The Deuce Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Transportation Report Oatman Restoration Project Page 1 Project Basic

Transportation Report

Oatman Restoration Project Page 1

Project Basic Information

The Oatman Restoration Project is located on the Silver Lake Ranger District of the Fremont-

Winema National Forests. The project area encompasses approximately 36,252 acres of land, of

which 26,341 acres are National Forest Service (NFS) land. The legal location of the project

area includes all and/or portions of the following Townships (T), Ranges (R), and Sections

(Sec.):

T27S R12E, Sec.34 & 35; T27S R13E, Sec.8, 17-22, 27-32;

T28S R11E, Sec. 24-25, & 36; T28S R12E, Sec. 1&2, 11-15, 19-35;

T28S R13E, Sec. 18 &19; T29S R11E, Sec.1;

T29S R12E, Sec. 2-12, 15-21, 29-32; T30S R12E, Sec. 5-7.

The Oatman project area includes portions of four sub-watersheds (Bear Creek, Buck Creek,

Oatman Flat, and Timothy Creek). The Oatman project area also includes Fremont Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 15 (Table 1).

Table 1. Oatman project Forest Plan MAs and total acres (approximate) in project area.

MA Description Project Area Acres % NFS Lands in

Project Area

1 Mule Deer Winter Range 11,912 45%

2 Bald Eagle Management 1,743 7%

5 Timber & Range Production 14,866 56%

6 Scenic Viewshed 1,891 7%

9 Semiprimitive Non-Motorized 200 0.1%

12 Utility & Transportation Corridors 6.5 miles n/a

14 Old-Growth 945 4%

15 Habitat & Water Quality 889 3%

Background/History

Although there is very little documentation of when the roads were built within the Oatman

project area boundary road building began on both the Fremont and Winema National Forests

primarily due to the increased demands for timber products in the late 1940’s. It was at this time

Congress began to appropriate dollars for road building, and many of the mainline roads were

constructed by the Bureau of Public Roads, now known as the Federal Highway Administration.

Historically, the Fremont National Forest has emphasized timber management, and road building

continued to expand from 1960 through 1990 in response to timber management. In the late

1990’s road construction began decreasing, and the emphasis now is to decrease the number of

miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads requiring long-term maintenance, as well as to

decommission NFS roads no longer needed for resource management purposes.

Current Condition

The transportation system in the project area exceeds desired road densities and may not best

meet the land management objectives. The condition of the transportation system located within

the boundaries of the Oatman Restoration Project area has been created due to actions related to

fire, restoration, allotment management, timber harvest, road maintenance activities and

recreational use. The road system may not be the most effective or efficient road system for land

and recreation management. Not all system roads have been field validated, therefore,



discrepancies may exist. Additionally, Best Management Practices (BMP) for the maintenance

of the designed drainage features has not been fully implemented to the roads and water

crossings. Resource damage on these roads may potentially be occurring.

The Forest Supervisor of the Fremont-Winema National Forests formed an Interdisciplinary

Team to develop a Forest-level roads analysis in 2000 for the Winema and 2002 for the Fremont.

The Forest Roads Analysis Team produced a forest roads analysis report and transportation atlas

documenting the interdisciplinary recommendation process. The process targeted Maintenance

Level 3, 4 and 5 roads. These roads are maintained for low clearance vehicle access with the

highest level of travel comfort at Level 5. These roads form the main or “backbone” road system

for the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Where appropriate, recommendations were made for

future actions on this system that would reduce risks of unacceptable environmental disturbance,

increase the benefits provided by these roads, and prioritize funding allocations for maintenance

and reconstruction. Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads were not part of this analysis, and neither

was consideration to decommission roads.

Within the Oatman project area there are approximately 147 miles of NFS roads, of which 142

miles are on NFS lands. The Forest Service has easement on 6 miles of road that cross on

Private land within the Oatman project area. Refer to Map Attachment A: Current Condition –

Transportation, for current road locations.

Maintenance level standards (FSH 770109, 63.32) are used to describe the current level at which

a road is being maintained. Maintenance level status, describes the existing condition of the

road. There are three road Maintenance Levels (ML) within the Oatman Project area. They are

described as follows:

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) (STATUS = Existing), are considered closed roads and are

placed in storage between intermittent uses, these roads prohibit traffic and are not shown on

Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM).

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) (STATUS = Decommissioned) are physically

decommissioned/obliterated roads that are no longer included in total NFS system road miles

or road densities. They are only maintained in forest system roads database for historical

documentation. These roads are not shown on Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM).

Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) are roads maintained for use by high clearance vehicles.

Maintenance Level 3 (ML3) are roads maintained for travel in standard passenger car. These

roads are normally lower speed, single lane with turnouts.

Table 2, summarizes the current NFS road maintenance levels within the Oatman Project area.

Table 2 – Current Operational Road Maintenance Levels

Road Maintenance Level

Current

Condition

(Miles) Comments

ML 3 8 Maintained for passenger cars



ML 2 61

High clearance vehicles only, not all road

miles are accessible, field inventory found

some of these roads blocked or obliterated.

ML 2 – (FS Easement ) 1 Currently part of NFS road system

ML 1 (Closed) 68

Not all roads found, some may have been

obliterated or naturally reclaimed.

ML 1 (Closed – FS Easement) 5 Currently part of NFS road system

ML 1 (Status: Decommission) 9

After field inventory, several roads were

found, and are currently accessible.

TOTALS 152

All Fremont-Winema NF system roads have been addressed in the Fremont-Winema National

Forests Environmental Assessment for Motorized Travel Management Decision (Travel

Management Decision), signed July 8, 2010. The Travel Management Decision determines

which roads, trails, and areas will be available for motorized use, season of use, and class of

vehicles. Table 3 summarizes the current motor vehicle use and season of use allowed in the

Oatman Project area. Refer to Map Attachment A: Current Condition – Travel Management.

Table 3– Current Motorized Road Opportunities by Vehicle Class

Vehicle Class

Open Yearlong

(Miles)

Seasonally Open

4/1 - 11/30

(Miles)

Roads Open to All Vehicles 33 37

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only 0 0.3

Trails Open to Motor Vehicles 50 Inches or Less in Width 0 0

Trails Open to All Motorized Vehicles 0 0

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping (MADC)

50 miles total available, seasonal restrictions

will apply within Deer Winter Range closure.

There are approximately 2.3 miles of non-system roads currently accessible by motorized

vehicles of various size classes. The Travel Management Decision considers all travel by

motorized vehicles on non- designated roads and trails to be cross-country travel. Cross-country

travel is not allowed under the Travel Management Decision, except when authorized through a

permit or contract.

Approximately 142 miles of NFS system roads are on 41.3 square miles of NFS lands within the

Oatman Project analysis area. Total NFS road density on NFS land exceeds the Forest Plan’s

objective of 2.5 miles per square mile. Table 4 provides a summary of total and open road

densities within the subwatershed within the project boundary.

Table 4: Current Forest Service Road Densities by Subwatershed (NFS Land).

