OZARK-ST. FRANCIS NATIONAL FORESTS ROADS ANALYSIS REPORT
THE ROADS ANALYSIS PROCESS (STEP 1)
Introduction
Roads analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic approach to transportation planning; addressing both existing and proposed roads. It makes no decisions nor does it allocate resources for specific purposes. Roads analysis provides information for decision making by examining important issues related to roads. Road analysis helps implement forest plans by identifying road management issues, concerns, and opportunities to be addressed. The analysis process can also identify the need for changes in forest plans.
A roads analysis can be conducted at various scales, ranging from the forest scale (this analysis) to the smaller watershed and project scales. The issues generated and the recommendations offered are to be commensurate with the level of the detail at which the analysis is conducted. It is important to emphasize that a roads analysis in itself does not result in a decision, but provides information to support decisions by disclosing important social, economic, and ecological issues and effects relevant to road management proposals. Actual road management decisions made by responsible officials must be disclosed in appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.
Since this analysis is a broad forest-scale analysis, individual roads were not analyzed. The forest roads system as a whole was reviewed. Site-specific road issues, concerns, and opportunities will be identified and addressed during smaller project-scale analyses. The issues, concerns, and recommendations identified at the forest-scale serve as a guide for analyses conducted at the smaller project-scales.
This forest-scale analysis will help identify issues, concerns, and opportunities for proposed management actions that may be considered in subsequent site-specific project-scale analyses. The goal of this roads analysis is to evaluate the existing road system on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (OSFNFs), to update the road atlas and associated road data, and to determine internal and external issues from an ecological, social, and economic perspective. This analysis was based on the existing transportation system, existing forest plan resource allocations and direction, and current budget trends.
Background
In 1999, the Washington Office of the USDA Forest Service (FS) published Miscellaneous Report FS-643 titled “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System.” The objective of roads analysis is to provide decision-makers with critical information to develop road systems that are safe, provide for resource management needs, are responsive to public needs, are affordable, and minimize adverse environmental effects.
On January 12, 2001, the FS adopted a final policy governing the national forest transportation system. The intended effects of this final policy, and accompanying amended 7700 Manual direction, are to ensure that decisions to construct, reconstruct, or decommission roads will be
Roads Analysis Report 1 better informed by using a roads analysis, as described in Miscellaneous Report FS-643. A roads analysis may be completed at different scales, but generally begins with a broad forest-scale analysis to provide a framework for future analyses.
The Process
The roads analysis process described in Miscellaneous Report S-643 includes six steps for developing information and maps for decision-makers. Although the analysis consists of six sequential steps, the process may necessitate revisiting steps as information is compiled during the analysis process. The amount of time and effort spent on each step will differ, based on site-specific situations and available information. The six steps in the process are:
Step 1 Setting up the analysis Step 2 Describing the situation Step 3 Identifying issues Step 4 Assessing benefits, problems, and risks Step 5 Describing opportunities and setting priorities Step 6 Reporting
Scope of the Analysis
This forest-scale analysis focuses on the public road system serving the OSFNFs including federal, state, and county roads. “Forest Roads” as defined in Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code (23 USC 101), are any roads wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, and serving National Forest System lands and which are necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of National Forest System lands and the use and development of its resources. The term “Forest Service Road”, as used throughout this report, is synonymous with the term “National Forest System Road” and “Forest Road”. In addition, a “public road” refers to roads, which are open to public use. FS roads maintained to Maintenance Level (ML) 3, 4, or 5 are suitable for public travel in a low-clearance vehicle (passenger car). See Appendix C Maintenance Levels. This forest-scale analysis will only address the public, state, county, and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads.
The ML 1 and 2 FS roads and unclassified roads will be analyzed during subsequent site-specific project-scale planning. The individual ML 1 and 2 FS roads will be evaluated to determine if the Road Management Objectives is appropriate and if the road should be maintained, reconstructed, relocated, or decommissioned. The unclassified roads will be inventoried and evaluated to determine whether the roads should be classified as ML 1 or 2 roads or obliterated. The individual ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads may also be re-evaluated at this time.
Analysis Objectives and Reporting
The product of a forest-scale roads analysis is a report for decision-makers with accompanying maps. The report provides information, identifies issues, and describes opportunities to consider in subsequent project-scale decisions.
2 Roads Analysis Report This forest-scale roads analysis report will provide the following information:
• Atlas of the forest roads system including state, county, and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads on the OSFNFs • Identify forest roads system issues to be addressed in project-scale analyses • Identify forest roads system opportunities within the context of existing land and resource management direction for the OSFNFs • Identify significant social and environmental issues, concerns, and opportunities to be addressed in subsequent project-level decisions • Document coordination efforts with other government agencies and jurisdictions
Information Needs
This analysis used existing sources of information and data. The Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial information and corresponding INFRA (Infrastructure) descriptive information were reviewed, corrected, and updated to include all state, county, and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads on the forest roads system.
Public Involvement
A series of open house public meetings will be held during March and April of 2005 to solicit comments during this process.
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Members and Participants
The members of the IDT and their duties:
1. Gary Knudsen – Public Services/Planning Staff Officer 2. Cary Frost – Planning Team Leader/Forest Planner 3. Tammy Hocut – Forest GIS Specialist 4. Tina Rotenbury – GIS Assistant 5. Sarah Melville – Forester – Planning Team 6. Ron Klouzek – Engineering/Lands/Minerals Staff Officer 7. Tony Crump – Forest Hydrologist 8. Ralph Odegard – Forest Wildlife Biologist 9. Keith Whalen – Forest Fisheries Biologist 10. Gregg Vickers – Forest Assistant Fire Management Officer 11. Len Weeks – Forest Soil Scientist 12. David Jurney – Forest Archeologist 13. Max Falls – Civil Engineer & Transportation Planner/Designer 14. Kathy King – Writer/Editor – Planning Team
Roads Analysis Report 3 THE EXISTING ROAD SYSTEM (STEP 2)
The Existing Road System
The road system on the OSFNFs are composed of state, county, and FS roads and serve as access for a variety of public, private, and resource management needs. The roads are needed:
• For access to national forest lands • For access to adjoining private lands and other government agencies lands • To provide access for resource management and administration
The roads system varies in its ability to provide for different traffic and demands depending on the current condition of the roads and the type of traffic use. Road standards vary from two-lane high- speed state highways to single-lane dirt roads.
The public roads that are maintained for use by low-clearance vehicles (passenger cars) are the focus of this forest-scale roads analysis. These include state and county roads and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads open to public use, which serve national forest lands. These roads are referred to as the “primary forest road system.”
The primary forest road system is primarily state and county roads, which comprise about 82 percent of the forest road system addressed in this analysis. See Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1. Composition of Primary Forest Road System Jurisdiction Miles Percentage
State 465 27% County 935 55% Forest Service (ML-3, 4, 5) 314 18% Total 1,714 100%
Roads by Jurisdiction
Forest Service 18% State 27%
County 55%
Figure 1. Roads by Jurisdiction
4 Roads Analysis Report History of Road Development
The Forests
The Ozark-St. Francis NFs consist of approximately 1.2 million acres of publicly owned land within the proclaimed forest boundary area and purchase units, which cover about 1.6 million acres. About 26 percent of the land within the proclamation and purchase unit boundaries of the Ozark-St. Francis NFs is private land or lands administered by state, local, or other agencies. This results in an intermingled ownership pattern of private and public lands which causes some forest tracts to be inaccessible to the public and more difficult for the Forest Service to manage. It creates a need for the Forest Service to acquire legal access to some tracts of NF land. It likewise creates a need for the some landowners to acquire special uses permits in order to legally access their property. The Forest Engineering and Lands Program manages the rights-of-way acquisition program and the special use program. These programs are critical for providing public access and for improving management of the public lands. Acquisition and conveyance of land through land exchanges are also used to solve access problems, with priorities decided on a case-by-case basis according to guidelines established by law, the Forest Plan, and Forest Service regulations.
Forest History
The Ozark National Forest was established in 1908 through Presidential Proclamation by President Theodore Roosevelt, and initially consisted of a gross area boundary of 917,944 acres north of the Arkansas River from which all public domain land was withdrawn for National Forest. From 1908 until 1936, seven more Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders both increased and decreased the boundaries. In 1936, the gross boundary area was 1,233,040 acres. Following is a chronological list describing the actions that reconfigured the forest boundaries creating the current Ozark-St. Francis National Forests:
• The Boston Mountain Land Utilization Project (LU) was transferred from Farm Security Administration to the Ozark NF in 1940 increasing the proclamation boundary to 1,320,992 acres. • The Magazine Mountain Division was transferred from the Ouachita NF to the Ozark NF in 1941 increasing the proclamation boundary to 1,452,689 acres. This division is a former LU project that was initially transferred from Farm Security Administration to the Ouachita NF in 1938 and is the only Ozark unit that is south of the Arkansas River. • The Koen Experimental Forest was added to the Ozark NF in 1950 increasing the proclamation boundary to 1,462,077. • The Lake Wedington LU and St. Francis LU areas were transferred from the Soil Conservation Service to the Forest Service in 1954. • The Wedington LU was added to the Ozark NF in 1960 increasing the proclamation boundary to 1,489,070 acres. • The St. Francis LU was designated the St. Francis NF and placed under the control of the Ozark NF in 1960 with a proclamation boundary of 29,727 acres. • The administrative name was changed in 1961 to the Ozark-St. Francis NFs. • The Ozark Purchase Unit (PU) with a proclamation boundary of 7,115 acres was added to the south boundary of the Ozark NF in the 1990s in conjunction with the acquisition of TPL/Bibler tracts of land with LWCF funds. • The Stumpy Point PU with proclamation boundary acreage of 1,510 acres was added to east boundary of the St. Francis NF in 2004.
Roads Analysis Report 5 The Ozark NF is located in Baxter, Benton, Conway, Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Madison, Marion, Newton, Pope, Searcy, Stone, Van Buren, Washington, and Yell Counties in northern Arkansas. The St. Francis NF is located in Lee and Phillips Counties in eastern Arkansas near the St. Francis and Mississippi Rivers.
The OSFNFs are somewhat unique because initially they were created from public domain lands like NFs out West and then added to with purchased lands like the Eastern forests. The Ozark is a mix of public domain and acquired lands while the St. Francis is all acquired land. (“Public domain” lands are those lands that have never been out of federal ownership. “Acquired” lands are those lands that have been purchased or acquired by the federal government from private and other ownerships.)
The first lands purchased for the Ozark NF were 42,198 acres bought in 1919 from the Missouri Pacific Railroad under authority of Weeks Law, passed in 1911. The largest acreage acquisition increases occurred from 1933-1941. The acquired timber stands were generally in very poor shape. Most of the acquired lands had been cut over at least once, generally to a 10” diameter limit.
History of Road Development
Many of the primary access roads serving the national forest lands are state highways or county roads that were already open to public traffic before the Ozark-St. Francis NFs proclamation and purchase units were created. The first settlers often settled alongside the rivers and streams where the soil was fertile and the rivers and streams could be used for transportation.
The present road system has evolved primarily through timber harvesting operations starting when the timber industry moved to the South along with the expansion of the railroads in the late 1800s. From 1906-1909, the last virgin forest east of the Rocky Mountains was opened to large-scale cutting. It was estimated that peak production occurred in 1909 when an estimated 1.2 billion board feet of yellow pine lumber was produced in Arkansas.
The first road constructed by the FS was the Big Flat-Sylamore Road on the Sylamore Unit in 1913. Many of the main access roads were constructed or reconstructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. There was increased demand for timber to support the post World War II building boom and as a result many roads have been constructed and reconstructed in support of a timber management program.
In the 1970s, the FS discussed right-of-way needs and road maintenance responsibilities with the counties. The FS requested that the counties legally describe their road system so that the roads used for access by the FS would be on a public road system. Since that time, most of the counties have passed resolutions declaring the county roads as public roads and, thereby, guaranteeing the FS access. In the 1970s, possible cooperative agreements concerning road maintenance were also discussed. County and FS roads were identified that provided access to national forest lands. The counties signed the first cooperative agreements in the late 1970s. Cooperative agreements enable the FS and the counties to assist one another with the improvement and maintenance of roads under either of their respective jurisdictions.
The net result is that over the past 100 plus years an extensive forest roads system has evolved and/or been developed to serve public, private, and national forest resource management and administrative needs; as well as to provide access to adjacent non-Forest Service lands.
6 Roads Analysis Report In the past, the local population derived their livelihood from cattle, farming, and timber. However, this situation is dramatically changing. The population and the land use are becoming more urban. Some of the intermingled private land is being subdivided and developed for private recreation use and small rural subdivisions.
Limited road maintenance funds have made the maintenance of existing FS roads a challenge. The limited funds have usually been inadequate to maintain the entire forest road system to desired standards.
The Transportation Atlas
The Forest Transportation Atlas is a dynamic collection of geo-spatial, tabular, and other data for roads and trails to support analysis needs for resource management objectives identified in land management plans. The atlas does not contain inventories of temporary roads, which are tracked by the project or activity authorizing the temporary road. Information in the atlas will be updated as needed through ongoing inventories or project planning. The Forest Road Atlas is a component of the Forest Transportation Atlas dealing with roads.
The Forest Roads Atlas consists of electronic road data including GIS geo-spatial information and associated INFRA descriptive information. The tables and maps in this report were derived from this GIS and INFRA road data.
Road data can exist in many forms including:
• Maps of roads (paper, printed, or digital electronic format) • Databases such as descriptive INFRA road data • Surveys such as road condition surveys • Road right-of-way easements or other court records • Road use agreements or permits • Road maintenance plans (annual or deferred road maintenance and estimated costs) • Road maintenance cost records • Transportation plans and roads analyses RAP reports • Road Management Objectives
The Minimum Forest Road System
An important part of roads analysis is to identify the minimum forest road system that is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of NF lands and the development and use of NF resources. A minimum forest road system consists of the existing state, county, and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads as well as the existing ML 1 and 2 FS roads. This forest-scale roads analysis will address only the major components of the transportation system (state, county, and ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads) while ML 1 and 2 FS roads will be reviewed as a part of specific projects. These site-specific analyses at the project level may determine that some roads are no longer needed or that specific additional roads are needed.
Forest Road System
The Forest Road System includes major state, county, and FS roads that are within and adjacent to the proclaimed NF boundary (See Map 1). This Forest Road System provides access to the land within the National Forest System and the intermingled non-National Forest Service lands.
Roads Analysis Report 7 Forest Highways
Forest road designation has to be jointly agreed upon by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), and the US Forest Service. There is a limited amount of funding available per year (approximately $1,000,000+). For the past 8- 10 years all work and funding has been earmarked for the Cass-Oark ROA on the Pleasant Hill Ranger District. The last remaining phase of this project is scheduled for award in FY 2005. Future funding allocated to Arkansas will be used on the Ouachita NF. Additional funding for the OSFNFs is not scheduled until after the completion of the Ouachita project in approximately 10 years. By law, these forest highway funds cannot be used on FS jurisdiction roads, but must be spent on public roads (county or state jurisdiction) that provide improved access to National Forest System lands. The decision and contract administration is done either by the state (AHTD) or federal (FHWA) governments. The FS is a partner in the project and is involved mainly with coordination of decision reviews at various stages of the design and construction process.
8 Roads Analysis Report
Map 1 OSFNFs Forest Road System
Roads Analysis Report 9
Public Forest Service Roads (Potential Road Improvement Program)
Some FS roads are “open to public traffic” and appear similar to the state and county roads. These FS roads have a similar function and accommodate similar traffic volumes as lower standard single- and double-lane state and county roads. Many of the state and county roads are eligible to receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund and other state or local funds. However, most FS roads do not meet the funding criteria of these funding programs. As a public road agency, the Forest Service designates FS roads that will be open to public traffic on a regular and consistent basis, and provide critical access to recreation sites and areas as Public Forest Service Roads (PFSR). These roads will meet all the requirements for “public roads” as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.4.
The goals of the PFSR program are to:
1. Provide safe and efficient access to destinations in the National Forests 2. Provide a seamless road system between state and county roads and sites on national forests 3. Reduce soil erosion and improve water and air quality 4. Encourage economic development of rural communities through development of quality roads
The PFSR program will complement the Forest Road System program and provide public access to points beyond the forest highways. Most forest highways are state highways, however, most Public Forest Service Roads are FS roads. The Forest Service PFSR program identifies roads meeting PFSR criteria and estimates the amount of roadwork and funding required to bring individual roads up to safe, environmentally sound standards.
Note: As of the end of FY 2004 the authority for the PFSR program has not been approved by Congress and signed into law. Therefore the PFSR program is not discussed in length in this analysis
Road Attributes
Functional Classification
Roads can function as arterial, collector, or local roads. The classification of a road as arterial, collector, or local is dependent on the scope of the analysis. For example, if the scope of the analysis were nationwide, only interstate highways would be classified as arterial roads. The FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook defines these functional classes as follows:
• Arterial Road: A road that serves as access to and through large land areas. Arterial roads are usually state roads or public highways. • Collector Road: A road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Collector roads serve all types of traffic and usually connect arterial roads to local forest roads or terminal sites. • Local Road: A forest road that connects terminal sites with collector or arterial roads. Local roads are generally shorter roads and usually serve specific users or activities.
On the OSFNFs the arterial roads are primarily state highways; the collector roads are composed of state, county, and FS roads; and the local roads are primarily county and FS roads.
Roads Analysis Report 11 About 1 percent of the ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads on the OSFNFs are arterial roads, 10 percent are collector roads, and 89 percent are local roads. See Table 2 and Figure 2.
