travel analysis report for tusayan ranger district, kaibab...

1

Travel Analysis Report

For

Tusayan Ranger District,

Kaibab National Forest

Prepared By

Charlotte Minor and Charles Ernst

Approved By

_______________________________ _________________

John Booth, Forest Engineer Date

Accepted By

_______________________________ _________________

Mike R. Williams, Forest Supervisor Date

Version 2.0, released 12/2008


of 136 DISTRICT LEVEL ROADS ANALYSIS REPORT

Table of Contents

Introduction 5

Travel Analysis Objectives 6

Process Overview 6

Travel Analysis Products 6

Step 1- Setting Up the Analysis 7

Project Objectives 8

Project Steps 8

Interdisciplinary Team Members: 7

Other Participants 8

Information Needed to Complete the Analysis 9

Available Information 9

Data Gaps 10

Step 2- Describing the Situation 10

Setting, District Users and Uses 10

Existing Roads 12

Kaibab National Forest Management Plan Direction 14

Step 3. Identifying Issues 15

Step 4 – Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks of the Existing Road System 16

Public Transportation 17

Recreation, Scenery Management, Access to Private Land, and Special Uses 21

Heritage Resources 24

Soils and Watershed 25

Wildlife Management, Rare Plants and Invasive Species 26

Range Management 31

Vegetation Management 32

Fire Management 32



Step 5 Prioritization 33

Initial Results 33

Summary of Key Findings for the Existing Road System 34

Risk-Value Matrix for the Existing Road System 36

Recommendations 48

Step 5 - Reporting 49

Public Involvement 50

Proposed Road System 51

List of Figures

Figure 1. Tusayan District of the Kaibab National Forest 12

Figure 2. All Roads on Tusayan Ranger District 13

Figure 3. Risk-Value Assessment Categories 37

Figure 4. Proposed Designated System of Roads Open to Motorized Travel 52

List of Tables

Table 1. Inventoried Roads on theTusayan Ranger District 14

Table 2. KNF annual miles of road maintenance by road type, 2005-2008 18

Table 3. Annual Road Maintenance Needs, Kaibab National Forest 19

Table 4. Estimated Costs for Annual Maintenance for Tusayan Ranger District 20

Table 5. Listed, Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species on TRD 29

Table 6. Initial Road Categories Matrix 38

Table 7.Summary of Preliminary Changes to Existing Road System 49

Table 8. Roads Added to Preliminary Road System 52

Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost for Proposed Road System 56

Appendices



Appendix 1 2003 Kaibab National Forest TAP 57

Appendix 2 Existing National Forest System Roads Inventory 97

Appendix 3 Road Maintenance Level Information 112

Appendix 4 Resource Area Analysis Maps 116

Appendix 5 Road Definitions 122

Appendix 6 Best Management Practices 131



Introduction The Travel Management Rule (TMR) was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. This rule includes a mandatory process called Travel Analysis. The Travel Analysis Process (TAP) is not a National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) process, rather it is an integrated ecological, social, and economic approach to transportation planning, and addressing both the existing road system and future desired road system. Travel Analysis is an interdisciplinary broad-scale analysis with the intent of matching the motorized transportation system to the desired conditions in the Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Travel Analysis will provide a comprehensive review and recommendations for the existing road system. These recommendations will be carried forward into the NEPA portion of rule implementation. Historically in the Forest Service, roads were managed by Engineering and motorized trails were managed by Recreation. The recently revised travel management regulations combine the analysis of motorized trails and roads under the Travel Analysis Process. The new travel management rule, hereafter referred to as the “Rule” requires each National Forest to designate those National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and areas on Forest Service System lands that are open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year (36 CFR 212.51). A key concept underlying the Travel Analysis Process is that the focus is on changes needed to the forest transportation system and management of motor vehicles on Forest Service system lands. This process also helps to meet specific requirements of 36 CFR 212, subparts A and B:

1. To identify the minimum road system. 2. To identify and subsequently designate a system of roads motorized trails, and areas for

motor vehicle use.

The Travel Analysis requirements are described in FSM 7700 Travel Management; FSM 7710

(Travel Planning); FSM 7730 (Road Operations); FSM 2350 (Motorized trails); FSH 7709.55

(Travel Analysis); FSH 7709.59 (Road Operations); FSH 2309.18 (Motorized trail Operations).

The following is the link to the complete to the FSM draft directives as well as information on the travel analysis process can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/index.shtml.



Travel Analysis Objectives Travel Analysis is intended to identify opportunities and provide information in support of the integration of ecological, social, and economic concerns into travel management decisions. The objective of this analysis is to provide information to decision makers that will lead to a safe road and motorized trail system that is:

1) responsive to public needs and desires 2) conforms to the National Forest Land Management Plan 3) is efficiently administered 4) has minimal negative effects to natural and cultural resources 5) recognizes the limitations of available funding.

Process Overview Travel Analysis is a six-step process that considers the landscape, site-specific conditions, and public input in identifying a set of relevant transportation-related issues and analysis questions. The Travel Analysis Process is the same six step process outlined in the former Roads Analysis Process (a.k.a. RAP) described in Forest Service Report FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions

About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (1999). The new directives incorporate key provisions of FS-643 into the directives system, clarify procedures, and streamline some language. The level of detail needed for each step depends on the complexity of the issues, site-specific conditions, and available information. The six-step process is:

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

Travel Analysis Products This report is a product of the transportation analysis process and documents the information and analyses used to identify opportunities and priorities for future national forest road systems. Included in the report is a map displaying the known road system and the needs and/or opportunities for each road. This report will: Identify the Minimum road system needed at this time. Identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. Incorporate a science-based transportation analysis at the appropriate scale and, to the degree practicable, involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments in determining the minimum road system at some point in the process. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.



Identify the road system open to motorized travel. Identify the roads on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction that are open to motorized use, and those that no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives or that will be limited to administrative uses. Roads may be closed (the road is closed to all types of motorized traffic)1, decommissioned (stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state), limited to administrative use, or considered for other uses, such as for trails. This also includes identifying road related social, environmental and public safety risks. Identify site-specific priorities and opportunities for road improvements, closures and

decommissioning. Identify a matrix of road that compares road needed for resource management and road with risks for resource damage. This will help to identify priorities for road improvements, closures and decommissioning.

Identify areas of special sensitivity or any unique resource values. Identify areas needing special management actions, or that are closed to motorized uses (such as designated wilderness). This report will help managers address questions on road access related to ecosystem health and sustainability, commodity extraction, recreation, social and cultural values, and administrative uses. It also informs future management decisions on the merits and risks of building new roads; relocating, upgrading, or decommissioning existing roads; managing traffic; and enhancing, reducing, or discontinuing road maintenance. This analysis is based upon:

• Use of the best available scientific information;

• Economics;

• Social and economic costs and benefits of roads; and

• Contribution of existing and proposed roads to management objectives.

Step 1- Setting Up the Analysis Overview

The Tusayan TAP has been prepared to assess the values and risks of forest roads as they pertain to various resources and to form the basis for further NEPA analysis where the Tusayan Ranger District system of roads will be designated. The inter-disciplinary team and additional personnel assisting with the analysis includes specialists from the heritage program and tribal relations, engineering, fire management, range management, soils/watershed, invasive weeds, rare plants, forestry, recreation and scenery management, lands and special uses, wildlife, and law enforcement. In 2003, a forest-wide roads analysis process (RAP) was performed for Kaibab National Forest (KNF) system roads suitable for passenger cars (known as maintenance level 3, 4 and 5 roads). The lesser developed roads, those for high clearance vehicles and closed roads (maintenance levels 2 and 1), were not evaluated in the initial RAP. This travel analysis will evaluate all roads on the Tusayan Ranger District, including unauthorized (user created routes). The TAP will tier to the Roads Analysis previously completed for the KNF. The KNF RAP is found in Appendix 1. Most of this study was conducted using geographic information system (GIS) data analysis of the different resource areas. The resulting information was combined and summarized. Roads on the

1 See glossary in Appendix 6.



Tusayan District were inventoried and entered into a roads GIS layer and the Infrastructure database. The data collection was largely completed by late 2005, and was used for this analysis. (Additional database clean up and refinement continues every year; for this study the 2005 data set of information is presented.) GIS layers for the different resource areas are also updated each year. The information presented in this report represents analysis completed in 2006.

Project Objectives

• Determine project steps and needed products

• Identify available information and information needs

• Identify information needs for conducting the analysis

• Identify specific tasks necessary to produce Travel Analysis products

Project Steps

• Identify key resources and associated specialists that will be needed to assess the situation.

• Identify the information needed to conduct the analysis.

• Identify available information and information gaps.

• Decide on the appropriate level of detail and the amount of time and work that would be needed to complete the task.

Interdisciplinary Team Members: Charlotte Minor ID Team Leader Jacqueline Denk Public Affairs John O’Brien Engineering Heather McRae Timber Neil Weintraub Archaeology Mike Lyndon Tribal Liaison Mae Franklin Navajo Liaison Brian Poturalski Recreation Joel McCurry Recreation Jeff Waters Wildlife Dave Mills Fuels and Fire Management Clare Hydock Range Karlynn Huling Noxious Weeds, Rare Plants, Soils and Watershed

Other Participants Richard Stahn Tusayan District Ranger (retired) Linda Wadleigh Acting Tusayan District Ranger Charles Ernst Former IDT Leader John Holmes Timber John Phillips Acting Soils and Watershed Chuck Nelson Wildlife (retired) Paul Webber Range (retired) Andrew Espinoza Engineering Technician



Ronald Tissaw Engineering Technician Liz Schuppert Public Services Staff Officer Ariel Leonard Assistant Forest Planner Bob Blasi Forestry Technician Gretchen Lampe Former Law Enforcement Tom Mutz Lands and Special Uses, Minerals

Information Needed to Complete the Analysis The following list is potential items that could be analyzed to identify risks and values associated with the TAP. Regional guidance recommends using existing information and not to perform new inventory in order to perform the roads analysis.

1. Information on the existing forest roads, and unauthorized routes. 2. Information and location of Terrestrial Ecosystem soil types that are prone to erosion. 3. Location and acreage of existing travel restricted areas. 4. Information on heritage resources and a map of areas surveyed. 5. Information about areas of tribal concern. 6. A map of key recreation sites and a description of current recreation use by area. 7. Description and map of the District Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) / Scenery

Management System (SMS) 8. Information on Management Indicator Species, FS Sensitive and Threatened and

Endangered Species. 9. Information on land ownership, rights of ways, and easements. 10. Public wants and desires.

Available Information The following information is compiled and available for specialists to analyze to help identify needed and un-needed roads, road-associated environmental and public safety risks, site specific priorities and opportunities, and any other specific information needed to support project-level decisions.