Subwatershed Total Road Density* Open Road Density**

Bear Creek 3.8 2.0

Buck Creek 1.7 0.5

Oatman Flat 2.4 1.1

Timothy Creek 2.4 1.6



Total NFS Land 3.2 1.7

* Road Density Calculation = miles of road / square miles of land base

** Open Road Density Calculation includes ML 2 and ML 3 roads only

Data Collection/Methodology/Analysis

Data collection on the road systems within the project area was done in preparation for this

analysis. The majority of the field data collected was done during the summer of 2012. Field

data collected included whether roads existed and if they did, were the roads open or closed, how

they were closed, and if accessible by car, high clearance vehicle or off-road type vehicle. Roads

surveyed were also assessed for maintenance, construction or re-construction needs. Data

collection included locating and inventory of undocumented roads and type of use occurring on

these roads, it was also documented if these roads could be useable for project treatments. Field

data collection was a compilation of information from various Forest Service personnel utilizing

the roads as well as Engineering personnel. Not all roads were fully inventoried due limited

personnel and funding for reconnaissance.

Corporate GIS spatial layers were also utilized in developing current conditions. These layers

were clipped to the project area boundaries and attributed with field information. These layers

were later used in travel analysis, and the development of a road management and access strategy

for the Oatman project area. Other resource considerations were utilized in determining allowed

motorized access on National Forest Service roads.

The Paisley/Silver Lake District Ranger directed that a project level travel analysis be conducted

for the Oatman Project area. The following disciplines participated in this analysis:

Engineering Timber/Silviculture Fisheries Hydrology

Cultural/Historical Range Wildlife Fire/Fuels

Recreation Botany Planning

This group met two times to review roads. Road management recommendations for each road

within the project area included whether to keep roads in existing condition, to close, to

decommission, or change road maintenance level. Road recommendations were based on

resource specific evaluation criteria found in Oatman Travel Analysis document located in the

project record.

Specific road management recommendations made by the Travel Analysis Team are also

displayed in the Oatman Travel Analysis document. The results of this analysis are

recommendations to close approximately 38 miles, and decommission approximately 52 miles of

NFS roads. The recommendations were approved by the Silver Lake District Ranger and are

included in all action alternatives.

Regulatory Framework

Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan),

(USDA, Forest Service 1989 as amended)

The Forest Plan provides direction regarding resource management activities and establishes

management standards and guidelines. In regards to road management the plan states:



The Forest Plan sets as a goal, “a safe and economical transportation system providing

efficient access for the movement of people and materials” (page 51).

“The transportation system will serve long-term multiple resources…(with)…the minimum

system necessary to provide access for the activities authorized under management area

direction. ” (p.116)

Overall density for roaded areas of the Forest will not exceed 2.5 miles per square mile

(p.116).

“All system roads will be operated and maintained to protect the resources, perpetuate the

intended road management objective, and promote safety.” (p. 116)

These protective measures are achieved by limiting activities according to road maintenance

level standards and limiting access on closed roads. The requirement that all seasonal and special

vehicle designation outlined in the current Travel Management Decision shall remain in effect,

works to protect other resource management areas. The safety of the transportation system is

retained through maintaining current standards.

National Forest Management Act (NFSMA) (1976)

The National Forest Management Act provides direction in regards to changes in the Forest Plan

that may affect permits. In regards to road use and off-road use implemented under the Fremont-

Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment (2010), the

following statement directs changes to be made to contract activities when land management

plans (i.e. Forest Plans) are revised:

"(i) Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy

of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans. Those

resource plans and permits, contracts, and other such instruments currently in existence shall

be revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with such plans. When land

management plans are revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments,

when necessary, shall be revised as soon as practicable. Any revision in present or future

permits, contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to

valid existing rights. (pg. 6)

The Oatman Restoration Project Environmental Assessment is in compliance with the National

Forest Management Act by reviewing all regulatory frameworks that affect the transportation

system. The inclusion of new land management plans allows for permits and contracts to remain

current with evolving current conditions.

Fremont-Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Environmental

Assessment (EA), (USDA, Forest Service 2010)

As a requirement of the Travel Management Rule (2005) (36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295),

the Forests completed an EA to determine which roads, trails, and areas will be available for



motorized use, the season of use, and class of motorized vehicles. Cross-country motorized

travel was prohibited, other than for some limited exceptions:

Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under

Federal law or regulations. This includes such items as special use permits, access to private

property, personal use firewood permits, timber sale contracts, and range allotment. Use of

National Forest System roads and areas would be regulated by conditions listed in the

permits authorizing the use. (p.14)

Requiring that any travel off designated motor vehicle use routes (undocumented roads) must be

permitted use or contract use for projects in the Oatman Project area complies with the Fremont-

Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment.

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Three alternatives have been developed and analyzed in detail. Consideration of a “No Action”

alternative has been given through effects analysis comparing/contrasting the actions considered

with the current conditions and expected future conditions should actions not be implemented as

disclosed in Chapter 3 (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 40: 36CFR220.7(b)(2)(ii). The range of

alternatives developed has been deemed reasonable based upon the range of public comments

received and the direction set by 40 CFR 1505.1(e).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 serves as a baseline for evaluation other alternatives during the effects analysis for

proposed actions. Current activities, such as permitted grazing, dispersed recreation use, fire

protection, personal use firewood cutting, invasive plant treatments, public safety, and scheduled

road maintenance within the project area would continue. The existing land and resource

conditions would be otherwise unaffected, except through natural occurrences and processes.

Alternative 1 does not propose any new ground disturbing activities. Therefore, no timber

harvest, wildlife habitat enhancements, riparian and meadow enhancements, or fuels reduction

activities would occur on NFS lands within the project area as a result of this alternative. The

transportation system would not be refined as a result of Alternative 1. No roads would be

reconstructed, nor would any roads be identified for closure or decommissioning. Refer to Map

Appendix A, for a depiction of the existing transportation system.

Direct & Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, only routine maintenance and repair of existing road facilities would occur.

As in the recent past, there would be occasional opportunities to replace or upgrade road/stream

crossings and improve road surface drainage as funding allowed.

There would be no comprehensive management activities to recondition and maintain road

systems within the Oatman Project area. This would likely result in continued general

deterioration of road conditions. Potentially this could include vegetation encroachment,

cutbank and fill slope failure and culvert failure. No temporary roads would be constructed or

decommissioned.



None of the road management recommendations found in the Oatman Roads Analysis Report

would be implemented. Road densities within the projects area’s subwatersheds would remain

high and would not move towards achieving Forest Plan objectives.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The IDT developed the proposed action utilizing information and data gathered from the project

area and with direction from the Deciding Officials.

Forest Plan Amendments

The proposed actions identified under Alternative 2 would need two Fremont Forest Plan

amendments.