Table 2. Functional Class of Roads by Jurisdiction Functional Class (percent of miles) Jurisdiction Arterial Collector Local Total State 63 0 37 100 % County 12 27 61 100 % Forest Service (ML 3 - 5) 1 10 89 100 %
Functional Class by Jurisdiction State 100% 80% County 60% Forest Service 40% (ML 3,4,5) Percent 20% 0% Arterial Collector Local Functional Class
Figure 2. Functional Class by Jurisdiction
Three attributes characterize a road in terms of its suitability for public and administrative use and the degree of user safety and comfort associated with its use. These attributes are:
• Road maintenance level • Road surface type • Road closure status
Maintenance Levels
Roads are maintained to different levels depending on land and resource management objectives, user safety; volume and composition of traffic; traffic speed; road surface type; and user comfort and convenience. Appendix C contains a table showing maintenance levels and presents parameters associated with each maintenance level. There are five maintenance levels (FSH 7709.58 – Transportation System Maintenance Handbook). Maintenance levels describe the level of maintenance service provided and required for a specific road, and must be consistent with Road Management Objectives (RMOs).
12 Road Analysis Report Roads may be maintained at one level with plans to be maintained at a different level in the future. The maintenance levels can be either “operational” maintenance levels or “objective” maintenance levels. A description of each level follows:
• Operational Maintenance Level: The maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering the current traffic, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. In other words, it is the level to which the road is currently being maintained. • Objective Maintenance Level: The maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management objectives, anticipated traffic, budget constraints, and environmental concerns.
The objective maintenance level may be lower than, the same as, or higher than the operational maintenance level.
The transition from an operational maintenance level to an objective maintenance level may be dependent on completion of road improvements, disinvestments (e.g., removal of improvements such as culverts), or activities (e.g., timber sales). Maintenance Levels are not assigned to state or county roads.
ML 3, 4, and 5 roads provide access for all types of traffic (including low clearance passenger car traffic). Table 3 and Figure 3 display the miles of ML 3, 4, and 5 roads under FS jurisdiction. Most of the FS roads addressed in this analysis are ML 3 roads.
Table 3. Functional Class of FS Roads by Maintenance Level Forest Service Roads Maintenance Level Functional Class 3 4 5 Total Arterial 13.7 14.2 5.2 33.1 Collector 70.3 13.8 3.8 87.9 Local 150.1 15.1 27.6 192.8 Total Miles 234.1 43.1 36.6 313.8
Functional Class of Forest Service Roads
250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 Miles 50.0 0.0 345 Maintenance Level
Figure 3. Maintenance Levels 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads
Roads Analysis Report 13 Table 4 displays the maintenance levels of all FS roads on the OSFNFs. (Note: ML 1 and 2 roads are not addressed in this analysis, but this additional information is shown to provide a more representative view of the entire forest roads system).
Table 4. Percentage of Maintenance Level 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads (OSFNFs) Maintenance Level Percentage
1 – Closed to Vehicular Traffic 45%
2 – Suitable for High Clearance Vehicles 50% 3 – Suitable for Low Clearance Vehicles 4% 4 – Moderate Degree of User Comfort <1% 5 – High Degree of User Comfort <1%
Road Maintenance Level Descriptions
Maintenance Level 5
Maintenance Level 5 is assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved roads, but some may be aggregate surfaced.
Figure 4. Example of Maintenance Level 5 Road
ML 5 roads are usually associated with highly developed recreation areas and would not be considered for decommissioning. The appropriate traffic management strategy is to "encourage" traffic. ML 5 roads account for less than one percent of the ML 1-5 roads.
14 Road Analysis Report Maintenance Level 4
Maintenance Level 4 is assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds.
Figure 5. Example of Maintenance Level 4 Road
ML 4 roads are usually used for public access related to use of national forest lands and would not be considered for decommissioning. These roads may be considered for transfer to county or state jurisdiction. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is to "encourage" traffic. They are usually double-lane and aggregate surfaced; however, there is variation. Some may be single-lane and others may be dust abated or paved. In addition, the traffic management strategy may "prohibit" specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. ML 4 roads account for less than one percent of the ML 1-5 roads.
Roads Analysis Report 15 Maintenance Level 3
Maintenance Level 3 is assigned to roads that are open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.
Figure 6. Example of Maintenance Level 3 Road
ML 3 roads are the primary access roads to most national forest lands, and are used by the majority of forest visitors. Some of these roads are seasonally closed to public motorized traffic by gates. These roads would rarely be considered for decommissioning. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to “encourage" or "accept" traffic. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single-lane roads with turnouts and spot surfacing. Although some roads may be fully surfaced with either native material or aggregate, the traffic management strategy may “discourage” or "prohibit" specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. ML 3 roads account for about four percent of the ML 1-5 roads.
16 Road Analysis Report Although ML 1 and 2 roads are not addressed in this analysis, their descriptions follow:
• Maintenance Level 2 is assigned to roads suitable for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. • Maintenance Level 1 is assigned to roads during the time the roads are closed to motorized traffic. The planned closure period must exceed one year.
Figure 7. Example of a Maintenance Level Road
On ML 2 roads, traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Some log truck traffic occurs at this level. The appropriate traffic management strategies are to either "discourage" or "prohibit" passenger cars or to "accept" or "discourage" high clearance vehicles. Many of these roads are seasonally closed to public motorized traffic by gates. Some of these roads may be considered for decommissioning in the future.
On ML 1 roads, basic custodial maintenance is performed to minimize damage to adjacent resources and to protect the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage structures. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. The appropriate traffic management strategies are to "prohibit" and "eliminate" traffic. Roads receiving ML 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at ML 1, roads are closed to motorized traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses such as horseback riding and mountain biking. When not needed to provide access to accomplish specific objectives, roads may be maintained at this level in order to reduce road maintenance costs. Some of these roads may be considered for decommissioning in the future.
The majority (about 50 percent) of the roads on the OSFNFs are maintained at ML 2 and about 45 percent are maintained at ML 1.
Roads Analysis Report 17 Type of Surfacing
Type of surfacing found on forest roads is closely related to operational maintenance level. Road surfaces may consist of pavement, bituminous chip seal, crushed aggregate, improved native materials (pit-run aggregate), or native materials (dirt). Roads may be surfaced with materials other than native material for a variety of reasons. These include minimizing road surface erosion and sediment production, stabilizing the road surface for all weather use, providing for greater user comfort or user safety, improving economy of operations, or any combination of these.
Table 5 displays the percent of miles of different surface types on FS roads on the OSFNFs. Note that most ML 5 roads have an asphalt or bituminous surface, while most ML 3 roads have a crushed aggregate surface, and most ML 2 roads contain an improved native materials surface.
Table 5. Surface Type on All FS Roads by Maintenance Level Forest Service Roads Maintenance Level (percent of miles) Surface Type 1 2 3 4 5 Asphalt 0% 0% 12% 7% 81% Bituminous Treatment 2% 0% 1% 5% 92% Crushed Aggregate or Gravel 3% 41% 48% 7% 1% Improved Native Material 13% 75% 12% 0% 0% Native Material 49% 49% 1% 1% 0% Paved 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Cement 0% 75% 0% 25% 0%
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 8, most of the FS roads addressed in this analysis are ML 3 roads with crushed aggregate surfacing.
Table 6. Miles of Surface Type on Maintenance Level 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads Forest Service Roads Maintenance Level Surface Type 3 4 5 Total Asphalt 1.31 0.79 8.78 10.88 Bituminous Treatment 0.02 1.48 27.12 28.62 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel 129.46 18.73 0.68 148.87 Improved Native Material 54.16 0.09 0 54.25 Native Material 48.16 21.99 0 70.15 Paved 0.92 0 0 0.92 Cement 0 0.01 0 0.01 Total Miles 234.03 43.09 36.58 313.70
18 Road Analysis Report Surface Type on FS ML 3-5 Roads
160 120 80 Miles 40 0 l t t . ia l lt n n .. r ia d a e e o te r e h m a te v p t m te a a s a e a M P A re C g e M T e iv e s r t iv u g a t o g N a n A N i d d m e e u v it sh ro B ru p C Im Surface Type
Figure 8. Surface Type on Maintenance Level 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads
Road Closures
Road closures and road use restrictions are necessary when road use conflicts exist. These conflicts may include road surface erosion prevention and control measures; wildlife habitat protection; user safety; and other resource protection, social, or public safety concerns. Closure periods may last anywhere from a few hours to years. ML 1 roads, which are associated with intermittent periods of use, are typically closed to motorized use year-round with gates or earthen barriers between periods of use. ML 2 and 3 roads are occasionally closed seasonally with gates. ML 4 and 5 roads are rarely closed except for closure gates at recreation areas.
Traffic Service Levels
Traffic Service Levels (TSL) reflect traffic characteristics that influence the selection of road design criteria and describe the operating conditions. Appendix D contains additional information on the four different TSL for FS roads. The four different TSL are:
A. Free Flowing with Mixed Traffic B. Congested during Heavy Mixed Traffic C. Flow Interrupted or Slowed by Mixed Traffic or Road Conditions D. Single Use - Not Suitable for Mixed Traffic
Each level contains a mix of factors such as speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driver comfort, convenience, and operating costs. These factors, in turn, affect design elements such as type of surface, number of lanes, lane widths, curve widening, sight distances, turnout spacing, design speed, horizontal and vertical alignment, and turnarounds. Table 7 displays the percentage of TSL of the FS roads on the OSFNFs.
Roads Analysis Report 19 Table 7. Traffic Service Level of FS Roads by Maintenance Level Forest Service Roads Maintenance Level (percent of miles) Traffic Service Level 1 2 3 4 5 A – Free Flowing Mixed Traffic 0% <1% 15% 25% 59% B – Congested During Heavy Traffic 0% 26% 53% 20% <1% C – Flow Interrupted or Slowed 3% 34% 58% 5% 0% D – Slow Flow or May be Blocked 48% 51% <1% <1% 0% Other – Unspecified 78% 22% 0% 0% 0%
Table 8 and Figure 9 display the miles of TSL of FS Roads on the OSFNFs. Note that most of the ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads addressed in this analysis are ML 3 TSL-C.
Table 8. Miles of Traffic Service Levels of Maintenance Level 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads (OSFNFs) Forest Service Roads Maintenance Level Traffic Service Level 3 4 5 Total A – Free Flowing Mixed Traffic 9.60 15.70 36.44 61.74 B – Congested During Heavy Traffic 13.24 5.09 0.14 18.47 C – Flow Interrupted or Slowed 199.46 22.08 0 221.54 D – Single Use 11.75 .22 0 11.97 Total Miles 234.05 43.09 36.58 313.72
Traffic Service Levels FS (ML 3-5) Roads
300 200 100 Miles 0 A - Free Flowing B - Congested C - Flow D - Slow Flow or Mixed Traffic During Heavy Interrupted or May be Blocked Traffic Slowed Traffic Service Level
Figure 9. Traffic Service Levels of Maintenance Level 3, 4, & 5 FS Roads
From the above descriptions, we ascertain that most of the FS roads addressed in this analysis are:
• ML 3 (suitable for low clearance passenger cars) • Surfaced with crushed aggregate • TSL-C (slow flow)
20 Road Analysis Report Road Management Objectives
A challenge for land and resource management is to provide adequate road access for various purposes while protecting the resources. Road Management Objectives (RMOs) are developed to protect resources, provide for resource management access, and meet user needs. These needs are determined through the planning process and the objectives are approved by line officers (Forest Supervisor or District Ranger). The RMOs describe the specific purpose of a road and provide design criteria for planned roads as well as establishe operation and maintenance criteria or standards for newly planned or existing roads. The Forest Service Road System is planned, managed, and maintained on the basis of the RMOs established for each road. RMOs should be reviewed and re-evaluated during project-scale road analyses.
The RMOs are developed from land and resource management direction, Plan standards and guidelines, data concerning the type and extent of traffic to be served by the road, environmental constraints, and mitigating measures to be employed (See Appendix E). The RMOs are used to plan and design road construction and reconstruction projects. When a road, road segment, or road structure needs to be improved or replaced, the selected design criteria should be in accordance with the criteria and standards of the RMOs for that particular road.
Road Maintenance Funding
Generally, Road Accomplishment Reports for the OSFNFs for the last several years have indicated a gradual decline in roads fully maintained to their desired objective with only 10 percent fully meeting the objective in fiscal year 2004. The approximate amount expended for ML 3, 4, and 5 roads is estimated to be $300,000 - $450,000 per year for the last several years. The total needs to adequately maintain the ML 3, 4, and 5 roads in order to keep deferred maintenance from increasing are estimated to be at least two or three times current expenditures. The costs include road maintenance activities such as surface blading, ditch cleaning, culvert cleaning, road surfacing repair and replacement, signing, vegetation removal, hazard tree removal, down tree removal, and road closure device repair. The costs also include other direct project costs such as project management, contracting, and contract administration, and other indirect project costs. The general trend for road maintenance budgets has been downward, as more funds have been earmarked for fire suppression, healthy forest initiative, etc.
Deferred maintenance is work that can be deferred without loss of road serviceability until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed. Deferred maintenance is most often associated with road surface replacement and drainage maintenance, followed by roadside brushing, and signing maintenance. Recent condition surveys indicate that culverts on FS roads need to be replaced, culverts need cleaned, and ditches need to be cleaned and reshaped. The priority of this road maintenance work should be to protect streams and associated aquatic ecosystems.
About $3.3 million is needed to complete the backlog of deferred maintenance to upgrade the ML 3, 4, and 5 FS roads to a standard that meets the “objective” maintenance levels. Most of this deferred road maintenance work involves:
• Resurfacing roads for public safety, for resource protection, or for preserving road prism • Replacing culverts that are failing, prohibiting fish passage, or too small • Signing • Removing encroaching vegetation
Roads Analysis Report 21 The Forest Supervisor or District Ranger has authority to take different actions to deal with inadequate road maintenance budgets, such as reprogramming funds, entering cost-sharing agreements, transferring roads to other public agencies with adequate road maintenance resources, reducing road maintenance levels, closing or decommissioning roads, etc. A conscious decision to either reduce the established maintenance level or close the road should be made to provide for public safety.
Road Density
The spatial distribution and arrangement of the roads system over the landscape determines its impact on a number of resources. Road density, usually expressed in terms of miles of road per square mile of landscape, may be an indicator of such things as the potential for wildlife disturbance, habitat fragmentation, recreation opportunities, and the cumulative potential for erosion and sedimentation from road surfaces. Road density information is useful, but is also notoriously difficult to interpret. For example, the physical characteristics of roads vary. The state highway rights-of-way will be considerably wider than FS roads. Furthermore, some effects are associated with road use rather than the mere physical presence of roads. Confining the analysis to open roads may account for some of this difference, but road-use characteristics can change seasonally or periodically. In addition, it is often impossible to separate the effects of roads from the effects of changes in land uses that roads support. Road density information at the forest scale should be regarded as interesting and suggestive, but tenuous. Road densities are more properly evaluated at the project scale, where detailed information may be gathered pertaining to physical road characteristics and road-use patterns. In order to maximize the validity of interpretations, the information gathered must be tailored very closely to the specific question or issue being addressed.
Table 9 displays the current road densities on all national forest lands on the OSFNFs. Please note that the table does not include the ML 1 and 2 FS roads, unclassified FS roads, and private or other roads on national forest lands.
Table 9. Road Densities by Miles of Landscape Jurisdiction Miles Miles/Total Square Miles State 465 .20 County 935 .39 FS (ML-3, 4, 5) 314 .13 Totals 1,714 .72
IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (STEP 3)
Issues were generated from public responses during the revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan, local knowledge of the Roads Analysis IDT, public responses to a variety of project proposals, and discussions with other public agencies like the Federal Highway Administration and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Some issues will be addressed in this forest-scale analysis; however, issues concerning specific roads or site-specific circumstances will be addressed during project-scale planning.
22 Road Analysis Report Forest Plan Revision Issue Summary
The Forest Transportation System was not identified as a significant issue during the revision of the proposed Land and Resource Management Plan (scheduled to be signed in Fall 2005). During public involvement sessions, the public expressed that the “number of National Forest roads is about right” and that the Forest Service should “open the roads that are currently closed. The OSFNFs' current forest plan restricts OHVs to forest roads and trails, however, there are a number of areas that have been illegally used by OHV riders and show the resource damage associated with overuse of OHV cross country travel. While addressing OHV use during the plan revision process, FS personnel had to consider the economic impact to the tourism industry, which includes active OHV camps and support services. Additionally, the Plan had to take into consideration a proposed national policy to allow OHVs on designated routes only. The Revised Plan will continue the Forest policy of allowing OHV use only on designated routes and trails. Restricting OHV use from cross-country travel will provide protection for Forest resources and will be compatible with the proposed national policy. As a result, tourism related to OHVs should sustain and grow. The Revised Plan recognizes that the Forests' road network was already established and not likely to change significantly.
Significant Issues Identified
Issues concerning specific roads or site-specific situations will be addressed during smaller and project-scale analyses. The following significant issues were identified during this forest-scale roads analysis:
• Public safety. • The adequacy of the current forest road system. • The protection of natural resources. • County roads constitute about one-half (55 percent) of the forest roads addressed in this analysis. In the 1970s, cooperative agreements were entered into with all 18 counties. Most counties have been active in working with the FS to improve roads, particularly with declaring them public roads so they can be improved as needed. The original agreements have been amended over the years. They should be updated yearly to reflect the current road numbers, names, and lengths. • There are roads under FS jurisdiction that provide access for rural communities, residences, or private in-holdings; serve as school bus or mail routes; or have other features that require regular and emergency maintenance. These roads may be more appropriately managed under state or county jurisdiction by public agencies with adequate road maintenance expertise, personnel, and equipment. • There are roads that provide access across national forest lands to adjoining private lands. • Generally, FS roads are receiving inadequate road maintenance funds. The road maintenance funds available are approximately only one-quarter to one-third of the amount of road maintenance funds needed. However, the FS line officer (Forest Supervisor or District Ranger) has authority to take different actions to deal with inadequate road maintenance budgets, such as reprogramming funds, entering cost-sharing agreements, transferring roads to other public agencies with adequate road maintenance resources, reducing road maintenance levels, closing or decommissioning roads, etc. • Roads that cross streams or streamside riparian areas can affect stream structure and water quality. Each stream crossing can potentially alter stream structure and introduce sediment and other contaminants.