1. Transportation System: 2005 GIS coverage of roads in the INFRA database, including an inventory of unauthorized roads.

2. Heritage: survey information where completed on the District. Information on potential site density/risk for un-surveyed areas. Documentation of individual heritage sites within the un-surveyed areas.

3. Areas of concern to local tribes for access and religious activities. 4. TES soils data GIS coverage. 5. Wildlife habitat: Goshawk post fledgling areas and nest stands, Mexican spotted owl PACs,

meadow/grassland areas. Other key wildlife habitat locations. 6. GIS shape file of designated Wilderness and travel restricted areas. 7. Land ownership. 8. Forest Plan amendment in 2004 adopting Scenery Management System and updated

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum maps and the ROS-SMS Guidebook, GIS coverage of ROS and SMS designations. Location of recreation facilities. Locations of dispersed recreation use.

9. Recent roads analysis and decisions completed on the District.



10. Public comments from meetings, phone calls, letters/email.

Data Gaps The Forest Service does not have adequate information available to fill the gaps identified below without new detailed inventory and analysis.

1. The Forest Service INFRA database where roads information is maintained is edited and updated on a yearly basis. The TAP for this analysis is based on 2005 maps (data is 3 years old).

2. Not all user created roads are known. It is likely that there are additional unauthorized roads that were either missed during the inventory or that have been created since.

3. Absence of heritage survey for some of the District. 4. Limited information about areas of concern to local tribes. 5. Information about access and easements rights of way etc. 6. Field verification of all roads on the ground. 7. Unknown or changed public wants and desires.

Step 2- Describing the Situation Objectives

• Familiarize the reader with the location of Tusayan Ranger District (TRD)

• Provide information about the District and context of this analysis Steps

• Describe the location, uses and users of the District

• Identify roads crossing the District

• Clarify scope of analysis – National Forest System Roads

• Describe relationship to Kaibab National Forest Management Plan

• Setting, District Users and Uses

Historic use of the Tusayan area was focused on tourist access to the Grand Canyon. Ranching, mining and timber harvest followed, and timber harvest occurred over much of the district. Roads have been developed in support of each of these operations, as well as for access to the forest for fire-fighting, range management activities, and recreation activities such as hunting and forest product gathering. The Tusayan District is not contiguous with other districts of the Kaibab National Forest. It is bounded on the east side by the Navajo reservation, on the north by Grand Canyon National Park, on the west by the Havasupai reservation as well as Arizona State and private land, and on the south by Arizona State and private land. Private land in-holdings are few and scattered within the District boundary. The road density on the district is relatively low, possibly because of the relative isolation of the district and lack of development and private land in the area. About 600 people (including seasonal workers) live in Tusayan, AZ, the gateway settlement next to Grand Canyon



National Park. The National Park Service provides housing for its employees and many seasonal workers for the concessionaires who operate businesses on the Park. The closest large town is Flagstaff, about 90 miles away. Over 4 million people visit the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park each year (NPS 2007). Recreational users on the Tusayan Ranger District generally follows two patterns: the visitor enroute to Grand Canyon National Park who pulls off the road to camp overnight, and forest users who camp for multiple nights to hunt, gather forest products, and participate in other activities. Visitation tends to fluctuate with use at the national park, and has steadily increased over the past 30 years. Visitation also fluctuates seasonally, with highest use during the late spring through fall. Forest road use is highest during the summer and fall/winter during hunting seasons. Forest roads are used to access the forest for users to participate in a variety of recreation activities including driving for pleasure, access for hunting, camping, fishing, hiking, forest product gathering, sightseeing, and mountain biking. These roads are also used for commercial operations including logging, ranching, mining, outfitting and guiding services, and to access electronic sites, and private land. The Tusayan Ranger District is located in north-central Arizona, it is one of three ranger districts on the Kaibab National Forest. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the Kaibab NF within the state of Arizona, as well as more detailed delineation of the Tusayan Ranger District (TRD) boundary.



Figure 1 Tusayan District of the Kaibab National Forest.

Existing Roads

There are more than 900 miles of roads crossing the Tusayan Ranger District. This includes forest roads, the state highway, private roads, and local roads in the settlement of Tusayan. It also includes



unauthorized routes on the national forest that are not part of the forest road system. Figure 2 displays all of these roads.

Figure 2 All roads on Tusayan Ranger District.

This analysis is limited to the forest roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (a complete listing of the National Forest System Roads is found in Appendix 2.. It will also consider unauthorized routes that occur on national forest land. Most of the forest roads are unpaved and consist of bare, compacted soil. A few roads have a crushed aggregate surface composed of limestone or volcanic material. Paved Forest Service roads are generally limited to administrative sites or developed recreation sites. Some roads have culverts at drainage or watercourse crossings, but due to the xeric environment, most crossings do not have culverts. Many times drainage of precipitation off of the road system is achieved by use of drainage or leadoff ditches. There are also a number of unauthorized routes. These are usually created by driving cross-country off of forest roads. Forest Road Information

Table 1 delineates the status of all roads, as well as type of forest roads. Forest roads can be broadly put into two categories: suitable for passenger car use and those that require high clearance vehicles. More detailed road categories are based on maintenance levels. This defines the level of service



provided by, and maintenance required for a specific road consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.58, 12.3). These maintenance levels range from Level 1 indicating a closed road to Maintenance Level 5 indicating roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Appendix 3 defines and provides detailed information about the Forest Service road maintenance levels. Unauthorized routes are not part of the national forest system of roads and do not receive a maintenance level rating unless they are adopted into the forest road system.

Table 1 Inventoried roads on the Tusayan Ranger District.

Non-USFS Road Status Miles of Roads*

Local (Tusayan roads) 3

Private 13

State Highway 22

Subtotal 38

USFS Road Maintenance Levels

Miles of Forest Roads*

Maintenance Level 1 – closed 0

Maintenance Level 2 – High Clearance Vehicles 633

Maintenance Level 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars 103

Maintenance Level 4 – Moderate degree of User Comfort

2

Maintenance Level 5 – Paved, 2-lane 0

Subtotal NFS Roads 738

Unauthorized Routes

Miles

166

Total Miles of All Roads plus unauthorized routes

942

*Miles are approximate.

As indicated in the table above, there are approximately 740 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads currently open to motorized travel on TRD. On average, about 100 miles of road are maintained annually. The current forest road density on the District is approximately 1.4 miles of roads per square mile of land. There are approximately 170 miles of unauthorized routes. The Kaibab National Forest is currently open to cross country motorized travel. There are no designated OHV areas or trails on the Tusayan District and OHV riding occurs in many areas. Under the Travel Management Rule, cross-country travel would be prohibited, unless addressed by an exception or permit.

Kaibab National Forest Management Plan Direction

The Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended 2005 (Forest Plan) currently provides for management of the forest’s transportation system, with some restrictions about where



and what types of motorized activities are appropriate. In addition, it provides guidance about protecting watershed and heritage resources. The following direction is excerpted from the Forest Plan:

• “Provide and manage a serviceable road transportation system that meets needs for public access, land management, resource protection, and user safety. Provisions are made for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, seasonal and special closures of Forest roads, and obliteration of unnecessary roads.”

• “Restrict motorized uses in SPNM designated areas, except for necessary minimal administrative activities, permitted activities, and emergency access needs. Avoid construction of permanent or temporary roads in SPNM areas, unless required by valid permitted activity. Construct and maintain roads with SPNM classes to lowest maintenance level required for the intended use. Roads should be obliterated when no longer needed.”

• “Guidelines for Recreation Operations and Improvements: 3. Monitor off-road vehicle (ORV) use; prevent resource damage and user conflicts. 7. Formulate and implement control measures where and when the following damage occurs: a. Soil compaction, b. Loss of vegetative cover, c. Tree damage and mortality, d. Deterioration of water quality.”

• “Guidelines for Watershed Resource Operations and Improvements: 1. Define, geographically identify and locate best management practices for the landscape during landscape planning and analysis. Apply best management practices to mitigate adverse effects of activities and maintain site soil productivity.”

• “Guidelines for Heritage Resource Operations: 3. Provide necessary site protection in advance of undertakings. Utilize rejection, denial, redesign or relocation of proposed resource operations to provide in-place preservation of heritage resources.

Context and Relationship to Travel Management Planning

The Travel Management Rule lists general criteria the responsible official must consider in the designation of motorized travel on roads, trails, and areas. These include natural and cultural resources, public safety, recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among forest users, the need for maintenance, and the availability of resources for maintenance. The Rule also lists specific criteria that shall be considered including effects to resources, road condition and use, access rights to private lands, and wilderness/primitive areas. This analysis meets the intent of the Forest Plan by assessing and considering potential road interactions with the physical, biological and social factors. It will analyze the cost of the existing road system and of the desired road system as identified in this analysis2. It will assist with Forest Plan implementation by bringing desired recreation experiences in line with Forest Plan guidance for ROS and SMS, identifying and protecting sensitive areas, and identifying road issues as outlined in the Road Maintenance and Management Section of the plan.

Step 3. Identifying Issues Process

2 The initial costs identified in this analysis will help inform further analysis in the subsequent NEPA process.



This section describes the process for identifying initial issues and potential impacts of motorized travel for the key resource areas.

Steps

Identify initial resource concerns for study, and potential impacts to forest resources. Initial Issues Issues were generated from the forest roads analysis process, knowledge of the road system and observations by inter-disciplinary team members, and discussions with other public agencies such as Arizona Game and Fish. EMA-scale issues for the district are addressed through this travel analysis process. (Decisions that will change the existing system will occur through public involvement and a NEPA analysis that considers effects of roads in the system now or proposed for addition or deletion from the system in the future.) The interdisciplinary team identified preliminary issues related to their study area. These issues are discussed in the individual specialist write-ups in Section 4. A review of the questions in FS-643 titled Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation

System was also completed in order to identify any issues not previously considered for this project. The agreed upon list of issues helped drive the analysis and determine what information was needed to resolve them. The key issues include:

1) Transportation 2) Recreation, Scenery Management 3) Private Land Access and Special Uses 4) Heritage Resources 5) Soils and Watershed 6) Wildlife Management, Invasive Species and Rare Plants 7) Range Management 8) Vegetation Management 9) Fire Management

These issues were identified were related to providing motorized access for national forest activities and potential impacts of roads on natural and cultural resources. Potential Impacts The forest road system and unauthorized routes is the focus of much of the TAP. In addition, the potential impacts of motorized roads to natural and cultural resources include: 1) increased erosion and sedimentation, 2) impacts to heritage resources, 3) impacts to wildlife and rare plants, and spread of noxious weeds, 4) range management, 5) impacts to scenery and recreation opportunities, and 6) adequate access for vegetation management activities.

Step 4 – Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks of the Existing Road System



Objective

In this section, initial values and risks are analyzed for the key issues.