Forest Plan Amendment #40

The Fremont Forest Plan would be amended to allow the cutting and removal of conifers greater

than 21 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) in the Oatman project area. The project area will

be exempted from the Eastside Screens because there is a need to remove some conifers greater

than 21inches dbh, excluding five-needle pine species. Approximately 6,500 acres of meadows

and other non-forest vegetation have encroaching conifers that need to be removed to restore the

desired condition and remove seed sources to reduce future encroachment. There is also a need

to remove some conifers greater than 21 inches dbh, excluding five-needle pine species, in the

approximately 21,334 acres of commercial thinning treatments to improve stand health and

achieve the desired watershed resiliency to drought. Specific cutting and retention criteria

provide for promoting forest health and vigor while retaining trees with desired characteristics

for wildlife habitat.

Forest Plan Amendment #41

The Fremont Forest Plan would be amended to use a commercial contract (timber sale or

stewardship) in the Oatman project area as a tool to accomplish thinning treatments in

“dedicated” pine and pine-associated stands, to develop sustainable conditions that would benefit

old growth habitat. Up to approximately 1,249 acres of ponderosa pine-associated old growth

would be thinned. Treatments would be focused on maintaining or promoting late and old

structural conditions, while creating resilient forest conditions.

Silvicultural Treatments

Proposed silvicultural activities within the project area would occur on approximately 14,000

acres. These acres include the following activities:

Approximately 12,177 acres of timber harvest treatments;

Approximately 1,827 acres of plantation thinning;

All treatments will require the use of existing NFS system roads, and some identified existing

non-system roads for access and commercial haul. Approximately 5 miles of temporary road

construction is proposed for harvest access.

Fuels Treatments

Prescribed fire treatments would be utilized to reduce fuel loads on approximately 26,455 acres

of the project area. These methods would include, where appropriate, fire application methods

including, but not limited to, underburning and/or pile burning. Fuels treatments would require



the use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads for access and

implementation.

Snag Retention Units

Approximately 1,120 acres of snag retention units have been identified to meet both current and

future snag habitat levels, and to provide dispersion across the project area. In these units no

direct harvest activities are proposed. Prescribed fire backing/creeping-in would be permitted.

The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads would be necessary for

implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.

Old Growth Habitat Improvements for Wildlife To improve late and old structural stand composition, approximately 1,249 acres of sub-

merchantable and merchantable thinning would be implemented to provide improved habitat for

wildlife and species historically present. The use of existing NFS system roads and existing

non-system roads would be necessary for implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.

Mountain Mahogany, Aspen, and Black Cottonwood Restoration To improve these habitats, sub-merchantable and merchantable thinning would be permitted as

well as prescribed fire. The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads

would be necessary for implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Restoration

Approximately 1,472 acres of manual thinning from below as well as prescribed fire is

proposed for RHCAs. When identified, headcut and incised channels would be repaired. If fill

material is needed for these restoration efforts, fill material could come from decommissioned

roads or reshaping of the flood plain. The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-

system roads would be necessary for implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.

Meadow Restoration To remove encroaching conifers and shrubs, approximately 1,846 acres of meadows would

experience sub-merchantable and merchantable thinning through hand-felling. Prescribed fire

would be permitted via backing/creeping (no direct ignition) into the meadows as well. The use

of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads would be necessary for


Deer Migration Corridors Within these areas, the same treatments as described under RHCAs and mountain mahogany

stands would occur here. Where cover retention is necessary, removing conifers up to 10 inches

in dbh would occur. The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads

would be necessary for implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.

Wildlife Forage Openings Approximately 10 openings within coniferous forest, each up to 5 acres in size, would be

created. Hand-seeding of native grasses, shrubs, and forbs would be an option if monitoring

indicates the need. The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads would

be necessary for implementation of treatments for wildlife habitat.



Spring Restoration Five springs have been identified within the project area. Restoration activities would include

removing, through hand-felling, all conifers so the conifer edge is 100 feet from the spring edge.

The use of existing NFS system roads and existing non-system roads would be necessary for


Shrub Vegetation Treatments Approximately 2,080 acres of shrub vegetation with no timber overstory, would receive

prescribed fire only. In these areas, up to 500 acres of bitterbrush in MA 1 (mule deer winter

range) to encourage sprouting of new growth would occur. The use of existing NFS system

roads and existing non-system roads would be necessary for implementation of treatments for

wildlife habitat.

Botanical and Cultural Site Protection

In Antelope Flat, up to four new troughs maybe installed to divert livestock use from a pond area

and disperse livestock use throughout the Flat. The area of disturbance for each trough could be

up to 350 square feet. Approximately 3.5 miles of polyethylene pipe would need to be installed

to connect the system. The use of existing NFS system roads would be necessary for


Transportation System Refinement

The project area is accessed using NFS roads. The Forest Service has easement on 6 miles of

road that cross on Private land within the Oatman project area. A transportation analysis of the

system roads on NFS lands within the project area was completed on February 7, 2013, based on

the analysis and recommendations for travel management by the Oatman IDT, Table 5

summarizes the proposed travel management strategy for the roads within the Oatman project

area: (A complete road by road listing can be located in the Oatman Travel Analysis document

located in the Oatman project files.)

Table 5 – Summary of Proposed Road Maintenance Level Changes, (See Map Attachment

B – Proposed Transportation and Maintenance Levels and Attachment F – Oatman Project

Travel Analysis Recommendations)

Road Maintenance

Level Categories

Current

Condition

(Miles)

Proposed

(Miles) Comments

ML 3 8 8 No change, arterial road

ML 2 61 49 Includes 2.0 miles of existing non-system road miles converted to ML 2

ML 2 – FS

Easement 1 1 Roads on private currently open to the public under the easement.

ML 1 (Closed) 68 38 Includes 0.3 miles of existing non-system road miles converted to ML 1

ML 1 – FS

Easement 5 6 1 mile of new easement, 5 miles of existing easement added to NFS.

ML 1 *(Status:

Decommission) 9 52

Not all miles will need to be mechanically decommissioned,

approximately 27 miles are either naturally reclaimed, on private land

with no easement, or the road prism could not be found.

TOTALS 152 154

The recommended miles more accurately reflect road miles to be

managed within project area.



* Status signifies roads have been decommissioned; they are not removed from the forest road database unless on

private land and FS has no easement. These miles are not included when calculating total road miles or road

density.

Approximately 90 miles of road proposed for closure or decommissioning are needed for project

treatments, these roads will closed or decommissioned following completion of work. Road

closure is performed by constructing barricades of rock, earth berms or logs, or a combination of

any of these near the beginning of a road. Closure materials are usually acquired onsite, if

possible. Drainage structures are assessed for functionality, and are maintained prior to closure.

Culverts may be removed and replaced with a drivable ford as a method of putting the road into

storage. All roads identified for decommissioning may be used as a source of material (e.g. soil,

rock, large wood) for restoration projects, including, but not limited to, stream and meadow

restoration projects. All material would come from the existing road prism, and the road bed

would be fully decommissioned as part of the restoration project (i.e. all drainage structures

would be removed and the road be contoured to meet surrounding natural conditions).

