Pike National Forest South Park Ranger District

Home , Pike National Forest

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... I-1

1.0 SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ...... 1-1

1.1 Objectives Of The Analysis ...... 1-1

1.2 Interdisciplinary Team Members and Participants...... 1-1

1.3 Information Needs ...... 1-2

1.4 Analysis Plan...... 1-2

1.5 Public Involvement ...... 1-4

2.0 DESCRIBING THE SITUATION ...... 2-1

2.1 The Analysis Area...... 2-1

2.2 The National Forest Transportation System...... 2-2

2.2.1 Motorized Trail Statistics ...... 2-2

2.2.2 Road Statistics and Details ...... 2-2

2.2.3 Motorized Mixed Use ...... 2-2

2.2.4 Road Management Objectives...... 2-4

2.3 Meeting Forest Plan Objectives ...... 2-4

2.4 Current Budget...... 2-4

3.0 IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES ...... 3-1

3.1 Description of the issues ...... 3-1

4.0 ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS AND RISKS ...... 4-1

5.0 DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES ...... 5-1

5.1 Introduction...... 5-1

5.2 Criteria for Recreational Use Benefit ...... 5-1

5.3 Criteria for Fire/Fuels Access Benefit ...... 5-2

5.4 Criteria for Timber Access Benefit ...... 5-2

5.5 Criteria for Special Use Access Benefit...... 5-2

5.6 Criteria for Resource Management/Range Access Benefit...... 5-3

5.7 Criteria for Watershed Risk...... 5-4

5.8 Criteria for Wildlife Risk...... 5-4

5.9 Criteria for Botany Risk ...... 5-6

5.10 Criteria for Archaeology Risk ...... 5-6

5.11 Criteria for Public Health & Safety/Financial Burden Risk ……...... 5-7

5.12 Road Management Opportunities and Priorities...... 5-7

6.0 TRAVEL ANALYSIS REPORT (TAR)...... 6-1

6.1 Key Findings ...... 6-1

6.2 Recommendations...... 6-2 6.3 TAR Map…………………………………………..……..…………………...... 6-2 Appendix A. Final TAP Matrix Table ...... A-1 Appendix B. Public Comments ...... A-2

INTRODUCTION:

This report is an addendum to the 2009 Pike and San Isabel Forest-wide Travel Analysis Process (2009 PSI TAP) and is provided in an abbreviated form. It is valuable to have the 2009 PSI TAP to review along with this document. It can be accessed online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5323696.pdf

BACKGROUND

Travel analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic science-based approach to transportation planning that addresses existing and future road and motorized trail management options. A complete science-based travel analysis will inform management decisions about the benefits and risks of: constructing new routes in unroaded areas; relocating, stabilizing, changing the standards of, or decommissioning unneeded routes; access issues; and increasing, reducing, or discontinuing route maintenance. An appropriate balance between the benefits of access to National Forest System lands and the risks of route-associated effects to ecosystems is necessary to develop an optimum transportation system. One of the top priorities of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) is to provide road and motorized trail systems that are safe for the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and efficient to manage. Completing the TAP is a key step to meeting this objective.

The TAP is designed to define route-related issues important to the public and to forest managers. It provides a set of analytical questions to be used in fitting analysis techniques to individual situations. The detail of the analysis should be appropriate to the intensity of the issues addressed. Travel analysis provides information to line officers by disclosing the important issues and effects relevant to route management proposals. Any actual route management decision made as a result of this TAP must be determined in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.

Relevant rules, regulations, directives, reports, guidance, and documents associated with the TAP are as follows:

• USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Report FS-643, August 1999

• USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 2, R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643, June 16, 2003

• 36 CFR Part 212

• Forest Service Manual FSM 7700, Chapters 7703, 7710, & 7712

• Forest Service Handbook 7709.55

This TAP for the South Park Ranger District was developed using the approach from the Forest- wide Pike and San Isabel National Forests Travel Analysis Process Report. The South Park Ranger District TAP was prepared to inform a travel management plan for the study area.

I-1

PROCESS AND PRODUCTS

See Section 1.2 of the 2009 PSI TAP.

In addition to the six steps described in the 2009 TAP, another product that will be prepared in this addendum is a Travel Analysis Report (TAR) and map (Step 6.0). These products will be used to inform future proposed actions subject to NEPA compliance.

I-2

1.0 SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS

1.1 Objectives of the Analysis

The primary objective of this travel analysis is to provide the Pike National Forest, South Park Ranger District managers with an appropriate level of information to manage and maintain a road and motorized trail system that is safe and responsive to public and agency needs, affordable and efficiently managed, environmentally sound, and in balance with available funding. This travel analysis develops, organizes, and displays information about Operational Maintenance Level 1 & 2 National Forest System Roads (NFSR), as well as combining that data with updated Operational Maintenance Level 3-5 data from the 2009 PSI TAP to create a Travel Analysis Report (TAR) and Map. This TAP analyzes all existing system roads as identified on the current South Park Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) as well as administrative and maintenance level 1 roads.