Steps 1) Analyze risks and values identified. 2) Develop an initial matrix that categorizes the existing road system into high risk-high value roads, high risk-low value roads, low risk-low value roads, and low risk-low value roads. 3) Review public input. 4) Using public input and a final specialist review, determine a proposed road system. 1) Public Transportation

Value of Existing Road System Roads provide the primary means of transportation on the TRD. County roads, U.S. and State highways give communities, tourists, and special use permit holders access to the national forest. These roads are important to and are used by the people living in Tusayan, AZ. People in this community rely on access to the forest for recreation, and in some cases for their livelihood. Roads also provide access to private lands within the District boundary, and to adjacent Tribal, Park Service and State lands. The Forest Service is mandated to provide access to parcels of private land (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, as amended) that are land-locked by federal lands or where geographic limitations prevent access other than from the Forest Service. A number of American Indian tribes have traditionally used the land base that forms the Tusayan Ranger District. Access to some individual's homes and grazing land is provided via FS roads. The road system also provides access to many of the traditional and ceremonial products tribes gather from the forest. In addition many people collect firewood in designated areas or along forest roads. The FS has cooperative agreements with Coconino County, Arizona Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration for road maintenance and construction projects. In addition, the KNF has road use and maintenance agreements with private landowners on the District. All of these partnerships help the forest increase its capacity to maintain the road system. Problems and Risks Forest Service road funds are allocated to plan, construct, improve, and maintain roads. The National Forest Service road budget was $297 million in 1988. In 2000, the Forest Service received $239 million for the same services. Accounting for inflation and declining timber sales, funding for roads is less than one-third of what it was in 1988. In 2000, the road budget in the Southwestern Region (Region 3) was $18.7 million and the budget in 2006 is currently $11 million. Accounting for inflation the road budget in 2006 is down 55% from what it was in 2000. In Region 3, the deferred maintenance backlog for road maintenance is $443,000,000. $6,927,604 of the deferred maintenance backlog involves critical health and safety items. The Region needs $58,680,553 for annual maintenance but receives a maintenance budget of $11,000,000. This is about 18 percent of the annual maintenance funding needed, and does not retire any of the deferred maintenance backlog.



The Forest Service’s road budget is inadequate to address safety, as well as to maintain roads in accordance with environmental and engineering standards. Over the last 10 years the road maintenance budget, has fallen sharply while the deferred maintenance backlog has risen sharply. The result of this is that road quality has diminished due to maintenance backlogs. Most roads on the forest are open to public use. Design, maintenance, and traffic control on passenger car roads (maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads) emphasizes user safety and economic efficiency. The high clearance roads (maintenance level 2 roads) do not always emphasize the same level of economic efficiency. The largest portion of road maintenance and improvement funds allocated to the forest is spent on passenger car roads. Safety work such as surface maintenance, roadside clearing, installation and maintenance of warning and regulatory signs is performed on an annual basis (although not on all roads in these maintenance levels). Forest roads also provide access to materials pits used for road surfacing materials. Funding for road maintenance is not adequate to address safety needs on all roads. The Tusayan District is able to maintain about 100 miles of roads in any calendar year. Analysis

The "Roads Rule" of 2001 requires that the responsible official determine the minimum road system needed. The "Travel Management Rule" of 2005 requires that in designating a system of roads, trails and areas for motorized travel, the responsible official must consider the need for maintenance and the availability of funds for that maintenance. Road Maintenance and Funding Forest Information Roads are necessary for almost any activity on the Kaibab National Forest. Timber harvesting, mining, and cattle grazing all require roads. Even activities that we normally don’t associate with roads, such as hiking and horseback riding, still usually require roads to access trailheads. All the roads that people use on the Kaibab National Forest need maintenance. There is not enough money allocated each year to maintain all the roads to an ideal standard. This section explains funding for road maintenance on the Forest. It explains how the forest uses road maintenance money, and briefly describes options for optimizing available budget on the most important maintenance tasks. Table 2 shows the annual miles of roads on the entire KNF that were maintained from 2005 through 2008. A passenger car road is one suitable for a car or sedan to travel on, where as high clearance roads would be more suitable for a pickup. The information is from roads accomplishment reports.

Table 2 KNF annual miles of roads maintained by road type, 2005-2008.

Year Passenger Car Roads

High-clearance Roads

Closed Roads Total

2008 515 200 0 715

2007 482 253 0 735

2006 443 255 0 698

2005 310 115 0 425

In 2008, the forest maintained 515 miles of passenger car roads. Because of legal requirements in the Highway Safety Act, the forest must maintain the passenger car roads to certain standards. The



maintenance the forest does on the roads is mostly using a grader to blade the roads. The operator smoothes the road surface, pulls gravel from the ditches, and fills and compact potholes. Occasionally sections of a road are repaired by applying additional quantities of gravel. While this maintenance is important—it would be difficult to drive a passenger car down the road without it—it is still inadequate. The forest needs to regularly replace the gravel on all gravel-surfaced roads. Gravel is not a permanent surface on a road. Constant vehicle traffic and regular maintenance erode the surface. The fine material can blow away and the larger material gets pushed off the road and eventually lost. Each maintenance cycle recovers less and less of the gravel, and eventually the road becomes a dirt road again. Without regular gravel replacement, the passenger car road will eventually become one that is suitable only for high clearance vehicles. A gravel surface usually lasts 10 to 15 years. If one assumes a generous 15-year life, about 6.5 percent of the gravel roads each year would need to have new surfacing applied (approximately 34 miles). Based on current costs, a 20-foot average road width, and a six-inch layer of gravel, regular gravel replacement would could cost about $2 million per year. The forest currently allocates approximately $150,000 per year for gravel replacement. Table 3 provides the projected maintenance funding needed for the forest road system. The KNF has a number of roads suitable for passenger cars (these are the most costly to maintain). Most roads on the Kaibab National Forest are suitable only for high-clearance vehicles. The cost to maintain a high clearance road is about one-tenth the cost of maintaining a passenger car road.

Table 3 Annual road maintenance needs, Kaibab National Forest (2005)

Even though roads for high-clearance vehicles do not necessarily improved with a gravel surface, high-clearance vehicle roads require maintenance. The most important maintenance item on high-clearance vehicle roads is drainage. Rutted roads are certainly difficult to drive on, but rutted roads also cause road and natural resource damage. Rains and spring snowmelt cause water to run down the roads, erosion increases, the road is damaged, and the erosion also damages the surrounding forest. Any road that is not maintained deteriorates at a faster rate. Asphalt roads become cracked and filled with potholes. The surface erodes from gravel roads. Dirt roads become rutted and impassable. As Table 5 shows, the Kaibab National Forest needs over $7.2 million per year for adequate maintenance for the existing forest road system, using recommended maintenance frequencies and costs. The KNF receives about $920,000 per year or about 8% of the annual maintenance funding needed for the road system each year. Since it is unlikely that the forest will ever have the funding needed to maintain the existing road system, the maintenance must be prioritized. Currently priorities are placed on maintaining passenger car roads. The difficulty with the limited budget, however, is that

Road Type Annual Maintenance Needs

Closed Roads $2,921

High-clearance Vehicle Roads $2,370,480

Passenger Car Roads $4,857,661

Total $7,231,062



inadequate gravel replacement means that the passenger car roads will eventually deteriorate to high-clearance vehicle roads. Converting passenger car roads to high-clearance vehicle roads—or allowing them to convert themselves—is certainly one approach to solving the maintenance dilemma. Without the rigid requirements of the Highway Safety Act, the forest would be able to better cover drainage issues on far more of the road system. Another partial resolution will be to reduce the miles of the designated road system. This analysis will recommend a minimum road system; the rest of the roads currently on the system will be identified for administrative use only. Downgrading all our passenger car roads to high-clearance vehicle status and closing roads to public travel except those that can be maintained to an ideal standard is not a tenable solution. On the other hand, the open passenger car roads need to be maintained at least minimally to meet Highway Safety Act requirements for passenger car roads and to a standard that acceptably protects resources. Progress toward an acceptable solution to this dilemma will be made in the Travel Management proposed roads open to public travel designation that will follow this process. Tusayan District Information The Tusayan District has approximately 12% of the total Kaibab NF roads, and receives about 12% of the Forest roads budget. The Kaibab NF usually receives about $920,000 a year for road maintenance. 12% of this number would be $110,400, or approximately 23% of the money needed for Tusayan District annual maintenance. An approximate cost of maintenance can be calculated for the existing road system for the Tusayan Ranger District based on the number of roads and costs per mile for annual maintenance as estimated by the Southwestern Region. Table 4 estimates the costs by maintenance level for the District.

Table 4 Estimated costs for annual maintenance for Tusayan Ranger District (2005)

Road Maintenance

Level

Number of Miles Cost per Mile for

Annual Maintenance

Total Cost

Administrative Use Only Roads

0 $103 $0

High Clearance Roads 633 $203 $128,499

Passenger Cars Roads (unpaved)

103 $3,435 $353,805

Passenger Car Roads (paved)

2 $2,638 $5,276

TOTALS 738 -- $487,580

Most visitors access the TRD via roads suitable for passenger cars as these provide the primary access points to the district. From these access points, the roads branch into high-clearance roads or intersect with other passenger car roads. While converting passenger car roads to high clearance roads provides a cost savings, it would also exclude many motorized users who access the forest with passenger cars. Just converting maintenance levels does not necessarily meet the needs of forest recreation users. In addition, passenger car roads provide faster, reliable access to the district which is important for emergency situations such as responding to a wild fire, and provide the primary access for vegetation management projects. Some conversion of passenger roads to high



clearance roads may be acceptable, but it will need to meet the needs for resource management including recreation, fire suppression and vegetation management.