Additionally, user created and/or undocumented roads to be decommissioned may be used as a

fill source. When deemed appropriate by the interdisciplinary team, closed roads (ML1) may be

used as a source of material for meadow and stream restoration projects, however these roads

would not be obliterated or re-contoured, these roads would remain in a state of storage for

future use. Closed roads are designated as “Operational Maintenance Level 1” in the Forest

transportation system database following their implementation and placed into storage for later

project use.

There are 52 miles of road proposed for decommission and/or removal from NFS inventory.

Several miles will require little to no mechanical work to accomplish this. This is due to some

roads have become naturally reclaimed, some inventoried NFS roads are on private land and

there are no easements, and some roads were previously decommissioned but not documented in

forest road database. Road decommissioning effectively removes the road from vehicular

access and is meant to allow full re-vegetation and hydrologic function of the roadway’s

footprint on the land. Road decommissioning can be a collection of actions ranging from surface

scarification to a complete re-contouring of the road prism back to a natural slope. In all, road

decommissioning, road approaches are blocked or obliterated, drainage structures are removed

and their sites rehabilitated. Typically, re-vegetation is accomplished through natural seeding.

Material from a decommissioned road maybe used for meadow and stream restoration projects.

Following implementation, decommissioned roads are designated as “Decommissioned” under

the “Route Status” attribute for the subject road in the Forest transportation system database.

Historical data for each road continues to reside within the database.

Road Activities Related to Project Treatments

A field review to determine construction, reconstruction and maintenance needs for roads to be

utilized by the project’s vegetation treatments was conducted in the summer of 2012, in

conjunction with the road system inventory. See Attachment D for a current road by road listing

of potential maintenance and reconstruction needs identified. There are approximately 113 miles

of NFS roads identified in Attachment D for potential timber sale log haul within the Oatman

project. Approximately 52.7 miles are ML 1, 52.6 miles are ML2, and 8 miles are ML 3.

Typically ML 1 roads will be opened using timber sale road maintenance specifications to make

roads serviceable. ML 2 roads will need pre-haul maintenance as these roads normally do not



receive routine road maintenance. ML 3 roads typically do not receive pre-haul maintenance,

however it could be an option. All roads will be maintained during the life of the timber sale,

using timber sale road maintenance specifications.

Approximately 5 miles of new temporary road construction have been identified for harvest

access. Temporary roads would be built to the lowest possible standard to facilitate timber

removal. All temporary roads are proposed for decommissioning following completion of

harvest activities, and would not add to the long term road system density.

Approximately 2.3 miles of non-systems roads were inventoried during the 2012 field review of

the project area. As recommended through Travel Analysis for this project, 2.0 miles would be

converted to a ML2 NFS road and 0.3 miles would be converted to an ML1 NFS road.

Approximately 1.1 miles of new road easement is needed. It has been identified that road

2804263 is not under easement, it is needed to access NFS land and NFS roads in T28S R12E

Sec. 32 SE & Sec. 33 SW, and T29S R12E Sec.4 NW & Sec.5 NE, without these easements

treatment acres would be reduced. All roads currently exist and would require maintenance prior

to haul. After treatments, the road would be physically closed at NFS boundary. The beginning

and ending milepost location for the road is from road 2804038 to junction with road

2804093(NFS boundary). Easement roads are typically treated as NFS roads, which add to the

total NFS miles.

Road Construction/Reconstruction

No new permanent road construction is proposed by this project. Road reconstruction activities

are usually performed prior to timber haul and are designed to bring adverse road conditions up

to haul and environmental standards. Roads are reassessed as part of the preparation for timber

harvest; if additional re-construction needs are identified they are included in the project work.

Reconstruction activities may include drainage improvement (i.e. constructing new drain

dips/water bars, installing larger/new culverts, constructing rock fords), large quantity surfacing

addition/replacement, subgrade or base rock reconstruction, heavy roadside brushing, clearing of

saplings that have grown into the road, large quantity cut bank slump removal and large scale

erosion control such as rip rap placement.

During the field review (summer 2012), approximately 24 miles of reconstruction was identified

for Oatman project roads (Attachment D), much of this consists machine brushing and clearing

trees ( less than 10” DBH), drain dips, culvert replacement and/or ford construction.

Approximately 3-4 miles of road prism will need reconstructed for travel, location of and extent

of this work will be identified during project field preparation, and in conjunction with road

preparations for haul.

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance activities for a timber sale are performed during three general timeframes

within the life span of the sale: pre-haul, during haul, and post haul.

Pre-haul road maintenance prepares the project road system for heavy truck traffic related to

the sale.



During haul maintenance sustains optimum road conditions favorable to continued haul

activity.

Post haul maintenance ensures that road elements within the sale area and on the haul routes

within the National Forest are returned to their full operational maintenance level standards.

Timber sale road maintenance activities generally consist of surface blading, ditch pulling, light

to medium roadside brushing, danger tree felling, culvert cleaning, small quantity cut bank slump

removal, spot surfacing addition/replacement and maintenance of existing drainage structures

(i.e. water bars, drain dips). For ML 1 roads this may include barrier removal, temporarily

replacing culverts and re-shaping fords, brushing and clearing. Treatment related road

maintenance may take place on all forest roads.

Direct & Indirect Effects

The transportation system located within the boundaries of the project area was analyzed

individually for direct and indirect effects. The timeframe, for which the effects to the

transportation system were analyzed, is the expected to be the duration of time for completion on

all projects (5 – 10 years). These boundaries were selected because it provides the most

immediate effects from the transportation actions which would occur from the proposed

management activities. The analyses of effects to the transportation system are defined as both

short and long term. Short term for this analysis is the end of one field season and the beginning

of the next. Long term is the duration of time until completion of projects (up to 10 years). The

direct and indirect effects of the Oatman Project have been analyzed to determine if there would

be any effect to road management objectives, road maintenance standards and motorized vehicle

use.

Measurement Indicators The possible effects of the proposed alternatives on the transportation resource within the

Oatman Project area are discussed quantitatively using the indicators below. In Table 6, the No

Action Alternative is equivalent to the Current Conditions.

Table 6: Measurement Indicators

Measurement Indicator

Current

Condition

All Action

Alternatives

Oatman Project Area Roads: (All Ownerships)

Total NFS road miles (excluding decommissioned roads) 143 102

Total miles of open NFS road 70 58

Miles of ML 3 – Open to passenger cars 8 8

Miles of ML 2 – Open to high clearance vehicles 62 50

Miles of ML 1 – Closed to motorized vehicles 73 44

Miles of ML 1 - Status Decommissioned 9 52

Oatman Project Area Roads: ( NFS Lands Only)