Other objectives of this travel analysis are: • To meet the requirements of providing a travel analysis for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests Plan Revision, and to give direction for the revision effort

• To inform a forest travel management plan for the South Park Ranger District

• To support subforest scale and project level analyses

• To help identify the minimum road system needed for public and agency access in order to achieve forest and resource management goals and safeguard ecosystem health

• To identify opportunities and provide recommendations for improving the Forest transportation system

• To help prioritize route maintenance needs

1.2 Interdisciplinary Team Members and TAP Responsibilities

Name TAP Area of Responsibility Josh Voorhis South Park District Ranger – Line Officer* Ralph (Jerry) Stevenson, P.E. Forest Engineer Gary Morrison, P.E. Forest Transportation Planner, TAP ID Team Leader* Jeff Hyatt Overall District TAP Coordinator, Recreational Use, Special Use Access, Timber Access* Sheila Lamb Resource Management/Range Access, Watershed Risk , Wildlife Risk, Botany Risk, Archaeology Risk* Mike Hessler Fire/Fuels Access, Timber Access, Financial Burden/Public Health & Safety*

* Core TAP Team Members

1-1

1.3 Information Needs

The following information and database sources were used for this TAP:

• The Pike and San Isabel National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (aka Forest Plan, 1984, and associated Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision)

• INFRA Roads Database

• GIS spatial databases for roads, land ownership, 6th level watersheds, streams, riparian areas, soil types, architectural sites, invasive species, recreation sites, T&E species, etc.

• 2010 South Park RD MVUM

• 2009 Pike and San Isabel National Forest Travel Analysis Process Report

1.4 Analysis Plan

See the 2009 PSI TAP for more details.

The analysis plan for the South Park Ranger District was built on to the 2009 Pike and San Isabel National Forests Travel Analysis Process. Information critical to the South Park Ranger District has been added to the appropriate sections of this addendum. A core team was assembled to define an analysis plan for the South Park Ranger District. The core team completed an initial rapid analysis of all routes using the criteria defined in the Forest-wide TAP. This rapid analysis was completed over four days in which the team reviewed GIS data, INFRA data, professional knowledge of the specific roads and filled out a TAP Matrix spreadsheet. The core team collectively ranked each route based on the TAP criteria, which allowed for an iterative, collaborative, and rapid analysis process. While the core team members are not experts on each of the criteria, their substantial experience on the Ranger District allowed them to make an initial judgment on the route criteria. The TAP was redistributed to the entire ID team for a final review. This rapid analysis method was effective and allowed completion of the TAP with limited budget and time.

The main focus of this TAP is to evaluate all existing National Forest System Roads on the South Park Ranger District. According to Forest Service Manual 7700-2003-2 (FSM 7712.13b), this type of analysis is required to inform land management planning decisions when preparing a travel management plan or revising an existing land and resource management plan.

The first step was to identify the most important road-related issues on the South Park Ranger District and the information needed to address these concerns. The issues include environmental, social, and economic components. It was important to understand how these issues arose and how they have been addressed in the past. Consensus among the ID team resulted in the final list of issues that were used to drive the analysis. See Chapter 3.0 of this report for a list and description of these issues.

1-2

The next step in the process required ID team members to assess each road with respect to its relative benefits and associated risks. High, moderate, and low benefit ratings were assigned for each road with respect to its recreational use, fire/fuels access, timber access, special use access, and resource management/range access. High, moderate, and low risk ratings were assigned for each road with respect to its potential to adversely impact watersheds, wildlife, botany, and archeological sites. A similar risk rating was also assigned to each road with respect to financial burden/public health and safety. Numerical indices were then applied to each high, moderate, and low rating, resulting in a benefit factor and risk factor for each road. The benefit factors and risk factors were then summed to determine “Total Benefit” and “Total Risk” factors for each road.

For example, let’s say Road 000 was rated as High Benefit for recreational use and Low Risk for archeology. The High Benefit rating for recreation would be assigned a benefit factor of 2, and the Low Risk rating for archeology would be assigned a risk factor of 0. The Total Benefit factor would be determined for that road by adding all five of the benefit factors, and the Total Risk factor would be determined for that road by adding all five risk factors. In this example, let’s say that the Total Benefit factor was determined to be 10, and the Total Risk factor was determined to be 0.

The Total Benefit and Total Risk factors were then assigned to one of four possible road management categories as follows:

• High Benefit/High Risk (H/H)

• High Benefit/Low Risk (H/L)

• Low Benefit/High Risk (L/H)

• Low Benefit/Low Risk (L/L)

The High Benefit roads identify those roads with a high potential for future investment, and the Low Benefit roads identify those roads with a low potential for future investment. High Risk roads identify those roads with a high potential for negative impacts, and Low Risk roads identify those roads with a low potential for negative impacts. Road management options for each category helped the ID team to prioritize road options and develop strategies to move toward a well-balanced transportation system.

