposits. Enforcing a 12-inch minimum compact snow or ice depth off-road avoids the potential for such adverse effects. This standard is also consistent Class II Site Protection Measures in the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) California State Historic Preservation Officer Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (2018, R5 PA).

Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitat 36 CFR § 212.55(b)
In order to determine whether OSV use in areas and on trails would cause harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat, it was first determined whether species habitat overlaps in space, and time, with areas having adequate snow cover to support OSV use (12 inches for cross-country use). Simply being within a suitable habitat boundary is not sufficient. The animals need to be occupying that area when it is snow-covered, or have habitat elements that could be significantly disrupted by OSV use over snow. Species considered include federally classified endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, as described under the ESA (1973), and species of conservation concern (SCC) (USDA FS Inyo NF 2019). SCC are species, other than federally recognized species, that are known or expected to occur on the Inyo NF and for which the Regional Forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term. For SCC, habitat management and compatible multiple uses will be accomplished in a way that ensures species’ persistence on the Inyo NF, in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR § 219.9(b)

46 Analysis of biological resource data, including habitat assessment and field reconnaissance, determined that the following three at-risk species have the potential for harassment or significant disruption of wildlife habitat from OSV use, and would drive which areas and trails to designate, and under what management requirements.
• Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) - Almost all Yosemite Toad populations on the Inyo National Forest are within Wilderness. However, there is some very limited occupied habitat near Wilderness boundaries, in areas of adequate snowfall. When areas are snow-covered, this species is hibernating underground, except during early or late snow season when snow may be patchy. The 12-inch minimum snow depth requirement, in conjunction with prohibiting contact with native soil or vegetation is sufficient to protect suitable habitat desired conditions. The proposed action limits OSV use in known occupied areas to only the time of years when toads are known to be hibernating. Therefore, timing of OSV use does not overlap with potentially affected life stages. • Bi-state distinct population segment of greater sage grouse (bi-state sage grouse) (Centrocercus urophasianus) - sage brush habitat is unlikely to be impacted based on the team’s botanist determination that the 12-inch minimum snow depth requirement, in conjunction with prohibiting contact being made with native soil or vegetation, would be sufficient measures to protect botanical resources from cross-country OSV use. Timing of OSV use and species occurrence means there is an expected negligible impacts. Sage- grouse use exposed sage brush, which is not snow covered, where OSVs cannot travel. Management requirements prescribed to minimize effect to sage-grouse include monitoring to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence, with subsequent management actions if warranted.
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – OSV use on groomed trails and in open riding areas overlaps in time and space with bald eagle nesting. Annual nest monitoring indicates species ability to persist where OSV overlaps. Management requirements prescribed to minimize effect to bald eagles include monitoring nest sites to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence, with subsequent management actions if warranted.

The remaining at-risk species were not considered for further analysis and were found not to be at risk of harassment or disruption of habitat, based on lack of suitable habitat, occurrence and/or overlap in timing. Most at-risk species on the Forest occur only in Wilderness, or outside of snowy areas in winter, or do not have the potential to be affected by OSV Use (See OSV at-risk review). OSV use over National Forest system roads and motorized trails has no potential to disrupt habitat of any species, because they area already denuded of vegetation that provides habitat. We reviewed the OSV trails proposed for designation as part of the OSV at-risk review, and considered effects from on-road use on the species themselves when creating this proposed action.

47 Table D- 5. Management requirements prescribed to minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat Area/ Trail
Screening Question
driving need for
minimization
Management
Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource?
All designated
areas
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would be
OSV use overlapping at-risk species
habitat. However, the potential for
habitat impacts is low with sufficient
snow cover.
12 inches compacted
minimum snow depth in
conjunction with prohibiting
contact being made with
native soil or vegetation
A 12-inch minimum snow depth has a natural consequence of reducing noise signals over a long distances, there by limiting noise disturbance. Davidson (2018) concluded that vegetation trampling from OSV use would be discountable and extremely unlikely to occur with adequate snow cover. Annual plant species are generally not growing during the period of authorized OSV use, and thus, would not experience direct effects. For these reasons, habitat has little potential for effects from OSV use. See the rationale for vegetation, soil, and watershed for more detailed support. (See Appendix A for more detail)
Crowley Basin Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would be
OSV use overlapping with Long
Valley PMU for bi-state sage-grouse
habitat. However, there would likely
be low to very low levels of OSV use,
and low potential for overlap with
the most sensitive life stages.

Monitor sage grouse
winter movements and
leks, and take corrective
action as needed.

OSV monitoring of sage grouse in the Crowley Basin is already in place in the State OHV Grant Habitat Management Plan. Monitoring has occurred over the past two decades. The current understanding based on unpublished survey results suggest winter use prior to lekking occurs where sagebrush (winter forage) is exposed. These foraging areas do not provide adequate OSV conditions and therefore do no overlap with OSV use. Livestock fencing of allotments combine with extensive sage brush systems (with tall sagebrush making cross country travel difficult) are likely the greatest deterrent to OSV use in Long Valley PMU. Because of this, OSV use is limited to roads and forested areas which observations suggest have negligible effects on individuals. Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence
Tioga
Meadow &
Saddlebag
Lake (Lee
Vining)
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b for Yosemite
Toad and bi-stage sage-grouse.

There would be no effect to toads
because limiting operating periods
are imposed at known locations
(Tioga Meadow & Saddlebag Lake).

There would be OSV use overlapping
bi-state sage-grouse habitat.

However, there would continue to
be low to very low levels of OSV use,
and low potential for overlap with
the most sensitive life stages.

Allow OSV use only
through the beginning of
the snow season through
April 15 of each year in the
areas of Saddlebag (1198
ac) and Tioga (230 ac)
Lakes for the protection of
toads.

Monitor OSV use within
the sage-grouse Parker
PMU, and take action to
ensure habitat
management and
compatible multiple uses
is accomplished in a way
Toads do not emerge from their overwintering burrows until the burrow itself is snow-free, but due to variable melting, they may leave their overwintering site while there are still snow patches elsewhere. Mid-April is likely the earliest date of Spring emergence while May and June are more probable based on Inyo tadpole data. As winter gives way to spring, toads emerge and travel to breeding aquatic systems and can crosssnow patches enroute. It is highly unlikely 12” of contiguous snow would be available for OSV use at or enroute to Saddleback Lake and Tioga Meadow during this time. Applying a limiting operating period provides additional assurance that OSV use will have no effect to early spring emergence of toads.

Based on local grouse data and field observations, the current and expected levels of OSV use are low and do not pose a significant concern to individuals. . Current GPS tracking data , suggests winter use prior to lekking occurs where sagebrush (winter forage) is exposed. These foraging areas do not provide adequate OSV conditions and therefore do no overlap with OSV use. 2023 lekking data indicates delayed (May) lekking which did not overlap with 12” minimum snow depth requirements. Lekking can occur over snow, and noise or direct disturbance from OSV use could disturb

48 Area/ Trail
Screening Question
driving need for
minimization
Management
Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource?
that ensures species’
persistence
lekking, or flush the birds and make them more susceptible to predation. Past monitoring has not shown that OSV use occuring in areas with leks, and no impacts have been documented and no specific management requirements are needed.

Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence.

Mammoth to
June East
Yes to 1 and 1a. In summary, there
are 1 to 3 bald eagle in high use
OSV areas, and there is some
potential for individual birds to be
impacted by OSV use. Negative
impacts have not been
documented, however.

Monitor bald eagle nests
and take action if needed
Inyo NF participates in California midwinter bald eagle annual surveys. On Inyo NF two to three nesting pair of bald eagles occur and are within the project area . . For over a decade nests have been monitored as part of the State OHV Grant Habitat Management Plan (HMP), and OSV use has not been found to detrimentally affect nesting success. Continued monitoring will focus on nest success and associated OSV use levels. Management actions to minimize are outlined in the HMP (I.e., signing, limiting operating periods) if corrective actions are needed.