2) Recreation, Scenery Management, Access to Private Land and Special Uses

Values for Recreation There are approximately 740 miles of forest roads on the Tusayan Ranger District. A portion of the Great Western Trail, located on forest system roads. Forest roads provide the means to access developed recreation sites, trailheads, dispersed camping areas, day-use areas and points of interest. Viewing scenery, wildlife, and touring along forest roads is a highly desired recreation activity. The roads are heavily used seasonally by hunters and. Road use is moderate by woodcutters and for gathering forest products, and relatively light by other forest users. Hunting and trapping activities are facilitated by the existing road system. Roads make it easier to access much of the forest and distribute hunting activities over a greater area. The roads facilitate access for all sportsmen. In addition, hunters may drive cross-country to retrieve a legally downed animal. The National Visitor Use Survey reports that about 13 percent of all Kaibab National Forest users participated in dispersed camping activities3. On Tusayan Ranger District, dispersed camping is an important use especially for hunting camps, antler-shed camps, and to a lesser degree for forest product gathering. Other dispersed camping activities appear to be short-term, when visitors coming to Grand Canyon National Park arrive in the locale, and camp overnight, and then proceed to the park for their visit. There appears to be very little extended dispersed camping just for relaxation or climatic relief. A primary challenge with motorized travel on National Forest lands is developing an effective and adequate transportation network of roads and trails that provide access to a quality recreation experience, while providing for visitor safety, the protection of watersheds, cultural sites, wildlife habitat, administrative access, and other resource concerns. Two areas of particular concern for the forest and its tribal neighbors are: access for traditional activities and to particular areas, and access to adjoining tribal land and grazing areas. The Forest Service must provide for both activities, as required by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, as amended, and the 2008 Farm Bill. Recreation managers use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to provide different types of recreation opportunities to forest users. Much of the district falls into the roaded natural and semi-primitive motorized ROS classes; both accommodate motorized uses. There are a few areas on the district that have been selected for semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation opportunities. These include Red Butte and the Coconino Rim. In these areas, forest users can expect more solitary, quiet recreation opportunities; motorized uses are prohibited in these areas. Problems and Risks for Recreation Since much of the TRD is open to cross-country travel, the district receives heavy use from deer and elk antler shed gathering. A matched set of recently shed elk antlers can bring $300. This

3 NVUM



lucrative product has attracted increasing numbers of people who engage in the activity. In recent years, shed gatherers have become strategic in their gathering activities, literally setting up a grid across the district that is driven with OHV. This cross country grid system is detectible and has resulted in a system of unauthorized routes crossing the landscape. Antler shed gathering is causing increasing resource damage from driving across wet soils, spreading invasive weed species, disturbing wildlife, cutting range allotment fences, and use of motorized vehicles in areas closed to motorized uses. Increased motorized use on the Tusayan Ranger District is a direct reflection of the increased population in the Southwest. There is some day-use activity involving off-highway vehicles4. The motorized equipment used in these activities will generally be referred to as off-highway vehicles (OHV) in this document. (OHV include four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles and motor-cross single wheel vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, ATV, and utility terrain vehicles, UTV, such as Polaris Ranger, that are a cross between a truck and an ATV). Some OHV users have created their own courses or tracks on the district. This type of use originates from the settlement of Tusayan and from some residents of Grand Canyon National Park. User-created routes can damage forest resources, disturb wildlife, and cause an increase in dust and noise near town. This can negatively impact residents and forest visitors seeking a quiet and non-motorized recreation experience. Some hunters have complained about the noise and dust from OHV riders reducing their hunting success. Dispersed camping is an important use of the district. Campers typically drive off of a forest road and establish a camp nearby the road. Much of the dispersed camping is associated with hunting activities. Some camping is associated with travel to Grand Canyon National Park. While some visitors choose to camp at Ten-X Campground, others enjoy pulling off the road and camping in an undisturbed forest setting. The Tusayan Ranger District has roads distributed throughout the District that provide access to National Forest System lands. In some areas the road density results in parallel roads within one-quarter to one-half of a mile of each other going to roughly the same place. Redundant roads provide little additional benefit and can potentially result in negative impacts to other resources, wildlife, and visitor experiences. The total miles of roads and number of road segments on the District could be reduced, while still providing for adequate access to recreation opportunities. There has been an increase motorized users riding in areas designated for non-motorized uses. In both the Coconino Rim and Red Butte areas, there is evidence of both cross-country motorized use and motorized dispersed camping. Use of motorized vehicles in these areas reduces opportunities for more primitive non-motorized recreation activities and experiences and results in conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. Risks to Analyze 1) Risk to designated non-motorized areas from the proximity of existing roads. Roads that encroach upon ROS semi-primitive non-motorized or designated roadless areas are high risk. Roads that are outside of designated areas are lower risk. Scenery Management

Benefits to Scenery Management

4 Personal communication Richard Stahn, retired District Ranger, 2008.



Tusayan Ranger District is adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. Its unique location places it as a gateway to one of the most famous national parks in the country. Scenery is the keystone of the visitor experience when coming to the park, and maintaining high quality scenery on the forest plays an important role in setting the scene as visitors arrive in the area. Scenery Management is a tool for integrating the benefits, values, desires and preferences regarding scenery into land management planning, and it is an integral part of ecosystem management. The Scenery Management System provides a framework for inventory and analysis of scenic values. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are assigned to all parts of the District. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is perceived to be “complete”, or to have the characteristics that are appropriate for its distinct physical, biological and cultural attributes. The SIO can be used to describe the existing condition, standard for management, or desired conditions for the future. The SIO for about half of the Tusayan Ranger District is moderate, meaning the landscape attributes or characteristics appear moderately altered. In many places there is evidence of management activity, but it shouldn’t dominate the landscape. In other areas, such as the area around the town of Tusayan, the developed recreation sites, the semi-primitive non-motorized areas of Red Butte and the Coconino Rim, and along major travel corridors, the SIO is high. In these locations, the natural landscape attributes should be dominant, and management activities should not be evident. Many people have an image of what they expect to see when they visit an area. This mental picture is based on a person’s previous experiences in that or similar areas, and is a complex mixture of knowledge of the features of that landscape, the activities they engage in and the settings preferred for those activities, emotions, and for some, spirituality. Managing roads and recreation activities associated with the road system may seem at odds to scenery management, and sometimes is because the continuity of the landscape is broken up by linear roads, but in many cases, the roads are part of a visitor’s image and enhance their ability to access and enjoy the scenery of the area. In the Scenery Management analysis, the landscape visibility component is the relative importance and sensitivity of what is seen and perceived in the landscape5. This element seems to have the most applicability to the narrow analysis of road values. Landscape visibility considers the context of the visitors, duration of view, degree of discernable detail, seasonal variations, and the number of viewers of the landscape. For this purpose, the travelways represent linear concentrations of public viewing. Passenger car roads are considered primary routes used by the most visitors to access the forest. These receive more use than high clearance roads, which would be considered secondary routes. High value for scenery is placed on the passenger car roads based on the volume of traffic these receive, and low value on high clearance roads because of lower use. Unmanaged OHV use, especially cross-country motorized activities and creation of unauthorized routes across the District threatens the high quality scenery of the area. The objectives of Travel Management planning, such as designating an open road system and prohibiting cross country motorized travel, should maintain or enhance the scenic quality of the District. Risks to Analyze

5 USDA Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, as revised 2000. Agriculture Handbook No. 701.



1) Value to scenery from road access; passenger car roads are high value, high-clearance roads are of lower value. Private Land Access and Special Uses

Values The Forest Service may authorize occupancy and use of National Forest System lands through the Special Use permitting process. Special uses management includes rights-of-way and easements for private land parcels (National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964). Forest roads are used to provide access to private land parcels; it is critical to keep the access to private land available. In addition, special use permits may be used to provide recreation opportunities. Local hunting outfitter-guides under special use permits with the Forest Service rely on motorized access to the forest in order to provide their clients a quality hunting experience. Jeep and OHV tour operators also rely on forest roads to provide scenic tours for their clients. The Tusayan community depends upon tourism as its primary source of income. People visiting the Tusayan Ranger District often stay in local motels and some camp out. Visitors purchase supplies, souvenirs, food, gasoline and other goods in Tusayan or the surrounding area. Local outfitter-guides, equestrian, jeep and OHV tour operators provide forest visitors with unique recreation opportunities, and contribute to the local economy. A sustainable motorized transportation system on the Tusayan Ranger District benefits the local economy by providing economic opportunities for the local community and recreation opportunities to tourists visiting the area. Motorized access to private land must continue to be accommodated in the motorized transportation system. Special use permit holders use an operating plan as part of their permit in order to determine the roads or trails that will be utilized. Values to Analyze Roads that provide primary access to special use permittees, rights-of-way, and easements will be considered a high value. All other roads are low value for this use. 3) Heritage Resources

Issues During the past 30 years, Kaibab National Forest Heritage Resource specialists in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, have intensively inventoried 76,354 of the Tusayan Ranger District’s 331,428 acres, about 23 percent. Archaeologists have identified 1,710 cultural resources, listed 6 of them on the National Register of Historic Places, and declared 244 as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 1,365 sites are unevaluated, and 95 have been determined not eligible for the National Register. 60 percent of these sites are artifact scatters (n+1024) associated with hunting and gathering camps ranging from ca. 9000 BC through the early Euro-American historic contact period ca. AD 1850. Archaeologists have recorded 379 sites with above ground masonry architecture. Most of these habitation sites date to ancestral Puebloan occupation of the Forest between AD 700 and AD 1200. The majority of sites are considered unevaluated at this time. Due to the great number of cultural resources on the Tusayan Ranger District and the current condition of unmanaged cross country travel, many of the known and many more unknown sites are at risk.



The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation believes that any restriction of motorized travel to designated routes, and prohibition of unmanaged cross-country travel will serve to protect historic properties across a broad landscape (Advisory Council 2004). Furthermore, such a clearly designated system will “Protect natural and cultural resources.” The Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) agree that designation of a system of roads and trails, already open for motor vehicle use, will have little or no potential to affect historic properties. However, those existing or user created roads may be affecting heritage resources as many of these have never been inventoried. Assessment and Analysis Criteria To assess road risk on cultural resources on the Tusayan Ranger District, archaeologists first used their GIS system to identify areas of “High”, "Medium", and “Low” cultural risk. They developed a model across the forest based on known site densities. Routes in the high and medium zones and routes that either cross or are immediately adjacent to known individual sites are considered high risks to those resources. Archaeologists now recognize that a forest road passing through an area of high site density may not inherently pose risk to those sites. Rather, unauthorized routes; cross country travel and motorized vehicle use off of the established road surface do pose potential risks. Risks to Analyze Routes in the high and medium zones and routes that either cross or are immediately adjacent to known individual sites are considered high risks to those resources. If an unauthorized route passes through an area with high site density, it was considered high risk. 4) Soils and Watershed

Wet Weather Roads Policy The Kaibab National Forest enacted a Wet Weather Roads Policy in 2006 with the intention of improving user safety and reducing the damage to roads and soils. The policy restricts wet weather travel to improved roads with hard surfaces and adequate drainage. This policy may be enacted by each District Ranger as conditions occur that could be unsafe for passage and/or cause damage to roads. It is temporary in nature, and will be lifted when the weather conditions change and improve, and the risk for user safety and road damage has decreased. The Wet Weather Roads policy is a separate action from Travel Analysis, as it invokes temporary road closures. Travel Analysis provides for a designated road system open for motorized travel. The two are related by the fact that the Wet Weather road system needs to be well-maintained in order to provide safe access into the forest during high precipitation events. Issues and Opportunities Some soil types are more susceptible to compaction, rutting, ponding, and erosion when they are crossed by roads. Most of this risk is tied directly to periods when moisture is received and roads are wet. Generally November through April, and July, August and part of September are times when snow or rain is expected and roads may be susceptible to damage. The proposed analysis initially looked at seasonal closure of roads. However, since the Wet Weather Road policy can be used at the discretion of the District Ranger whenever there is a concern about user safety or road damage, the seasonal aspect of the analysis was dropped.