In the example above, a 10 Total Benefit factor (score) was determined to be a High Benefit, and a 0 Total Risk factor was determined to be a Low Risk. Therefore, Road 000 was assigned to the High Benefit/Low Risk road management category. For details on how index numbers were assigned to each rating and how the road management categories were determined from total factor numbers, see Chapter 5.0 of this report.

The next step was for ID team members to review and update the answers to the 73 questions contained in the R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643, which was prepared for the 2009 PSI TAP. During this step, if a specialist decided that a specific road rating needed to be revised, the revised rating was submitted to the team leader with a reason for the change.

The final step involved synthesizing all the information, finalizing the ratings and factors for each specific road, finalizing the road management category for each road analyzed, and preparing a Travel Analysis Report and Map. This step described the opportunities to improve the 1-3

transportation system and identified priorities to help the decision makers in managing the roads within their jurisdiction. Key findings and recommendations are summarized in Chapter 6.0 of this report to highlight the results from this analysis.

1.5 Public Involvement

Public involvement related to road issues is a continuous process. Some of the issues identified in this TAP are a direct result of dialogue with concerned citizens, user groups, and other public agencies.

The draft TAP was made available for public review and comment on June 15, 2015. It was posted on the PSICC website. During the 30 day comment period that ended on July 14, 2015, the agency received a total of one electronic message and one fax in response to the posted draft TAP. Some responses resulted in changes to the draft report, matrix table and maps. See Appendix B for a list of the comments and responses.

1-4

2.0 DESCRIBING THE SITUATION

2.1 The Analysis Area

See the 2009 PSI TAP.

Three major transportation routes provide access to National Forest lands on the SPKRD, including U.S.Highway 24 and 285 and Colorado Highway 9. Additionally, Park County roads provide quick and easy access to National Forest lands, including the Tarryall and Weston Pass destinations. Forest Service roads such as Kite Lake, Boreas Pass, and 11 Mile Canyon are extremely popular.

The South Park Ranger District office is located in Fairplay, Colorado at 9,953 feet elevation. The district is approximately 540,296 acres in size, including two Wilderness areas (Lost Creek and Buffalo Peaks), and is located in Park and Teller counties. Elevations on the District range from 8,000 to over 14,000 feet and the area has multiple outdoor recreation opportunities including hunting, trout fishing, mountain biking/hiking/climbing, camping, and winter sports. The district has over 1,000 miles of private land boundary, which includes adjacent ownership with BLM, State land, ranches, subdivisions and open space. Communities within the district include Alma, Como, Guffey, Hartsel, Jefferson and Lake George. The district surrounds the geographic feature of “South Park”, one of four mountain parks in Colorado. A “park” is a relatively flat, high-elevation basin surrounded by mountain ranges on all sides.

2.2 The National Forest Transportation System

See the 2009 PSI TAP for more information.

The following table summarizes the Forest Service system roads that were evaluated in this TAP.

Table 2-1: Existing National Forest System Roads on the South Park Ranger District

Road Class Objective Road Maintenance Level 1/DE 2 3 5 Total Miles Roads Closed to All Vehicular Traffic 73.10 3.59 0.00 0.00 76.69 (Operational Maint Level 1) Administrative Roads (Closed to Public 0.00 18.95 1.60 0.00 20.55 Use) Roads Open to All Vehicles 2.04 436.90 5.96 0.00 444.90 Roads Open to All Vehicles with Seasonal 0.00 53.24 18.69 0.00 71.93 Closure Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles 0.00 9.45 56.02 0.18 65.65 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles 0.00 7.53 19.96 0.00 27.49 with Seasonal Closure Total Miles 75.14 529.66 102.23 0.18 707.21 2-1

2.2.1 Motorized Trail Statistics

The South Park Ranger District TAP Addendum is not addressing Motorized Trails.

See the 2009 PSI TAP for general information on PSI Trails.

2.2.2 Road Statistics and Details

See the 2009 PSI TAP for more information.

2.2.3 Motorized Mixed Use

See the 2009 PSI TAP for more information.