Roads Analysis Report 23 • Road rights-of-way are needed to access some national forest lands. • GIS spatial data and INFRA tabular data for forest roads need updated as better and more up-to-date inventories become available. • The adequacy of the network of roads to accommodate the growing need for OHV travel.
ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES (STEP 4)
This section addresses issues associated with the management of forest roads serving the OSFNFs. It is found in Appendix F Assessment of Issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND PRIORITIES (STEP 5)
Introduction
The identification (Step 3) and assessment (Step 4) of the roads issues addressed in this forest- scale analysis provide a basis to make recommendations, identify opportunities, and set priorities for management of the OSFNFs Forest Roads System. In accordance with FS-643 “Roads Analysis” process, this information was used to make the following recommendations, identify the following opportunities and set priorities.
Recommendations and Opportunities
Forest and Project-Scale Recommendations and Opportunities
Providing for public safety; preserving the road prism with adequate surfacing, drainage, and maintenance; and protecting resources are the first priorities for road management. Additional direction is found in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan under the objectives and standards sections. Some of this direction is referenced in Appendix E.
Although sub-forest scale issues are not addressed in detail in this report, the following list of issues may need to be reviewed during site-specific analyses. This is not an all-encompassing list; generally other issues pertaining to individual roads may arise during further smaller-scale analyses.
1. The forest roads stream crossings should be inventoried during site-specific, project-scale analyses to identify stream sedimentation and fish passage problems. This includes state, county, and FS road stream crossings on the Forest Roads System.
2. Identify forest roads that:
• Need resurfacing, reconstruction, or relocation to provide for public safety, protect forest resources, or provide for anticipated traffic associated with project proposals. • Consistently contribute sediment to streams at stream crossings. • Have stream-crossing structures that prohibit fish passage.
24 Road Analysis Report 3. Cooperate with counties to:
• Maintain, resurface, or reconstruct county roads to provide for public safety, protect forest resources, or provide for anticipated traffic associated with project proposals. • Construct and maintain drainage ditches to minimize stream sedimentation and to provide surface drainage away from streams and into settling basins, vegetated buffer strips, or other filtering systems. • Repair or reconstruct stream crossings that prohibit fish passage. • Assist counties in maintenance, resurfacing, or reconstruction of roads through cost-share agreements. • Seek funds such as Capital Improvement or Road & Trail Deposit Funds (10 percent funds) to assist counties in road maintenance, resurfacing, and reconstruction. • Update cooperative agreements as needed. • Consider transferring unneeded county roads to FS jurisdiction for resource protection purposes.
4. Identify roads under FS jurisdiction that provide access for rural communities, residences, or private in-holdings that serve as school bus or mail routes, or have other features that require regular and emergency maintenance. The roads may be more appropriately managed under state or county jurisdiction by public agencies with adequate road maintenance expertise, personnel, and equipment.
• Consider transferring the roads to the state or county.
5. Road maintenance funding is not adequate to maintain roads to desired standards. Ask these questions in order to identify ways to reduce road maintenance costs:
• Are there roads appropriate for transfer to the county or the state? • Are there roads where the maintenance level can be reduced? • Are there roads that are no longer needed and can be decommissioned?
6. Review RMOs for FS roads.
• Are road maintenance levels appropriate for current and anticipated traffic? • Are special resource considerations appropriate?
7. Review the GIS location and INFRA data for ML 1 and 2 FS roads.
• Are roads needed for current and future access? • Are roads no longer needed for public use or to manage forest resources? If so: Plan to decommission and obliterate such FS roads.
8. Locate and assess unclassified roads.
• Are unclassified roads needed for current and future access? • Are unclassified roads no longer needed for public use or to manage forest resources? If so: Plan to decommission and obliterate such roads. Convert to other uses such as OHVs.
Roads Analysis Report 25 9. Identify road rights-of-way needed to access national forest lands.
• Pursue the acquisition of permanent rights-of-way. • Pursue the acquisition of temporary rights-of-way where, Access will not be needed again in the future, and A permanent right-of-way cannot be acquired.
10. Inventory and evaluate FS road signs.
• Install signs that provide for public safety and meet established standards.
Project-Scale Analyses
The Assessment of Issues (see Appendix F) addressed the 71 questions from Appendix 1 of the FS-643 report “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System“(USDA 1999). The questions from FS-643 focus on general ecological, social, and economic concerns associated with roads. All of the questions have been addressed in Appendix F of this document. Some of the questions are adequately addressed in this document and may not need further consideration. However, some questions need to be reviewed during project-scale analyses when the issues arise.
26 Road Analysis Report TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A…………………………………………….…...Maps APPENDIX B…………………………………………..References APPENDIX C………………………………...Maintenance Levels APPENDIX D………………………………Traffic Service Levels APPENDIX E……………….Summary of Current Plan Direction APPENDIX F………………………….Assessment of the Issues APPENDIX G…………………………………Public Involvement
Roads Analysis Report 27 APPENDIX A – MAPS
28 Road Analysis Report
Roads Analysis Report 29
Roads Analysis Report 31
Roads Analysis Report 33
Roads Analysis Report 35
Roads Analysis Report 37
Roads Analysis Report 39
Roads Analysis Report 41 APPENDIX B – REFERENCES
Barton, J.R., D.A. White, P.V. Winger, & E.J. Peters. 1972. The Effects of Highway Construction on the Fish Habitat in the Weber River, near Henefer, Utah. Report Number REC-ERC-72-17.
Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-Term Patterns of sediment Production Following Road Construction and Logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14(6):1011-1016.
Bestgen, K. R. and S. P. Platania. 1991. Status and Conservation of the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, Hybognathus amarus. Southwestern Naturalist 36: 225 – 232.
Binkley, D. & Brown, T.C. 1993. Forest Practices as Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin 29:729-740. American Water Resources Association.
Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Research Center, Colorado.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; Watts, F.J.; Haber, D.F. 1984. Surfacing to Reduce Erosion of Forest Roads Built in Granitic Soils. In: O'Loughlin, C.L.; Pearce, S.J. Symposium on Effects of Forest Land Use on Erosion and Slope Stability, May 7–11, 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center: 255- 264Castro, J. 2003. Geomorphologic Impacts of Culvert Replacement and Removal: Avoiding Channel Incision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR.
Coburn, C.B., Jr., B.L. Ridley, & G.K. Ensor. 1984. Evaluation of Highway Impacts and Mitigation Measures of Wildlife Habitat. Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee.
Decker, L. M. and D. C. Erman. 1992. Short-Term Seasonal Changes in Composition and Abundance of Fish in Sagehen Creek, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 297 – 306.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, Vol. 17:29-42.
Eschner, A.R.; Patric, J.H. 1982. Debris Avalanches in Eastern Upland Forests. Journal of Forestry 80(6):343-347.
Fausch, K. D. and M. K. Young. 1995. Evolutionary Significant Units and Movement of Resident Stream Fishes: A Cautionary Tale. Pages 360 – 370 in J. L. Nielsen, editor. Evolution and the Aquatic System: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.
Filipek, S.P. 1993. Timber harvest. Impacts on Warmwater Streams: Guidelines for Evaluation (C.F. Bryan & D.A. Rutherford eds.) pp. 227-244. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas.
42 Roads Analysis Report Fredriksen, R.L.; Moore, D.G. Norris, L.A. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest, Fertilization and Herbicide Treatment on Stream-Water Quality in Western Oregon and Washington. In: Forest Soils and Forest Land Management, Proceedings of the 4th North American Forest Soils Conference, August 1973. Quebec: Laval University Press: 283-313.
Furniss, M.J.; Love, M.A.; Flanagan, S.A. 1997. Diversion Potential at Road-Stream Crossings. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series, 9777-1814-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 12 p.
Geist, V. 1978. Harassment of Wildlife. Big Game of North America (J.L. Schmidt & D.L. Gilbert eds.) pp. 287-293. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 494 pp.
Hansen, E.A. 1971. Sediment in a Michigan trout Stream: Its Source, Movement, and Some Effects on Fish Habitat. Res. Pap. NC-59. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 14 pHarr, R.D.; Harper, W.C.; Krygier, J.T.; Hseih, F.S. 1975. Changes in Storm Hydrographs after Road Building and Clear-Cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11(3):436-444.
Harr, R.D.; Nichols, R.A. 1993. Stabilizing Forest Roads to Help Restore Fish Habitats: A Northwest Washington Example. Fisheries 18(4):18-22.
Harvey, B. C. 1991. Interactions among Stream Fishes: Predator-Induced Habitat Shifts and Larval Survival. Oecologia 87: 29 – 39.
Hassler, T.J. 1970. Environmental influences on early development and year class strength of northern pike in Lake Oahe and Sharpe, South Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:369-375.
Haupt, H.F. 1959. Road and Slope Characteristics Affecting Sediment Movement from Logging Roads. Journal of Forestry 57(5):329-332.
Hawkins, C.P.; Norris, R.H.; Hogue, J.N. In press. Comparison of Predictive Models and a Multimetric Index in Detecting Biological Impairment in Streams.
Hediger, H. 1964. Wild Animals in Captivity. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 207 pp.
Hornbeck, J.W.; Likens, G.E.; Pierce, R.S.; Bormann, F.H. 1973. Stripcutting as a Means of Protecting Site and Streamflow Quality When Clearcutting Northern Hardwoods. In: Forest Soils and Forest Land Management, Proceedings of the 4th North American forest soils conference, August 1973. Quebec: Laval Univ. Press: 209-225.
Hornbeck, J.W., Reinhart, K.G. 1964. Water Quality and Soil Erosion as Affected by Logging in Steep Terrain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 19(1): 23-27.
IDT, Office of Highway Safety. 1996. Unpublished accident Tables, October 7, 1996. Boise: Idaho Department of Transportation, Office of Highway Safety.
Jackson, J.A. 1983. Possible Effects of Excessive Noise on Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers.
Roads Analysis Report 43 Jackson, S.D. 2003. Ecological Considerations in the Design of River and Stream Crossings. In 2003 proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irvin, Paul Garrett, and K. P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 2003. 10 pp. Redcockaded Woodpecker Symposium Proceedings, pp. 38-40.
Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-Cutting and Roads in Small and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4):959-974.
King, J.G.; Tennyson, L.C. 1984. Alteration of Streamflow Characteristics Following Road Construction in North Central Idaho. Water Resources Research 20(8):1159-1163.
Kochenderfer, J.N.; Edwards, P.J.; Wood, F. 1997. Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed using West Virginia's Best Management Practices. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4):207-218.
Kochenderfer, J.N.; Helvey, J.D. 1987. Using Gravel to Reduce Soil Losses from Minimum Standard Forest Roads. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(1): 46-50.
Likens, G.E.; Fisher, D.W.; Pierce, R.S. 1970. Effects of Forest Cutting and Herbicide Treatment on Nutrient Budgets in the Hubbard Brook Watershed ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 40(1):23-47.
Luedtke, R.J., M.A. Brusven & F.J. Watts. 1976. Benthic Insect Community Changes in Relation to In-Stream Alterations of a Sediment-Polluted Stream. Melanderia 23: 21-39.
Matheney, M. P. and C. F. Rabeni. 1995. Patterns of Movement and Habitat Use by Northern Hog Suckers in an Ozark Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 886 – 897.
Megahan, W.F.; Kidd, W.J. 1972. Effect of Logging Roads on Sediment Production Rates in the Idaho Batholith. Res. Pap. INT-123. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.
Miller, E.L.; Beasley, R.S.; Covert, J.C. 1985. Forest Road Sediments: Production and Delivery to Streams. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid- South Symposium, Little Rock, Arkansas, May 8-9, 1985. Monticello: University of Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources: 164-176.
Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road Surface Drainage, Channel Initiation, and Slope Instability. Water Resources Research 30(6):1925-1932.
Neary, D.G.; Swift, L.W., Jr.; Manning, D.M.; Burns, R.G. 1986. Debris Avalanching in the Southern Appalachians: An Influence on Forest Soil Formation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50(2):465-471.
Neary, D.G.; Swift, L.W., Jr. 1987. Rainfall Thresholds for Triggering a debris avalanching event in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In: Costa, J. E.; Wieczorek, G.F., eds. Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition And Mitigation. Proceedings of the Engineering Geology and Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Devision of the Geological Society of America, November 5, 1984, Reno, NV. Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. 7. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America: 81-92.
44 Roads Analysis Report Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry 74(10):671-677. Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern forest. Journal of Forestry 74(10):671-677.Peterson, J.T. and P.B. Bayley. 1993. Colonization Rates of Fishes in Experimentally Defaunated Warm-Water Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 199 – 207.
Pierce, R.S.; Martin, C.W.; Reeves, C.C.; Likens, G.E.; Bormann, F.H. 1972. Nutrient Loss from Clearcuttings in New Hampshire. In: Csallany, C.; McLaughlin, T.G.; Striffler, W.D. eds. Proceedings of a symposium on watersheds in transition, Fort Collins, CO, June 19-22, 1972. Proceedings Series 14. Herndon, VA: American Water Resources Association: 285- 295.
Pigg, J., R. Gibbs, and G. Cottam. 1997. An Outbreak of Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas), in Oklahoma waters. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 77: 124.
Reid, L.M.; Dunne, T. 1984. Sediment Production from Road Surfaces. Water Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761.
Rothacher, J. 1965. Streamflow from Small Watersheds on the Western Slope of the Cascade Range of Oregon. Water Resources Research 1(1):125-134.
Schlosser, I.J. 1995. Dispersal, Boundary Processes, and Trophic Level Interactions in Streams Adjacent to Beaver Ponds. Ecology 76: 908 – 925.
Sheldon, A.L. and G.K. Meffe. Short-Term Recolonization by Fishes of Experimentally Defaunated Pools of a Coastal Plain Stream. Copeia 1994: 828 – 837.
Sheldon, J.M. & R.D. Pollock. 1966. Siltation and egg survival in incubation channels. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 95:183-187.
Stoeckel, J.N., C.J. Gagen, J.W. Phillips, and L.C. Lewis. 1997. Population Dynamics and Potential Ecological Impacts of Zebra Mussel Infestation on Lake Dardanelle, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Seventh International Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 1997.
Sullivan, K.O.; Duncan, S.H. 1981. Sediment Yield from Road Surfaces in Response to Truck Traffic and Rainfall. Weyerhaeuser Research Report. Centralia, WA: Weyerhaeuser, Western Forestry Research Center. 46 p
Swank, W.T. 1988. Stream Chemistry Responses to Disturbances. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. eds. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66. New York: Springer-Verlag: 339-357.
Swank, W.T.; Waide, J.B. 1988. Characterization of Baseline Precipitation and Stream Chemistry and Nutrient Budgets for Control Watersheds. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., Jr., eds. Forest Hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66. New York: Springer- Verlag: 57-79.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest Access Roads: Design, Maintenance, and Soil Loss. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. eds. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66. New York: Springer-Verlag: 313-324.
Roads Analysis Report 45 Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest Road Design To Minimize Erosion In The Southern Appalachians. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings, Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium, Little Rock, Arkansas, May 8-9, 1985. Monticello: University of Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources: 141-151.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984. Soil Losses from Roadbed and Cut and Fill Slopes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 8(4):209-216.
Thomas, R.B.; Megahan, W.F. 1998. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-Cutting and Roads in Small and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon: A Second Opinion. Water Resources Research 34(12):3393-3403.
Thompson, J.D.; Taylor, S.E.; Gazin, J.E.; Rummer, R.B.; Albright, R.A. 1996. Water Quality Impacts from low-Water Stream Crossings. ASAE Paper 96-5015. St Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 15 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Public Forest Service Roads. 2000. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. Water & the Forest Service. Washington, DC. 27 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. Forest Roads: A Synthesis Of Scientific Information. Washington DC. 117 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000c. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.
USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Miscellaneous Report FS-643. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p.
Van Lear, D.H.; Taylor, G.B.; Hansen, W.F. 1995. Sedimentation in the Chattooga River Watershed. Tech. Pap. 19. Clemson, SC: Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources. 61 p.
Vowell, J.L. 1985. Erosion Rates and Water Quality Impacts from a Recently Established Forest Road in Oklahoma’s Ouachita Mountains. In: Blackmon, B.G. ed. Proceedings of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium, Little Rock, Arkansas, May 8-9, 1985. Monticello: University of Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources: 152-163.
Warren, Jr., M. L. and M. G. Pardew. 1998. Road Crossings as Barriers to Small-Stream Fish Movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 637 – 644.
Weaver, W.E.; Hagans, D.K.; Popenoe, J.H. 1995. Magnitude and Causes of Gully Erosion in the Lower Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern California. In: Nolan, K.M.; Kelsey, H.M.; and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorphic Processes and Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: I1-I21.
46 Roads Analysis Report Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. DeYoung & O.E. Maugen. 1996. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and Behavior of Desert Ungulates. Journal.
Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, G. E. Grant. 1996a. Channel Network Extension by Logging Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32 (6): 1195 – 1207. Wildlife Management 60(1):52-61.
White, R.J., & O.M. Brynildson. 1967. Guidelines for Management of Trout Stream Habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 39, Madison, WI.