McGee Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would
be OSV use overlapping with Long
Valley PMU for bi-state sage-grouse
habitat. However, there would
likely be low to very low levels of
OSV use at the leks, and low
potential for overlap with the most
sensitive life stages.

Monitor sage grouse leks
and take action if needed.

The known sage-grouse leks in this area are not on land managed by the Inyo National Forest. However, they are near the Forest and OSV use designations on the Forest could affect use at those leks, by increasing pathways to access land with leks.

The season of OSV use does not overlap with lekking, however, based on previous surveys and observations. While lekking can occur over snow, snow conditions are not compatible with OSV use once it gets warm and vegetation begins showing through snow, in this area. Therefore, there is very low likelihood of OSV use affecting lekking. Leks are monitored in this area, and OSV or track sightings have not been recorded.

Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence
Mono Craters Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would
be OSV use overlapping with Long
Valley PMU for bi-state sage-grouse
habitat. However, there would
likely be low to very low levels of
OSV use at the leks, and very low
potential for overlap with the most
sensitive life stages.

Monitor sage grouse leks
and take action if needed.

The known sage-grouse leks in this area are not on land managed by the Inyo National Forest. However, they are near the Forest and OSV use designations on the Forest could affect use at those leks, by increasing pathways to access land with leks.

The season of OSV use does not overlap with lekking, however, based on previous surveys and observations. While lekking can occur over snow, snow conditions are not compatible with OSV use once it gets warm and vegetation begins showing through snow, in this area. Therefore, there is very low likelihood of OSV use affecting lekking. Leks are monitored in this area, and OSV or track sightings have not been recorded.

Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence

49 Area/ Trail
Screening Question
driving need for
minimization
Management
Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource?
Sherwin to
Laurel
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would
be OSV use overlapping with Long
Valley PMU for bi-state sage-grouse
habitat. However, there would
likely be low to very low levels of
OSV use at the leks, and low
potential for overlap with the most
sensitive life stages.

Monitor sage grouse leks
and take action if needed.

The known sage-grouse leks in this area are on and off land managed by the Inyo National Forest.

Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence
Tamarack Ski
Area
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b for Yosemite
toad occur small portions of the
Lakes Basin. There would be no
effect to toads because OSV use is
restricted at known locations
Do not designate areas of
occupied Yosemite Toad
habitat.

Mid-April is the earliest possible date of Spring emergence while May and June are the norm locally. The Tamarack Ski Area currently precludes OSV use until April 17th, and after that, there could be toad emergence. Therefore, the small area of occupied toad habitat was removed from consideration for OSV designation.

Because of this, there is no effect to Yosemite toad
White
Mountains
Yes to 1, 1a, and 1b. There would be
OSV use overlapping with White
Mountain PMU bi-state sage-grouse
habitat. However, there would likely
be very low levels of OSV use at the
leks, and low potential for overlap
with the most sensitive life stages.

Monitor White Mountain
PMU sage grouse leks and
take corrective action as
needed.

The White Mountain PMU for sage grouse occurs mostly in in Wilderness which is closed to all motorized uses, or in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, where OSV use is restricted to National Forest System roads. Allowing use within the remaining areas of the White Mountains should have minimal impacts to sage-grouse because:1) it is infrequent, due to low snow levels in many years, long drives from nearby communities, and ruggedness of topography. 2)It occurs within a very small percentage of sage-grouse wintering habit in the White Mountains. Monitoring through the Habitat Management Plan will continue to validate assumptions that potential impacts do not pose a significant effect to species’ persistence. If monitoring finds otherwise, the Forest will implement appropriate management actions.

50 Conflicts between OSV Use and Existing or Proposed Recreational Uses on National Forest System Lands and Neighboring Federal Lands
36 CFR § 212.55(b)(3)
Conflict may occur between OSV use, OSV users, other recreationists, and existing or proposed recreational uses on NFS lands and neighboring federal lands when there is overlap, either spatially or temporally, between uses. Additional points of potential conflict, between uses and users, are within 0.5 miles of a neighboring Federal land boundary, Wilderness boundary, or non-motorized recreation destination where use and users overlap. Based on these criteria the INF staff identified areas where these overlaps may occur and whether there is potential for conflict within those areas. Potential conflicts include:

1. Safety – A users concern for their safety may negatively impact a user’s experience.

2. Noise - User’s engaging in non-motorized recreation may feel that that the sound resultant of OSV use negatively impacts their experience.

3. Established recreation use – Users may have an expectation of style of use, and use patterns, based on previous management, experiences contrary to that may negatively impact a user’s experience.

4. Visuals/Aesthetics – The presence of OSV’s, and the evidence of their use such as tracks, may not be pleasing to non-motorized users, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

5. Parking – OSV recreation results in more, and larger, vehicles in parking areas limiting the amount of available space, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

6. Fresh Powder –OSV users may “use up” the fresh snow before non-motorized users have an opportunity to experience fresh snow, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

There are many areas on the forest where multiple types of recreational use overlap and as such there will always be the potential for conflict.

We are not able to eliminate all conflict but rather the regulations require us to minimize conflict.

A management requirement was prescribed for each OSV-use area, and trail, where it was determined that overlapping use would occur utilizing 36 CFR 212.55(b)(3) Minimization Screening Questions 1 and 2 and a potential for conflict was determined using 36 CFR 212.55(b)(3) Minimization Criteria Screening Questions 1a b, and 2a and b. The suite of management requirements includes:
(1) Monitoring - patrols in areas where conflicts have occurred, or are more likely to occur, and green sticker enforcement in parking areas;

51 (2) Increase education – education can include general news releases or social media posts, kiosks and signs, working with partner trail hosts, or other means of educating OSV users and other winter recreationists. (3) Increased signage -Install multi-use area signs, “No Motorized Use” signs, Wilderness boundary signs, and private property signs; (4) Enforce existing grooming contract provisional standards. (5) Designate or sign, and plow additional parking areas (6) Seasonal use restrictions
(7) Speed limits
(8) Do not designate as an OSV-use area.

Table D-6 below lists which management requirements were prescribed for each OSV-use area and trail whose designation would potentially create a conflict between OSV use or recreationists and other existing or proposed recreational uses on National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. Also included in Table D-6 is a rationalization for how the management requirement(s) specifically minimizes the risk of, or magnitude of, a potential conflict.

Table D-6. Management requirements prescribed to minimize conflicts between OSV use/recreationists and existing or proposed recreational uses on National Forest System lands and neighboring Federal lands
Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
Coyote
Flat
Yes to 1, 1a, No to 1b, yes
to 2 and 2a. In summary,
there is potential for
conflict due to high levels
of concentrated nonmotorized use, but we
have not heard reports of
conflicts between OSVs
and other recreational
uses in this area.
(1) Increase education –
education can include general
news releases or social media
posts, kiosks and signs,
working with partner trail
hosts, or other means of
educating OSV users and
other winter recreationists.
(2) Increased signage -Install
multi-use area signs, “No
Motorized Use” signs,
Wilderness boundary signs,
and private property signs;
8) Do not designateas anOSV-use
area north of Highway 168.

Much of the Bishop Creek area west of the City of Bishop, over 7,000’, receives more than 12 inches of snow, on more than 5 days per year, as displayed by the SNODAS model. However, most of this area has dense sagebrush, or Pinyon, and bouldery terrain that does not support cross-country OSV use. This area includes the Buttermilk Boulders, Grouse Mountain, and other similarly rocky outcrops. In this area, even in very high snow years (such as 2023), there is little opportunity for cross-country OSV use in the lower elevation areas of Bishop Creek. Therefore, we did not designate areas north of Highway 168. At higher elevations, there is more snow, and the Coyote Flat and South Lake areas are modeled as receiving snow on average for over four months per year.

The main roads in this area, the Lake Sabrina Road (Highway 168) and South Fork of Bishop Creek are not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and therefore OSV use on those roads, past the winter closure points, will not be part of this decision.