2-2

The following NFSRs allow both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles on the South Park Ranger District:

Table 2-2: Mixed Use NFSRs

Total Road Class Road Numbers Miles

OBJ ML DE (OP ML2): 821, 839

OBJ ML2: 10.A, 129, 130, 130.A, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136.1A, 136.1B,

136.1C, 140, 141, 142, 142.A, 142.A1, 142.B, 143, 144, 145, 145, 146, 148, 149, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 172, 173, 175, 176, 176, 176, 176.2A, 176.2B, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 190, 192, 194, 199, 2, 201, 201.2C, 202.1A, 204, 205, 205.B, 206, 206.A, 206.A1, 208, 209, 211.A, 211.B, 211.C, 211.E,

211.F, 212, 212.A, 213, 214, 214.A, 214.B, 214.C, 214.D, 216, 222, 223, 223.A, 224, 225, 226, 226.A, 227, 227.1A, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 234.A,

Roads Open to Public Use 234.B, 236, 237.A, 237.B, 237.C, 238, 238.A, 238.B, 239, 239.A, 239.B, 239.C, 240, 240.A, 242, 243.1A, 243.1B, 243.1C, for All Vehicles (mixed use) 243.2A, 243.2B, 244, 244, 244.A, 244.B, 244.C, 244.D, 244.E, 245, 246, 246.A, 246.A1, 247, 247.A, 247.B, 247.C, 248, 249, 250, 250.A, 251, 251.1A, 251.1A, 251.1B, 252, 253, 254, 255, 255.A, 256, 258, 258.A, 259, 259.A, 259.B, 259.C, 259.D, 259.E, 260, 260.A, 261, 261.A, 261.B, 261.C, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 270.A, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 284, 443.80 285, 287, 287.A, 287.B, 288, 288.A, 288.B, 290, 290.A, 290.B, 291, 291.A, 292, 292.A, 292.B, 293, 295.A, 296, 309.2A, 360.2C, 360.2D, 360.2E, 367, 39.2A, 39.2B, 39.2C, 393.1B, 393.2A, 393.2B, 393.2C, 393.2D, 393.2E, 393.2F, 408, 423, 423.A, 423.B, 426, 427.1A, 430, 431.2C, 431.2D, 433, 433.2A, 433.2B, 433.2C, 434, 435.4B, 435.4C, 436.1A, 436.2A, 436.2B, 437, 44, 44.2A, 44.2B, 44.2C, 441, 442, 448, 449, 449.A, 450, 451, 452, 452, 455, 56.3B, 603, 669.2B, 669.2C, 698, 704, 704.A, 704.B, 704.C, 704.D, 704.E, 705, 706, 706, 707, 750, 750.1A, 751, 752, 752.A, 753, 754, 754.A, 755, 756, 802, 802.A, 807, 807.A, 809, 809.A, 809.B, 809.C, 810, 811, 811.A, 814, 817, 823, 824, 826, 831, 834, 838, 844, 845, 853.A, 856, 857, 857.A, 857.B, 860, 860.A, 860.B, 860.C, 860.D, 861, 861.A, 861.B, 861.C, 862, 863, 864, 865, 871, 872, 873, 873.A, 873.B, 873.C, 874, 875, 875.A, 876, 876.A, 876.B, 877, 878, 879, 881, 882, 882.A, 883, 883.A, 884, 884.A, 884.B, 884.C, 886, 886.A, 888, 888.A, 888.B, 889, 890, 891, 891.A, 892, 893, 895, 896, 896.A, 897, 90.1A, 94.A, 98.A

OBJ ML3: 141, 18.2A, 33.3A, 431.2B, 813, 858, 96.J, 431

Roads Open to Public Use OBJ ML2: 136, 237, 243, 271, 295, 393, 432, 433, 436, 446, 852, 853, 854 for All Vehicles (mixed use)

with Seasonal Closure 71.93 OBJ ML3: 210, 431, 435, 436

According to this data, 515.73 miles of Objective ML DE-3 NFSRs on the South Park Ranger District are open to full-sized vehicles and OHVs (motorized mixed use). Many of these mixed use roads are dead-end roads that follow ridges or provide access to campsites.

2-3

2.2.4 Road Management Objectives

See the 2009 PSI TAP.

2.3 Meeting Forest Plan Objectives

See the 2009 PSI TAP.

2.4 Current Budget

Maintenance Funding

All National Forest System Roads(NFSRs) are assigned a specific maintenance level that is based on a set of criteria which describes how each individual road will be maintained. This criterion includes consideration for resource protection, user comfort, design speed, season of use, traffic volume and type, and need for dust abatement.

This discussion displays dollar estimates for annual maintenance which includes blading, cleaning culverts and cattle guards, and maintaining draining structures and signing on level 2-5 roads. This recurring maintenance is important for keeping the surface drivable (blading out ruts and washboards), and limiting resource damage that could occur from blocked culverts or improper drainage. In addition to annual maintenance are various other funding needs such as checking level 1 roads periodically, installing or fixing gates, unexpected events such as windthrows, mudslides or slumps, brushing, and surface replacement on level 3, 4 and 5 roads. These intermittent and deferred funding needs are discussed in general terms following the dollar figures for the annual maintenance budget, and are included in the calculations in Tables 2-5 and 2-6.

Current Maintenance Funding

Table 2-3 below shows maintenance levels, intervals and costs per mile for NFSRs on the SPKRD. These cost estimates are based on recent contracts for annual maintenance such as blading, cleaning culverts and maintaining drainage structures. Salaries of Forest Service personnel who are involved in the management of road maintenance activities are not included in these costs.