Winston, M. R., C. M. Taylor, and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream Extirpation of Four Minnow Species due to Damming a Prairie Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 98 – 105.
Wright, K.A.; Sendek, K.H.; Rice, R.M.; Thomas, R.B. 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Storm Runoff at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resources Research 26(7):1657- 1667.
Ziemer, R.R. 1981. Storm flow Response to Road Building and Partial Cutting in Small Streams of Northern California. Water Resources Research 17(4): 907-917.
Roads Analysis Report 47 APPENDIX C - MAINTENANCE LEVELS
MAINTENANCE LEVEL PARAMETERS 1 2 3 4 5 Intermittent Service – Constant Service or Intermittent Service - Open Status Service Life Closed Status (Some uses may be restricted under 36 CFR 261.50) Administrative Permitted Open for non- motorized Traffic Type uses. Closed to motorized Dispersed All National Forest Traffic - General Use, Commercial Haul traffic. recreation Specialized commercial haul. High clearance, Vehicle Type Closed-N/A pick-up, 4x4, log All types - passenger cars to large commercial vehicles trucks, etc. Traffic Volume Closed-N/A Traffic volume increases with maintenance level None, Native, or Aggregate -- may be Aggregate -- usually dust abated; paved Typical Surface All types dust abated Travel Speed Closed-N/A Travel speed increases with maintenance level User Comfort and Closed-N/A Not a consideration Low Priority Moderate Priority High Priority Convenience Local Local Local Local Functional All Types Collector Collector Collector Collector Classification Arterial Arterial Arterial A, B, C -- Traffic service level increases with maintenance Traffic Service Level Closed-N/A D level Prohibit or Eliminate Discourage or Encourage, Encourage Encourage Traffic Management prohibit cars. Accept Accept Strategy or discourage high clearance vehicles.
48 Roads Analysis Report APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVELS
SERVICE LEVELS PARAMETERS A B C D Flow is slow or may Congested during Interrupted by limited be blocked by an Free flowing with heavy traffic such as passing facilities, or activity. Two-way adequate parking during peak logging Flow slowed by the road traffic is difficult and facilities. or recreation condition. may require backing activities. to pass. Intermittent and Uncontrolled; will Occasionally Erratic; frequently usually controlled. accommodate the controlled during controlled as the Volume is limited to Volumes expected traffic heavy use periods. capacity is reached. that associated with volumes. the single purpose. Controlled mix; Single use; not Mixed; includes the Mixed; includes the accommodates all designed for mixed critical vehicle and all critical vehicle and all vehicle types including traffic. Some vehicles Vehicle Types vehicles normally vehicles normally the critical vehicle. may not be able to found on public found on public Some use may be negotiate. Concurrent roads. roads. controlled to vehicle use traffic is types. restricted. Clearances are Traffic controls Special provisions may Some vehicles may Critical adequate to allow needed where be needed. Some not be able to free travel. Overload clearances are vehicles will have negotiate. Loads may Vehicle permits are required. marginal. Overload difficulty negotiating have to be off-loaded permits are required some segments. and walked in. High priority in The need for design. Traffic protection is Safety features are a Management provides management minimized by low Safety part of the design. most protection. accomplishes some speeds and strict protection. traffic controls. Traffic controls are Used to discourage Normally limited to Employed to reduce frequently needed or prohibit traffic Traffic regulatory, warning, traffic volume and during periods of high other than that and guide signs and Management conflicts. use by the dominant associated with the permits resource activity. single purpose. Minimize; Generally higher than Not important; transportation "A" because of slower efficiency of travel may Not considered. User Costs efficiency is speeds and increased be traded for lower important. delays. construction costs. Dictated by topography, Design speeds are Generally dictated by Influenced more environmental the predominant topographic features strongly by factors, and the factor within feasible and environmental Alignment topography than by design and critical topographic factors. Design speeds speed and efficiency. vehicle limitations. limitations. are generally low. Speed is not important. Stable for the May not be stable Rough and irregular. predominant traffic for under all traffic or Travel with low the normal use weather conditions clearance vehicles is Stable and smooth season. Periodic dust during the normal use difficult. Stable during with little or no dust, control for heavy use season. Surface dry conditions. considering the Road Surface or environmental rutting, roughness, and Rutting and dusting normal season of reasons. Smoothness dust may be present, controlled only for soil use. is commensurate with but controlled for and water protection. the design speed. environmental or investment protection.
Roads Analysis Report 49 APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF DRAFT PLAN DIRECTION
The Proposed Draft Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (the Draft Plan) for the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas was registered in the Federal Register in February 2005. This appendix summarizes the desired future conditions in the Draft Plan related to roads and the Draft Plan’s standards and objectives that apply to road management.
THE DRAFT PLAN’S DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION FOR TRANSPORTATION
The desired future condition direction for transportation, found in Part 1 of the Draft Plan, is as follows:
“The transportation system of roads and trails is safe, affordable, and environmentally sound. It responds to public needs, and is efficient to manage. The system provides public access for recreation, special uses, and fire protection activities as well as supports forest management objectives. The system is well maintained proportionate with levels of use and available funding. The system is connected to state, county, or local public roads and trails. Unnecessary roads and trails are removed and the landscape restored. Right-of-way to access National Forest System lands satisfy public needs and facilitate planned resource activities. Over the planning period, the number of inventoried unclassified roads and trails are reduced.”
The Draft Plan (Part 2) identifies priorities and objectives for the transportation system, these priorities and objectives are as following:
Priorities:
• Plan, design, construct, and maintain the road and trail system to meet those objectives established to implement the Draft Plan, to promote sustainable resource conditions, and to safely accommodate anticipated levels and types of use.
• Develop and operate the minimum road system, including all bridges and culverts, maintained to the minimum standard needed to meet requirements of proposed actions, protect the environment, and provide for reasonable public access.
• Using the priorities identified in the forest-wide roads analysis process, reduce the road maintenance backlog to provide safe, efficient routes for recreation traffic and the through-traveling public, and to safely accommodate fire protection equipment or other high clearance vehicles.
• Enhance user safety and offer adequate parking at popular destinations on high traffic passenger car roads, while minimizing adverse resource effects.
50 Roads Analysis Report • Maintain the existing multiple-use trail network and support facilities that compliment local, regional, and national trails and open space, and also enhance day-use opportunities and access for the general public.
• Construct and maintain the trail network to levels commensurate with management area objectives, sustainable resource conditions, and the type and level of use.
• Consider opportunities to construct or join trails and link Maintenance Level 1 roads (closed roads) and other roads that meet the need for trail-based recreation to lengthen the trail system.
• Manage the Ozark Highland Trail to protect the trail experience, and to provide for the conservation and enjoyment of its nationally important scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities.
• Maintain and/or develop access points and connecting trails linked to the surrounding communities and create opportunities for non-motorized trips of short duration.
• Develop and operate a system of OHV routes that satisfies some public demands for motorized recreation, protects environmental quality, and meets National OHV Policy standards and guidelines.
• Work with organized horse enthusiast to maintain existing and develop additional trails.
Objectives:
OBJ60 Add unclassified roads to the Forest Service Road System when site-specific road analysis determines there is a need for the road.
OBJ61 Decommission roads and trails that have been determined to be unnecessary for conversion to either the road or trail system through site-specific analysis.
OBJ62 Reduce the number of unnecessary or redundant unclassified roads.
OBJ63 Convert ecologically sustainable Maintenance Level 1 Road (closed roads) and other roads that meet the need for trail-based recreation.
OBJ64 Permit OHV use only on designated trails and roads
OBJ65 In conjunction with designating low maintenance standard roads and open areas, develop a system of motorized trails that address the needs of OHV enthusiasts.
OBJ66 Within the first planning period, provide maps that show OHV route systems and designated routes.
Roads Analysis Report 51 OBJ67 Within the first planning period, provide maps/brochures that show designated trails for horse use.
OBJ68 Prior to constructing any new trail systems, agreements with local user groups will be obtained.
Standards:
FW34 Design, locate, and construct new system roads and associated improvements to avoid floodplains and riparian areas in order to minimize impacts on water quality, flood flows, and riparian habitat.
FW49 Locate, design, and maintain trails, roads, other facilities, and management activities to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential geologic hazards.
FW171 Erosion control should be applied to all newly disturbed road cut and fill embankments and before closing roads with native-bed surfaces that exceed a 10 percent grade.
FW172 All project area designated trails, system roads, and associated improvements are kept free of logs, slash, and debris. Any road, trail, ditch, or other improvement damaged by operations is promptly repaired.
52 Roads Analysis Report APPENDIX F – ASSESSMENT OF THE ISSUES (STEP 4)
This section addresses issues associated with the management of forest roads serving the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (OSFNFs). To complete the assessment, the IDT addressed the 71 questions in Appendix I of FS-643 report “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System” (USDA 1999). The questions from FS-643 focus on the ecological, social, and economic concerns associated with roads. The other questions focus on other concerns raised during the analysis of the OSFNFs forest road system.
FS-643 describes the questions as,
“…example questions that might be used for roads analysis for both existing and proposed road systems. Not all of these questions will be relevant in all places, but these types of questions are expected to be relevant in many of the analysis areas. Some of the questions will be best addressed at the local scale; others will be more appropriate at a regional or multi-forest scale. In addition, some of the questions require consideration at several regional, forest, and individual road scales. The questions and associated information are not intended to be prescriptive, but to assist analysis teams in developing questions and approaches appropriate to each analysis area.”
Some of the questions are not relevant to the OSFNFs and are not addressed in this report. Some of the relevant questions can be adequately addressed in this forest-scale analysis and do not need to be addressed further during smaller-scale projects analyses. However, some questions need to be addressed during project-scale analyses when the issues arise. The questions that should be addressed during project- scale analyses when the issues arise are listed in the Step 5 (See page 24).
The questions are divided into the following categories:
Ecosystem Function and Processes (EF) Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ) Terrestrial Wildlife (TW) Economics (EC) Commodity Production Timber Management (TM) Minerals Management (MN) Range Management (RM) Water Production (WP) Special Forest Products (SP) Special Use Permits (SU) General Public Transportation (GT) Administrative Uses (AU) Protection (PT)
Roads Analysis Report 53 Recreation Unroaded Recreation (UR) Roaded Recreation (RR) Passive-Use Value (PV) Social Issues (SI) Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR) Other Questions (OQ)
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES (EF)
EF (1): What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by roading of currently unroaded areas?
For the vast majority of the Forests, this is not an issue. The limited areas, which are now unroaded would, if roaded, increase habitat fragmentation for wildlife. Few new roads will need to be constructed in the future as the existing road system provides adequate access needs for the public and meets the needs for resource management on the Forests.
EF (2): To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area?
The road system itself does not contribute to the spread of exotic plant and animal species but the people and vehicles, which use the road, do. Invasive species tend to enter natural communities along roads and trails. Roads provide recreation opportunities for the public increasing the probability that out-of-region visitors may import pests into the Forests.
In general, more traffic on a road leads to greater potential for invasive plants to become established. The many state and county roads that serve National Forest and scattered private lands are heavily traveled in comparison to the limited amount of traffic on Forest Service roads. Therefore, Forest Service roads should have minimal effects on the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, diseases, and parasites.
Non-native pests found on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests include:
• Tall fescue – This grass species is very common along roadsides and adjacent fields where it has been planted or where seed has fallen. The habitat it provides is unsuitable for many wildlife species. It tends to invade open areas, but does not do well in shaded conditions.
• Sericea lespedeza – This legume species is very common along roadsides and adjacent fields where it has been planted or where seed has fallen. It provides good cover for some smaller species but isn’t palatable and seed is rarely eaten.
54 Roads Analysis Report • Silktree Mimosa – This tree is occasionally found scattered over some parts of the Forests. This species is able to grow quickly and competes with other shrub and tree species.
• Princess Tree or Paulownia – Is found along roadsides and competes with other shrub and tree species.
• Japanese Honeysuckle – This species was planted for erosion control and wildlife habitat and has managed to invade much of the Forests. It is a strong competitor with other shrub and vine species for water and sunlight and in some cases will reduce habitat availability for some plant species.
• Kudzu – An infamous vine species with a well-earned reputation for choking off competing vegetation. It was originally planted for erosion control but has since spread by seed or by vegetative propagation.
EF (3): To what degree does the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites?
The presence of the road system allows for economical timber harvest, which directly effects fuel loading, and contributes to the overall health of the Forests by controlling insects, diseases, and parasites. While some roads are closed to public use, the road prisms are still in place and could be reconstructed to facilitate access for multiple-use management needs.
EF (4): How does the road system affect ecological disturbance in the area?
Fire is the primary ecological disturbance regime affected by the road system. The Forests have a low to moderate frequency of low intensity fires. Public forest roads and old woods roads allow easy access to National Forest lands. The scattered private and public land ownership and the associated forest roads system allows accidental and arson fires to occur almost anywhere when conditions are conducive to fire. These forest roads also function as fire breaks and provide access to control wildfires in most forest areas with the exception of wilderness areas.
EF (5): What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads?
The majority of the traffic in the analysis area is private vehicles using the road system for recreational purposes. Heavy truck traffic is minimal and will only occur in conjunction with multiple use management in the area. Noise produced during road construction and road maintenance activities is of short duration and will not adversely affect ecological condition. Excessive noise created by vehicular traffic through an area may disturb ground-nesting birds during the spring and summer and may lead to abandonment of nests. Normally they will move to a quieter area when this happens.
Roads Analysis Report 55 AQUATIC, RIPARIAN ZONE, AND WATER QUALITY (AQ)
AQ (1): How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area?
Road surfaces and drainage ditches modify the surface hydrology by concentrating surface runoff and flows. Road cuts and ditches can modify or intercept subsurface hydrology; however, in Northern Arkansas, road cuts are not the primary method of construction due to the unyielding nature of the underlying geology. The amount of modification varies by geology and soils in an area.
Roads increase erosion and pollution to streams (USDA 2000a, USDA 2000b). Roads can also affect the routing of water through a watershed by intercepting, concentrating, and diverting flows from their natural flow paths. These changes in routing can result in increases in peak flows by both a volumetric increase in stream flow as well as changes to runoff timing.
Roads have three primary effects on water: they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cutbanks and intercept subsurface water moving down the hill slope; they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and they divert or reroute water from flow paths that it would otherwise take if the road were not present. Most of the hydrologic and geomorphic consequences of roads result from one or more of these processes. For example, by intercepting surface and subsurface flow, and concentrating and diverting it into ditches, gullies, and channels, road systems effectively increase the density of streams in the landscape; thereby, changing the amount of time required for water to enter a stream channel, altering the timing of peak flows and hydrograph shape (King and Tennyson 1984, Wemple and others 1996a). Similarly, concentration and diversion of flow into headwater areas can cause incision of previously unchanneled portions of the landscape and initiate slides in colluvial hollows (Montgomery 1994). Diversion of stream flow at road-stream crossings is a key factor contributing to road failure and erosional consequences during large floods (Furniss and others 1997, Weaver and others 1995).
Based on studies of small watersheds, the effect of roads on peak flows is detectable but relatively modest for most streams; insufficient and contradictory data do not permit evaluation of how roads perform hydrologically during the largest floods. Roads do not appear to affect annual water yields, and no studies have evaluated their effects on low flows. In some studies, roads produced no detectable change in flow timing or magnitude (Rothacher 1965, Ziemer 1981, Wright and others 1990), but in other basins, average time to storm peak was advanced and average peak magnitude was increased after road building for at least some storm sizes (Harr and others 1975, Jones and Grant 1996, Thomas and Megahan 1998).
Although the ability to measure or predict the hydrologic consequence of building or modifying a specific road network might be limited, general principles and models can be provided that, if followed, may decrease the negative hydrologic effects of roads.
56 Roads Analysis Report These principles will be useful when upgrading or decommissioning roads to meet various objectives. The following is a partial list of principles:
• Locate roads to minimize effects; conduct careful geologic examination of all proposed road locations • Design roads to minimize interception, concentration, and diversion potential, including measures to reintroduce intercepted water back into slow (subsurface) pathways by using outsloping and drainage structures rather than attempting to concentrate and move water directly to channels • Evaluate and eliminate diversion potential at stream crossings • Design road-stream crossings to pass all likely watershed products, including woody debris, sediment, and fish--not just water • Consider landscape location, hill slope sensitivity, and orientation of roads when designing, redesigning, or removing roads • Design with failure in mind. Anticipate and explicitly acknowledge the risk from existing roads and from building any contemplated new roads, including the probability of road failure and the damage to local and downstream resources that would result.
Roads modify surface hydrology at points where the roads and the streams are interconnected. This can occur at stream crossings or ditches where surface runoff is directed into stream channels. Roads collect rainfall and direct a greater volume of water more rapidly to an outlet than would be produced from an undisturbed forest floor. This mechanism is common in this watershed due to the interconnectivity of the road/stream system, steep slopes, and the infrequent cross drains on ditches. These processes increase the volume of runoff during rain events as well as decrease the amount of time necessary for runoff to occur, effectively decreasing the lag time and increasing the magnitude of a runoff hydrograph.
Subsurface hydrology modification will occur in places where it is necessary to have a road cut in the side of a hill slope to construct a road. For this area, this is not likely to have a large effect because road cuts are often very limited, and the subsurface flow accounts for only a small portion of the runoff aspect of the hydrological system.
Roads also collect rainfall and direct a greater volume of water more rapidly to an outlet than would occur on a vegetated area. These impacts are seen in watersheds on the OSFNFs where there are greater numbers of stream crossings per stream mile, and/or greater amounts of stream density (Table 1).