Total NFS road miles (excluding decommissioned roads) 138 95

Total miles of open NFS road 69 57

Miles of ML 3 – Open to passenger cars 8 8

Miles of ML 2 – Open to high clearance vehicles 61 49

Miles of ML 1 – Closed to motorized vehicles 69 38

Miles of ML 1 - Status Decommissioned 9 52



Measurement Indicator

Current

Condition

All Action

Alternatives

Road Maintenance / Reconstruction

NFS road miles to be reconstructed for project use 0 24

NFS road miles to be maintained 8 113

ML 1 road miles to be opened for project use 0 46

Existing Non-System Roads

Total miles of existing non-system roads 2.3 2.3

Miles of existing non-system roads added to NFS inventory as ML2 0 2.0

Miles of existing non-system roads added to NFS inventory as ML1 0 0.3

Miles of existing non-system roads used for MADC access 0.2 0.2

Motorized Vehicle Use Designations

Miles of road closed to public use 78 90

Miles of road open to Highway Legal Motor Vehicles Only, YEARLONG 0 0

Miles of road open to Highway Legal Motor Vehicles Only, SEASONAL

4/1 – 11/30 0.3 0.3

Miles of road Open to All Motor Vehicles Only, YEARLONG 33 23

Miles of road Open to All Motor Vehicles Only, SEASONAL 4/1 – 11/30 37 35

Trails Open to All Motor Vehicles 0 0

Miles of Motorized Access to dispersed Camping (MADC) 50 50

NFS Land Road Density by Subwatershed (Miles/Sq. Mile)

Total Road /

Open Road

Total Road /

Open Road

Bear Creek 3.8 /2.0 2.6/1.4

Buck Creek 1.7/0.5 1.3/0.5

Oatman Flat 2.4/1.1 1.8/1.3

Timothy Creek 2.4/1.6 2.0/1.2

Total NFS land 3.2/1.7 2.3/1.4

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Implementation of the recommendations made under the Oatman Restoration Project Travel

Analysis. The report proposes reducing the closed roads through decommissioning. Additional

refinement to open road miles and decommissioning of open road miles aided in the reduction of

overall road miles. Proposals to change ML designations between ML 2 – 3 allow designations

to better align with current use and road management objectives. The reduction in closed road

miles due to decommissioning and ML changes aids in the reduction of resource damage, and

removes roads no longer needed. Table 6 summarizes the changes to the road maintenance

levels and reduction in NFS system roads. Maintaining the roads at their existing ML would

continue to misallocate resources and misrepresent accessibility conditions on the landscape. As

such, there would be beneficial direct and indirect effects anticipated to road management

objectives and road maintenance standards by these changes to MLs.

The closing and decommissioning of approximately 90 miles of system roads would reduce

administrative and public access to National Forest lands. However, these changes would bring

the current road densities closer to achieving Fremont Forest Plan direction to reduce overall

road densities on NFS land, and within the affected sub-watersheds to closer to the 2.5 miles per

square mile. Despite reductions, no negative direct or indirect effects are anticipated from road

closures or decommissioning, as there would still be approximately 58 miles of open road within



the project area. Access to some specific locations would change, but overall accessibility within

the project area remains similar. Road densities following full implementation of the road

management recommendations are shown in the Table 6.

This alternative proposes using approximately 113 miles of system road for log haul.

Approximately 53 miles of ML 1, 53 miles of ML 2, and 8 miles of ML3 roads have been

identified for haul. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities would be performed to bring

road to safe haul standards. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities are designed to

effectively drain storm waters from existing roadways, maintain or replace culverts, blade out

washboard roads, and mitigate roadside hazards. Although routine road maintenance occurs on

ML 3 roads, this may be the only opportunity for a substantial period of time, to perform road

maintenance on ML 1 and 2 roads in this area. This road maintenance would effectively reduce

sediment delivery to streams and lower the potential risk of culvert and fill failures both during,

and for a number of years following, project treatments. As such, there are beneficial direct and

indirect effects expected from maintenance of the 113 miles of road for log haul.

Approximately 1.1 miles of new road easement will be needed to gain access into treatment areas

proposed; these miles would be added to the NFS system roads inventory as a ML 1. This road

currently exists and would require maintenance prior to haul. After harvest, these 1.1 miles of

road would be closed. Road maintenance for haul may be the only opportunity for a substantial

period of time for portions of this road to receive maintenance. Like ML 1 and ML 2 roads,

maintenance on this easement road would be expected to provide beneficial effects.

The Oatman Roads Analysis report recommends a refinement in the NFS road system that would

create changes to the Fremont-Winema NFs Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Approximately

2.3 miles of non-systems roads were inventoried during the 2012 field review of the project area.

As recommended through Travel Analysis for this project, 2.0 miles would be converted to a

ML2 NFS road and 0.3 miles would be converted to an ML1 NFS road. Like ML 1 and 2 roads,

maintenance on these non-system roads would be expected to provide beneficial direct and

indirect effects.

The refinement of the NFS road system and reduction in closed road miles would create changes

to the Fremont-Winema NFS’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) (Map Attachment C). A total

reduction of 12 miles of roads open to all motorized vehicles is proposed through closing or

decommissioning to provide for reductions in resource damage found to be occurring because of

motorized access or to remove overgrown or inaccessible roads found during field reviews.

There are no expected direct or indirect effects to road management objectives, road maintenance

standards, or motorized vehicle use resulting from the construction of approximately 5 miles of

temporary roads. Temporary roads would be created for use of implementation of the proposed

actions and would be obliterated after use.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was designed to address the issues identified through the scoping process while

meeting the need for action, as described in Chapter 1. Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2

except that cutting ponderosa pine greater than 21 inches dbh would not be permitted.



Alternative 3 would still require a project specific Forest Plan amendment to allow cutting white

fir and lodgepole pine greater than 12 inches dbh. The amendment would be identical to Forest

Plan Amendment #40 under Alternative 2, except that is would exclude ponderosa pine.

Direct and Indirect Effects Even with the difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, the proposed acres of

disturbance are the same for Alternative 3 as in Alternative 2. Therefore, the direct and indirect

effects of Alternative 3 are identical to those addressed under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 and 3

Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable

future actions. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of

the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a

proxy for the impacts of past actions. Existing conditions reflect the accumulated impact of all

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute

to cumulative effects. The spatial bound for cumulative effects analysis is the sub-watersheds

that overlap the Oatman Project area, and the temporal bounds are 30 years. Past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable activities include but not limited to livestock grazing, road construction

and maintenance, invasive plant management, and continued land management such as

commercial and non-commercial thinning, fuels treatments and fire.

Access to livestock grazing, recreation, and firewood gathering do not impact road conditions

because very little use occurs under wet spring conditions and the otherwise low use (as evident

by the amount of brushed in roads) has minimal effect on the road system. These ongoing

actions will have no measureable cumulative effects to road conditions with the proposed

actions. Public safety on the roads available for motorized use would be improved by the road

maintenance for the commercial sale activities.

Project Design Criteria

Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into project design and

implementation (USDA Forest Service, 2012), utilizing Fremont-Winema BMP site

specific guidelines for roads (see Attachment E).

Road closure in this project would include the construction of rock barricades, earth or

log berms, or a combination of any of these near the beginning of a road. Closure

materials would be acquired on site, when possible.

Road decommissioning would range from surface scarification to a complete re-

contouring of the road prism back to a natural slope.

In all road decommissioning, drainage structures would be removed and their sites

rehabilitated according to BMPs.