52 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
The Bishop Creek area, due to its proximity to the city of Bishop, receives the most over-snow recreation on the Southern half of the Forest. The area is popular for sledding, general snow play, cross-country skiing on roads, and backcountry skiing both inside and outside of Wilderness areas. Most of this use occurs up the North Fork of Bishop Creek, though there is also frequent use of the South Lake Road. Currently there is very little OSV use of the area, indicating that there is not a high demand for such use.

There are also small communities in this area, along the main roads, including Aspendell and South Fork, as well as isolated private houses. Public parking around these communities becomes very limited in high snow years, and there is high avalanche occurrence in and around these communities.

There is a high potential for recreational use conflict, with very limited parking and use concentrated on roadways. To minimize this conflict between uses, we designated the area along the South Fork of Bishop Creek, including Coyote Flat, and did not designate any areas north of Highway 168. Forest roads are designated for use, to provide winter transportation and access to Coyote Flat. This allows for a potential for high quality experience for both motorized and non-motorized users, which will minimize overall conflicts between recreational uses.

June
Loop
Yes to 1, 1a, 2 and 2a. No
to 1b. In summary,
there is potential for
conflict due to high
levels of concentrated
non-motorized use, but
we have not heard
reports of conflicts
between OSVs and
other recreational uses
in this area.
(8) Do not designate the June Mountain
Ski Area during any time.
(8) Do not designated areas south of the
Town of June Lake or Highway 158, east
of Silver Lake.
(2) and (3) Increase education and
signage
Public OSV use is incompatible with ski area operations. During the ski area’s operating period, public OSVs cannot safely share ski slopes with skiers or grooming equipment. After the ski area’s operating period, the ski area operators are completing maintenance and other activities and have identified that public OSV use remains incompatible with off-season operations. The June Mountain Ski area does not have a set date by which it ceases operations. It varies annually, based on conditions.

This area was not designated, in attempt to minimize impacts to communities. This is the only area where avalanche danger was used as a reason to avoid designating an area. In the winter, Highway 158 is the only access for June Lake Residents, and the area south of the Highway and the Town (nearer Silver Lake) is highly susceptible to avalanches. OSV use could increase the avalanche risk to the highway and to some portions of the community. It is also very steep terrain and tree-covered, and therefore does not provide a high-quality OSV experience. Some of these areas are also difficult to access without crossing private property.

There are areas of high non-motorized use, such as skiing and dog walking, along Highway 158, at its winter closure gate at Silver Lake. Highway 158 is not under the

53 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and therefore our decision does not include any designations on Highway 158. However, due to possible conflict between recreational uses, we propose to minimize impacts by increasing education and posting signs near the area, setting the expectation that there will be mixed use, and educating about means to minimize impacts and share the area. Advertising an area as “multi-use” may help to reduce: the risk of injury of recreationists in the area; any expectation of a quiet experience; visually uninterrupted and undisturbed snow/ tracks, non- motorized experience. Installing these signsis not necessary, but itis a mechanism to set expectations and increase the awareness of both motorized and non-motorized recreationiststo the presence of one another. Increasing the awareness or alertnesslevel of bothOSV and non- motorized recreationists could reduce the risk of injury or morality.

Kennedy
Meadows
Yesto question 2d. No to
all others. Pacific Crest
Trail runs through this
area.
8)Do not designateasanOSV-use area
along and buffering the PCT. Designate
Road 21S08 as a non-groomed OSV trail.

Sign the crossings, which are the same
as summer crossings.

Motorized use is prohibited on the PCT by the National Trails System Act. In this area, the PCT parallels and crosses Forest Road 21S08 multiple times. During the winter it is difficult to tell where the PCT is located and therefore we are proposing off-road OSV use only on the hillsides where there is an obvious slop break. However, the road will be designated for transportation purposes and access to higher-elevation open riding areas. The area east of the road will be designated as an open riding area, beginning at the obvious tree line and break in slope. This designation will allow for easy on the ground identification of the open riding area. It will prevent motorized use on the PCT, and will remain consistent with its more developed setting.

Lee Vining Yes to 1, 1a, 2, but no to
1b and 2b. In summary,
there is a low potential
for conflict due to low
levels of winter use.
(1) Monitoring for use levels.
(2) Increase education
(3) Increased signage -Install
multi-use area signs,
Wilderness boundary signs,
and seasonal usage signs.

A moderate level of OSV use, and non-motorized, use at lower elevations occurs near the town of Lee Vining. Lee Vining Canyon receives relatively little motorized use, due to challenging conditions and terrain, at higher elevations however, it does provide a unique opportunity for experienced OSV users to access high elevation terrain like that normally found only in Wilderness areas. We do not find that the areas receive high enough recreational use to warrant closures to reduce conflict.

Increased education, signage, and patrols will minimize potential impacts to safety, wilderness incursions, and resource impacts.

Mammoth to
June East
Yes to 1, 1a, 2, but no to
1b and 2b. In summary,
there is a low potential
for conflict due to low
levels of non-motorized
winter use in most of
this area.
(1) Monitoring - patrolsin areas
where motorized / nonmotorized conflicts have
occurred and green sticker
enforcement in parking areas;
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and
This is an area of generally lower conflict between recreational uses, due to less consistent snowfall and flatter terrain and relatively few access points on plowed roads, other than Highway 395. It contains over half of the groomed OSV trail system, including the base operations for DJs commercial snowmobile tours, and portions of OSV trails groomed by that commercial operator. While non-motorized use does occur, it is not an area of concentrated non-motorized winter recreation. Therefore, the entire area was designated for OSV use, with minimization of effects to conflicts between recreational uses only the standard patrols, signage, and education.

54 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
signs, working with partner trail
hosts, or other means.
(3) Increased signage -Install multiuse area signs, “Research Natural Area” signs,
(4) Enforce existing grooming
contract provisional standards.

Mammoth to
June West
Yes to all questions
regarding conflict (1, 1a,
1b, 2, 2a). There are
very high levels of all
types of winter
recreation over much of
this area and we have
had reports of existing
conflict.
(1) Monitoring - patrolsin areas
where motorized / nonmotorized conflicts have
occurred and green sticker
enforcement in parking areas;
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and
signs, working with partner trail
hosts, or other means of educating
OSV users and other winter
recreationists.
(3) Increased signage -Install multi-use
area signs, “No Motorized Use”
signs, Wilderness boundary signs,
and private property signs;
(4) Enforce existing grooming contract
provisional standards.
(5) Designate or sign, and plow
additional parking areas
(7) Speed limits
(8) Do not designate as an OSV-use
area.

This is one of the most heavily used area on the Inyo National Forest for all types of recreational uses, particularly the areas near the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Mountain. This OSV area includes areas surrounding Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Obsidian Dome Nordic ski area, much of the groomed OSV trail network, Shady Rest Park (popular staging area/parking for motorized and non-motorized use), and Minaret Vista. It is the area on the Forest that receives the highest amounts and most reliable snowfall. In years with with moderate to low snowfall, and early and late in any winter season, it provides the only high elevation parking to access the groomed OSV trail system and higher elevation areas that still have snow. This entire area receives, on average, over one or two months of adequate snow depth, and receives sufficient snow to support OSV use over the entire area in almost all years.

Conflicts between various recreational uses are an everyday occurrence in some areas. This is an area identified by the public as having use conflicts, due to reported safety issues, noise, using up powder, and general effects to Nordic and backcountry skier experience in some portions of the area. Parking can be limited. Sometimes trailers cannot fit in a parking area, or all parking may be taken up by trailers. This is the area with highest and most consistent snowfall, nearest the Town of Mammoth Lakes, there is a high demand for over-snow recreation of all types. We looked at how to reduce conflicts between recreational uses in this area as a whole when developing our proposed action. This does not mean eliminating conflicts at each and every location, or providing everyone’s preferred user experience at every location.

That is not only impossible, but not required by the Travel Management Rule nor encouraged by the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate.