New roads usually lead to new development (in areas with limited federal ownership), which has a host of impacts on the hydrologic system, including wetland disturbance and drainage, increased water needs for consumption and waste disposal, increased impermeable surfaces, and growing siltation of creeks and rivers from construction. Although the watersheds contain Ozark-St. Francis National Forests land, the majority of watersheds with high amounts of road density are those watersheds with a low percentage of federal ownership. For this reason, the Forests do not have much control over the construction of roads in these areas. The areas on the Forests showing a growth in human populations (e.g., areas around the Wedington Unit and other areas in the northwestern part of the state) are potential areas for new urban/forest challenges.
Roads Analysis Report 57 Recommendation:
• Proposed roadwork should address disconnecting the road system from the stream channels. • Work such as enhancing riparian buffers, implementing road maintenance strategies beneficial to streams, limiting road crossings, limiting road construction in riparian prescription areas and streamside management zones, improving the drainage structure network, and decommissioning roads is necessary to accomplish the separation of road and stream networks. • Road inventories should be undertaken to improve the availability of GIS data for project level analysis and to develop consistency across the Forests.
Figure F-1 shows the miles of road per square mile of the depicted watersheds. These values were ranked where dark colors indicate fewer miles of roads in the watershed while lighter colors indicate greater miles of road per watershed. It is expected that these changes would be most apparent where the road density is the greatest.
Figure F-1. Miles of Roads per Square Mile (Density) in Watersheds on OSFNFs.
AQ (2): How and where does the road system generate surface erosion?
Surface erosion is highly dependant on soils; the amount and type of road surfacing; and the effectiveness and spacing of drainage structures.
Most of the forest roads addressed in this analysis are county roads. The counties often use sandstone, limestone, or shale aggregate to surface roads. Of these materials shale is the softest material and will wear faster than limestone or other rock. The shale will often produce clay-like dust during use. Generally, county roads have not been designed or maintained to divert surface water from flowing directly into streams.
During initial rainfall, this fine dust can be carried by runoff and directly delivered to streams. Depending on the intensity of the rainstorm and the gradient of the road surface and ditches, some amounts of aggregate can actually be delivered to the
58 Roads Analysis Report stream along with the sediment. However, aggregate surfacing can significantly reduce the surface erosion on roads especially on grades and on more erosive soils such as sands. Fine sediments tend to stay in suspension in stream flow until encountering slow water, a lake, or when stream flow drops to low levels. Thus, fine sediments are readily transported long distances from the site of generation and the effects of fine sediment can appear many miles from the point of origin.
Rainfall intensity and the gradient of the landscape can play a significant role in the amount of surface erosion caused by roads. Fine sediments tend to stay in suspension in a stream until encountering slow water, low water levels, or a lake/pond. So, fine sediments can be transported long distances and the effects of fine sediment can occur many miles from the point of origin.
Recommendation:
• Addition of gravel and surfacing, reconstruction of the roadbed on roads with erosion problems, refurbishment of existing drainage structures, and the addition of lead-offs, wing ditches, and cross drain culverts will reduce surface erosion on the Forests roads. • Roads listed as unclassified will be closed and re-vegetated with native or desired non-native plant species, which will reduce the erosion potential. • The condition of roads and classification of roads for potential decommissioning could be accomplished during a road inventory.
At the forest-scale, it is not feasible to estimate the surface erosion rates from roads. Where identified as an issue, it would be better addressed during project scale analysis.
AQ (3): How and where does the road system affect mass wasting?
There have been instances on private land where a combination of conditions have resulted in mass wasting events. One of these conditions was the existence of a road. In other cases, the geologic structure of the underlying rock has been the source of mass wasting events, which happen to impact roads located on them.
The likelihood of mass wasting is increased in watersheds with high amounts of road density, especially on roads in areas of high topographic relief. Roads built on high gradient slopes can decrease the stability of the landscape and cause mass wasting to occur. The parent soil material and the underlying geology of the area can play a significant role in the potential risk of an area form mass wasting.
Recommendation:
• Soil inventory data for the Forest should be analyzed for completeness and accuracy. • New road construction projects should analyze the potential for mass wasting. • Drainage systems should be designed to decrease the potential of mass wasting.
Roads Analysis Report 59 AQ (4): How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality?
Most road problems during floods result from improper or inadequate engineering and design, particularly at road-stream crossings, but also where roads cross headwater swales or other areas of convergent groundwater. Road redesign that anticipates and accommodates movement of water, sediment, and debris during infrequent but major storms should substantially reduce road failures and minimize erosional consequences when failures occur. A typical failure resulted from culverts sized only to accommodate the flow of water, but not the additional wood and sediment typically transported during major floods. The culverts became obstructed and diverted water onto the road surface, into neighboring drainages unable to adjust to the increase in peak flow from the contributing basin, or onto unchanneled hill slopes.
Stream crossings are a particularly important pathway for controlling the introduction of non-point source pollution to the stream network. This mainly results from the ditch lines and drainage network of these forest roads intersecting the stream network without proper drainage considerations. While these are very effective at removing the water from the road network it does not provide the water the opportunity to lose its sediment load before entering the streams. This can be resolved or mitigated by disconnecting the road drainage system from the stream network by utilizing culverts, crossdrains, and other drainage structures, more often at higher slope positions, to route the water across the landscape instead of directly into the stream channel.
Crossings on larger streams are often controlled by bedrock substrates and crossing structures are usually not used for low maintenance level roads. The important need for these crossings is to make sure the approaches are stable and that the drainage system is well disconnected from the stream network. Crossings on smaller streams, and higher maintenance level roads, often utilize some sort of structure for crossing the streambed. For these crossings, it will be necessary to design them for passing debris carried by the stream during floods, and large rainfall events, as well as allow for proper aquatic organisms passage. These crossings should also have well disconnected drainage networks.
Stream crossings can direct runoff laden with organic materials into stream channels. As seen in question AQ 3, roads and stream crossings can also be potential areas of increased sedimentation. Certain stream crossings can alter hydraulic processes and cause instability in stream channels both locally and in extensive sections of the channel. Crossings can act as barriers to aquatic species migration and to the movement of sediment and woody debris in the stream channel. Stream crossings can also increase access to riparian areas and the stream channel, which can increase the probability of pollutants being delivered to the stream system. Special care should be taken in designing and planning stream crossings in watersheds where endangered, threatened, and special concern (TES) aquatic species exist (Table 2).
60 Roads Analysis Report Recommendation:
• Construct as few new stream crossings as possible and place them at the proper grade and elevation to cause minimal impact to stream processes. • New crossings should be designed to pass not only water but also sediment and large woody debris. They should also be designed to decrease constriction of stream flow and to allow for natural movement of the stream channel. • Remove crossings on temporary roads and restore channel integrity. • Reduce the input of runoff at crossings by installing more drainage structures to relieve ditches upslope of stream crossings. • Design drainage structures to exit ditches onto vegetated buffers. • Manage access at stream crossings to protect riparian areas. • Road inventories should be conducted to inventory the location and to measure the potential barrier to aquatic species of road crossings.
Figure F-2 show the road crossings per square mile of the depicted watersheds. These values were ranked where dark colors indicate fewer road crossings in the watershed while lighter colors indicate greater numbers of road crossings per watershed. It is expected that these changes would be most apparent where there the road density is the greatest.
Figure F-2. Road Crossings per Square Mile in Watersheds on the OSFNFs.
AQ (5): How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides, to enter surface waters?
Roads provide access to and increase the opportunity for applying a variety of chemicals in national forests. Some applications target the roads, such as with road surface treatment; other chemicals are intended for adjacent ecosystems to control pests and fertilize vegetation. Materials can also be added to roads from traffic, such as asbestos from brake linings, oil leakage, and accidental spills. Some portion of applied and spilled chemicals eventually reach streams by drift, runoff, leaching, or adsorption Roads Analysis Report 61 on soil particles. Roads also increase the nutrient delivery to streams by removing vegetation, re-routing water flow paths, and increasing sediment delivery. Also, roads increase the likelihood of toxic spills associated with accidents along streamside corridors.
Chemicals applied on and adjacent to roads can enter streams by various pathways. The likelihood of water-quality deterioration from ground applications is a function of how much chemical is applied, the proximity of the road to a stream, and the rainfall, snowmelt, and wind events that drive chemical and sediment movement. The risk is a function of the likelihood of water-quality deterioration and exposure of organisms, including people, and how susceptible the organisms are to the pollutant or pollutants. A large proportion of miles of FS roads are low standard and few, if any, chemicals are applied. This makes the risk of chemical contamination for most FS roads relatively low.
Increased nutrient supply to streams from roads is proportional to the area disturbed and maintained free of vegetation and the amount of sediment delivered. Increased nutrients rarely have detrimental effects on stream water quality, but they may modify the composition of aquatic biota (Hawkins and others, in press). Few studies examining watershed responses to logging separate the effect of road building from those of the broader disturbance associated with removing timber. In one such study, Swank (1988) monitored stream chemical composition during the pretreatment, road building, logging, and post-treatment phases in a cable-logged watershed in the southern Appalachian Mountains. No stream chemical response was found to the road-building phase of the watershed treatment. Nutrient movement to streams often increases significantly after timber harvest operations (Frederiksen and others 1973, Hornbeck and others 1973, Likens and others 1970, Pierce and others 1972, Swank and Waide 1988).
Although roads might not respond in the same way because of drainage rerouting, we expect that nutrient mobility is proportional to the area maintained in a disturbed, non- vegetated state. Hazardous chemical spills from vehicle accidents can pose a direct, acute threat of contamination to streams. The risk of hazardous chemical spills resulting from vehicle accidents adjacent to waterways is recognized and documented by the National Forest system and by state transportation departments (IDT 1996). Risk- analysis models of accident-related chemical spills are available, but they are designed for paved roads in non-mountainous terrain. Models take into account risk to human health, traffic frequency, vehicle type, and proximity to water. Possible contaminants include any substance being transported, such as fuel, pesticides, chemicals used in mining, fertilizers, and fire retardants.
Across the Forests, the most likely place where contamination potential is likely is along major travel corridors, such as state highways and major county roads. A contamination risk will be present if other forest roads are used for such purposes as removing and disposing of brine from natural gas production.
The severity of damage depends on what organisms might be exposed, their susceptibility to the material, and the degree, duration, and timing of their exposure. It is possible that purposeful disposal of substances from illegal activities can be introduced at locations where flowing water is accessible. There have been very few reported incidents of this type of activity on the Forests. Accidental introduction of pollutants to
62 Roads Analysis Report streams is fairly low because of the low frequency of transport across the Forests. Accidental spills would be expected on major roads systems that pass through or near the Forests.
Recommendations:
• New roads should be designed to decrease the amount of road crossings and roads in the streamside management zone. • Good communications should be maintained with local, county, and state governments for notification when a spill occurs on or near National Forest lands. • The preparedness of local county governments to handle hazard material spills should be determined. • Data on the location of populations of TES aquatic species should be maintained to help gauge the risk of pollutant introductions to a watershed.
AQ (6): How and where is the road system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? How do the connections affect water quality and quantity?
Many of the connectivity issues have been detailed in the answers to AQ 1 and AQ 4.
Collectively, the effect of roads on basin stream flow is generally smaller than the effect of forest cutting, primarily because the area occupied by roads is much less than that occupied by harvest operations. Generally, hydrologic recovery after road building takes much longer than after forest harvest because roads modify physical hydrologic pathways, but harvesting principally affects evapotranspiration processes. The hydrologic effect of roads depends on several factors, including the location of roads on hill slopes, characteristics of the soil profile, subsurface water flow and groundwater interception, the design of drainage structures (ditches, culverts) that affect the routing of flow through the watershed, and the proportion of the watershed occupied by roads.
Again, roads are hydrologically connected to streams and aquatic systems at road crossings and in areas where roads are in close proximity to streams and lakes (Table 1). Roads can increase the amount of water reaching stream channels during peak flow events by funneling water through ditches and roadways into the stream. They can decrease the base flow of streams by modifying the sub-surface flow and decreasing the amount of available groundwater. Roads and road ditch systems can also provide conduits for the increased movement of sediments and chemicals off of the landscape and into streams and water bodies. Stream crossings are usually open areas in the forest canopy that can allow for solar heating of aquatic systems.
Recommendations:
• Building and moving roads outside of the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) and decreasing the amount of road crossings on roads in the Forests will decrease the potential for negative impacts from roads on aquatic systems. • Developing drainage networks that decrease the movement of water, sediment, and chemical runoff straight from roadways into stream channels would also decrease the potential impacts.
Roads Analysis Report 63 AQ (7): What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived pollutants?
All of the surface waters in this area receive the following designated uses: • Secondary Contact Recreation • Domestic • Industrial • Agricultural Water Supply • Seasonal Designated Fisheries.
For watersheds greater that 10 square miles the following designated uses are present: • Primary Contact Recreation • Perennial Designated Fishery.
There are a few cases where the designated uses are: • Extraordinary Resource Waters, particularly on our wild and scenic rivers.
All the necessary information for determining the designated use and the associated water quality that pertains to that designated use is found in Regulation 2 produced by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission.
Because of the dominant forestland use and minimal traffic patterns on unimproved roads across the Forests, there is a very low risk to the downstream beneficial uses as a result of the road network.
Recommendations:
• Building and moving roads outside of the SMZ. • Decreasing the amount of road crossings on roads in the Forests will decrease the potential for pollution of these stream networks. • The monitoring of human population growth rates and the water use by communities will allow the Forests to access the potential for impact by forest roads.
AQ (8): How and where does the road system affect wetlands (and riparian areas)?
Wetlands are those areas that are flooded for periods during the growing season, have hydric soils, and have vegetation dependent on wet ground conditions. The vegetation can be quite variable depending on frequency and duration of flooding. Roads can affect wetlands and riparian areas by direct encroachment, by modifying the hydrology, and by the introduction of sediment. Roads can modify both surface and sub-surface drainage in wetlands and riparian areas, causing changes in wetland moisture regimes. Where roads cross or are near wetlands, the effect on the form, process, and function of wetlands is dependent on the degree, which the local hydrology is modified, in terms of flow quantity, timing, routing, and water quality.
64 Roads Analysis Report The OSFNFs do not have a real great potential for wetland existence on the main Ozark units of the Forests. Wetlands are more common on the St. Francis NF. During project planning field surveys, aerial photo interpretation, county soil surveys, state soil surveys, flood maps, and the National Wetland Inventory are used to help identify the existence of wetlands.
Recommendation:
• Inventories should be done to determine wetlands on the Forests. • This data should be kept up to date in a GIS database for use during the design of new road project and maintenance of older roads. • Soil data should also be verified and updated to allow for the use of this data in delineating wetlands. • When new road projects are proposed, inventories should be conducted in the area to identify unknown wetlands. • Roads, if at all possible, should be kept out of the SMZ except at streams crossings. • Arkansas Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be followed when building new and maintaining existing roads.
The Arkansas Best Management Practices convey the following regarding this issue,
“As mandated by Amendments to the Clean Water Act, forest roads in jurisdictional wetlands… must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following Best Management Practices to retain Section 404 exemption status.”
AQ (9): How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains, constraints on channel migration, and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment?
Geomorphic effects of forest roads range from chronic and long-term contributions of fine sediment into streams to catastrophic effects associated with mass failures of road fill material during large storms.
Roads affect geomorphic processes by four primary mechanisms:
• Accelerating erosion from the road surface and prism itself by both mass and surface erosion processes. • Directly affecting channel structure and geometry. • Altering surface flow paths, leading to diversion or extension of channels onto previously unchannelized portions of the landscape. • Causing interactions among water, sediment, and woody debris at engineered road-stream crossings.
These mechanisms involve different physical processes, have varying effects on erosion rates, and are not uniformly distributed either within or among landscapes.
Roads Analysis Report 65 The magnitude of road-related mass erosion varies by climate, geology, road age, construction practices, and storm history. Several studies in the Eastern United States showed that landslides were driven more by storm magnitude and geology than by land use. A threshold of 5 inches of rain per day (Eschner and Patric 1982) and metasedimentary geology are associated with large debris slides in the Appalachians. Road drainage can cause small slides in road fills; nevertheless, some major landslides originate in undisturbed forestland (Neary and others 1986, Neary and Swift 1987).
Surface erosion from road surfaces, cutbanks, and ditches represent a significant and, in some landscapes, the dominant source of road-related sediment input to streams. Increased sediment delivery to streams after road building has been well documented in the research literature for the Eastern United States (Kochenderfer and others 1997, Swift 1985, 1988). Rates of sediment delivery from unpaved roads appear highest in the initial years after building (Megahan and Kidd 1972) and are closely correlated to traffic volume on unpaved roads (Reid and Dunne 1984, Sullivan and Duncan 1981). In the Eastern United States, poorly designed and managed forest access and county roads are major sources for higher sediment input rates to streams (Hansen 1971, Patric 1976, Van Lear and others 1995). The largest sediment losses were during road building and before exposed soils were protected by revegetation, surfacing, or erosion control materials (Swift 1985, Swift 1988, Thompson and others 1996, Vowell 1985). Soil loss from skid roads in West Virginia ranged from 40 tons/acre during logging, 4 tons/acre the first year after logging, to 0.1 ton/acre 1 year after logging was completed (Hornbeck and Reinhart 1964). Raw ditch lines and roadbeds are continuing sources of sediment (Miller and others 1985), usually because of lack of maintenance, maintenance inadequate for the amount of road use, excessive ditch line disturbance, or poorly timed maintenance relative to storm patterns (Swift 1984, 1988).