Typically, re-vegetation of decommissioned roads is accomplished through natural

seeding, however hand seeding of native species could occur if natural regeneration is not

meeting resource objectives.

A closure device (e.g., berm) should be used when decommissioning any portion of a

system road, except when the road is currently overgrown with vegetation and is already

impassable to motorized vehicles.



Wherever practical, a closure device should be placed at the entrance of a network of

roads rather than closing each individual segment.

All temporary roads will be obliterated, using the same design criteria utilized to

decommission existing system roads.

All closed roads, which are to remain as ML1, and are opened to access treatment areas

would be closed upon completion of operations.

Fill material from decommissioned roads maybe used as fill material for headcut and

incised channel restoration efforts.

References

National Forest Management Act (NFSMA) (1976)

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP).

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Fremont-Winema National Forests Motorized Travel Management

Project.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical

Guide. FS-990a.



Attachment E

ROAD SYSTEM BMPS

R-2. Erosion Control Plan

Objective: To limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation through effective planning prior to

initiation of road construction activities and through effective contract administration during

construction.

Explanation: Land disturbing activities, such as road construction, usually result in short term

erosion. By effectively planning for erosion control, sedimentation can be minimized. Prior to

starting work, the Contractor submits a general plan which sets forth erosion control measures to

be used. Operations cannot begin until the Forest Service has given written approval of the plan.

The plan recognizes the mitigation measures required in the contract. All contracts specify that

operations be scheduled and conducted to minimize erosion.

Implementation and Responsibility: Mitigative measures are developed by design engineers,

using an interdisciplinary approach; the measures are reflected in the contract's specifications and

provisions.

Erosion control is required by contract provisions common to road construction. The Erosion

Control Plan is implemented by the Purchaser on timber sale contracts or Contractor on Public

Works Projects.

This practice is commonly applied to road construction or timber sales, but should be extended to

apply to road construction for mining, recreation, special uses, and other roadwork on the Forest.

Monitoring: Contract packet review, prework meetings, and operating plans along with tests,

measurements, and observations by the COR or ER and watershed specialists. Also see Forest

Plan monitoring plan.

R-3. Timing of Construction (Reconstruction) Activities

Objective: To minimize erosion by conducting road construction operations during minimal

runoff periods.

Explanation: Since erosion and sedimentation are directly related to runoff, scheduling

operations during periods when the probabilities for rain and runoff are low is an essential

element of effective erosion control. Contractors are to schedule and conduct operations to

minimize erosion and sedimentation. Equipment shall not be operated when ground conditions

are such that excessive damage will result. Such conditions are identified by the COR or ER

with the assistance of watershed specialists as needed.

In addition, it is important to keep erosion control work as current as practicable with on-going

operations during anticipated runoff periods. Construction of drainage facilities and performance



of other contract work which contribute to the control of erosion and sedimentation shall be

carried out in conjunction with earthwork operations, or as soon thereafter as practicable. The

Contractor should limit the amount of area not graded to drain at any one time, and should install

permanent drainage structures as soon as practical.

Implementation and Responsibility: Mitigative measures are developed by design engineers,

using an interdisciplinary approach and are incorporated into the contracts.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance with plans,

specifications, and the operating plan is determined with tests, measurements, and observations

by the COR or ER through inspection.

Monitoring: Road construction review process. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-5. Road Slope and Waste Area Stabilization (Preventive)

Objective: To minimize soil erosion from cut slopes, fill slopes, and waste areas.

Explanation: Depending on various factors such as slope angle, soil type, climate, and proximity

to waterways, many fill slopes, some cut slopes, and waste areas will require vegetative and/or

physical restraint measures to provide for adequate surface soil stability. The level of

stabilization effort needed must be determined on a case-by-case basis by appropriate personnel.

Vegetation measures include the seeding of herbaceous species (grass, legumes, or browse

species), or the planting of brush and trees. Vegetative measures may include fertilization and

mulching to ensure success.

Physical restraint measures may include, but are not limited to grading, ditches, scattering

vegetative debris, erosion nets, terraces, side drains, blankets, mats, riprapping, mulch, tackifiers,

pavement, and soil seals.

Implementation and Responsibility: Vegetative measures can improve the effectiveness of

physical restraint measures, but may not be effective and complete by themselves for the first

several seasons.

Physical restraint and vegetative surface stabilization measures will be periodically inspected, as

necessary, to determine effectiveness. In some cases, additional work may be needed to ensure

that the vegetative or mechanical surface stabilization measures continue to function as intended.

Initial project location, mitigative measures, and management requirements and needs are

normally developed during the environmental analysis process, using an interdisciplinary

approach. These requirements and needs are translated into contract provisions and

specifications.



Monitoring: Forest Service work leaders, road inspectors, and their supervisors monitor work

accomplishment and effectiveness, to help ensure that design standards, project plan constraints,

and mitigative measures are met. Watershed specialists assist in implementation and

effectiveness evaluations. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-6. Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage Associated with Roads

Objective: To minimize the possibilities of roadbed and cut or fill slope failure and the

subsequent production of sediment.

Explanation: Roadways may change the subsurface drainage characteristics of a hillside. Since

changes to normal areas and interruption of subsurface flows increase the risk of instability, it is

sometimes necessary to provide special drainage (subsurface) to avoid saturation of the subgrade

and slopes to reduce subsequent slope failure. The following are some dispersion methods

which can be used:

a. pipe underdrains

b. horizontal drains

c. stabilization trenches

d. drainage blankets or rock drains

e. ditches

Dispersal of collected water should be accomplished in an area capable of withstanding

increased flows. On most soils, energy dissipators need to be placed at pipe outlets. This is a

preventive practice.

Implementation and Responsibility: Locatable wet areas and areas with underground flows are

designed with appropriate mitigative measures to provide subsurface drainage. Locating such

areas may involve geologists, engineers, soil scientists, and hydrologists.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or timber sale Purchaser. Compliance

with project plan and specifications requirements, and operating plans is determined with tests,

measurements, and observations by the COR or ER. Additional sites found during construction,

or necessary changes to known sites, are designed in the same manner as the original sites.

Monitoring: Plan-in-hand review, design review, and road construction review process. Also

see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-7. Control of Surface Road Drainage Associated with Roads

Objective: -To minimize the erosive effects of water concentrated by road drainage features.

-To disperse runoff from or through the road.

-To minimize the sediment generated from the road.



Explanation: A number of measures can be used, alone or in combination, to minimize possible

detrimental effects of surface drainage. Culverts or bridges are normally placed at all natural

drainages crossed by roads. Ditches, cross drains, water bars, dips, and grade sags are used to

take water off the roadbed surface.

Methods used to reduce erosion may include such things as energy dissipators, aprons,

downspouts, gabions, debris racks, and armoring ditches and drain inlets and outlets. Soil

stabilization can help reduce sedimentation by reducing the effects of erosion on borrow and

waste areas, on fill slopes, and on roadbeds.

Dispersal of runoff from roads can be accomplished by rolling the grade, insloping with cross

drains, outsloping, crowning, installation of water spreading ditches, contour trenching, etc.