Table 2-3: Current Average Annual Maintenance Costs by Maintenance Level on the SPKRD

Average Operational Actual Annual Cost/Mile Maintenance Level Interval* Maintenance Cost/Mile** 1 $0 N/A $0 2 $1,140 3-8 years $190 3 $615 0.5 – 4 years $205 5 $211 1 year $211 2-4

*Note: Level 2 roads are calculated on a 6 year interval, Level 3 roads are calculated on a 3 year interval, and Level 5 roads are calculated on a 1 year interval. Maintenance level 1 roads are not typically maintained annually.

**An average annual estimated maintenance cost per mile was determined for each road level so it could be used to calculate an average annual maintenance budget (See Table 2-4).

Table 2-4: Current Average Annual Maintenance Budget on the SPKRD (Does not include intermittent and deferred items listed below) (Does not include the salaries of Forest Service personnel) Operational Average Annual Cost Total Cost Per Maintenance Miles Per Mile Year Level 1 76.69 $0 $0 2 528.11 $190 $100,341 3 102.23 $205 $20,957 5 0.18 $211 $38 TOTAL 707.21 --- $121,336

Intermittent Funding Needs

Intermittent and deferred funding needs in addition to the regular annual maintenance include the following:

• Brushing is needed every 10 years or so, and is important for safety, especially on Level 3 - 5 roads.

• Maintaining and replacing signs and signposts on system roads, gates, and cattleguards.

• Gate replacement and repairs on Level 1 roads, and/or roads seasonally closed.

• Damage from unexpected events such as slides or slumps is normally corrected with maintenance dollars unless the damage is large enough to qualify for alternative funding.

• Surface rock replacement on Level 3 roads requires a large influx of funds for the year the rock is replaced. Many of these roads require surface rock replacement, at least every 10 years.

• Paved roads typically require surface replacement at approximately every 25 years. This cost is not included in the annual maintenance budget.

Desired Maintenance Funding

The following tables describe the desired funding needed to maintain Level 2-5 roads consistently and 2-5

according to maintenance level specifications. These costs estimates are based on deferred maintenance estimates and annual maintenance expenditures.

Table 2-5: Desired Annual Maintenance Costs by Maintenance Level on the SPKRD Annual Operational Cost/Mile Desired Interval Maintenance Maintenance Level Cost/Mile 1 $300 3 years $100 2 $1,300 3 years $433 3 (unpaved) $800 annual $800 3 (paved) $20,805*** annual $20,805 5 (paved) $20,805*** annual $20,805

*** This number is based on an average cost to maintain paved roads. It represents typical maintenance costs of $605/mile/year plus an annual crack sealing cost of $9,000/mile plus a surface replacement cost of $280,000/mile once every 25 years.

Table 2-6: Estimated Desired Annual Road Maintenance Need on the SPKRD

Operational Total Cost Per Maintenance Level Miles Annual Cost/Mile Year 1 76.69 $100 $7,669 2 528.11 $433 $228,672 3 (unpaved) 100.87 $800 $80,696 3 (paved) 1.36 $20,805 $28,295 5 (paved) 0.18 $20,805 $3,745 TOTAL 707.21 $349,077

Due to the disparity between the estimated desired annual road maintenance need and the current annual average maintenance budget, it is necessary to prioritize road maintenance expenditures based on annual input from district specialists and engineering staff. Also, this discrepancy points out the need to find alternative sources of funding for maintenance of roads, both from public and private sources, and to consider decommissioning and/or other actions that will help reduce overall maintenance costs for roads identified in the TAP with low benefit ratings and/or high risk ratings.

During future travel planning NEPA compliance actions, the responsible official/line officer will use this data to inform that process and to help identify a minimum road system that will reflect long term funding expectations.

2-6

3.0 IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES

3.1 Description of the issues

See the 2009 Forest-wide TAP for more information.

The ID team and line officers identified the most important road-related issues. Information gathered from previous public responses from a variety of project proposals was incorporated into this list of issues. The issues are listed by three general categories: Environmental, Sociocultural, and Economic.

Category #1: Environmental Issues

• Effects on stream water quality and aquatic habitat due to increased sediment loads from roads.

• Impacts to aquatic species due to the presence of roads near streams.

• Impacts to certain terrestrial wildlife living in the forest due to roads through terrestrial wildlife habitat and travel corridors.

• Impacts to plant species in certain areas of the forest due to the presence of roads.

• Impacts to forest health from target shooting due to road access.

• Road-related activities increase the risk of the spread of invasive species on the forest.

• Road-related activities increase the risk of fire starts, vandalism, illegal dumping and illegal shooting.

• Adequacy of forest access to meet fuels management and fire suppression goals and objectives.

• Adequacy of forest access to meet timber management objectives and goals.

• Adequacy of forest access to meet range allotment goals and objectives.

• Effects on public water supplies due to increased sediment loads from roads.