Extensive research has demonstrated that improved designing, building, and maintaining of roads can reduce road-related surface erosion at the scale of individual road segments. Key factors are road location, particularly layout relative to stream systems (Swift 1988, USDA 1999), road drainage (Haupt 1959), surfacing (Burroughs and King 1989, Kochenderfer and Helvey 1987, Swift 1984), and cutslope and fillslope treatments (Burroughs and King 1989, Swift 1988). Many studies have shown that surfacing materials and vegetation measures can be used to reduce the yield of fine sediment from road surfaces (Beschta 1978, Burroughs and others 1984, Kochenderfer and Helvey 1987, Swift 1984).
Roads interact directly with stream channels in a variety of ways, depending on orientation to streams (parallel, orthogonal) and landscape position (valley bottom, midslope, ridge). The geomorphic consequences of these interactions, particularly during storms, are potentially significant in terms of erosion rates, direct and off-site effects on channel morphology, and drainage network structure, but they are complex and often poorly understood. Encroachment of forest roads along the mainstem channel or floodplain may be the most direct effects of roads on channel morphology in many watersheds. Poorly designed channel crossings of roads and culverts designed to pass flow may also affect the morphology of small tributary streams, as well as limit or eliminate fish passage. Indirect effects of roads on channel morphology include the
66 Roads Analysis Report contributions of sediment and altered stream flow that can alter channel width, depth, local gradients, and habitat features (pools, riffles) for aquatic organisms (Harr and Nichols 1993).
Roads in midslope and ridge top positions may also affect the drainage network by initiating new channels or extending the existing drainage network. By concentrating runoff along an impervious surface, roads may decrease the critical source area required to initiate headwater streams (Montgomery 1994). In addition, concentrated road runoff channeled in roadside ditches may extend the channel network by eroding gullies or intermittent channels on hill slopes and by linking road segments to small tributary streams (Weaver and others 1995, Wemple and others 1996a). These effects of roads on the channel network have implications for slope stability, sedimentation, and stream flow regimes.
Road crossings can establish hard points in the stream that can disrupt the natural movement of the stream channel across the floodplain. Roads built in the floodplain and/or SMZ can alter the natural hydrology of the system and constrain the movement of the channel. The disruption and constraint of the stream channel can cause bank and stream instability for extensive areas upstream and downstream of the site. Roads can increase the amount of sediment and fine organic material entering the system. The damming and subsequent removal of large woody material and substrate at stream crossings can cause a destabilization in the balance of the aquatic system. This can also cause great shift in extensive section of the stream as the stream compensates for the inbalance caused by the disruption in natural flow.
Recommendations:
• New road construction should be designed to minimize the amount of road crossings and road density within the SMZ. • Road construction and maintenance should follow Arkansas BMPs. • New road crossings should be designed to span as much of the flood plain as possible to control constriction of the channel and to allow for not only movement of the water but also sediment and large woody debris. • Road and stream inventories should be conducted to pinpoint areas of potential alteration to the aquatic system.
AQ (10): How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what extent?
Aquatic species are restricted at road crossings and locations where stream channels are altered (Warren and Pardew 1998). Migration of aquatic species is also altered at a small scale by temperature at road crossings due to the alteration of canopy cover. At stream crossings, aquatic species must negotiate jump, velocity, and depth barriers. They may also have to deal with a behavioral barrier if the species is just unwilling to go into the pipe or to have the pipe material touching their body. They can also encounter jump barriers at head cuts or depth barriers at braided channels that form because of the alteration of the stream channel. These barriers to movement and migration can impact all aquatic species. New evidence has shown that resident fish species have
Roads Analysis Report 67 larger home ranges than was previously believed (Decker and Erman 1992; Matheney and Rabeni 1995) and show rapid recolonization of defaunated stream reaches (Peterson and Bayley 1993; Sheldon and Meffe 1994). These species move to spawn (Fausch and Young 1995), take advantage of food resources (Harvey 1991), and get away from harsh conditions during certain periods of the year (Schlosser 1995). This movement is also very important to prevent fragmentation that can cause loss of genetic diversity within distinct populations (Bestgen and Platania 1991; Winston et al. 1991). Mussel species are affected because they depend on fish species as hosts for reproduction and movement. When the migration of their host species is blocked from moving upstream, it prevents movement of the mussel species. To a lesser extent, movement of crayfish, aquatic salamanders, and aquatic insects is also restricted (Jackson 2003). Crayfish and aquatic salamanders can move across land. The main problem is that they then expose themselves to greater predation and to becoming road kill. Most aquatic insects have an adult terrestrial phase that allows them to distribute across these barriers at certain parts of the year.
Recommendation:
• Road and stream inventories need to be conducted to determine the impact to stream channels from roads. • Road crossing inventories need to be conducted to determine the potential for barriers to blocking the movement of aquatic species. • New roads and maintenance of old roads needs to be done following the Arkansas BMPs. • New roads need to be designed to minimize stream crossings and to stay out of SMZ as much as possible.
AQ (11): How does the road system affect shading, litter fall, and riparian plant communities?
The road system directly affects riparian plant communities and associated processes and stream habitat at stream crossings. Roads interrupt the continuity of riparian corridors and will cause a greater effect in areas of higher road and stream crossing density. Roads also indirectly affect riparian communities by allowing human access at crossings and at riparian road locations. Increased human activity can negatively affect sensitive riparian soils and vegetation. This effect is noticeable in watersheds where road and trail densities are high and are associated with stream crossings.
When roads are constructed adjacent to streams, riparian vegetation is often removed to accommodate the road right-of-way, improve visibility, and reduce the hazard of trees falling on the roadway. However, this action can reduce shading of the stream causing increased stream temperatures, reduced potential for recruiting large woody debris in the stream, reduced leaf fall and riparian insects, and loss of habitat for aquatic and riparian species.
68 Roads Analysis Report Recommendation:
• Road and stream inventories need to be conducted to determine the impact to riparian areas from roads. • New roads and maintenance of old roads need to be done following the Arkansas BMPs. • New roads need to be designed to minimize stream crossings and to stay out of SMZ as much as possible.
AQ (12): How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species?
The road system contributes to fishing and any other stream-related activity by allowing a high frequency of access to streams. It also allows points of potential introduction by invasive species through bait bucket introduction, intentional introduction, or introduction on boats. Increases in sediment and alterations in the stream channel can lead to the direct loss of habitat for aquatic species.
Recommendation:
• Road and stream inventories need to be conducted to determine the impact to riparian areas from roads. • New roads and maintenance of old roads need to be done following the Arkansas BMPs. • New roads need to be designed to minimize stream crossings and to stay out of SMZ as much as possible.
AQ (13): How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non- native aquatic species?
The stream crossings and roads within close proximity to roads allow for points of potential introduction by invasive species through bait bucket introduction, intentional introduction, or introduction on boats. The illegal stocking of non-native species is of growing concern. Illegal stocking ranges from the simple releasing of a family pet to deliberate releases by individuals seeking to establish new fish populations. The bait bucket releases of aquatic species are the most common method of introducing non- native aquatic species. The frequency of bait bucket releases is directly related to fishing frequency, therefore locations with high fishing frequency also have higher incidents of illegal stocking by bait bucket releases. Roads that provide access to boat launches can also be access points for zebra mussels which have been established in lakes and rivers in Arkansas on boats brought from other bodies of water were zebra mussels already have populations (Pigg et al. 1997; Stoeckel et al. 1997).
Roads Analysis Report 69 Recommendation:
• Stream and biotic inventories need to be conducted to determine if populations of non-native species are present in systems. • Educational programs need to be provided to the public at access points like boat ramps about why introductions of non-native species are bad and how to prevent the accidental introduction of species like zebra mussel. • New roads and maintenance of old roads need to be done following the Arkansas BMPs. • New roads need to be designed to minimize stream crossings and to stay out of SMZ as much as possible.
AQ (14): To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest?
Not all areas have the same biological values. Areas where diversity of productivity are especially high, or where other special conditions are particularly valued, may suggest that the degree of acceptable risk is lower and restoration priority is higher than in other areas. The spatial coincidence of roads with such areas is a first step in determining if roads are affecting them. Roads in these areas may be a high priority for the detailed examination and analysis needed to determine the extent of actual effects. More extensive analysis needs to be done at a project level to determine impacts to TES aquatic species (Table 2).
70 Roads Analysis Report Table F-1. Road/Stream Characteristics for all 5th Level Watersheds that Contain OSFNFs Lands. Data provided by the USDA Forest Service National Aquatic Ecology Unit, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Road Road Road Density Road th Percentage Stream Density 5 level (Road Density Unit Name FS Crossings/ 300 Ft HUC miles/Area 66 Ft of Ownership Stream of sq mi) Streams Miles Streams 08020100 Mississippi 10.8 0.51 0.12 0.41 0.47 02 River 08020203 Phillips Bayou 45.9 1.66 0.23 0.61 1.30 34 08020205 L’Anguille 0.6 1.37 0.28 0.72 1.12 13 River 08020304 Lick Creek 1.9 2.77 0.86 1.99 2.39 04 08020304 Beaver Bayou 0.3 2.10 0.53 1.16 1.55 05 Ditch 11010001 Upper White 42.7 1.33 0.63 1.74 3.22 01 River 11010001 White River 11.9 2.29 0.60 1.35 2.35 02 11010001 Middle Fork 5.4 2.89 0.68 3.54 4.22 03 White River 11010001 West Fork 0.1 4.91 1.34 4.21 5.09 04 White River 11010001 War Eagle 0.3 1.92 0.49 1.00 2.06 06 Creek 11010001 Kings River 5.2 1.54 0.47 0.82 1.51 09 11010004 Barren Creek 21.6 2.69 0.65 1.13 2.02 01 11010004 Rocky Bayou 19.5 1.66 0.25 0.56 1.36 03 11010004 North 04 Sylamore 44.5 1.91 0.34 0.82 1.43 Creek 11010005 Buffalo River 28.7 0.64 0.11 0.18 0.41 01 11010005 Little Buffalo 19.4 1.19 0.31 0.52 1.04 02 River 11010005 Richland 40.3 1.02 0.32 0.61 1.01 03 Creek 11010005 Big Creek 14.7 1.33 0.34 0.81 1.21 05 11010014 South Fork of 03 Little Red 19.3 1.13 0.13 0.19 0.49 River
Roads Analysis Report 71 Table F-1 (Continued). Road/Stream Characteristics for all 5th Level Watersheds that Contain OSFNFs Lands. Data provided by the USDA Forest Service National Aquatic Ecology Unit, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Road Road Road Road th Percentage Density Stream 5 level Density Density Unit Name FS (Road Crossings/ HUC 66 Ft of 300 Ft of Ownership miles/Area Stream Streams Streams sq mi) Miles 11010014 Archery Creek 0.6 1.00 0.20 0.29 0.58 04 11110103 Illinois River 9.2 4.30 0.88 2.42 3.70 01 11110103 Osage Creek 1.0 6.70 1.62 3.77 5.48 03 11110103 Muddy Fork 0.5 4.44 0.88 2.79 3.56 04 11110103 Wedington 5.3 3.20 0.78 1.98 2.85 06 Creek 11110103 Baron Fork 0.4 2.21 0.79 1.92 2.65 07 11110104 Cove Creek 28.0 1.88 0.28 0.83 1.23 04 11110104 Webber Creek 2.7 1.59 0.54 1.27 1.62 05 11110201 Upper Frog 36.3 1.73 0.29 1.07 1.26 04 Bayou 11110201 Frog Bayou 6.2 2.73 0.78 1.41 2.27 05 11110201 Upper Mulberry 72.6 1.65 0.36 0.69 1.20 06 River 11110201 Mulberry River 82.3 1.32 0.36 0.69 1.20 07 11110201 Little Mulberry 13.7 2.42 0.69 1.42 1.84 08 River 11110201 White Oak 2.1 1.80 0.48 0.82 1.58 09 Creek 11110202 Short Mountain 32.3 2.44 0.55 0.89 1.29 04 Creek 11110202 Spadra Creek 14.2 3.65 1.08 2.04 2.94 05 11110202 Horsehead 15.6 1.90 0.68 1.01 1.69 06 Creek 11110202 Cane Creek 2.7 2.64 1.00 1.73 2.12 07 11110202 Little Piney 45.0 1.79 0.59 1.20 1.61 08 Creek
72 Roads Analysis Report Table F-1 (Continued). Road/Stream Characteristics for all 5th Level Watersheds that contain OSFNFs Lands. Data provided by the USDA Forest Service National Aquatic Ecology Unit, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Road Road Road Road th Percentage Density Stream 5 level Density Density Unit Name FS (Road Crossings/ HUC 66 Ft of 300 Ft of Ownership miles/Area Stream Streams Streams sq mi) Miles 11110202 Up. Big Piney 82.1 1.06 0.19 0.41 1.07 09 Creek 11110202 Big Shoal 54.5 1.62 0.58 1.00 1.56 10 Creek 11110202 Big Piney 70.8 1.51 0.33 0.69 1.39 11 Creek 11110202 North Fork 85.9 1.60 0.19 0.38 0.68 12 Illinois Bayou 11110202 Middle Fork 77.1 0.99 0.12 0.24 0.54 13 Illinois Bayou 11110202 Illinois Bayou 7.2 2.41 0.88 1.38 1.97 14 11110202 Arkansas River 0.7 3.73 1.33 2.23 2.78 15 11110203 Hackers Creek 13.8 2.45 0.87 1.44 2.35 05 11110203 Brock Creek 45.9 1.83 0.43 0.71 1.20 06 11110204 Revilee Creek 7.3 1.71 0.49 1.00 1.86 02 11110204 Cedar Creek 15.7 2.96 1.09 2.80 2.65 03 11110204 Chickalah 27.3 1.48 0.61 1.08 1.36 04 Creek
Roads Analysis Report 73 Table F-2. List of Threatened, Endangered, and Regional Forest Sensitive Species (TES) Found on the OSFNFs along with the 5th Level Watersheds in Which They Have Currently Been Found or Are Believed to be Found. Organism Common Name 5th level HUC Fish Longnose Darter Webber Creek (1111010405) Cove Creek/Lee Creek (1111010404) White River (1101000102) Little Mulberry Creek (1111020108) Big Piney Creek (1111020211) North Fork Illinois Bayou (1111020212) Frog Bayou (1111020105) Illinois Bayou (1111020214) Mulberry River (1111020107) Ozark Cavefish Osage Creek (1111010303) Ozark Shiner Kings River (1101000109) Buffalo River (1101000501) Little Buffalo River (1101000502) Richland Creek/Cave Creek (1101000503) Pallid Sturgeon Mississippi River (0802010002) Phillips Bayou (0802020334) Southern Cavefish North Sylamore Creek (1101000404) Mussel Fat Pocketbook L’ anguille River (0802020513) Phillips Bayou (0802020334) Neosho Mucket Illinois River (1111010301) Wedington Creek (1111010306) Scaleshell Frog Bayou (1111020105) Speckled Pocketbook Little Red River (110100403)
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE (TW)
TW (1): What are the direct effects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat?
The road system has reduced habitat available for wildlife by clearing ground of vegetation. Species preferring edge will have improved conditions along roadside openings while those that are sensitive to habitat fragmentation will have somewhat reduced habitat.
TW (2): How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat?
The road system provides access to forest resources for forest management, recreational use, and wildlife management. These activities can directly affect habitat condition and availability.
74 Roads Analysis Report Wildlife species have varying escape distances relative to their exposure to road disturbance. Animals prefer to stay beyond a distance that provides visual and auditory buffers. However, other factors such as availability of forage and familiarity to the disturbance can shorten this distance. In urban areas where deer are accustomed to non-threatening human disturbance, deer can be seen in broad daylight calmly moving or grazing alongside busy roads. The key is disturbance familiarity.
Where roads have existed for years with constant traffic volumes, each resident species will reach a comfort distance from the road. Theoretical avoidance corridors can be determined for each species flight distance and cover. The corridor, for example, would be much narrower for an opossum than for a bobcat or barred owl. New road construction could cause wider avoidance corridors due to the lack of familiarity with the disturbance. So a corridor wider than the new road right-of-way can become unusable or degraded habitat due to disturbance. However, as each resident species becomes more familiar with the road disturbance, the avoidance corridor will become narrower.
Wild turkey numbers are shown to be reduced by vehicular disturbances and by high open road densities, especially during the nesting and brood-rearing seasons. This would likely apply to other birds, which are sensitive to disturbance at critical times during the year. Mammal use of roads as travel ways is documented but as vehicular use increases, use as a travel way decreases.
Roads allow for greater access for the harvest of game species such as white-tailed deer and these activities are not adversely affecting wildlife species populations.
TW (3): How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities? What are the effects on wildlife species?
Open roads facilitate access for legal hunting and trapping activities, but these legal activities are not adversely affecting wildlife species populations. Legal hunting activities can beneficially affect wildlife populations by keeping populations in check.
Illegal hunting or poaching of wildlife does pose a problem in areas accessed by roads. White-tailed deer and wild turkeys are two species that are often observed near roads and are susceptible to poaching. While instances of illegal hunting activities on roads are known to occur, these activities are not significantly affecting wildlife species populations.
The illegal collecting of animals is another example of an unlawful activity facilitated by road access. Eastern box turtles are slow moving and often found on or near roads, which facilitates collection.
Roads in the vicinity of caves and karst features have improved access into these sites and lead to the disturbance of endangered bat species by vandals and recreational cavers. Disturbance of bats at critical times during the year has been shown to be a limiting factor in population numbers.
Roads Analysis Report 75 TW (4): How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area?
Road systems can indirectly impact some rare communities or special features such as caves by providing better public access to sites, which would otherwise receive little or no traffic. Vandalism of cave resources and the disturbance of wildlife associated with these unique sites have been documented. It has been shown that seasonal or year- round closure of some roads, which restrict access at important times of the year, can affect cave resources in a positive way.