Shady Rest Park and the Obsidian Dome groomed Nordic ski areas are incompatible with cross-country OSV use, because OSVs rut the groomed ski tracks. No OSV use may occur along groomed Nordic trails, even if they are within an open riding area.

However, it is very difficult to prevent OSV use on Nordic trails within an open riding area. Therefore, we did not designate those areas for OSV use, and buffered the Nordic tracks to increase manageability and reduce noise impacts in those Nordic

55 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
areas. We also did not designate the Earthquake Dome area, to provide a quiet nonmotorized experience for backcountry skiers in easily accessible area near the Town.

This mix of uses provides for areas of quiet recreation, and areas of OSV use, so that all users can find a place whether they can have a high quality experience. We are therefore reducing conflict by providing high-quality areas for all users.

We proposed a speed limit of 15 miles per hour along the Highway 203 corridor within ½ mile of Mammoth Mountain, and within ½ mile of the Shady Rest Parking lot, to increase safety, and within ½ mile of the Knolls neighborhood, to minimize sound impacts to that community.

To increase parking availability near Shady Rest Park, we propose to plow the Shady Rest Campground parking lot near the RV dump, and groom an OSV trail to Shady Rest Park from there, to connect in with the existing groomed OSV trail system. It would follow the path that the Forest Service groomer already takes to access the A Trail. The Nordic trail along that groomed OSV trail, which runs parallel to the Shady Rest access road, would be moved further away from the road.

In other areas, we allow cross-country OSV use, with high levels of education, signage, monitoring, and management of commercial entities who groom OSV trails.

Having a Forest Service patrol presence in the area may discourage speeding, orreckless behaviorsthat could lead to injury ormortality of individuals or altercations between recreationists. Without patrol or enforcement, there are no consequencesto people’s actions, which can lead to situations where more risk, orreckless behaviors are occurring. If we do not patrol an area, individuals are at a greaterrisk of being injured or worse. Advertising an area as “multi-use”may help to reduce:safety risks by raising the level of awareness or alertness ofthe presence of bothmotorized and non- motorized recreationists;any expectation of a quiet; visually uninterrupted non- motorized experience; any expectation of uninterrupted and undisturbed snow/tracks. Installing these signsis not necessary, butit is a mechanismto set theexpectation that there will be a mixed-use experience and increase the awareness of both motorizedand non-motorized recreationists to the presence of one another. Increasing theawareness or alertnesslevel ofbothOSV and non-motorized recreationists could reduce the risk of injury ormorality.

Installing "nomotorized use" or "not accessible byOSV use" areassignsmay helpto reduce illegaltrespassfromoccurring. Installing these signsis not necessary, butit is a mechanism to reduce unintentional encroachmentfrom occurring.

McGee Yes to 1, 1a, 2, but no to 1b (1) Monitoring - patrolsin areas The McGee area receives moderate non-motorized use, with high quality back

56 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
and 2b. In summary, there
is a low potential for
conflict due to moderate
levels of winter use in this
area. There is potential,
but we have not had
reports of recreational
use conflict in this area
where motorized / nonmotorized conflicts have
occurred and green sticker
enforcement in parking areas;
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and signs,
working with partner trail hosts, or
other means of educating OSV users
and other winter recreationists.
(3) Increased signage -Install multi-use
area signs, especially wilderness
boundary signs at staging areas
with easy to read maps
country ski opportunities. It receives moderate levels of motorized use, as a popular play area that receives moderate amounts of snow (averages over a month of adequate snow per year). This is one of the few areas on the forest with steep alpine terrain that is outside of Wilderness. It does not receive as heavy winter use as the Mammoth area, due to distance from a town and more challenging terrain for all winter users. Wilderness incursions by OSV users are documented regularly, to the West of McGee Mountain, with OSV users travelling from Convict Lake or up Tobacco Flat.

There is some potential for conflict between recreational uses, with overlapping motorized and non-motorized use. However, because neither type of use is very high, there is room for users to find a high-quality experience without being impacted by other users. Increased education about mixed use to set expectations, as well as education and signage clearly showing Wilderness boundaries, should be sufficient to minimize impacts to other recreational uses.

Reds Meadow Yes to 1, 1a, 2, 2a and 2d.

No to 1b. In summary,
there is potential for
conflict due to
moderate levels of
winter recreational use,
but we have heard only
minor concerns over
conflicts between OSVs
and other recreational
uses in this area.
(1) Patrol the area
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and signs,
working with partner trail hosts, or
other means.
(3) Increased signage -Install multi-use
area signs, “No Motorized Use”
signs, Wilderness boundary signs,
and include kiosks or other
education at the entrance to the
Reds meadow area.
(8) Do not designate OSV-use area
beyond the PCT trail crossings at the
North and South end of Reds
Meadow Valley. Allow one PCT
crossing, only at the National Forest
System road entering the Agnew
Meadow Campground. Include this
crossing on the OSVUM.

Motorized use is prohibited on the PCT by the National Trails System Act. The PCT in almost entirely within Wilderness on the Inyo National Forest. However, it is outside of Wilderness for a short distance near Agnew Meadows Campground, and a short distance near the Rainbow Falls Trailhead. There are only small areas between the trail and Wilderness, and the trial is not visible in the winter in this area. A crossing of the Agnew Meadow section of the PCT already occurs on an existing road. However, beyond the PCT crossing, there is only a small area outside of Wilderness available for cross-country OSV use. Therefore, the proposed action will not designate the area to the northwest of the hairpin turn on the Reds Meadow Road. This will minimize possible use of OSVs on the PCT. In the Rainbow Falls Trailhead PCT crossing, the road ends at the Reds Meadow Pack station. We propose to avoid designating OSV use south of the pack station. This will allow for an obvious and manageable boundary on the PCT, to avoid OSV use of the PCT itself.

Rock Creek Yes to 1, 1a, 2 and 2a. No
to 1b. In summary,
(8) Do notdesignateas anOSV-use area
past the Sno-Park, other than a
The Rock Creek Canyon is an established Nordic ski area. It was groomed beginning in the late 1980s, but is not consistently groomed every year. Grooming is done by a

57 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
there is potential for
conflict due to high
levels of concentrated
non-motorized use.

However, because the
area is currently closed
to OSV use in Rock
Creek Canyon, there
currently is not a
potential for conflicts.

If the area were to be
opened for OSV use,
we expect high levels
of use conflict.
narrow path along the Upper Pine
Grove campground access road.
commercial permittee, and they groom in years when they have the staff and conditions. OSV use is not compatible with maintaining a groomed Nordic ski trail, and therefore to minimize conflict between recreational uses, the proposed action does not designate the higher elevation portions of Rock Creek Canyon where nonmotorized use is concentrated. The OSVs reduce the quality of the groomed surface for skiers by making ridges, and the topography of the canyon means that everyone would likely be concentrated on the road. While this area is not always groomed, it is an established Nordic and backcountry ski area, and there is a public expectation that it will have non-motorized use only. Due to the narrow canyon with Wilderness near the road, it does not provide a large area for OSV opportunity for off-road use. We designated open riding to the Sno Park, and a narrow stem another two miles into the Canyon as far as the Upper Pine Grove Canyon. (See Map 3 on the project website) This allows access to within about two miles of the Mosquito Flat trailhead for those wanting to visit the Canyon or use OSVs to access high quality backcountry ski terrain. We also designated road 30E301 to the top of Wheeler Crest (cherrystemmed into the Wilderness) for OSV access to that area. The proposed acttion is the same as current OSV management.