Data needed to address these concerns:

• Various GIS coverages for roads, etc.

• INFRA databases for roads, etc.

• Management Objectives

• Management Area Prescriptions

Category #2: Sociocultural Issues 3-1

• Impacts on paleontological, archeological, and historic sites within the forest due to the current system of roads.

• Adequacy of roads to satisfy the variety of motorized recreational needs on the forest.

• Impacts on non-motorized recreation activities due to the amount of roads on certain parts of the forest.

• Adequacy of forest access to meet the demand for special uses on the forest.

• Adequacy of law enforcement to meet public safety issues including DUI, speeding, and reckless driving.

• Adequacy of forest access to meet administrative management objectives and goals.

Data needed to address these concerns:

• GIS coverages for roads and heritage sites

• INFRA databases for roads and heritage sites

• SUDS database for special uses

• Management Objectives (Forest Plan)

• Management Area Prescriptions (Forest Plan)

Category #3: Economic Issues

• Adequacy of funding for road maintenance for the current road system under Forest Service jurisdiction.

Data needed to address these concerns:

• GIS coverages for roads

• INFRA databases for roads and condition survey data

• Forest Service records for road and trail maintenance

3-2

4.0 ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS AND RISKS

The 2009 PSI TAP provides detailed answers to approximately 73 questions related to the benefits and risks of National Forest System roads and trails (See 2009 PSI TAP). No additional District- specific answers were submitted for this addendum report. The categories of questions are as follows:

4.1 Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ)

4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife (TW)

4.3 Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF)

4.4 Economics (EC)

4.5 Commodity Production: Timber, Minerals, Range, Water Production, Special Forest Products, and Special Use Permits (TM), (MM), (RM), (WP), (SP), (SU)

4.6 General Public Transportation (GT)

4.7 Administrative Uses (AU)

4.8 Protection (PT)

4.9 Recreation: Unroaded and Road-Related (UR), (RR)

4.10 Social Issues, Cultural and Heritage, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (SI), (CH), (CR)

4-1

5.0 DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES

5.1 Introduction

In order to identify opportunities to improve the transportation system, the South Park Ranger District, Pike National Forest Objective Maintenance Level 1 – 2 system roads were evaluated based on key benefits and risks associated with each individual road. Also, Maintenance Level 3-5 roads were confirmed or re-evaluated from the original benefit/risk ratings in the 2009 PSI TAP. Each road was assigned a High, Moderate, or Low benefit rating for five priority management areas: recreational use, fire/fuels access, timber access, special use access, and resource management/range access. Each road was also assigned a High, Moderate, or Low risk rating to show the degree of risk it posed to watersheds, wildlife, botany, archeology, financial burden/public health and safety. Those ratings were then converted to numerical indices so that numerical value factors (score) could be totaled to produce a weighted Total Benefit Factor, and numerical risk factors could be totaled to produce a weighted Total Risk Factor. The protocols utilized to assign benefit and risk ratings and indices are described below.

In a few cases, a double high rating score was applied to categories when a resource condition should be strongly emphasized. This causes either the total benefit or total risk ranking to automatically be rated as high. An example would be a short spur road that has a very high recreation value because it provides access to a campsite, but does not have other benefits that would cause its total benefit rank to be a high value. Some routes (based on their route number) have been divided into two or more segments and each of the segments has been analyzed individually.

Benefits:

5.2 Criteria for Recreational Use Benefit

Recreational Use Benefit:

• High Benefit = 2

• Moderate Benefit = 1

• Low Benefit = 0

The recreational use ratings for roads are based on the location of and access to developed recreation sites/facilities, dispersed recreation areas and the recreation experience of the road itself.

A High (H) rating was assigned to roads that are the primary access routes to developed recreation sites/facilities, or primary access routes to popular dispersed recreation areas, or the road has high value as a recreation experience.

A Moderate (M) rating was assigned to roads that are the primary access routes to other dispersed recreation areas.

A Low (L) rating was assigned to roads that are secondary access routes to recreation areas, or to roads not leading to any recreation areas.

5-1

5.3 Criteria for Fire/Fuels Access Benefit

Fire/Fuels Access Benefit:

• High Benefit = 2

• Moderate Benefit = 1

• Low Benefit = 0

The fire/fuels access ratings for roads are based on factors such as ridgelines, canyons, private lands/homes, fuels projects, water sources, structures, etc. The roads allow rapid access for equipment and, in many instances, are used as firebreaks.

A High (H) benefit rating was assigned to roads that are primary access routes to ridges, canyons, private property, fuels projects, water sources, and other structures.

A Moderate (M) benefit rating was assigned to secondary access roads to the above-mentioned areas.

A Low (L) benefit rating was assigned to small spur roads or to roads in areas with multiple access roads in better condition.