ECONOMICS (EC)
EC (1): How does the road system affect the agency’s direct costs and revenues? What, if any, changes in the road system will increase net revenue to the agency by reducing cost, increasing revenue, or both?
The OSFNFs receive revenues from commercial permits and cooperative maintenance agreements associated with the use of FS roads for private and corporate commercial activities, such as timber harvesting and oil/gas well drilling. The OSFNFs also receive road maintenance revenue from the purchasers of national forest timber as well as from road use permittees. Generally, higher standard roads result in higher bids for timber sales. For example, well-surfaced all-weather roads accessing a timber sale area containing soils that can be logged during wet winter weather will usually result in higher bids for the timber.
The FS roads also have a direct effect upon the Recreation Fee Program. Those fee sites which have good roads tend to have higher use and thus generate more revenue than those with access provided by poor roads. Maintaining roads, which provide access to recreation fee sites generally will generate higher use and will result in revenues.
EC (2): How does the road system affect the priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis used to assess net benefits to society?
The purpose of this question is to address economic efficiency from the societal point of view. Economic efficiency goes beyond financial efficiency. Economic efficiency analysis measures the net economic benefit to society in total, including non-market values as well as external costs and benefits, without regard for who gains and who loses. The economic efficiency question asks whether a specific investment produces more total economic value than it costs at the scale in question. Economic efficiency analysis may include consequences that we cannot express in dollars.
Eighty-two percent of the forest roads addressed in this analysis are state highways and county roads serving the NF lands as well as intermingled private lands and corporate timberlands. Since most of the roads addressed in this analysis are not under FS jurisdiction, the FS does not have the information to determine how the road system affects the priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis.
76 Roads Analysis Report Examples of benefits included in economic efficiency analysis include the increased quality and value of water flowing from NF lands, the value of recreation experiences provided free-of-charge, and passive-use values. Examples of costs include decreased quality and value of water flowing from NF lands, sedimentation of fish habitat, and fragmentation of species habitat resulting from management activities. Economic distribution effects such as employment, income, who benefits, and who pays are not included. They are the focus of distribution analysis as covered under EC 3.
Although passive-use value is a component of economic efficiency analysis, we address it after the recreation section below. This added emphasis is due to the potential long-term loss of unique unroaded values in areas planned for road entry. Passive-use value, however, in areas currently roaded can be lost with planned road decommissioning.
EC (3): How does the road system affect the distribution of benefits and costs among affected people?
When doing economic distribution analyses, we identify the distribution of benefits and costs in society. Distribution analyses can be either financial or economic. Financial distribution analyses include only direct cash flows. Examples include job and income gains or losses by different sectors of the economy. Economic distribution analyses add non-market values and external values and costs. Examples of this type of distribution analyses include who incurs the negative effects of air or water pollution and who benefits from enhanced scenic beauty or solitude.
Eighty-two percent of the forest roads addressed in this analysis are state highways and county roads serving the NF lands as well as intermingled private lands and corporate timberlands. Since most of the roads addressed in this analysis are not under FS jurisdiction, the FS does not have the information to determine how the road system affects the priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis.
It is likely that the public road system managed by the FS benefits rural and urban people of both sexes and people of varying ages, education levels, and incomes.
COMMODITY PRODUCTION
TIMBER MANAGEMENT (TM)
TM (1): How does road spacing and location affect logging system feasibility?
Approximately 70 percent of the OSFNFs are suitable for timber production. This includes areas with a percent slope of 35 percent or less. Logging systems normally used on the OSFNFs are ground-based where slopes are gentle. Logging systems (e.g., cable yarding) for use on slopes above 35 percent are available but are not readily used within the Ozark Mountains because the terrain limitations of the area. Steep rock outcrops and benches often make cable yarding infeasible.
Within the suitable land base an average road density of .10 miles/ total square mile exists (ML 1-5). In most cases, the system of roads, including ML 1-5 roads, provides Roads Analysis Report 77 adequate access for a ground-based system. The majority of the FS roads serving lands suitable for timber production have been constructed and reconstructed as a result of timber sales over the years. However, a few local or spur roads may have to be constructed to access small or isolated tracts of NF lands. As new types of vegetation management objectives are developed for areas historically not managed for timber removal, and therefore lacking road access, new roads may be needed.
TM (2): How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber base and other lands?
Management of the suitable timber land base is not possible without roads. Helicopter logging is the only method that can occur where road access is minimal. Historically, helicopter logging has not been feasible on the OSFNFs because of insufficient timber quantity and quality. Roads need to be in locations to accommodate logging systems and harvest methods. Where timber harvesting is used on other than suitable lands to accomplish other resources objectives, a road system is needed. However, based on site-specific conditions, longer skidding distances can be used and more protective measures applied to accomplish the project objectives. These additional measures would result in additional logging costs and lower timber receipts.
TM (3): How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatments?
The current road system provides adequate access for managing, monitoring, and providing silvicultural treatment to most of the NF lands suitable for timber production.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT (MN) MM (1): How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals?
Mineral resources are available for exploration and development on selected areas of the Forests. The proposed revised plan includes the Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for oil and gas on the OSFNFs from which the potential is based.
The public and FS road systems provide adequate access to federal oil/gas and private minerals. In many cases, additional access road construction, up to 1.5-2.0 miles, may be needed. The standards for new access road construction would be commensurate with the mineral operations and would be addressed at the watershed or project level. The need for roads to access well sites should be addressed during project-scale analysis. Closure of roads may hamper access to mineral operations.
RANGE MANAGEMENT (RM)
RM (1): How does the road system affect access to range allotments?
Range allotments generally need only limited road access for maintaining constructed features like fence, corrals, or water systems. Access needs for mowing, fertilization, lime application, or moving livestock to or from allotments will require a permanent road system, however. 78 Roads Analysis Report Allotments on the Forests currently have sufficient access for range management needs. There have been persistent problems in the past with vandalism, harassment of cattle, or cattle rustling on range allotments, which have been facilitated by the ever- increasing use of road system.
WATER PRODUCTION (WP)
WP (1): How does the road system affect access, constructing, maintaining, monitoring, and operating water diversions, impoundments, and distribution canals and pipelines?
This is not an issue on the OSFNFs.
WP (2): How does road development and use affect water quality in municipals?
Few new roads need to be developed because most of the forest roads are in place. Future FS road development activities will probably be associated with short local or ‘spur’-type roads to small or isolated tracts.
Road use or existence in watersheds that supply domestic drinking water may affect the water quality by introducing sediment and other pollutants into the water. There are a number of surface water intake locations across the Forests located on major streams and rivers used for supplying domestic water. These have been identified through a state-sponsored program and were used for developing alternatives for the Draft Plan as well as in the effects analysis. Further analysis of the effects of roads on water quality must consider processes and conditions across a range of scales. Where identified as an issue, this should be addressed during project level assessment.
Roads Analysis Report 79 Figure F-3 shows the number of drinking water sources per square mile of the depicted watersheds. These values were ranked where dark colors indicate fewer domestic water sources in the watershed while lighter colors indicate higher numbers of domestic water sources per watershed.
Figure F-3. The Number of Drinking Water Sources per Square Mile in Watersheds on the OSFNFs.
WP (3): How does the road system affect access to hydroelectric power generation?
This is not an issue on the OSFNFs.
SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS (SP)
SP (1): How does the road system affect access for collecting special forest products?
The collection of special forest products from the OSFNFs is a minor recreation activity. Fuelwood, berries, mushrooms, and medicinal plants are among some of the more popular forest products that are collected on the Forests. The OSFNFs have a well- developed system of state highways and county roads in addition to FS roads that make access to the Forests in order to collect forest products easy.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SU)
SU (1): How does the road system affect managing special use permit sites (concessionaires, communication sites, utility corridors, etc)?
The OSFNFs have a good road system that supplies access to most of the Forests for normal public use and the administration of special use permit sites (concessionaires, communication sites, utility corridors.
80 Roads Analysis Report There are also a variety of roads on the OSFNFs that are under special use authorization (easements and permits) for special purposes. Some special use roads are system roads that are classified as school bus routes or provide access to private lands. Other, special use roads were system roads that were built years ago for timber sales but have not been maintained.
Some important road factors that affect the management of special use permit sites is to ensure the roads are necessary, constructed and maintained to FS road standards, and provide for multiple uses in the same corridor. It is also important to properly decommission a special use road when no longer needed. Proper rehabilitation of these roads will help minimize sedimentation of streams and permit the natural re-vegetation of the road.
Where identified as an issue, this question will be addressed during the project-scale analysis.
GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (GT)
GT (1): How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primarily access to communities?
The numerous state highways and county roads in the forest roads system provide the primary access to rural communities. However, because of the intermingled nature of NF lands and private lands, some FS roads provide access to residential areas and small-unincorporated communities in addition to the state highways and county roads.
GT (2): How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, in-holdings, and so on)?
The NF lands are scattered and interspersed with private lands and corporate timberlands. The NF lands comprise only 74% percent of the lands within the proclaimed boundary of the OSFNFs. There are numerous residential areas adjoining the NF lands.
The road system on the OSFNFs is composed of state, county, and FS roads and serves as access for some private lands as well as NF lands. Most of the major roads are under state or county jurisdiction and are open to public motorized traffic at all times. The state and county roads comprise about 82% of the forest roads addressed in this analysis (state, county, and FS ML 3-5). The potential exists for additional special use roads across NF lands to access leased minerals or private tracts.
GT (3): How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (RS 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements)?
The forest roads system on the OSFNFs is composed of state, county, and FS roads. The state and county roads comprise about 82% of the road system addressed in the forest-scale analysis. Most of the major roads are not under the jurisdiction of the FS and the FS does not have any authority to manage those roads.
Roads Analysis Report 81 Many of the major roads serving the OSFNFs already existed before the first federal lands were withdrawn from the public domain in 1908. The FS authority to manage a small number of those roads comes from Resolution Orders of the respective County Commissioners Court. The Resolution Orders declared the roads to be public roads under the jurisdiction of the FS. The actual statement in the orders is “maintenance jurisdiction,” but courts have interpreted that statement to include regulation of commercial hauling.
Some county roads are paved, but many county roads are surfaced with aggregate or native material. The traffic on county Roads cannot be regulated because much of the traffic is public residential use.
The FS has entered into Road Cooperative Agreements (conversationally referred to as “Coop Maintenance Agreements”, although not limited to road maintenance) with almost all the respective counties. The agreements include a lot of the county roads that serve or cross NF lands. With few exceptions, the counties have allowed the FS to perform whatever work was considered necessary and have often participated as well. The FS has surfaced many miles of these county roads with gravel or crushed stone, and cooperated in other ways; however, much work remains to be done to bring all these county roads to a condition that meets FS standards.
There is no shared ownership of roads on the OSFNFs.
RS 2477 rights have not been “perfected” on any road on NF land on the OSFNFS.
There are no cost share roads (Forest Development Road Cooperative Construction and Use Agreements) on the OSFNFS. These Cost Share Agreements are made when FS and private industrial timberland owners have intermingled lands where acreage, timber resources, and their respective road system needs are similar.
Forest Road and Trail Act (FRTA) easements are usually issued to public agencies (counties and cities) to use FS roads. County roads crossing NF land with no documented easement have, for all practical purposes, the same standing with the FS as any other county road.
United States Department of Transportation (DOT or USDOT) easements are granted by FHWA to AHTD for highway rights-of-way.
Many roads on NF lands are authorized by special use permits issued to individuals for access to adjacent private lands. Most of these roads are not within the scope of this forest scale analysis, but are typically short driveways that could be typified as “woods roads.” A few are residential driveways, but in those cases they are usually well maintained by the permittee and cause only minimal impacts.
GT (4): How does the road system address the safety of road users?
The forest roads system is comprised of state, county, and FS roads. The state and county roads compromise about 82% of the forest roads system addressed in this forest-scale analysis. Therefore, most of the major forest roads are not under the
82 Roads Analysis Report jurisdiction of the FS and the FS does not have any authority to manage those roads. The state and county have responsibility to provide for public safety on those roads.
However, the FS has entered into cooperative agreements to improve forest roads not under our jurisdiction, but that serve NF lands.
Construction/Maintenance Priorities for Forest CMRD road funding on the OSFNFs is as follows:
• Emergency Needs - Safety related issues including but not limited to repairing washed out roads/culverts/structures, replacing damaged/missing traffic control signs, removing fallen rocks/trees in roads, and repairing road running surface problems that lead to loss of vehicle control. • Critical needs – Include safety related issues including but not limited to removing dead hazard trees adjacent to roadways before they fall on the roadway, mowing/brushing roadsides to maintain driving sight distance, maintaining adequate surfacing to provide safe driving surface, and reducing safety problems by reconstructing roads to widen or remove blind curves, etc. • Non-critical needs - Does not include safety-related issues.
The first priority is to deal with safety-related problems on FS jurisdiction roads since the FS has the sole responsibility for safety-related issues for these roads.
As noted above, the FS has the authority to enter into cooperative agreements to improve roads not under FS jurisdiction when we have agreed that we need the road which most typically would be either for access to a developed recreation area or for access for resource management activities. Typical agreements to improve any of these non- FS jurisdiction roads are usually safety-related including, but not limited to, replacing failing culverts/structures, widening roads to accommodate mixed traffic, and repairing/replacing road surfacing.
When roads cannot be made safe, they are closed to vehicle traffic. Two current examples on the OSFNFs are as follows:
• Barkshed Bridge on FDR 1108 on Sylamore District has been closed/barricaded for last three years since a USFS funded bridge inspection showed it to be deficient and recommended that it be closed to traffic. The District is currently doing NEPA to evaluate alternatives.
• Humpback Bridge on Benton County Road 3 on Wedington Unit of Boston Mountain District has been closed/barricaded to vehicle traffic by Benton County for over a year since a state bridge inspection identified it deficient and recommending closing it. Benton County has indicated they do not have the $400,000+ needed to replace it. While the closure does create some problems for the FS, it also has some benefits for resource management and is not a priority for the FS to fund.
Roads Analysis Report 83 ADMINISTRATIVE USE (AU)
AU (1): How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring?
Road access for research activities has not been identified as an issue. We believe that the forest roads system, including state and county roads as well as FS roads, provides adequate access for research, inventory, and monitoring.
AU (2): How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities?
Unlawful activities are often addressed as road issues. Illegal use of closed roads, unauthorized collecting of forest products, and indiscriminate trash dumping are just a few examples of these activities. However, the same roads that provide access for illegal activities also provide access for law enforcement to prevent and investigate these activities.
The forest roads system provides access to the Forests for a variety of purposes. As long as there is adequate access to the Forests, illegal activities will occur.
PROTECTION (PT)
PT (1): How does the road system affect fuels management?
Roads are invaluable assets in fuels management and wildfire suppression. The forest roads system provides access for personnel and equipment to treat hazardous fuels, serves as control lines for prescribed burns, and most importantly serves as an escape route and deployment zone during prescribed burning and wildfire suppression operations.
PT (2): How does the road system affect the capacity of the FS and cooperators to suppress wildfires?
The most efficient and safest way to get firefighters and equipment to a wildfire is on roads. It is the quickest way for fire departments to respond to fires in the urban interface with equipment to suppress wildfires before they damage or destroy homes or other structures.
The budget-planning program used by the FS for fire management is the National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS). This program relies heavily on road access to ascertain response times to various areas of the Forests and then formulates a staffing level and budget. Closing roads or lowering road standards would have a detrimental impact on response times and the fire preparedness budget for the respective Forests.
Roads serve as important components of wildfire suppression. They provide access to forest lands, serve as control lines, and most importantly serve as escape routes and deployment zones during wildfire suppression operations.
84 Roads Analysis Report PT (3): How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety?
A well-developed road system in an area improves access and reduces response time for firefighters. It also provides more suppression options when dealing with a wildfire, thereby, reducing risk to the public and firefighters.
Most importantly, roads serve as escape routes and deployment zones during wildfire suppression operations.
PT (4): How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human health concerns?
Road dust is a minor problem on the OSFNFs.
Dusting of a road surface is a function of the road surfacing characteristics, the traffic volume, speed and weight; and most dramatically, the moisture content of the road surfacing material.
Moisture content of the surfacing material is most important. Typical atmospheric humidity levels and the associated road surface moisture reduce road dusting in Arkansas. Traffic on FS and county roads does not normally generate enough dust to cause visibility problems. Areas with visibility problems should continue to improve as counties continue to pave more of their higher-traffic volume roads.
The type of aggregate surfacing material affects the degree of dusting. Certain materials such as crushed limestone are more prone to dust than other materials such as sandstone.
Heavier trucks are many more times likely to cause dusting than passenger cars.
The ML-3, 4 and 5 FS roads and county roads serving the OSFNFs account for a majority of the airborne dust particle emissions. The slower traffic speeds on lower maintenance level roads, even when used by heavy logging truck traffic, tend to keep dusting to a minimum. The higher maintenance level roads are usually surfaced with crushed aggregate and are less prone to dusting at any given speed than the native or pit run surfacing material found on the typical unpaved county road.
It is beyond the scope of the analysis to determine if airborne dust contributes to human health concerns. De-icing salts dusting off roads are considered more of a concern than regular mineral dust. However, de-icing salts are not a concern since FS and county roads on the OSFNFs are not treated with de-icing salts. The use of de-icing salt is limited to state highways and bridges.
Roads Analysis Report 85 RECREATION (UR, RR)
UNROADED RECREATION (UR)
UR (1): Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities?
The Forests' demand for unroaded recreation opportunities appears to be satisfied under current management direction. The OSFNFs have five designated wilderness areas, which are unroaded recreation areas: Eastfork, Richland Creek, Hurricane Creek, Upper Buffalo and the Leatherwood Wilderness Areas. The draft plan also identifies two dispersed recreation areas, which will be managed as non-motorized. There appears to be an ample supply of existing and proposed unroaded recreation opportunities. None of the wilderness areas show signs of excessive use.