Sherwin to
Laurel
Yes to all questions
regarding conflict (1, 1a,
1b, 2, 2a). There are
very high levels of all
types of winter
recreation over much of
this area and we have
had reports of high
levels of concern over
recreational use conflict
in the Sherwins.
(1) Monitoring - patrols in areas
where motorized / nonmotorized conflicts have
occurred and green sticker
enforcement in parking areas;
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and
signs, working with partner trail
hosts, or other means of educating
OSV users and other winter
recreationists.
(3) Increased signage -Install multi-use
area signs, “No Motorized Use”
signs, Wilderness boundary signs,
and private property signs;
This is an area identified by the public as having use conflicts, due to reported safety issues, noise, using up powder, and general effects to backcountry skier experience in this popular area. The area is used by more skiers than OSV users. However, the tank farm/Sherwin Trailhead is also a popular area for OSV staging. OSVs frequently use the Sherwin Meadow area for snow play, the Solitude Canyon area for steeper terrain, and less frequently use the Sherwin Crest to transport skiers, or as a rare opportunity for very experienced riders on the Sherwin Front itself. The parking lot is large and has room for mixed use. Due to the closure of the Lakes Basin, Rock Creek, Obsidian Dome, and all Wilderness areas, it is also one of the few remaining areas where OSV users can access steep, high alpine terrain near the Town of Mammoth Lakes, for OSV play and backcountry ski transportation.

This is an area with some of the most consistent snowfall, near the Town of Mammoth Lakes. There is a high demand for over-snow recreation of all types. We looked at methods for reducing conflicts between recreational uses in this area specifically, and combined with the rest of the areas surrounding the Mammoth Lakes area, when developing our proposed action. Minimizing conflicts with other recreational uses does not mean eliminating conflicts at each and every location, or providing everyone’s preferred user experience at every location. It does not mean eliminated one type of use in preference of another at each and every location where

58 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
the uses coexist. That is not only impossible, but not required by the Travel Management Rule nor encouraged by the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate.

Education, signage, and clear and obvious identification of this area on maps and winter use material as a mixed-use winter play area should minimize conflicts between uses. Advertising an area as “multi-use”may help to reduce:the risk of injury ormortality of recreationistsin the area by raising the level of awareness or alertness of the presence of both motorized and non- motorized recreationists; any expectation of a quiet, visually uninterrupted non-motorized experience, and an expectation of uninterrupted and undisturbed snow/ tracks. Installing these signs is a mechanism to set expectations for recreationists’ experience and increase the awareness of both motorized and non- motorized recreationiststo the presence of one another.

Increasing the awareness or alertness level of both OSV and non- motorized recreationists could reduce the risk of injury.

Tamarack
Cross-Country
Ski Center and
Lakes Basin
Yes to all questions
regarding conflict (1,
1a, 1b, 2, 2a). There are
very high levels of all
types of winter
recreation in this area
and we have had some
reports of high levels of
concern over
recreational use
conflict in the Lakes
Basin. However, most
of the area has been
closed to OSV use for
decades, so there are
few reports of actual
recreational use
conflicts.
(1) Monitoring - patrolsin areas
where motorized / nonmotorized conflicts have
occurred and green sticker
enforcement in parking areas;
(2) Increase education – education can
include general news releases or
social media posts, kiosks and signs,
working with partner trail hosts, or
other means of educating OSV users
and other winter recreationists.
(3) Increased signage -Install multi-use
area signs, “No Motorized Use”
signs, Wilderness boundary signs,
and private property signs
(8)Do notdesignateas anOSV-use area
during Tamarack Ski Area operating
season.

The Lakes Basin is one of the areas with the highest and most consistent snowfall on the Inyo National Forest, receiving adequate snowfall for cross-country OSV use over four months per year on average. It has the potential to provide a very high quality experience for both OSV users and non-motorized users. It is one of the most heavily used areas for backcountry skiing on the Inyo National Forest, with access via bus, skiing off Mammoth Mountain, or parking at the winter closure of Lake Mary Road.

The Tamarack Cross-Country Ski Center is permitted to operate from late October through April 16 of each year, but actual operation often ends before April 16, due to snow conditions. OSV use is not compatible within the cross-country ski area, due to trail surface rutting. Although there is a public access route for non-motorized users which is heavily used through the Tamarack ski area, the noise of OSV use on this trail, directly adjacent to tracked Nordic skiing, along with the very high use of this public access trail by skiers, walkers, and snowshoers, would create a high level of user conflict. To minimize this conflict, OSV use is not allowed within the permitted ski area during operations. However, when operations cease, the conflict is reduced and we proposed that OSV use may occur after that date. This is only possible in years where there is enough snow to allow OSV use past April 17th. This is the current management of the area that has been in place since the late 1980s/early 1990s.

For the area outside of the permitted cross-country ski area boundary, it provides a high quality, steep, accessible alpine experience for winter recreationists. This is

59 Area / Trail
Screening Question
Driving need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource
another area we considered in whole with the entire area surrounding Mammoth Lakes, to determine how to minimize conflicts between different recreational uses.

We looked at methods for reducing conflicts between recreational uses in this area specifically, and combined with the rest of the areas surrounding the Mammoth Lakes area, when developing our proposed action. Minimizing conflicts with other recreational uses does not mean eliminating conflicts at each and every location, or providing everyone’s preferred user experience at every location. It does not mean eliminated one type of use in preference of another at each and every location where the uses coexist. That is not only impossible, but not required by the Travel Management Rule nor encouraged by the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate.

We determined that in the Lakes Basin, with its permitted cross-country ski area, and very high levels of winter recreation use, it would be difficult to minimize conflicts if OSV use was allowed. The use in this area is so high that we did not find that education alone could reasonably minimize use conflicts. Instead, we designated other OSV use areas at high elevations, to allow high-quality areas for both OSV users and non-motorized users.

The Proposed Action for the Lakes Basin is a continuation of current management, with very small changes to avoid Yosemite Toad habitat and create a more logical boundary next to private land in Old Mammoth.

60 Conflicts among Different Classes of Motor Vehicle Uses on National Forest System Lands or Neighboring Federal Lands 36 CFR § 212.55(b)(4)
Conflict may occur among different classes of motor vehicles on National Forest System lands, and neighboring federal lands, when OSV use and wheeled motor vehicle use overlap both spatially and temporally. Based on these criteria the Inyo National Forest staff identified areas where these overlaps may occur and whether there is potential for conflict within those areas. Potential conflicts include:

Snow Rutting – Wheeled vehicles may create deep ruts in the snow, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

Compacted Snow – OSV's may create compacted snow and icy conditions, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

Safety – The presence of OSV’s, and wheeled motor vehicles, combined with differing patterns of use and vehicle capabilities could create unsafe situations, this may negatively impact a user’s experience.

For all locations where groomed OSV trails intersect a plowed road signs would be placed and the Forest would work with the entity responsible for plowing the road to ensure that appropriate ramps are maintained to allow OSV crossings. Those 5 crossings are identified in Table D-7.

For other areas, if monitoring shows that there are increasing, or currently unknown conflicts are occurring, a management requirement will be prescribed to install signs reminding users that wheeled vehicles are not allowed on groomed OSV trails. As noted, this management requirement is only required in most “should conflicts become an issue.” Table D-7. Management requirements prescribed to minimize conflicts between different classes of motor vehicles.

Area / Trail
Screening
Question driving
need for
minimization
Management Requirement
Prescribed
How does this management requirement minimize impacts to the identified resource?
All crossings of groomed OSV trails and plowed
roads:
• Scenic Loop Road and Trail C
• Scenic Loop Road and Trail G
• South June Lake Loop Road (Hwy 158)
and Trail G
• Owens River Road and Trail A
• Shady Rest Parking area and new
groomed trail accessing additional
parking
Question 1. Yes,
there is potential
for conflict
between different
classes of motor
vehicles, at
crossings.

Place signs warning of road
crossing on groomed OSV trail.

Place signs warning of OSV
crossings on plowed roads. Ensure
all road crossings on plowed OSV
trails are properly ramped for
ability to cross the road.

Locations where groomed OSV trails cross plowed roads
can be dangerous for users of both systems. There have
been few reported issues, other than ramps not being built for crossings. Identifying these areas and working with plowing entities to ensure safe crossings, with warnings signs for all users, should be sufficient to minimize conflicts between different classes of motor vehicles.