About 2/3 of the Tusayan Ranger District is covered by highly erodible soils when they are wet. Roads constructed or created on highly erodible soils will increase sheet, rill, and gully erosion, if they are not covered with asphalt or gravel and designed with adequate drainage systems. Gullies could destroy the road and/or lead to erosion and loss of vegetative productivity on adjoining lands. The erosion process is more severe on slopes that exceed 15 percent. About 1/4 of the Tusayan District is covered by soils that have low bearing strength when wet. Ruts are easily created on soils and roads. The driving surface is damaged and may concentrate water flow that can create gullies on adjoining land. The prevalence of soils with low bearing strength makes it necessary to avoid driving on low standard and low maintenance roads when they are wet. Safe, sustainable travel is possible on roads on these soils when dry. It is also possible to travel on roads during wet weather if they have a hard surface and good drainage design. There are no perennial streams or wetlands on the Tusayan District. Ephemeral streams are common. Ephemeral drainages contribute water and sediment to lakes and earthen ponds. Non-surfaced roads and roads with poor drainage systems cause soil erosion. Sediment is transported to drainages during spring snowmelt and monsoon thunderstorms. Water quality in streams and water bodies is negatively affected by sediment. Earthen ponds and lakes may fill in with sediment and hold less water. Roads that follow drainages may contribute the most sediment. These roads may also be damaged by flooding and erosion. The Travel Management process provides opportunities to close, redesign, or relocate roads that are causing accelerated erosion due to poor location and/or design. Analysis

Three soils properties will be assessed from the KNF Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) for the existing forest roads in this analysis: 1) The erodibility of the soils. If the potential rate of erosion (rate of erosion with no soil cover) exceeds the tolerance rate (rate of erosion that will allow for soil productivity to be sustained), then the soil is rated as highly erodible. 2) Low bearing strength of the soils was assessed. 3) The location of wetland soils and drainages both from the data in the Kaibab National Forest TES and from GIS maps. Further refinement of each of these properties may be obtained by field surveys at a later date. The combined analysis of these soil properties will be used to rate roads of high risk for soils/watershed damage, and those roads of low risk for damage. 5) Wildlife Management, Rare Plants, and Invasive Species

Issues and Opportunities Numerous papers have been published on the effects of roads and motorized travel on wildlife. Literature reviews include Wisdom et al. (2000) and Brown et al. (2001)6. It is not the objective of

6 Brown, M., E. Aumack, and B. Perla. 2001. Ecological Impacts of Roads in the Greater Grand Canyon: An Annotated

Bibliography. Grand Canyon Trust. Available at http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/lib/reports_studies.php. Wisdom, M. J., R. S Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J.

Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Volume I - Overview. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485.



this report to summarize the vast amount of literature on this subject. The objective of this report is to 1) identify potential effects of motorized travel on wildlife species, 2) identify effects most likely to negatively affect wildlife species on the Tusayan Ranger District (i.e., risks), and 3) describe opportunities for reducing risks to wildlife associated with motorized travel on the district. For this assessment, motorized travel includes motorized travel on roads, cross-country motorized travel (including motorized big game retrieval), and motorized dispersed camping. Potential direct and indirect effects of roads and motorized travel that can have negative effects on wildlife include:

• habitat loss and fragmentation caused by roads,

• habitat degradation caused by cross-country motorized travel,

• barriers to animal movement caused by roads,

• animal mortality due to vehicle collisions,

• human disturbance of animals associated with motorized travel,

• habitat degradation associated with the loss of logs and snags due to fuel wood harvesting near roads,

• habitat degradation associated with the spread of noxious weeds by motor vehicles. There are a total of about 740 inventoried miles of Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District. The district covers 331,427 acres (518 square miles) of National Forest System lands, so the density of open Forest Service roads is approximately 1.43 miles/square mile. Most (633 miles or 86 percent of total miles) of the open roads on the district are high clearance roads. These roads are open to use by high-clearance vehicles (typically not suitable for passenger cars), have native surface material, and do not receive regular maintenance. High clearance roads are single lane and relatively narrow (average of 12-14 feet wide) and are characterized by low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds.7 High clearance roads have fewer potential impacts to wildlife associated with them than do roads that are wider and characterized by higher traffic volumes and speeds. For example, it is rare to see dead animals along high clearance or even passenger car roads on the district that have been killed by vehicle collisions. These roads also are unlikely to function as barriers to animal movement, at least for most vertebrate wildlife species on the district. Animals, including wild turkey, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope, are frequently observed readily crossing high clearance and passenger car roads on the district. Motorized recreational use on the Tusayan District has increased during the past 10 years. Increased motorized recreational use likely reflects Arizona's growing population, as well as increased popularity of recreational use of OHVs. Also, collection of shed elk and deer antlers has become increasingly popular in recent years, and many people drive OHVs cross-country on the Tusayan District in search of antlers, especially during February, March, and April. The primary effects of increased motorized recreation use on the district are increased levels of disturbance to wildlife and increased areas of habitat degradation caused by impacts to vegetation and soils due to cross-country vehicle travel. California condor is the only animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that occurs on the Tusayan District. Condors commonly occur just north of the district along the South Rim of the

7 Forest Service. 2005. Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Technology &

Development Program. 7700-Transporttion Management 0577 1205-SDTDC.



Grand Canyon, but only rarely occur on the Tusayan District, so human disturbance associated with motorized travel on the District is not considered to be a significant risk. Bald eagles (Forest Service Sensitive) occur in small numbers on the Tusayan District during winter, but they don't occur at particular sites consistently. They are primarily seen roosting near sites where carrion is present. Human disturbance associated with motorized travel is not considered to be a significant risk for bald eagles. Goshawks (Forest Service Sensitive) nest on the Tusayan District, primarily in ponderosa pine forest habitats in Ecosystem Management Areas (EMAs) 8 and 10. Goshawks frequently use alternate nest sites within a territory from year-to-year, and it is not uncommon for goshawks to nest near Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District. Human disturbance associated with motorized travel is not considered to be a significant risk for goshawks on the District. Peregrine falcons (Forest Service Sensitive) nest in the Grand Canyon just north of the Tusayan District, but there are no known peregrine falcon nest sites on the district. Snags, old trees, mine shafts, old buildings, and caves provide roosting habitat for different bat species. There are no bat roost sites where human disturbance has been identified as an issue, but little is known about bat distribution in the caves and mines on the district. Of the Management Indicator Species, human disturbance associated with motorized travel likely affects elk, mule deer, and pronghorn to some degree. Much of the mule deer fawning, elk calving, and turkey nesting that occurs on the Tusayan District occurs throughout EMA 10, which is where most of the ponderosa pine forest habitat on the occurs. EMAs 8 and 9 provide important winter and transitional range for mule deer, elk, and turkey. Human disturbance associated with motorized travel likely causes some level of disturbance to elk calving and mule deer and pronghorn fawning. There are no perennial springs or streams on the Tusayan District. Springs, streams, and water developments are ephemeral and most hold water only after there has been sufficient snowmelt or rain. Thus, during dry periods, water sources become critically important resources for wildlife, especially for species such as wild turkey, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. To reduce human disturbance to wildlife, Arizona state law prohibits camping within 1/4 mile of a natural water body or a man-made watering facility containing water in such a place that wildlife or domestic stock would be denied access to the only reasonably available water (Arizona Revised Statute 17-308). Loss of logs and snags due to fuel wood harvesting is an indirect effect of motorized travel. Fuel wood harvesting (both legal and illegal) is closely associated with aspects of travel management such as road density and cross-country travel policy. After an extensive review of the literature, Wisdom et al. (2000) identified reduced densities of logs and snags as one of the negative effects on wildlife habitat associated with roads. Logs and snags function as important habitat components for a wide variety of wildlife species in different forest types, including ponderosa pine forests.8 Personal fuel wood harvesting is allowed on the Tusayan District by permit. The permit will specify if/whether motorized vehicles may be used for fuel wood gathering and where. Although most potential effects on wildlife are negative, roads and motorized travel play an important role in certain aspects of wildlife management. For example, fire has significant effects on wildlife habitat, and roads and motorized travel play an important role in fire management (discussed in a separate report). High-severity wildfires can have substantial and long-lasting negative effects on wildlife habitat, and prescribed fire and wildland fire use can be used to improve wildlife habitat and achieve other ecological and natural resource management objectives. An

8Chambers, C. L., and S. S. Germaine. 2003. Vertebrates. Pages 268-285 in P. Friederici, editor, Ecological Restoration of

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Society for Ecological Restoration International. Island Press, Washington.



adequate road system facilitates firefighter access to wildfires and increases firefighter safety. Roads are important in fire management because they are used as control lines for wildfires, prescribed fires, and wildland fire use fires. The road system and motorized travel also play an important role in hunting on the Tusayan District. Hunting is not only one of the most common recreational activities on the district, but the key tool used by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) to manage populations of game species. For example, AGFD manages elk population density through the harvest of cow elk, and cow elk harvest is determined through AGFD's management of antlerless elk hunts. Population management of elk is an important issue on the Tusayan District. Elk can have substantial impacts on various forage and browse plant species, in addition to impacts on other natural resources such as wildlife and livestock water developments. Hunters rely on a core system of Forest Service roads to access different parts of the Tusayan District. The current road system on the provides extensive motorized access to different parts of the land area. Many hunters rely on motorized dispersed camping during their hunt. There are a couple existing motorized travel-restricted areas on the Tusayan District (Coconino Rim and Red Butte), but motorized dispersed camping is currently allowed across most of the District. In addition, most elk and deer hunters currently retrieve their harvested animal using cross-country motorized travel, which is currently allowed across most of the District. Because many of the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife are negative, there is an opportunity to reduce impacts to wildlife by reducing the density of open roads on the District. Reducing open road density would result in reduced levels of human disturbance because there would be more areas inaccessible to motor vehicle travel. Habitat quality would be greater for a variety of wildlife species in these areas made more inaccessible to motor vehicle travel because there would be reduced road-associated habitat impacts such as loss of logs and snags from fuel wood harvest. There is also an opportunity to reduce impacts to wildlife by restricting cross-country motorized travel. Similar to reducing open road density, restricting cross-country motorized travel would result in reduced levels of human disturbance to wildlife and increased habitat quality for various wildlife species. Ensuring that travel management policy is consistent with Arizona statute and prohibits dispersed camping within 1/4 mile of natural or man-made water developments containing water would reduce potential human disturbance at sites that are critically important to a wide variety of wildlife species, especially during extended dry periods.