Overall, there is a high demand for all recreation opportunities in the state; many of these include roaded recreation and unroaded recreation opportunities. On the OSFNFs, the greatest demand is for roaded recreation. This will increase in the future as the population increases.
UR (2): Are developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities?
This is not an issue since no new roads would be developed in the existing wilderness areas on the OSFNFs as law prohibits this.
UR (3): What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbance caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quality, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities?
Since the wilderness areas are the only unroaded areas on the OSFNFs, the adverse effects are minimal. However, state highways border some of the wilderness areas and highway noise can be heard within these wilderness areas. The wilderness experience can be affected. Closing nearby roads may reduce the amount of noise and provide more opportunities for solitude in unroaded areas, but most of the nearby roads provide access to intermingled private lands and cannot be closed. Also, closing nearby roads may reduce opportunities for people to access unroaded areas to recreate.
Similar issues arise regarding the proposed dispersed recreation areas under the proposed plan revision. The existence of county and state roads makes providing a totally undisturbed dispersed recreation opportunity extremely difficult. Closing FS jurisdiction roads may help with the opportunities to provide solitude in the areas, but most of the nearby roads provide access to intermingle private lands and cannot be closed.
86 Roads Analysis Report UR (4): Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by building, maintaining, and decommissioning roads?
Most of the unroaded recreation activities occur in the Forests' five wilderness areas and are anticipated in the proposed dispersed recreation areas. Hikers, horseback riders, hunters, and fishermen utilize these areas for non-motorized recreation. Old abandoned roads that were used before the areas were established as wilderness or dispersed recreation areas do exist. Some of these old abandoned roads are used as hiking and horseback riding trails. A portion of the 140-mile Ozark Highlands Trail passes through some of the wilderness.
UR (5): What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?
There are mixed feelings of what constitutes wilderness. Many people view the wilderness area as a place to hike, ride horses, or hunt and don’t understand the “wilderness” or “roadless” area designation. Other users understand what wilderness is and are seeking some form of solitude. There are other wilderness areas in the state on the Ouachita NF and National Park Service lands, as well as nearby wilderness areas in the state of Missouri on the Mark Twain National Forest. Most hunters have strong feelings about the areas they frequent and, although alternative areas exist, would be hesitant to change. Other users don’t have such a strong attachment.
ROADED RECREATION (RR)
RR (1): Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for road-related recreation opportunities?
The current forest roads system is heavily utilized by a variety of recreation users to access developed and dispersed recreation opportunities including wilderness, trailheads, wild and scenic rivers, swimming holes, scenic areas and other favorite places. Hunting is a very popular recreation activity on the OSFNFs. Forest visitors camp at traditional hunter camps during the hunting seasons and occasionally try to drive large recreational vehicles down relatively primitive roads.
There are many scenic drives throughout the OSFNFs, including six exiting scenic byways. Three additional scenic byways are proposed in the draft plan. Driving is especially popular during the spring while roadside wildflowers, dogwood, and redbud are in bloom and during the fall when the hardwoods change color. There is not an excess supply, and demand will remain high for road-related recreational uses on the OSFNFs. This will increase in the future as the population increases.
RR (2): Are developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of road-related recreation opportunities?
No new roads would be developed in the existing wilderness areas on the OSFNFs, since law prohibits this.
Roads Analysis Report 87 It is estimated that during the next 50 years demand should increase for mountain biking, fishing, hiking or walking, non-consumptive wildlife uses, horseback riding, developed camping, and driving for pleasure. The Forests can provide for these recreational activities by improving existing facilities and developing new ones. Regional demands for big and small game hunting are expected to remain relatively constant or to decrease slightly. The overall hunting pressure on public lands in Arkansas is currently very high; however, it is expected to slowly decrease. Due to the large numbers of participants in hunting, the demand to use existing roads for hunting access will continue. Closing or decommissioning roads can affect the hunting experience for those used to having full access to the Forests.
Demand for OHV riding opportunities is another activity projected to increase slightly during the next 50 years. The St. Francis NF and the Lake Wedington unit are closed to OHV use. OHV use on the Ozark NF was a major issue raised during public meetings for plan revision. Many OHV enthusiasts wanted roads to remain open for recreation and hunting. The new National OHV policy, which says each forest will designate roads and trails for OHV use, may cause additional problems for OHV enthusiasts as more roads are closed or decommissioned. However, future project specific road analysis will determine whether roads will be closed, decommissioned, or converted to appropriate trail use.
RR (3): What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbance caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quality, quality, and type of roaded recreation opportunities?
Roaded recreation is not normally substantially adversely affected by road-related activities. The occurrence of disturbing activity on forest roads is usually infrequent and of short duration. Some noise is intrinsically associated with roaded recreation opportunities.
RR (4): Who participates in road-related recreation in the areas affected by building, maintaining, and decommissioning roads?
The forest roads system on the OSFNFs provides access for a variety of recreation activities. Many of the recreationists are not seeking road-related recreation opportunities, but utilize the forest roads system to access recreation sites on the Forests. The roads serve as access to developed and dispersed recreation sites. Many visitors utilize the forest roads system to access dispersed camping, hunting, and trail areas. A wide variety of forest products are also gathered for recreation purposes.
The local rural residents are the primary users of recreation resources on the Forests, particularly for dispersed recreation activities such as hunting. Most forest visitors from urban areas concentrate their recreation activities along the scenic byways or popular developed recreation areas. More and more urban visitors are attracted by the proximity to urban population centers and the accessibility from Interstate-40. The OSFNFs have a rapidly increasing number of Hispanic visitors, necessitating universal or bilingual signing.
RR (5): What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?
People who utilize the forest roads system have strong feelings about their right to access public lands on the OSFNFs. Major roads that access developed recreation areas are critical to the recreation program and will be managed to provide for public safety as use 88 Roads Analysis Report increases. In most cases, the less used “back roads” provide the greatest interest and contention from participants in road-related recreation opportunities.
At the forest scale, road-related recreation users have strong feelings for roads. It will be easier to identify public attachments to specific roads at the project-scale. Where identified as an issue, this will be further addressed during project-scale analysis.
PASSIVE-USE VALUE (PV)
PV (1): Do areas planned for road entry, closure, or decommissioning have unique physical or biological characteristics, such as unique natural features and threatened or endangered species?
Few new roads need to be constructed. All arterial and collector roads are already in place. Most of these arterial and collector roads are under state or county jurisdiction and are open to public motorized traffic at all times. Most of the FS roads (ML 3, 4, and 5) addressed in this analysis are already in place. We anticipate that future FS road development will be associated with local or spur roads (ML 1 and 2) addressed in subsequent project-scale analysis.
Specific proposals to construct new roads or to close and decommission existing roads will be addressed during project-level analysis. The analysis will address unique physical or biological characteristics if those are issues.
Any new roads will be analyzed for impacts to protected threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TES). Where identified as an issue, the effects on passive-use values should be addressed during project-level analyses.
PV (2): Do areas planned for road building, closure, or decommissioning have unique cultural, traditional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance?
Determinations of cultural, traditional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance will be made during project-scale analysis after identification of and consultation with those user groups who may attach such significance to the areas to be affected by road building, closure, or decommissioning. This especially applies to sovereign tribal groups who have an ancestral claim to the lands to be affected by a decision to build, close, or decommission roads.
PV (3): What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, symbolic, spiritual, sacred, traditional, or religious values for areas planned for road entry or road closure?
Such groups would include, but are not be limited to, rural congregations, residents of unincorporated communities (who are often members of large extended families), and Tribal groups (for whom the subject areas may constitute an ancestral homeland). This is difficult to determine at the forest scale and should be addressed during project-scale analysis if the issue arises in scoping.
Roads Analysis Report 89 PV (4): Will building, closing, or decommissioning roads substantially affect passive- use value?
Few new roads need to be developed. All arterial and collector roads are already in place. Most of these arterial and collector roads are under state or county jurisdiction and are open to public motorized traffic at all times. Most of the FS roads (ML 3, 4, and 5) addressed in this analysis are already in place. We anticipate that future FS road development will be associated with local or spur roads (ML 1 and 2) addressed in subsequent project-scale analysis. The effects of building, closing, or decommissioning a road on passive-use values are best addressed during project-scale analysis if the issue arises during scoping.
SOCIAL ISSUES (SI)
SI (1): What are people’s perceived needs and values for roads? How does road management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for roads?
Travel within the OSFNFs requires a transportation network suited to the needs of the user. At the time it became a national forest, the forest, like many others in the South, had a system of roads already in place. The roads ranged from U.S. highways to two- track trails. Over the last six decades, the OSFNFs road system has expanded and improved, responding to the needs of a growing nation and the increasing demands of society to utilize and enjoy the opportunities offered by a maturing national forest. Although FS road development has primarily been in response to timber management access needs, the resulting system provides a broad spectrum of facility types and levels of service to all users and visitors of the OSFNFs. Many of the state and county roads that provide access to NF lands also provide access for residents to communities where they live, work, and purchase goods and services.
Today’s roads provide convenient and safe access to developed recreation sites as well as dispersed recreation for hunting, fishing, and general driving for pleasure. Users are provided access to trail heads, scenic areas, wilderness, lakes, streams, and wildlife management areas.
The road system provides access to commercial users primarily for the harvest of timber on private in-holdings. Commercial use also includes oil and gas production and the hauling of mined gravel. The road system continues to provide the basic access requirements necessary to manage and protect the NF.
SI (2): What are people’s perceived needs and values for access? How does road management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for access?
Although the OSFNFs road system was developed for timber management access, the resulting system of roads has provided access to a broad spectrum of users of the Forests. As the population gains legal access to an area, that area becomes their favorite place. Census figures show that the population in communities within and adjacent to the NF, is increasing. This more mobile population of forest users is creating a need for easier and better access to their favorite developed recreation site. While this group may prefer easy and comfortable access, other users of dispersed activities such
90 Roads Analysis Report as hunting, fishing, hiking and wildlife viewing require a more extensive road system, but one with a lesser degree of user comfort.
Public attitudes toward the FS and its road system are diverse. A part of the population seems to have a strong feeling of entitlement when it comes to using roads on OSFNFs, especially if they live and work in close proximity to the Forests. Some people believe that use of the road system has insignificant environmental effects. Another sentiment is that decommissioning or closing roads will deny the public full use and enjoyment of public lands. If access to an area becomes unavailable, the activity may not take place as planned. When road management requires that a greater number of roads be closed or decommissioned, there will be an increase in value of the roads remaining open to public travel.
By contrast, another segment of the population has focused largely on the perception of environmental damage caused by roads, such as destruction of wildlife habitat, loss of endangered species, habitat fragmentation, introduction and dispersal of exotic plant and animal species, soil erosion and sedimentation. Another sentiment among this segment of the population is the desire to preserve roadless, pristine, and wild country for future generations.
SI(3): How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites?
This question deals with the ease or difficulty of getting to the particular sites. Obviously, an improved road system can improve access to paleontological, archeological, and historical sites. Whether this access affects a site positively or negatively depends on the effectiveness of the site protection measures used. At this time, there are no known sites with access issues. Most sites have adequate road access.
SI(4): How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights?
There are no American Indian treaty rights on the OSFNFs. However, federally recognized tribes have a sovereign right to access sites of traditional, spiritual, and cultural importance on their ancestral homelands. There are a number of tribes with ties to the Forests since their removal from the East and their involvement with the Trails of Tears with subsequent removal to Oklahoma crossed the Ozark National Forest. The Cherokee and the Quapaw also have ties to portions of the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests as they had reservations for a short while near these areas. This includes access to areas for the purpose of gathering resources necessary to conduct religious or cultural practices. Very few places on the NF are less than a mile from an open public road. However, we often gate local roads. Therefore, people may have to walk to reach their favorite areas for hunting, mushroom picking, and other traditional uses. Any decisions concerning the closure or decommissioning of roads on the OSFNFs can occur only after a project level roads analysis is completed. Where identified as an issue, this issue will be further addressed during project-scale analysis.
Roads Analysis Report 91 SI (5): How are roads that constitute historic sites affected by road management?
At this time, there are no roads on the OSFNFs that have been documented as historic sites or trails.
SI (6): How is community social and economic health affected by road management (for example, lifestyles, businesses, tourism industry, infrastructure maintenance)?
Road management is subtle, yet necessary to forest management. Use of the OSFNFs is dependent on proper, timely road management. Commodity users as well as pleasure seekers rely on the existing road system. For many communities the road system is the backbone of commerce, providing for the movement of products and people through the Forests. Most of the roads on the Forests were constructed/reconstructed to facilitate log hauling. The proximity of the Forests to interstates and other U. S. highways make tourism an important part of maintaining a more diverse economy for communities around the Forests. Recreation traffic includes local and non-local users, many of whom are sight seeing. Across the National Forest system, managers have indicated that nearly 40% of forest use is by people who never get out of their vehicles.
In addition to increasing uses, the demographics in the United States indicate an ever- increasing urban population. These travelers expect to go long distances in a short amount of time and to be able to get through the Forests in comfort. The OSFNFs road system, which includes U. S. highways, Arkansas state highways, and paved county roads, provides access and user comfort. Maintenance is increasingly important to facilitating the demands of these users, who are replacing commodity production in the overall economic health of local communities.
SI (7): What is the perceived social and economic dependency of a community on an unroaded area versus the value of that unroaded area for its intrinsic existence and symbolic values?
The unroaded areas on the OSFNFs possess no known socio/economic dependencies.
SI(8): How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation?
Roads border some of the congressionally designated wilderness areas on the Ozark NF. Since each of these wilderness areas is relatively small, road noise can be heard from inside the wilderness area. However, most wilderness users are hunters who use the roads and are not bothered by the minor road noises. A study of the Upland Island Wilderness Area completed in 1992 indicates the majority of wilderness users are hunters.
SI (9): What are traditional uses of animal and plant species in the area of analysis?
Wildlife game species have been used for subsistence and recreational hunting. Fishing in the lakes and streams for recreation and subsistence is also a traditional use on both Forests. The gathering of herbal and medicinal plants has also occurred on the Forests, to the point in some cases where a moratorium on gathering had to be implemented (ginseng). Animal and plant viewing is also a traditional use in the area of analysis.
92 Roads Analysis Report SI (10): How does road management affect people’s sense of place?
“Sense of place” describes the character of an area and the meaning people attach to it. It integrates the interpretations of a geographic place, considering the biophysical setting, psychological influences (memory, choice, perception, imagination, emotion), and social and cultural influences. Changes in road management can affect access to these places or change the biophysical setting, affecting what people value. Because the forest transportation system is in place, it is anticipated that Sense of Place will not to be altered significantly by road management activity on OSFNFs.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (CR)
CR (1): How does the road system or its management, affect certain groups of people (minority, ethnic, cultural, racial, disabled, and low-income groups)? Is the road system used or valued differently by minority, low-income, or disabled populations than by the general population? Would potential changes to the road system or its management have disproportionate negative impacts on minority, low-income, or disabled populations?
Usually environmental justice is not an issue unless the percent of minority population or poverty income population exceeds twice the state average. The 16 counties within the Ozark NF are all less than twice that of the State average of Arkansas: 20.3% minority and 15.8% poverty income (US Census Bureau 2000). However, Lee and Phillips Counties within the St. Francis NF are more then than twice that of the State average of Arkansas: 60.8% minority population for Phillips County, and 59.1% minority for Lee County. Poverty income for Phillips County was 30.3%, and 33% for Lee County (US Census Bureau 2000). This demographic information indicates that the Ozark NF counties are not qualified as environmental justice communities. Therefore, the road system has no more or no less affect on certain groups of people than on any other group of people in these counties. All groups use the road system. Changes in road management including closing or decommissioning of any of the roads would have the same effect on all groups including minorities and different cultures. However, the demographic information indicates that the St. Francis NF counties are qualified as environmental justice communities. There may be some effects on these communities if roads were closed that were being used for subsistence. This would be decided during a project level roads analysis.
Generally, the road system provides access to the Forests for a wide variety of activities equally to all groups of people. Certain activities, such as sightseeing, are popular with all groups; other activities are traditionally more popular with certain cultural and ethnic groups. Certain cultures and income groups are more likely to participate in gathering forest products such as medicinal plants and firewood, either for personal use or to supplement household income. American Indians use the road system to access traditional sacred sites, cemeteries, and sites for collecting traditional resources such as river cane. The amounts of roads that are open have a direct impact to these traditional user groups. Two changes in road management that could negatively impact these certain groups is closing certain roads, and upgrading roads in some areas (such as through paving) that might increase traffic. More specific concerns should be addressed at the watershed or project scale analysis.
Roads Analysis Report 93 Environmental Justice (CR) Executive Order 12898, signed on February 11, 1994, calls for federal agencies to identify and address, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The environmental justice strategy shall list programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/or rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to, at a minimum: (1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure greater public participation; (3) improve research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations and low-income populations; and (4) identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations.” Thus, environmental justice may be defined as "fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (EPA Environmental Justice homepage, June 1, 2002). In the arena of roads management on the Forests, consideration should be given to how a road affects low-income and minority populations. For instance, if the road is used by low-income populations for access to collect forest products, or by a minority population to access a traditional gathering site, this should be given weight if changes in access are being considered. The known significance of a road for low- income or minority populations was considered in assigning social values to roads. Further consideration of this question may occur if it is identified as an issue for a project-scale RAP.
94 Roads Analysis Report Appendix G – Public Involvement
This section will be developed based the public and internal comments received during the official comment period for this Draft Forest Road Analysis
Roads Analysis Report 95