61 Consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors
36 CFR § 212.55(b)(5)
To consider the compatibility of motor vehicle use (OSV use in particular) with existing conditions in populated areas, the Team’s recreation staff first identified where OSV use within an OSV-use area or along an OSV-use trail would occur within 0.5 mile of a (a) populated area; (b) neighborhood; (c) community, or (d) private land boundary. Focusing on areas and trails that occur within 0.5 mile of these areas provides a conservative threshold to identify where OSVs operating on National Forest System lands may affect the existing condition, quality of life, or expectations of people residing or utilizing these other areas. Once the areas and trails located with 0.5 mile of areas (a) through (d) were identified, the compatibility of OSV use with any distinct characteristics of areas (a) through (d) and the compatibility of sound, emissions or other factors from OSV use with areas (a) through (d) were considered (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5) Minimization Criteria Screening Questions 2 and 3, Table C- 8, Appendix C). Because most areas have very low to moderate use, and use is irregular and not likely to be noticeable by residents more than a few hours a week even on high snow years, those areas were screened out as not needing a management requirements. Only one area, on the North side of Mammoth in the Knolls neighborhood, was assumed to have high to very high OSV use within 0.5 miles of a community. Therefore, it was the only area we are proposing a management requirement, which is a 15 mph speed limit within 0.5 of residences.

For other communities, we may add private land boundary signs, install speed limits, or increase education efforts if monitoring shows that use is increasing or conflicts become evident. While we have gotten reports of OSV use play areas near communities that negatively affect the community’s soundscape, they have been rare and we are proposing to increase education so users understand their impacts.

OSV Subpart-C

OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
October 4, 2023

Rules & Requirements 01 What is the proposed
action
02 03 Mammoth specific info How to submit comments
& timelines
04 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rules & Requirements
01

Ensure designated
areas receive
appropriate
snowfall
Rules & Requirements
Provide for access,
safety &
recreational
opportunities
Minimize conflicts &
impacts to natural
and cultural
resources

What is the
proposed action
02

A simplified budget document
• The goal is to create a more
simplified budget document to
increase flexibility and need for
reallocations while still ensuring
the oversight desired.
• With the standing up of the OOR,
we want to ensure transparency
within our organization and our
contractors. Do you desire to see
monies spent internally & with our
contractors?

Budget Format discussion

How to submit
comments & timelines
03

Mammoth specific
information
04

Do Any Town or recreational
planning documents
reference OSV use?

What’s different?

Expanded Grooming Proposal

Trailhead proposal

Staff Recommendations
• proposed a trailhead at New Shady Rest dump station parking area along with a groomed trail to the Shady Rest Park Area
• High elevation staging area (cinder shed)
• Scenic loop Staging area
• delineation of uses on the way to Minaret Vista
• Other locations for delineation of uses IN PROXIMITY TO GROOMED TRAILS/uses • Sherwin's working group recommendations
• consistency with OSV related requirements in the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project 2-67 June 2013 -Final EIS/EIR
• Other recommendations or comments?

THANKS
Do you have any questions?
[email protected]
760-923-8247

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Council finds and determine that Emergency Work Authorized by Resolutions 23-29 and 23-54 continues to be necessary for public welfare and safety.

Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Council finds and determine that Emergency Work Authorized by Resolutions 23-29 and 23-54 continues to be necessary for public welfare and safety.

Summary:

Town facilities and infrastructure impacted by the extreme winter weather are still in a state of disrepair impacting the welfare and safety of the community. Damage to sidewalks, drainages, fencing, signage, and facilities is substantial. Staff have found additional damage to curbs and gutters, drain inlets, signage, fencing, facilities, ADA detectable surfaces, and sidewalks and repairs are necessary for public welfare and safety. On May 17, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution 23-29 authorizing the emergency repair of these damages and the procurement of the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for the repair, without a competitive bidding process.

On July 12, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution 23-54 authorizing the emergency repair of these damages and the procurement of the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for the repair, without a competitive bidding process due to damages at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport. The need for the work authorized by these two resolutions continues to be necessary to provide for public welfare and safety. Copies of the resolutions are attached for Council information.

RESOLUTION 23- 29

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH

LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT EMERGENCY

CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR TOWN

INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES DAMAGED BY EXTREME WEATHER

INCLUDING FENCING, PARKS, REGULATORY, STREET AND WAY

FINDING SIGNAGE, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, DRAINAGE INLETS, ADA

REQUIRED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES AND RELATED ITEMS

WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING
WHEREAS, California law generally requires the Town to award contracts for public projects" in excess of $1, 000 to the lowest bidder after the completion of a competitive bidding process; and
WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 20168 provides that in case of emergency the Town Council may pass a resolution by a four -fifths vote declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of Town funds to safeguard life, health, or property, and that if such a resolution is adopted the Town may expend any sum required in the emergency without complying with competitive bidding requirements; and
WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 22050 authorizes the Town Council, with a four -fifths vote, to " repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts" ifthe Town Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency; and
WHEREAS, Mammoth Lakes has experienced extreme weather conditions during the winter of 2022- 2023, with historic accumulations of snow, leading the Town Manager to proclaim a state of emergency on March 3, 2023, which proclamation was ratified by the Town Council on March 7, 2023, with a renewed state of emergency declared by the Town Manager on March 27, 2023 and ratified by proclamation ofthe Town Council on March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the extreme weather conditions, response and snow accumulations have caused significant damage to Town facilities and infrastructure including damage to fencing, curbs, gutters, drain inlets, roads, ADA required Detectable Warning Surfaces, street signs, wayfinding signs, warning signs and regulatory signage; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that as a result ofthe weather - caused damage to Town facilities and infrastructure and pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20168 the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, safety, and property in the Town of Mammoth Lakes; and

Resolution No. 23- 29

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that based on substantial evidence, including without limitation the staff report presented to the Town Council on May 17, 2023, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050, the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that responding to the emergency requires repair of public facilities and infrastructure, other directly related and immediate actions, and procurement of the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without a competitive bidding process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The Town Council hereby directs and authorizes the Town Manager and Public Works Director to contract for repairs to Town facilities and infrastructure damaged by the winter of 2022- 2023, to take any directly related action, and to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for the repairs, without a competitive bidding process.

Section 3. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050, the Town Council shall review the emergency action authorized by this resolution at its next regular meeting and at each regular meeting thereafter until the emergency repair work is complete, to determine, by a four -fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action.

Section 4. The Town Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17' h
day of T
ATTEST:

J lE GRAY, Town Jerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF MONO ) ss.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES)
I, JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, DO HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 23- 29 adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Bubser, Rea, Rice, Mayor Pro Tern Sauser, and Mayor Wentworth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DISQUALIFICATION: None
JANO GRAY,- Town Cleril

RESOLUTION 23- 54

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY AWARDING

A CONTRACT FOR TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGED BY EXTREME WEATHER

INCLUDING FENCING AND RELATED ITEMS AT THE MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT

WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING
WHEREAS, California law generally requires the Town to award contracts for " public projects" in excess of $1, 000 to the lowest bidder after the completion of a competitive bidding process; and WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 20168 provides that in case of emergency the Town Council may pass a resolution by a four -fifths vote declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditures of Town funds to safeguard life, health, or property, and that if such a resolution is adopted the Town may expend any sum required in the emergency without complying with competitive bidding requirements; and
WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 22050 authorizes the Town Council, with a four - fifths vote, to " repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts" if the Town Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency; and WHEREAS, Mammoth Lakes has experienced extreme weather conditions during the winter of 2022- 2023, with historic accumulations of snow, leading the Town Manager to proclaim a state of emergency on March 3, 2023, which proclamation was ratified by the Town Council on March 7, 2023, with a renewed state of emergency declared by the Town Manager on March 27, 2023, and ratified by resolution ofthe Town Council on March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the extreme weather conditions, response and snow accumulations have caused significant damage to the Town infrastructure including damage to the fence surrounding the Mammoth Yosemite Airport (Airport); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that as a result ofthe weather -caused damage to Town infrastructure and pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20168 the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, safety, and property in the Town of Mammoth Lakes; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that based on substantial evidence, including without limitation the staff report presented to the Town Council on July 12, 2023, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050, the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that responding to the emergency requires repair of public infrastructure, other directly related and immediate actions, and procurement of the necessary equipment, services and supplies for those purposes, without a competitive bidding process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes as follows:

Resolution No. 23- 54

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The Town Council hereby directs and authorizes the Town Manager to contract for repairs to Town infrastructure damaged by the winter of 2022- 2023 at the Airport, to take any directly related action, and to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for the repair, without a competitive bidding process.