Table 5 Listed, sensitive species, and management indicator species on TRD.

Species

Distribution and Habitat

Species Listed Under Endangered Species Act

California condor Gymnogyps califorianus

Common along South Rim of Grand Canyon, Kaibab Plateau, Vermillion Cliffs, and southern Utah. Uncommon on Tusayan RD. Feeds opportunistically on carrion and gut piles from hunter-killed deer and elk.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

bald eagle No known nests on Kaibab NF. Migrant and winter visitor on



Species

Distribution and Habitat

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Tusayan RD: primarily feeds opportunistically on carrion and gut piles from hunter-killed deer and elk.

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Nests in ponderosa pine dominated stands on Tusayan RD. Preys on wide variety of bird and small mammal species.

American peregrine falcon Falcon peregrinus

Nests on cliffs and preys on birds. Common in Grand Canyon. No known nests on Tusayan RD.

Merriam's shrew Sorex merriami

Occurs in dry, montane coniferous forests and woodlands (ponderosa pine forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands).

spotted bat Euderma maculatum

Found in wide variety of habitats. Associated with rocky areas and cliffs. Not known to occur in Tusayan RD, but has been reported in nearby Grand Canyon.

Allen's lappet-browed bat Idionycteris phyllotis

Known to occur on Tusayan and Williams RDs. Occurs in ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper woodland, and other forest/woodland types. Roosts in snags and dead portions of live trees.

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Occurs in wide variety of habitats throughout AZ in summer. Roosts in caves and mines.

Mogollon vole Microtus mogollensis

Known to occur on Tusayan and Williams RDs. Found in wide variety of forest types.

Management Indicator Species

cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera

Ponds, lakes, and tanks with wetland vegetation. Little suitable habitat on Tusayan RD.

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Nests in ponderosa pine dominated stands on Tusayan RD. Preys on wide variety of bird and small mammal species.

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Occurs in wide variety of woodland and forest habitats on Tusayan RD.

hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Occurs in wide variety of woodland and forest habitats on Tusayan RD.

juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi

Occurs primarily in pinyon-juniper woodlands.

pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

Occurs primarily in ponderosa pine forests.

elk Cervus elaphus

Occurs across all habitat types on Tusayan RD.

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Occurs in wide variety of habitat types on Tusayan RD.

pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Occurs in grasslands and open pinyon-juniper woodlands on Tusayan RD.

Abert's squirrel Sciurus aberti

Occurs primarily in ponderosa pine forests.

Risks to Analyze Higher speed roads that cross areas of critical deer, elk or antelope habitat pose high risk to wildlife populations. Other roads have lower risk to other wildlife species. Invasive Weeds

Issues and Opportunities Many exotic invasive weeds are spread by muddy vehicle tires. A dense road network increases the risk that existing invasive weeds will be spread further and that new invasive species will be introduced.



The Travel Management Process provides an opportunity to reduce the density of the road network and to remove or reduce the number of roads near vulnerable areas such as open meadows, scenic areas, important wildlife habitat, areas with populations of rare plants, or other points of interest. The Tusayan Ranger District is actively managed and provides multiple uses such as recreation, hunting, ranching, and harvest of wood products. These activities have the potential to introduce invasive plants to the District. There are known, treated and monitored populations of invasive weeds on the TRD. In addition, there are at least three noxious weeds that are entering the park from the adjoining Kaibab National Forest: diffuse knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, and Scotch thistle. The Park Service is mandated to eradicate exotic plants that occur within the park. It faces many challenges in controlling exotic plants when vehicles from across the country are entering the Park. Access within the national park is limited by the lack of roads and the extremely difficult terrain. The Park Service is not allowed to use herbicides in most cases and cannot introduce exotic bio-control insects. The best strategy is to prevent exotic plants from entering the park. It is important for the Kaibab National Forest to reduce further opportunities for the spread of exotic plants into Grand Canyon National Park. One way to do that is to reduce the road density along the boundary between the Park and the Forest. Analysis The presence and rate of spread of invasive weeds is monitored annually on the district by field surveys. Most infestations have been found next to or near roads. Road density and the number of miles of unauthorized routes can be used to predict the location and rate of spread of invasive weeds. The road system and recorded occurrences of invasive weeds will be analyzed. Rare Plants

Issues and Opportunities Rare plants are not generally found along roads that have existed for a long time due to the frequent disturbance. If the Forest Service wants to construct a new road, it must survey the area first for rare plants and avoid and/or mitigate the impacts. Unauthorized routes do not go through this planning and analysis process. As a result, unauthorized routes may destroy rare plants and introduce invasive weeds into their habitat. The Travel Management Process provides an opportunity for the Forest Service to assess the road system. The agency can avoid or minimize most impacts to rare plants and TMR provides the opportunity to close unauthorized routes that negatively impact rare plants. Analysis The presence of rare plants and the impact of current roads on rare plants will be assessed by analysis of the road system and recorded occurrences of rare plants. Any unauthorized routes that are added to the road system will need to be surveyed for rare plants. Unauthorized routes put rare plants at high risk. 6) Range Management

Issues and Opportunities



The existing road system provides access to range improvements, is used for movement and distribution of livestock, and for administration by both the FS and the permittee. Road access is needed, and is covered under the plans of operation for each permittee. Analysis of Values Since range management is a permitted activity and road access specified under the plans of operation, there will be little change in range management activities from TMR. Roads that access range improvements are high value. Other roads are generally low value. 7) Vegetation Management

Issues and Opportunities Vegetation management activities on the District are used to improve forest health, reduce fuel loading and fire risk, and to provide commercial and non-commercial forest products. Main access roads are needed that are adjacent to areas where vegetation management activities will occur. Temporary or closed roads are often used for additional access routes. Temporary roads are often decommissioned and reseeded after use. Closed roads are re-closed if they will be used in the future, or may be assessed in project-level environmental analysis for decommissioning. Permitted activities may incorporate use of motorized vehicles for activities such as firewood cutting or gathering. Analysis of Values Buffer roads by ¼ mile. Areas where roads are farther apart than ½ mile will indicate zones where temporary or closed roads may need to be used. Multiple roads within a buffer have low value.

8) Fire Management

Issues and Opportunities An adequate road system is essential for safe and prompt access to wildfire locations to expedite management efforts. Roads can provide fuel breaks for wildfire control. Road access also increases the risk of human-caused fires on the District. Having good, passenger car roads within six miles of most areas of the District may be adequate for fire management. This is roughly the current situation. Additional road density contributes to the convenience of travel for fire personnel responding to a reported wildfire. Fewer, but well maintained roads are more desirable than numerous, poorly maintained roads. If necessary when responding to a wild fire, cross-country travel with Type 6 fire engines is feasible when agency-use of OHV or foot travel is felt to be inadequate. Normally this situation occurs during the drier part of the fire season (late spring or early summer) when resource damage is less likely. As the summer rainy season progresses, the urgency for driving all the way to a new fire start is diminished, thus reducing potential resource damage from driving. The Kaibab NF has the ability to utilize natural fire ignitions through wildland fire use. If these fires meet predetermined criteria, they may be managed for resources benefits. A road system that is too dense will impede desirable fire growth, thus limiting the acreage that might otherwise be treated with this fire management strategy.



Analysis of Risk

Buffer existing roads 1 mile this will help to determine the potential response time for wild fire suppression. Roads that are closer than two miles apart will be lower value due to redundancy and potential to slow the spread of natural fire ignitions that are managed for wildland fire use. Areas where roads are farther than two miles apart will indicate zones of higher risk.

Step 5. Prioritization The purpose of this step is to:

• Summarize the key findings of the resource analysis

• Present risks and value matrix and how they compare to the current road

• Describe options for modifying the road system that would achieve desirable or acceptable conditions

The products of this step are:

• A matrix of resource risks and benefits

• List of opportunities for addressing problems and risk

• A prioritized list of specific actions, projects or forest plan adjustments requiring NEPA analysis

Initial Results

For the resource areas identified in Step 4, initial analysis was performed. As a result of this analysis, two resource areas were eliminated from further study. Fire Analysis of road density showed that there are adequate Maintenance Level 3 roads to provide access within 6 miles of most areas of the District. When the existing road system was buffered by one mile, there were only three small areas that were not covered by the buffer. This was considered adequate (and perhaps too dense in some places where parallel or redundant roads occur). No additional analysis of the existing road system was completed for fire and fuels management issues. Vegetation Vegetation management was also dropped from further study. In order to address the Forest Service responsibility to provide access to private lands, as well as providing access to other agency lands and tribal lands a number of roads need to be retained for these purposes. A core system or roads will be retained for wet weather access to the district as well. Buffering of the road system indicated that there is an adequate system of main roads to provide access to much of the forested lands. These main roads, along with the timber contractual clauses enabling re-opening of closed roads or construction of temporary roads, would provide for vegetation management activities. Analysis Merging Several of the individual resource areas were combined to facilitate further analysis. These include: soils and watershed management and wildlife, rare plants and invasive species. Thus, the remaining six resource areas addressed are: transportation; recreation, scenery, private land access and special uses; heritage; soils/watershed; and wildlife, rare, invasive plants.



Summary of Key Findings for the Existing Road System

Transportation The Travel Analysis Process (TAP), required by the Travel Management Rule, provides the opportunity to begin to balance the size of road systems within budgets. The Forest must consider the impacts of budget shortfalls to current and future road systems. While working through the TAP process, the objective is to work towards planning a road system that can be maintained within the current and future maintenance budgets and will meet resource management needs. Any reduction in the number of miles of road by maintenance level would make the existing road system more affordable. Potential savings can come from closure of roads and/or from converting roads from a higher maintenance level to a lower maintenance level. A completely affordable road system may not meet all objectives of a minimum road system including access for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. Direction written regarding the minimum road system includes:

• CFR 212.5 (b) requires the responsible official to determine the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance;

• CFR 212.55 Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas (a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands. 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 minimum road system needs to balance both the cost to maintain the system and provision of a road system that meets the needs users and forest management.