5.4 Criteria for Timber Access Benefit

Timber Access Benefit:

• High Benefit = 2

• Moderate Benefit = 1

• Low Benefit = 0

Timber access benefit was rated based on a number of relevant factors, including but not limited to:

A High (H) benefit was given to those segments of roads that gave access or were needed for access to remove timber.

A Moderate (M) benefit was given to those segments of roads that would benefit timber for access but were not necessarily needed, especially if they conflicted with another resource or a temporary road could be used to obtain the same access.

A Low (L) benefit was given to those segments of roads that did not benefit timber access or there was a need to access an area for timber removal.

5.5 Criteria for Special Use Access Benefit

Special Use Access Benefit:

5-2

• High Benefit = 2

• Moderate Benefit = 1

• Low Benefit = 0

Special use access benefit was rated based on a number of relevant factors, including but not limited to:

• Current authorization or permit

• Proposed authorization or permit

• Long-term or short-term use

A High (H) benefit rating was assigned to roads with a current or proposed authorization or permit.

A Moderate (M) benefit rating was assigned to a few select roads used for access, and where an authorization or permit was needed but had not been requested or granted.

A Low (L) benefit rating was assigned to roads without an authorization or permit.

5.6 Criteria for Resource Management/Range Access Benefit

Resource Management Benefit:

• High Benefit = 2

• Moderate Benefit = 1

• Low Benefit = 0

Resource management access benefit was rated based on the anticipated needs of each specialist for monitoring and managing forest lands, assuming that no other FS roads were available for motorized access.

A High (H) rating was assigned to roads providing important access for range, managing the wildlife, botany, archeology, and water assets on the forest.

A Moderate (M) rating was assigned to roads providing an important secondary access for range, managing the wildlife, botany, archeology, and water assets on the forest.

A Low (L) rating was assigned to all other roads.

Note: Roads that are Important in Managing the Forest’s Heritage Resources: This priority was viewed in the context of access to significant heritage resources and staff responsibilities to monitor individual resources, and if necessary, conduct necessary repairs and stabilization. Road access may also be important in the context of visitor accessibility: roads may be the only available means for experiencing heritage sites for some segments of the public, particularly those segments with disabilities.

5-3

Risks:

5.7 Criteria for Watershed Risk

Watershed Risk:

• High Risk = 3

• Moderate Risk = 1

• Low Risk = 0

The risk factors are higher for watersheds than other resource types. The justification for this is that watersheds have a higher relative risk of impact compared to all other resource types.

A rating of 3 (High) was assigned to roads where site-specific reasons such as length within the watershed, length within 300’ of a watershed, length within highly erodible soils or number of stream crossings justified a High rating. In some cases where the risk was determined to be extremely high, the value assigned on the Road Matrix Table was HH, which by itself justified a High Total Risk Factor.

A rating of 1 (Moderate) was assigned to roads where the numbers were slightly lower for: length within watershed, length within 300’ of a stream, length within highly erodible soils, and number of stream crossings.

A rating of 0 (Low) was assigned to roads where there were few to no crossings, and a low percentage for the soils and streams categories.

This TAP integrates the Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) system evaluation to determine specific road watershed risk ratings. The WCC system uses 12 indicators related to watershed processes. One of those 12 indicators is “Roads and Trails”. This structure provides a direct linkage between the classification system and management or improvement activities that the forest conducts on the ground. After a watershed is evaluated with the 12 indicators, it is assigned a condition rating of 1, 2 or 3. A Condition rating of 1 is synonymous with “Good” condition. Condition rating 2 is synonymous with “Fair” condition. Condition rating 3 is synonymous with “Poor” condition.

5.8 Criteria for Wildlife Risk

Wildlife Risk:

• High Risk = 2

• Moderate Risk = 1

• Low Risk = 0

5-4

Wildlife risk was rated based on a number of relevant factors, including:

• Species Federally Listed as Threatened, including: Mexican spotted owl habitat, greenback cutthroat trout habitat, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat.

• Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, including but limited to: Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Gunnison’s prairie dog, northern goshawk, northern leopard frog, and white-tailed ptarmigan.

• Big game winter range (Management Area 5B)

• Calving and lambing areas

• Road density

Roads not assigned with either a 2 (H) or 1 (M) as described above were given a default rating of 0 (L).

5.9 Criteria for Botany Risk

Botany Risk:

• High Risk = 2

• Moderate Risk = 1

• Low Risk = 0 The Botany risk for roads is based on the road proximity to known locations of sensitive species and species of concern.

5.10 Criteria for Archaeology Risk

Archaeology Risk:

• High Risk = 2

• Moderate Risk = 1

• Low Risk = 0

NFSRs rated as high risk include cases where use and maintenance of the road have and continue to affect archeological deposits on the road’s surface or on its margins, and where the impact has been documented. Also rated as high risk are cases where the road intersects an archeological site and impacts are suspected but not documented. These NFSR roads might be changed to low or moderate risk pending field examination and documentation of the suspected impacts.