Section 3. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050, the Town Council shall review the emergency action authorized by this resolution at its next regular meeting and at each regular meeting thereafter until the emergency repair work is complete, to determine, by a four -fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action.

Section 4. The Town Manager and Finance Director are authorized to amend the FY23- 24 Budget in the amount of two hundred and fifteen thousand dollars ($215, 000) plus up to a 20% contingency amount to fund the emergency work utilizing resources in Fund 990.

Section S. The Town Clerk shall certifv as to the adoption of this resolution.

APPROVD AND ADOPTED this 12'' day of July 2023.

ATTEST:
c
MIE GRAY, Town Cl rk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF MONO ) ss.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES)
I, JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, DO HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 23- 54 adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 12t" day of July 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Bubser, Rea, Rice, Mayor Pro Tern Sauser, and Mayor Wentworth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DISQUALIFICATION: None

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Review of Town Manager Recruitment Information and Schedule.

Council Meeting Date: 10/4/2023
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Provide comments and direction on finalizing Town Manager recruitment brochure and schedule.

Summary:

A draft recruitment brochure has been prepared by Roberta Greathouse, Executive Recruiter, Peckham & McKenney for Council consideration. The brochure is attached. Council is requested to provide any comments, edits, or other direction prior to the brochure being finalized and used in the recruitment process for selection of the next Town Manager. One change in the previous schedule is requested to assist in coordinating travel for Ms. Greathouse, which is to move the December 13th meeting to December 14th. This meeting will be a special meeting for the recruiter to present the applicant pool and recommended applicants for further consideration. This will be a closed session discussion. Council will provide direction on the final selection applicants for interviews in January.

Town Manager
Town of Mammoth Lakes, California
DRAFT – 9/26/2023
The Community Located in the Eastern Sierra Nevada mountains in Mono County, California, the Town of Mammoth Lakes is a resort community with approximately 8,000 permanent residents. The Town’s visitors and second homeowners can increase the population to 35,000+ during peak visitation times.

The Town was incorporated in 1984 and is Mono County’s only incorporated town. Mammoth Lakes contains over half of the county’s permanent population and is the county’s primary employment and service center.

The Town sits at an elevation between 7,000 and 8,300 feet. It is a remote community located 170 miles south of Reno, Nevada and 300 miles north of Los Angeles. The Town encompasses approximately 25 square miles, with development primarily located in a defined Urban Growth Boundary of approximately four square miles. The rest of the surrounding lands are public, with the vast majority administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

Mammoth Lakes has four distinct seasons, enhancing the diversity of outdoor recreational offerings. The local economy is driven by recreation-based tourism, with visitors drawn to the area’s spectacular natural setting. The area is known for its outdoor opportunities and activities including skiing and snowboarding at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, snowmobiling, cross country skiing and snowshoeing, Devils Postpile National Monument, Yosemite Nation Park, miles of hiking and biking trails, and golf. The area’s mountain streams and lakes offer fishing, expansive vistas and views, camping, and other outdoor pursuits.

Mammoth Lakes has a variety of local dining, shopping, and recreational services. The small-town atmosphere, educational offerings, performing arts, community activities, and events provide a desirable quality of life enjoyed by area residents and visitors.

For more information about the Town of Mammoth Lakes, please visit.

The Organization
The Town of Mammoth Lakes is a general law Town and has a council-manager style of government. The Town Council consists of five councilmembers elected at large, with each member serving a staggered four-year term. The mayor is the presiding officer at council meetings and is selected on an annual basis by the Council. The Council meets at 4:00 p.m. on the first and third Wednesday of each month. The Council and Town staff enjoy a collaborative, supportive, and respectful relationship with a high level of trust.

The Town’s 2023-2024 Adopted Budget is $77.7 million ($30.5 m General Fund) and is built with strong fiscal policies that support on-going budget integrity. The Town is supported by 112 FTE (92 full-time) staff who work in the Departments of Administration, Airport, Community Development & Economic Development, Finance, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and the Police Department. Fire Services are provided thorough the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) services are provided cooperatively by the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County.

The Department
The Town Manager’s Office is a two-person department consisting of the Town Manager and Assistant to the Town Manager. The Town Manager’s Office is primarily responsible for implementation of the Council policy direction and the development of policy options and recommendations for other actions to be considered by the Town Council. The Town Manager is appointed by the Town Council. All other employees, except the Town Attorney are appointed by the Town Manager based on approved rules, processes, and employee associations memorandum of understanding. The Office directly manages several specific areas as well as providing overall management of Town departments. The Office takes steps to provide opportunities for employees to enhance their knowledge and abilities; to be proactive in meeting community needs; to be problem solvers; to be innovative; to exemplify excellence in professional standards and achievements; and to demonstrate a commitment to the values of public service. The success of Mammoth Lakes is vested in employee accomplishments, directed, and supported by effective leadership and vision. The Office takes on a variety of special projects that are town-wide or which may not fall directly within the operation of a specific department or are part of the Offices general administrative duties.

The Position
The Town of Mammoth Lakes seeks an experienced municipal leader with exceptional management and leadership skills who will thrive in a small rural resort community. The next Town Manager will be a visionary leader who is profoundly entrepreneurial and approaches all issues with a creative, inventive, and “out of the box” mindset. The Manager must be able to solve today’s problems while anticipating and planning for local, regional, and global changes. The successful candidate will be a dynamic, handson on manager who is as comfortable negotiating with corporate business leaders as they are filling sandbags. Council priorities include:
 Expand availability and affordability of Community Housing (Housing Now!);  Enhance a sustainable and resilient recreation economy through partnerships and investment;  Invest in infrastructure improvements and maintenance; and  Implementation of enhanced & required municipal services.

The Ideal Candidate
The most suited candidate will be an individual with outstanding management skills and technical knowledge; a collaborative relationship builder who works to build consensus; a courageous leader who has experience in crisis management and is not afraid to make difficult decisions or to say no; emotionally intelligent and politically savvy; ethical and honest with a strong moral compass; and possesses the ability to:
 Clearly articulate and drive the Town Council’s strategic priorities and key objectives to completion;
 Be a conservative fiscal steward and strategically manage the Town’s limited resources to improve the quality of life for residents;
 Engage proactively with residents, businesses, corporations, as well as local, state, and federal partners;
 Place the needs of the residents at the forefront of decision making and recognizes that the success of the resort and local businesses are paramount to the success of the Town;  Develop and maintain strong and effective working relationships with regional partners;  Develop the unwavering trust of the Town Council by being fair, impartial, candid, honest, and transparent; responsive and respectful for implementing Council policy direction; informative,

facilitatory, and cohesive; works to build consensus with individuals with differing personalities and perspectives; and mindful to not be the sixth Town Council Member;  Proactively monitor and interpret pending State legislative policy and its potential impact on the Town and, in concert with the Town Council, advocate on behalf of the Town’s interests;  Be an astute and apolitical team builder, partner, facilitator, and problem solver in working with elected officials, staff, the community, stakeholders, and others;  Demonstrate grace under pressure; be humble, respectful, persistent, diplomatic, empathetic, socially and emotionally aware, and have a good sense of humor;  Get the job done – a hands on leader who is not afraid to get their hands dirty, and at the same time can effectively delegate and hold staff accountable; employs a relationship-oriented leadership style; supports and trusts staff and “has their backs;”  Be a fair, inclusive, and visible leader who will mentor and lead the Town staff with a personal growth mindset and an eye towards developing staff;
 Be an active, engaged, and visible member of the Mammoth Lakes Community; and  Balance the often competing needs of the residents, second homeowners, and visitors.