Dispersal of runoff can reduce peak downstream flows and keep water in its natural drainage

area.

Sediment travel can be reduced by installing measures such as sediment filters, settling ponds,

and contour trenches.

Implementation and Responsibility: Soil erosion classification, parent rock, steepness of side

slopes, soil type, and road grades are used to assist in project location, design criteria, and

mitigative measures used by designers for surface drainage. The data is determined using an

interdisciplinary approach during the environmental analysis and road design process, and then

placed in contracts.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance with plans,

specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests, measurements, and observations by

the Forest Service COR or ER.

Monitoring: Tag-line review, design review, and road construction review process. Watershed

specialists assist with implementation and effectiveness evaluations. Also see Forest Plan

monitoring plan.

R-9. Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing

Projects

Objective: To minimize erosion of and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete

projects.

Explanation: The best drainage design can be ineffective if projects are incomplete at the end of

the dry season. Affected areas can include roads, waste areas, tractor trails, skid trails, landings,

fills, streamcrossings, and bridge excavations. Preventive measures include:

a. Removal of temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams or elevated streamcrossing

causeways;



b. Installation of temporary culverts, side drains, flumes, cross drains, diversion ditches, energy

dissipators, dips, sediment basins, berms, debris racks or other facilities needed to control

erosion;

c. Removal of debris, obstructions, and spoil material from channels and floodplains;

d. Grass seeding, placement of hay bales, and mulching.

Implementation and Responsibility: Protective measures must be applied to all areas of

disturbed, erosion-prone, unprotected ground. When conditions permit operations outside of the

dry season, erosion control measures must be kept current with ground disturbance, to the extent

that the affected area can be rapidly "closed," if weather conditions deteriorate. Areas should not

be abandoned for the winter with remedial measures incomplete.

Project mitigative measures and location are developed and documented during the

environmental analysis process using an interdisciplinary approach.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance with project

plan criteria, contract specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests, measurements,

and observations by the COR or ER.

Monitoring: Road construction review process and observation during and after project

completion. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-11. Control of Sidecast Material

Objective: To minimize sediment production originating from sidecast material during road

construction or maintenance.

Explanation: Unconsolidated sidecast material can be difficult to stabilize and is susceptible to

erosion, settling, and mass instability. Site-specific limits or controls for sidecasting

uncompacted material should be developed through interdisciplinary input. Sidecasting is not an

acceptable embankment placement alternative in areas where it will adversely affect water

quality. Road widths on full bench ground should not include any width on side cast material

without prior approval of the COR or ER.

Waste areas should be located where excess material can be deposited and stabilized. The

location and provisions for disposal of waste materials are included in construction contracts.

During road maintenance operations, the deposition of sidecast material shall be done where it

will not weaken stabilized slopes. Disposal of slide debris shall be done only at designated waste

areas where deposited material can be stabilized or approved for sidecast placement, which may

include the road surface and fill slopes.

Implementation and Responsibility: Mitigative measures are developed through the

environmental analysis and road design process, using an interdisciplinary approach, and are

included in the project specifications, drawings, or guidelines.



Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or timber sale operator. Compliance with

project criteria, contract specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests,

measurements, and observations by the COR, ER, or maintenance engineer.

Contracts and guidelines address slide and slump repair, surface blading, and the placement of

waste road material to reduce sidecasting.

Monitoring: Road design review, progress review during construction, and maintenance activity

reviews. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-12. Control of Construction in Streamside Management Units

Objective: To reduce the adverse effects of sediment from nearby roads on slope stability,

vegetation, and aquatic resources along a designated stream zone by:

a. Acting as an effective filter for sediment generated by erosion from road fills, dust drift,and

oil traces;

b. Maintaining shade, riparian habitat (aquatic and terrestrial), and channel stabilizing effects;

c. Maintaining the floodplain in an undisturbed condition.

Explanation: Except at designated stream crossings, road fills, waste areas and other

embankments must be kept at a distance from nearby streams. Factors such as stream class,

channel stability, sideslope, ground cover, and soil stability are taken into account in developing

riparian and streamside management unit widths. It is vital to stabilize fill slopes and control

water runoff to minimize the movement of sediment into streamside management units.

Stream classes and streamside management unit widths are determined by an interdisciplinary

process involving hydrologists, fisheries biologists, and other specialists as required.

Implementation and Responsibility: Project location and mitigative measures are developed by

the interdisciplinary team. Specifications are inserted into the contract by design engineers.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance with

environmental criteria, contract specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests,

measurements, and observations by the COR or ER.

Monitoring: NEPA field review process, tag line review, design review, and progress review

during construction. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-13. Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites

Objective: - To ensure that all stream diversions are carefully planned.



- To minimize downstream sedimentation.

- To restore stream channels to their natural grade, condition and alignment as soon

as possible.

Explanation: Flow must sometimes be guided or piped around streamside project sites. Typical

examples are bridge and dam construction, or large culvert installation. Flow in stream courses

will be diverted if the Forest Service deems it necessary due to expected sediment production

during construction. Such a diverted flow shall be restored to the natural streamcourse as soon as

practicable and, in any event, prior to normal periods of precipitation runoff.

Implementation and Responsibility: This practice is required by contract provisions. The

planning and design process will identify where diversions are required, and the design will

include mitigative measures to protect fishery values and other downstream uses. The planning

process may include consultation with other Federal, State, or local agencies and private parties

to ensure that all factors are considered.

Project location, bypass design, and mitigative measures are identified in the design and planning

process to meet project criteria.


criteria, contract specifications and operating plans is determined with tests, measurements, and

observations by the COR or ER.

Monitoring: Progress review during construction and road construction review process. Also

see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-14. Bridge and Culvert Installation and Protection of Fisheries

Objective: To minimize sedimentation and turbidity resulting from excavation for in-channel

structures.

Explanation: Excavation is a common requirement for the installation of bridges, culverts and

minor streamside structures such as weirs, check dams, or riprapping. Waste material developed

in such operations should neither obstruct the streamcourse (including natural floodplains) nor

the efficiency of the associated structures. Some preventive and corrective measures are:

a. Excavated materials shall be kept out of live streams unless they are designed to be

placed there. (i.e. riprap, etc.)

b. Sediment producing materials will not be left within reach of anticipated flood flows.

c. It is sometimes necessary to divert flowing water around work sites to minimize erosion

and downstream sedimentation.



d. When needed, bypass and access roads shall be suitably located with plans made for their

subsequent obliteration and stabilization.

For streams designated as important fisheries by Forest Service fisheries biologists, culverts will

be installed only during flow periods specified in the project plan. Normally, this work would

occur during minimum flow periods when water could be more easily diverted; work would not

be allowed during salmonid fish spawning periods or before eggs have hatched and fingerlings

have emerged from the gravel. Downstream sediment basins may be necessary to mitigate

impacts on low flows.