Recreation, Scenery, Access to Private Land, and Special Uses Roads are well distributed across the District, and motorized recreation opportunities associated with the roads are well provided for. The ROS semi-primitive non-motorized areas and inventoried roadless areas are at risk both from roads that have encroached upon the boundaries of these areas and the unauthorized cross-country routes that criss-cross the district resulting from antler shed gathering. Both of these activities reduce scenic quality and create user conflicts between non-motorized users and motorized users. Closing user created routes has been identified as an important opportunity for maintaining or improving the scenic integrity of the District landscape. Closure of these routes would improve the



overall intactness of the landscape and would reduce the noticeable resource damage from unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. There is adequate access to special use permit areas (roads or routes are designated in the operating plan for the permits). There is currently adequate road access to private land inholdings, as well as to adjacent federal, state, and tribal lands. Heritage

Any unauthorized routes that the forest chooses to designate as open to public travel on the transportation map, or as designated camping corridors will be subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. When Forest managers choose to designate these exceptions, they will design such areas so that they have no adverse effects to any cultural resources and are in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Soils and Watershed Roads should be closed or rerouted if they are located on highly erodible soils that exceed 15% slopes, unless the roads are considered important to management activities and access. These roads are considered high risk. About 2/3 of the Tusayan District contains highly erodible soils however most are on slopes that are less than 15 percent. It will be impossible to avoid these soils without drastically reducing the road system which would then not meet other resource needs. All roads in these areas should be evaluated on a case by case basis in order to determine the need for the road and current erosion rates. Any roads retained should be evaluated for drainage improvement and any passenger car roads that are not currently surfaced with aggregate should be improved by adding a hard surface if they are designated for motorized travel. Roads should be closed if they follow drainages, unless the roads are absolutely necessary for resource management activities. These roads are considered high risk. If any roads in these locations are kept open, then they must be engineered to have good drainage. Options to improve the roads include: hard surfacing materials (e.g. asphalt, gravel, or rock), raised road bed with ditches and culverts, road crowning, insloping and outsloping, water spreading ditches, and waterbars. See Appendix 6 for a listing of Best Management Practices. There are opportunities to work with roads managers to identify high value roads Maintenance Level 3 roads where there are high risks of soil erosion and potential to improve watershed conditions. These roads would be highest priority for road maintenance work. There are also opportunities to identify and correct drainage issues associated with high use Maintenance Level 2 roads.

Wildlife, Rare Plants, Invasive Species Motorized travel has a wide variety of direct and indirect effects on wildlife. Potential effects most relevant for focal species analyzed on the Tusayan District are loss of logs and snags due to fuel wood harvesting near roads, legal harvest of wildlife facilitated by motorized travel, effects of motorized travel on fire management, and human disturbance of animals associated with motorized travel. Because the majority of effects of motorized travel on wildlife are negative, many species would likely benefit to some degree as a result of a reduction in open road density. However, motorized travel plays an important role in wildlife management, so positive indirect effects of motorized travel also need to be considered. High elk density on the Tusayan District is currently



resulting in substantial impacts to important browse and forage species in various areas across the district. Restrictions on motorized travel that reduce the capability of AGFD to effectively manage game species. Restriction of antlerless elk hunts could contribute to additional elk impacts on these resources that provide key habitat components for many native wildlife species. Motorized travel also plays an important role in fire management, and fire management activities greatly affect wildlife habitat. The wildlife analysis identified opportunities to work with the TMR process in order to improve some aspects of wildlife management. For example, fuel wood/firewood gathering areas can be identified and designated with wildlife specialist input. The FS can work with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to consult on wildlife harvesting plans and game retrieval needs. Closing user created routes has been identified as an opportunity to help to protect sensitive and important wildlife habitat areas, and to reduce human disturbance of wildlife. Rare Plants There currently are no forest roads that run through populations of rare plants. There are roads and unauthorized routes that are near or may be impacting rare plan populations. Designating the motorized road system open to public use and prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would benefit rare plant populations.

Invasive Weeds Known populations of invasive species on the district continue to spread along the existing road system. Reducing the density of roads on the district, prohibiting cross-country motorized travel and close all unauthorized routes would reduce the opportunities for noxious weeds to be introduced and spread. Range Management The ability of the agency and range permittee to perform the needed maintenance and operations would not change much under TMR. Adequate road access would be provided in the permitting process, and motorized cross-country use would be addressed in the permit and plan of operation, limiting travel to minimal activities or emergencies. Since TMR prohibits motorized cross-country use, damage to range resources from motorized cross-country travel would be mostly eliminated. Risk-Value Matrix of the Existing Road System

The initial analysis results for the individual resource risk and values categories are in this section. The results of analysis of fire and vegetation were not included as they did not add information that was helpful in evaluating the existing road system. For both of these areas, adequate road coverage is currently provided for management. The results of the transportation section are not in graphic form, as they are primarily related to public safety, funding, and deferred maintenance needs. The original Forest-wide Roads Analysis Process (RAP) did identify passenger car roads with safety concerns; these are displayed in Appendix 1 (the RAP also has a series of appendices within it; they are indicated with letters to distinguish from the primary appendices of this TAP).



The tabular data from the individual analyses of the risks and benefits for each resource area have been scored and the results are combined in a matrix. The scoring system used a simple -1, 0, 1 system where high risk was assigned a “-1”, low risk was assigned a “0”, low value was assigned a “0” and high value was assigned a “1”. Based on the total of the risks and values, the roads were then placed into one of four categories: high risk-high value, high risk-low value, low risk-high value, and low risk-low value. This is illustrated in Figure 3. A consistent process was used for this categorization. If two or more risks were noted, the road was high risk, if two or more values were noted, the road was high value. Similarly, zero or one risk was low risk; zero or one value was low value. Table 6 provides the findings from the initial risk value analysis and initial road categories. Note that the Wet Weather Road System is identified with highlighted rows. The associated analysis maps developed for each resource area are found in Appendix 4. The tabular data from these maps was the basis for the risk or value for each road.

Figure 3 Risk-value assessment categories.



Table 6 Initial road categorization matrix.

Road Number

Heritage Risk -1 = high 0 = low

Range Value 1 = high 0 = low

Scenery Value 1 = high 0 = low

Special Area Risk -1 = high 0 = low

Soils Watershed Risk -1 = high 0 = low

Private Access Special Uses Value 1 = high 0 = low

Wildlife Habitat Risk -1 = high 0 = low

Totals Risk (heritage, special area, soils and watershed, wildlife)

Totals Values (private access, scenery, range)

Initial Category

301 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

302 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

303 -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

304 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

305 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

306 -1 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -2 3 HRHV

307 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

308 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

310 -1 1 1 -1 -1 0 -1 -4 2 HRHV

311 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

312 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

313 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

316 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

317 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

318 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

319 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

320 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

321 -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

328 -1 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -2 3 HRHV

334 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

335 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

337 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

340 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

343 -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

347 -1 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -2 3 HRHV

605 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

606 0 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

688 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

770 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

776 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV



Road Number










Initial Category

2507 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2511 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2600 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2603 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2604 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

2607 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

2609 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

2614 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

2615 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2617 -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

2709 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2710 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2713 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2728 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2741 -1 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -2 3 HRHV

2748 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2754 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

2758 0 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2759 0 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2763 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2813 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2815 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

2816 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

2511A -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2624A -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

2801A -1 1 1 -1 0 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

2815E -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

301A -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

305A -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

305B -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV



Road Number










Initial Category

305BA -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

306A -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 2 HRHV

306J -1 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -3 3 HRHV

306JA -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

307A -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

313D -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

313G -1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 2 HRHV

313J -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

320A -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

321A -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

321B -1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

321C -1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 2 HRHV

328H -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

335CA -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

343H -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

347B -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

377A -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

605E -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 2 HRHV

605N -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 2 HRHV

64E -1 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -2 3 HRHV

9121L -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -2 2 HRHV

942M 0 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 -2 3 HRHV

309 -1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 1 HRLV

322 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

339 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

680 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

682 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

684 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

690 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

785 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

902 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2501 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2506 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2509 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2619 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2620 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2624 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2625 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2626 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2701 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2703 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2708 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2714 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2719 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2725 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2730 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2731 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2733 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2735 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2736 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2744 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2745 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2746 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2752 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2753 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2756 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2762 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2804 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2814 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2817 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

2818 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2820 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2821 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2822 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2823 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

3223 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

3226 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9126 -1 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 1 HRLV

9412 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

2064B 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

2607A -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

2612C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2613A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2615A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2616A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2621A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2624B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2703A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2703C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2704A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2709D -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2710B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

2713BD -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2739A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2762B -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

2803A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

2815A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

303C -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

303D -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

303DA -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

303DC -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

303H -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

303K 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

303MA 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

304B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

304C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

305AB -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

305AC -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

305AD -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

305AH -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

305G -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

307C -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 -4 0 HRLV

307E -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

307F -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 0 HRLV

307G -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 0 HRLV

307J -1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 1 HRLV

307K -1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 1 HRLV

307KA -1 1 0 -1 0 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

308A 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

308B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

310AH 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

310JJ -1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 1 HRLV

310JL 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

310RC -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

310X -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

310ZA -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

311A -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

312C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

312D -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

312F -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

313E 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

313F -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

313HA -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

320UA -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

320X -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

334A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

334B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

340A -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 0 HRLV

340B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

343A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

343C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

343F 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

343HF -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

347C 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

347D 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

347FA -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

347FC -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

347H -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

605C -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

605F -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

605M -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

606A -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

64A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

64B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

64EA -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

682A -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

684A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

684F -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

690B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

776A -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

776B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9059D -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 0 HRLV

9059L -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9059R -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9118HB -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

9121E -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

9121G -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

9121U -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9122E -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 HRLV

9123E -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

9124K -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 0 HRLV

9125I -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

9128D -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9128J -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9134M -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9136E -1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 1 HRLV

9411J -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9421B -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9421F -1 0 1 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 HRLV

9421Z -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

9424R -1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 1 HRLV

942MA -1 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3 1 HRLV

9432V 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

9432X 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -2 1 HRLV

683 -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

2612 -1 1 1 0 0 1 0 -1 3 LRHV

2613 -1 1 1 0 0 1 0 -1 3 LRHV

2622 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 LRHV

2732 0 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 2 LRHV

2737 0 1 1 0 -1 0 0 -1 2 LRHV



Road Number










Initial Category

7377 -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

2743A -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

320D -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

328A -1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 2 LRHV

335C -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

347K -1 1 1 0 0 1 0 -1 3 LRHV

9412A 0 1 0 0 -1 1 0 -1 2 LRHV

685 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2500 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2510 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2512 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2515 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2621 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2623 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2718 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

2722 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 LRLV

2726 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2729 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2738 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2739 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2742 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2743 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2750 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

2757 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

2803 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2807 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2501A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LRLV

2612CA -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2612D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LRLV

2612E -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV



Road Number










Initial Category

2743C -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 LRLV

2743F -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2756A 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 LRLV

2821A -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

302U 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 LRLV

302W 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

307H -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

312B -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

313H -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

320C -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

328C -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

328K -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 1 LRLV

347E 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

347HB -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

688B -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

688C -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

770B -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

770C -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

9104B -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 LRLV

9121X 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 LRLV

9121Z -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

9128E 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

9424K -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2743C -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 LRLV

2743F -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

2756A 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 LRLV

2821A -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV

302U 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 LRLV

302W 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 LRLV

307H -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 LRLV



Recommendations

After the initial analysis was completed, the District Interdisciplinary team reviewed the results and made a preliminary proposal identifying the designated road system open to public travel. The following recommendations were made for each road category. High Value – High Risk Roads