Experience/Education Requirements
Proven local government executive management experience equivalent to a Department Head, Assistant City Manager or City Manager, and a Bachelor’s degree in public administration, business administration, or a closely related field are required. Highly desirable qualities include experience working in a tourism-related or resort community and with Federal agencies, including the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Emergency Management Agency; a record of community service, and a Master’s degree.

Recognizing the importance of the Town Manager’s availability during emergencies and disasters, the Town’s role in providing emergency services and maintaining business continuity, and the limitations of physical access and communication as a result of fires, serious winter storms, earthquakes, and floods, it is strongly desired that the Town Manager reside within the Town of Mammoth Lakes or one of the adjacent communities.

The Compensation Package
The annual salary range is $191,388 - $229,666 (with increases to the range of 3% in FY24-25 and FY25-

26.)
The Town offers the following excellent benefits:

Bonus: Currently bonus of up to $4,000 may be paid depending on the Town’s TOT receipts.

Housing Assistance: Town may provide temporary housing (subject to availability) Town Provided Automobile: The Manager will be provided with access to an automobile from Town’s existing vehicle fleet for Employee’s use on Town business and for occasional de minimis personal purposes, in lieu of providing any vehicle allowance.

Retirement:
 CalPERS Defined Benefit Pension –

o Classic members 2.7% @ 55 - Employees pay the 8% employee contribution. o PEPRA members 2% @ 62 – Employees pay the full employee contribution, which is currently 7.75%.
 457 Plan – the Town will match up to $2,400 annually (Town has three vendors).  The Town does not participate in Social Security System, however, it does participate in Medicare and the employee portion is 1.45% plus .90% on earnings in excess of $200,000.

Medical Benefits: The Town will pay 100% of the cost of the PERS Platinum - health plan for the employee plus all eligible dependents.

Dental & Vision: The Town offers a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) Plan and each year will reimburse up to $1,500 for employee and $800 for dependent expenses. Each year, up to 80% of unused amounts may be rolled over.

Life Insurance / AD&D: Life insurance in the amount of $50,000 for the employee and $5,000 for eligible dependents is paid for by the Town.

LTD / STD: The Town participates in State Disability Insurance with the employee paying .9% of salary.

Annual Leave Accrual: 200 hours annual leave accrued for the first year of service (increases to 272 hours); 88 hours of admin leave; and 12 paid holidays.

Severance Pay: A severance payment equal to 12 weeks of salary will be paid for termination without cause.

The Recruitment Process
To apply for this key position and exciting career opportunity, please submit a current resume and compelling cover letter through our website at:

Peckham & McKenney
www.peckhamandmckenney.com
Resumes are acknowledged within two business days. Contact Roberta Greathouse at 831.998.3194, toll-free at 866.912.1919, or via email to [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this position or the recruitment process.

Search Schedule:

Filing Deadline: November 12, 2023
Preliminary Interviews (telephonic): November 28 & 29, 2023 Recommendation to Town: December 14, 2023
Panel Interviews (In-Person): January 11, 2024
Finalist Interviews (In-Person): January 12, 2024
These dates have been confirmed, and it is recommended that you plan your calendar accordingly.

Provide Comments & Direction
on Finalizing Town Manager
Recruitment Brochure &
Schedule
October 4, 2023
by Peckham & McKenney Executive Search
Roberta Greathouse, Executive Recruiter

Background
•After a competitive process, the Town Council
selected Peckham & McKenney to conduct the
recruitment for the next Town Manager.
•Council approved the contract on August 16, 2023.
•Roberta Greathouse is your Executive Recruiter for
this important search.
2

Objectives
•Review & Discuss draft brochure;
•Provide Executive Recruiter with comments &
direction to finalize brochure;
•Review search schedule; and
•Consider request to move the 12/13 Closed Session
to 12/14.
3

Draft Recruitment Brochure
• The Draft Brochure contains descriptions of the:
• Organization:
• Department;
• Position – including current priorities;
• Ideal Candidate characteristics;
• Education & Experience Requirements;
• Compensation Package; and
• Recruitment Process including schedule.
4

Draft Recruitment Brochure
The draft Education and Experience requirements
& Ideal Candidate Characteristics are the
cumulation of meetings with the Council, identified
community leaders, and staff as well as a review of
key documents.

After Council approval of brochure language, an
attractive brochure, with pictures, will be created
and used for marketing the position. 5

Draft Recruitment Brochure
• Education & Experience:
• Local government executive management experience;
• BA – public or business admin or related field;
• Highly Desirable Experience
• Tourism-related or resort community;
• Working with Federal Agencies;
• Record of community service;
• Master’s Degree.
• Residency – living in Mammoth Lakes or an adjacent community is strongly desired.
• Goal – cast as broad a net as possible to bring Council a strong candidate pool to consider. 6

Draft Recruitment Brochure
• Ideal Characteristics Include:
• Outstanding management skills and technical knowledge; • Collaborative relationship builder who works to build consensus;
• Courageous leader who has experience in crisis
management and is not afraid to make difficult decisions or to say no;
• Emotionally intelligent and politically savvy; and
• Ethical and honest with a strong moral compass.
7

Recruitment Schedule
• Recruitment Opens: October 10, 2023
• Filing Deadline: November 12, 2023
• Candidate Preliminary Interviews (w/ Recruiter): November 28 & 29, 2023
• Recommendation to Town (Closed Session): December 14, 2023* • Panel Interviews (In-Person): January 11, 2024
• Finalist Interviews (In-Person): January 12, 2024
* Proposed change from December 13th.
8

Thank you for choosing
Peckham & McKenney Executive
Search
Roberta Greathouse, Executive Recruiter
(831) 998-3194
[email protected] “All about fit”

Agenda Item ________
File No. ____________

AGENDA BILL
Subject: Councilmember Reports
Initiated by: Jamie Gray
______________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND:

Each member of the Town Council is appointed to serve as a Town representative to a number of committees, commissions, and organizations.

These groups meet infrequently and from time to time the representatives will report to the rest of the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.

In addition, Councilmembers on occasion participate in meetings, conferences and seminars, and their reports on these educational opportunities are of benefit to the rest of the Council.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

California Government Code requirements pertaining to the open meeting act stipulate that all items for discussion must be listed on the agenda before the matter can be discussed and/or acted upon. To meet this requirement, and the intent of the Brown Act, Councilmember Reports are listed on each agenda to allow representatives to report to the rest of the Council at these meetings.

The following is a list of the commission/committees on which members of the Council serve:

Land Use:

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – Rea, Rice, and Bubser as alternate
Airport Land Use Commission – Rea, Rice, and Bubser as the alternate Mono County Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) – Senior Planner Kim Cooke and Rice as alternate
Intergovernmental Relations:

Town and County Liaison Committee – Sauser, Bubser, and Town Manager and Rea as alternate
Desert Mountain Division of the League of California Cities – Sauser and Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG) – Bubser, Wentworth, and Sauser as alternate
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District – Wentworth and Bubser as alternate

League of California Cities City Voting Delegate – Sauser and the Town Manager as the alternate
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Board – Rea and Assistant to the Town Manager as alternate
Transportation:

Local Transportation Commission (LTC) – Wentworth, Sauser, and Paul Chang; Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) Board – Bubser and Sauser Local Issues:

Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Board – Sauser
Mammoth Lakes Recreation (MLR) Board – Rea
Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) Board – Rice
Treasury Oversight Committee – Finance Director; Town Manager as alternate LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:

According to the California Open Meeting Act, commonly referred to as the Brown Act, the agenda must reflect every matter to be discussed by a governing body.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

This agenda bill is submitted for information only.