Implementation and Responsibility: Project location and mitigative measures are developed

during the road design process to meet the project criteria, using an interdisciplinary approach

when deamed necessary.


criteria and the operating plan is determined with tests, measurements, and observations by the

Forest Service COR or ER through inspection.

Monitoring: NEPA field review process, plan in hand review, design review, progress review

during construction and road construction review process. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-18. Maintenance of Roads

Objective: To maintain roads in a manner which provides for water quality protection by

controlling the placement of waste material, keeping drainage facilities open, and by repairing

ruts and failures to reduce sedimentation and erosion.

Explanation: Roads normally deteriorate because of use and weather impacts. This deterioration

can be reduced through adequate maintenance or restriction of use. All system roads will be

maintained to at least the basic custodial care required to maintain drainage, protect the road

investment, and minimize damage to adjacent land and resources. This level is the normal

prescription for roads that are closed to traffic. Higher levels of maintenance may be chosen to

reflect greater use or resource protection. Additional maintenance measures could include

resurfacing, outsloping, clearing debris from ditches and cross drains, restoration of ditches, and

spot rocking.

Annually, the Forest Service determines the maintenance needs of each road. Roads to be

maintained by commercial users are considered. The process to accomplish maintenance

activities are budgeted and contracted or scheduled for force account work. The Forest Service

may collect deposits for commercial use to facilitate road maintenance and to equitably assess

maintenance cost of each user.

Implementation and Responsibility: The work is controlled by maintenance engineers who

prioritize work to fit the budget and develop a road maintenance plan. Maintenance levels for

each road are documented in road management objectives. Maintenance on timber sale roads is



a Contractor responsibility commensurate with their use. On roads not maintained by active

timber sales, the work is accomplished with Forest Service crews or by contract. Compliance

with the contract provisions is determined with tests, measurements, and observations by the

COR or ER.

Monitoring: Timber Sale road package or Public Works Contract review and on the ground

review of road maintenance practices on the Forest. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-19. Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials

Objective: To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and consequently reduce the

likelihood of sediment production from those areas.

Explanation: Unconsolidated road surface material is susceptible to erosion during periods of

precipitation. Likewise, dust derived from road use may settle onto adjacent water bodies.

Road surface treatments include grading, watering, dust oiling, penetration oiling, sealing,

aggregate surfacing, chip-sealing, or paving, depending on traffic, soils, geology, road design

standards, the road objectives,and available funding.


the design or maintenance engineer to meet project criteria.


criteria, contract specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests, measurements, and

observations by the COR or ER.

Monitoring: Road construction review process. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-20. Traffic Control During Wet Periods

Objective: -To reduce road surface damage and rutting of roads.

-To lessen sediment washing from damaged road surfaces.

Explanation: The unrestricted use of roads during wet weather can result in rutting and churning

of the road surfaces. Runoff from such damaged road surfaces carries a high sediment load. The

damage and maintenance cycle for roads that are frequently used in winter can create a disturbed

road surface that is a continuing sediment source.

Roads involving more than casual use during wet periods shall have a stable surface and

sufficient drainage to allow such use with a minimum of resource impact. Rocking, oiling,

paving, and armoring are measures that may be necessary to protect the road surface and reduce

material degradation. In many cases, use can be discouraged, but not eliminated. Where winter

field operations are planned, roads may need to be upgraded, use restricted to low ground



pressure vehicles, or maintenance intensified to handle the traffic without creating excessive

erosion and damage to the road surfaces.

Implementation and Responsibility: Project-associated implementation procedures can be

eNFSorced by Forest Service personnel. Hauling activity can be controlled by the Sale

Administrator or maintenance ER within active timber sales. The decision for restricted use is

based on local weather, soil moisture conditions, and road damage criteria.

Mitigative measures are developed by engineers using an interdisciplinary approach as

necessary. Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance

with plans, specifications, and operating plans is determined with tests, measurements, and

observations by the Forest Service COR or ER.

Monitoring: Timber Sale road package or Public Works Contract review, and forest road

management inspection trips. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-21. Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage

Objective: To minimize the impact of melt water on road surfaces and embankments and to

consequently reduce the probability of sediment production resulting from snow removal

operations.

Explanation: This is a preventive measure used to protect resources and indirectly to protect

water quality. Forest roads are sometimes used during the winter for a variety of reasons. For

such roads, the following measures are employed to meet the objectives of this practice:

a. The Contractor or permittee is responsible for snow removal in a manner which will

protect roads and adjacent resources.

b. Rocking or other special surfacing and drainage measures may be necessary, before the

operator is allowed to use the roads.

c. Snow berms shall be removed or breached to avoid accumulation or channelization of

melt water on the road and prevent water concentration on erosive slopes or soils. If the

road surface is damaged, the Contractor or permittee shall replace lost surface material

with similar quality material and repair structures damaged in blading operations, unless

otherwise agreed to in writing.


the maintenance engineer and District resource assistant.

Contracted projects are implemented by the Contractor or Purchaser. Compliance with

developed criteria and the operating plan is determined with tests, measurements, and

observations by the COR, ER or maintenance engineer.



Monitoring: Forest road management inspection trips; see implementation section for tracking.

Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

R-23. Obliteration of Temporary Roads and Landings

Objective: To reduce sediment and restore productivity of the land at the completion of intended

use.

Explanation: Temporary roads are constructed for a specific short-term purpose, such as, ski

area development roads and logging spurs on a timber sale. In order to prevent continued low

level casual use, such roads and landings are obliterated at the completion of their intended use.

Due to the location, grades, and drainage are often inadequate for long-term use and

maintenance. Temporary roads that are allowed to remain in use beyond their prescribed time are

subject to continued, uncorrected damage, and they can become chronic sediment sources.

Effective obliteration is generally achieved through a combination of these measures:

a. Temporary culverts and bridges removed and natural drainage coNFSiguration

reestablished.

b. Road surface deep ripped.

c. Sideslopes reshaped and stabilized.

d. Road effectively drained and blocked.

e. Road returned to resource production through revegetation (grass, browse, or trees).

The National Forest Management Act requires that all temporary roads be returned to resource

production within ten years.

Implementation and Responsibility: Obliteration of the road to the level that it is blocked to

vehicular traffic, culverts and bridges removed, and the roadway stabilized is required by the

TSC. Further revegetation needs are addressed in Sale Area Improvement Plans to achieve

resource production above that required for stabilization of the road bed surface.

Temporary road location and stabilization measures are determined by the Sale Administrator by

agreement with the Purchaser. The sale administrator may request the advice of a watershed

specialist in determining the most appropriate location and stabilization measures required.

Forest Service crew leaders and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that other temporary

roads built for force account projects meet design standards and project EA criteria. Temporary

roads built on Forest Service administered lands through special use permits or easements are

subject to the same obliteration requirements as temporary roads on timber sales. District

Rangers or their representatives are responsible for assuring the obliteration of such roads is

accomplished.

Monitoring: Post-sale reviews by the Sale Administrator. Also see Forest Plan monitoring plan.

Documents

The Deuce Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Transportation Report Oatman Restoration Project Page 1 Project Basic