Approximately 270 miles of the existing road system fall into this category. During interdisciplinary team (IDT) analysis, approximately 18 miles were identified that could be closed to public motorized travel. Since many of these roads are the “main transportation system” for the Forest. It is recommended the Forest Service or cooperative agency maintain 252 miles of roads as open to public access. High risk and value indicate these are the highest priority for investment of time and funds to mitigate or eliminate risk and accommodate uses. First priority will be given to passenger car roads in the Wet Weather system. These will be the first to receive maintenance and resurfacing. Second priority will be to the remainder of passenger car roads. It is recognized that these will operationally drop to the top of the high clearance roads. Mitigation depends upon the specific risks and may include, but is not limited to: additional maintenance effort, reconstruction, relocation, seasonal maintenance restriction, wet weather road closure. Low Value/High Risk There are approximately 249 miles of existing roads that are in this category. During IDT analysis, approximately 111 miles were identified that could be closed to public access. For many of these roads, passenger car access for enjoyment or use of National Forest resources is not required. For these roads, the recommendation is to mitigate risk. High risk indicates these roads are in a second tier of priorities (behind the high value/high risk roads) for investment of time and funds to mitigate or eliminate risk. Mitigation depends upon the specific risks and may include additional maintenance efforts, reconstruction, relocation, seasonal maintenance restrictions, and road closure. In order to reduce maintenance costs, reduce the maintenance level of some FS jurisdiction roads to high clearance (ML 2), or administratively closed (ML 2). There may be some need for short term (~1 month to 1 year) improvement of these roads to improve access to project areas during project activities. Coordinate with county government or private landowners to determine maintenance responsibility on roads needing passenger car access to private lands. On roads where the primary use is access to communities, request public roads agencies (county, towns, state government) assume road operational jurisdiction. On roads where exclusive need is access to private land, issue a special use permit for the road. On roads or road segments not open to the public, and not required for access to private land, close or decommission the road. Additional information may be needed to determine level and type of use. High Value/Low Risk

There are 15 miles of existing roads that are in this category. The IDT identified 3 miles that could be closed to public access.



These roads also comprise some of the “main transportation system” for the Forest. It is recommended that the Forest Service or coop agency maintain these roads for passenger car access. Low risk indicates low priority for investment of time and funds to mitigate risk. Low Value/Low Risk

About 75 miles of the existing road system fall into this category. The IDT identified 21 miles that could be closed to public access. Passenger car access for enjoyment or use of National Forest resources is not needed on these roads. It is recommended maintenance costs be reduced by reducing the maintenance level of FS jurisdiction roads to high clearance (ML 2), or administratively closed (ML 2). Coordinate with county government or private landowners to determine maintenance responsibility on roads needing passenger car access to private lands. On roads where the primary use is access to communities, request public roads agencies (county, towns, state government) to assume road operational jurisdiction. On roads where exclusive need is access to private land, issue a special use permit for the road. On roads or road segments not open to the public, and not required for access to private land, close or decommission the road. Additional information may be needed to determine level and type of use. There may be some short term need for (~1 month to 1 year) improvement of these roads to improve access to project areas during project activities. Summary of Recommendations The following table summarizes the miles of existing roads in each category and the preliminary changes that are recommended. Appendix 5 shows the preliminary recommendations by road.

Table 7 Summary of preliminary changes to existing road system.

Road Category Existing Miles Change Proposed Miles

High Value-High Risk 270 -18 miles 252

Low Value-High Risk 249 -111 miles 138

High Value-Low Risk 15 -3 miles 12

Low Value-Low Risk 75 -21 miles 54

Reporting Objectives

• Identify a preliminary road system

• Results of public input and consultation with American Indian Tribes and other agencies

• Adjustments to proposed road system to take into environmental analysis Steps

• Develop a map displaying the outcome of the matrix and specialist review

• Use information collected at public meetings, tribal and agency consultation to identify changes in preliminary road system

• Develop a proposed map to use in environmental analysis Following the categorization process, the interdisciplinary team refined the results based on their knowledge of the land area, as well as factors such as public safety, resource protection, and overall



road distribution. The IDT made a preliminary call on whether a road should be open to public travel or if public travel should be prohibited. The results of the matrix and specialist review became the basis for the preliminary road system that was presented during public meetings and tribal and agency consultations about the Tusayan RAP. The individual resource analysis maps and preliminary road system map were reviewed by Forest Service specialists, and were used as products to present at the hands on portion of the meetings. The public, tribal members and agencies were encouraged to identify needed changes to the preliminary map. Following the meetings, adjustments were made. Adjustments to the road system included items such as the need for additional access to tribal lands or adjoining agency lands, specific areas where access was desired, and removal or addition of roads providing access to private land parcels.

Public Involvement

During the Travel Analysis Process, there were a number of efforts made to engage the public and various groups into the process. The following is a summary of those efforts:

• June 28, 2005. A public meeting was held at the Grand Canyon Best Western Squire Inn (Zuni Room). The meeting was to present a proposed action to the public about a possible road system on the Tusayan Ranger District. There were 10 people present including four Forest Service employees.

• The FS presented a synopsis of what we are doing and the timeline for the process. Emphasis was placed on gaining public comments on the rough proposal that had been developed internally by the forest. The risk and value process that was followed to develop the maps was presented, and the maps were shown (on a map by map basis) to the public.

The following are topics were discussed: 1. A representative of Arizona Power commented that one of their lines was accessed by a road that had been decommissioned and that in the event of an emergency, they had to have access in this area. Since most of the utility’s incidents occur when the weather is inclement, good access to the utility special uses area is needed. 2. A special use jeep operator expressed concern that many of the routes that he is currently using are not shown on the maps. 3. A local landowner was concerned that there were too many roads and that the out-of-towners ripped and roared through the countryside during hunting season. He felt that more roads should be closed and that additional enforcement efforts of the existing laws should be strengthened. This topic generated discussion about the damage to roads that occurred last fall during the hunting season and the need to have the seasonal closures. 4. A representative/liaison from the tribes (Mae Franklin) expressed concern about the roads around the reservation, and the status of roads through the pinyon-juniper during the pine nut collection season.

• July 24, 2005. Presentation to the Cameron Chapter of the Western Agency of the Navajo Nation in Cameron, Arizona. Approximately 19 people were in attendance. The following concern was expressed:

1. When collecting pinyon nuts, many people travel off-road so that their vehicles are near when they are picking the nuts. This allows them to baby sit and insure the security of their possessions. During the pinyon season, they camp in the pinyon-juniper forest, if they camp and park near the road, the security of their camp and possessions may be compromised. One of the best pinyon collecting areas is within a zone with numerous cultural resource sites.

• July 19, 2005. Members of the Prescott Open Trails Association came to the KNF Supervisor's Office to review the maps and gain an understanding of the analysis process. In



turn they traveled up to the Tusayan Ranger District, and evaluated the roads proposed to be closed, decommissioned, and left open. Comments provided included:

1. More of the lesser developed roads should be left open to provide a more diversified experience for OHV riders.

• July 2005: Three persons have called about the Tusayan TAP Process and Chip Ernst set up times to work with them. (Individual from Prescott concerned about OHV routes and access, an outfitter guide from Tusayan concerned that this analysis may impact his operations and an outfitter guide permit holder on the Tusayan RD.

• 2005-2006. Meeting with Arizona Game and Fish to determine areas of wildlife concern.

• May 1, 2006. A scoping letter was sent to an extensive mailing list (396 individuals) describing the Travel Management Rule, the Travel Analysis Process, providing maps, and asking for comments.

• August 6, 2006. An Open House was held in Williams for both the Tusayan and the Williams District Presentation given to OHV enthusiasts at Dogtown Campground.

• September 18, 2006. An Open House was held in Williams for both the Tusayan and the Williams District TMR Projects.

• October 11, 2006. An Open House was held in Williams for both the Tusayan and Williams District TMR Projects.

• October 17, 2006. Joint Forest TMR Open House held in Phoenix (Coconino and Kaibab National Forests).

• Fall and Winter 2006. During the numerous Forest Plan Revision meetings that were held around the state, there were members of the Interdisciplinary Team available to answer travel management questions that came up.

• Spring 2007-2008. Phone calls and email concerns were discussed. If questions were asked, information was provided or they were answered directly.

Proposed Road System The six resource areas, information from the Transportation section, specialist expertise, tribal and agency consultation, and public involvement were combined. About 27 miles of additional roads were identified to include in the preliminary road system. These roads are listed in Table 8. Figure 4 shows the proposed system of roads open to motorized travel for the Tusayan Ranger District as compared to the existing road system.



Table 8 Roads added to preliminary road system.

Road No. Name Miles Status Maintenance Level

Surfacing Open to Motorized Travel

776o

APS 500 K.V. POWERLINE RD 0.32 EX – EXISTING

2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES

NAT - NATIVE MATERIAL ADD

334 0.93 EX - EXISTING









313 PETERSON FLAT 1.17 EX - EXISTING



312 OLD "312" RD. BUCKLAR 2.27 EX - EXISTING



305 CORBITT DAM 6.82 EX - EXISTING



305B HARBISON BLOODY 0.67 EX - EXISTING



2820 SADDLE CUTOFF 2.41 EX - EXISTING









2741 OLD "2741" RD. 0.44 EX - EXISTING














2512 7 MILE TANK RD. 1.47 EX - EXISTING



2500 OLD "2500" RD. 1.92 EX - EXISTING



Total Miles 26.87



Figure 4 Proposed designated system of roads open to motorized travel.

Costs for Proposed Road System

The annual maintenance cost for the proposed road system is presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Estimated annual maintenance costs for the proposed road system.

Road Maintenance

Level

Number of Miles Cost per Mile for

Annual Maintenance

Total Cost

ML – 2 (For Administrative Use Only)

180* $--* $0

ML – 2 High Clearance Vehicles (Open to Motorized Use

455 $203 $92,365

ML – 3 Suitable for Passenger Cars

103 $3,435 $353,805

ML – 4 Moderate Degree of Use Comfort and Convenience

2 $2,638 $5,276

ML – 5 High Degree of User Comfort and Convenience

0 $-- $0

TOTALS 560 $-- $451,446

* ML-2 roads (for administrative use only) will be analyzed in subsequent planning projects considering decommissioning of

unneeded roads. These roads are the lowest priority for road maintenance.



Most of the roads proposed for closure are Maintenance Level 2, the least costly, because these receive minor maintenance. None of the existing user-created roads are retained. This completed the RAP analysis where the proposed road system was identified. The proposed system of roads will be used as the basis for the proposed action during NEPA analysis.

travel analysis report for tusayan ranger district, kaibab...

Documents