The moderate risk roads comprise cases where the road itself is a historic resource, and cases where the road passes through the defined area of a historic property or is adjacent to the property. In moderate risk cases, maintaining current public use levels and the present level/intensity of routine maintenance will not affect the cultural property. However, improvements or other new construction, or increasing public use or maintenance levels might affect the property.

5-5

Most of National Forest System roads rated as low risk generally do not intersect or are not in proximity to a historic property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In some cases the road was in proximity to a listed or eligible property, but public use or routine maintenance of the road, or new construction of all or a portion of the road would not affect the property. It should be noted that the Forest Service has not examined all or even most of the NFSRs for impinging historic properties and possible effects. Also, not all NFSR roads have been evaluated in terms of intrinsic historic significance. The analysis was done on the state of knowledge to date.

5.11 Criteria for Public Health & Safety / Financial Burden Risk

Public Health & Safety/Financial Burden

• High Risk = 2

• Moderate Risk = 1

• Low Risk = 0

The Public Health & Safety/Financial Burden risk for roads is based on the estimated annual maintenance cost per mile, the maintenance level of the road and the presence of potentially dangerous conditions. The annual maintenance cost per mile was calculated from actual annual road maintenance costs. If no actual maintenance costs were available, then no cost was assigned.

Public health and safety issues for roads include the overall width of the roadway, the slope, sight distance, number of vehicles per day, adjacent grazing areas, populated areas, and other such hazards and geometric conditions. Roads with major public health and safety issues and/or large maintenance costs were rated with a High Risk; roads with less safety concerns and lower maintenance costs received a Moderate Risk; and roads with little to no safety concerns and average or lower maintenance costs received a Low Risk rating.

5.12 Road Management Opportunities and Priorities

The Total Benefit factors and Total Risk factors discussed above resulted in a total benefit/risk number for each road. The Total Benefit factors ranged from 0 to 10, and the Total Risk factors ranged from 0 to 11. Those roads with a Total Benefit factor greater than 3 represent high benefit roads, and those roads with a Total Risk factor greater than 4 represent high risk roads. Based on this analysis, each road was assigned to one of four road management categories as follows:

• High Benefit/High Risk (H/H) • High Benefit/Low Risk (H/L) • Low Benefit/High Risk (L/H) • Low Benefit/Low Risk (L/L)

Roads with a high benefit represent those roads that constitute the potential minimum road system for management and access on the forest. Those roads with a low benefit are potentially not needed for management and access on the forest, at least not at their current maintenance level. The 5-6

determination that a low benefit road is not needed would be made in a future decision and is not part of the TAP process.

Roads with a high risk represent those roads that may be causing unacceptable resource and financial impacts. Those roads with a low risk represent roads that are not a major resource impact concern.

Road management options for each of the four road management categories are as follows:

• High Benefit/High Risk – Priority roads for capital improvements

• High Benefit/Low Risk – Roads with ideal conditions

• Low Benefit/High Risk – Priority roads for in-depth benefit/risk analysis

• Low Benefit/Low Risk – Priority roads for reducing maintenance level

Generally, high benefit roads, if associated risks can be adequately mitigated, will be part of the minimum road system for the forest. Roads with low benefits will generally not be a part of the minimum road system.

5-7

6.0 TRAVEL ANALYSIS REPORT (TAR)

6.1 Key Findings

The roads analyzed in this report have been separated into four road management categories shown in Table 6.1.

May not be Needed as Part Minimum Road System Travel Analysis of a Minimum Road System

Outcomes: High Benefit High Benefit/Low Risk Low Benefit/ Low Benefit/Low Risk /High Risk High Risk Road Numbers OBJ. ML D: 847 OBJ. ML1: 135, 156, 267, 295.B, 843 OBJ. ML1: 160, 163, 163.2A, 164, OBJ. ML1: 133, OBJ. ML1: 155, 276, 166, 167, 170, 171, 174, 191, 193, 278, 701, 702, 829 158.A, 159, 175, Administrative 188, 2, 289, 435.4A, 195, 196, 227.1B, 431.2E, 669.2A, OBJ. ML2: 168, 218, 219, 249, 897 803, 804, 805, 806, 814, 814, 820, Roads (Closed OBJ. ML2: 228, 254 436.2C, 437, 447, to Public Use) 453, 453, 832, 833, 828, 835, 842, 846, 885, 887 848, 850, 851 and ML1 OBJ. ML2: 141, 208, 243.1A, 822, (Closed to All OBJ. ML2: 849, 855 220, 220, 220.A, Motor 220.B, 425.A,425.A, OBJ. ML3: 440, 94.1A Vehicles) 425.A, 5.2B, 5.2B, 540, 801.A1, 841 OBJ. ML3: 96.F

140, 141, 821 178, 839 OBJ. ML2: OBJ. ML D: OBJ. ML2: OBJ. ML D: 142, 142.A, 143, 158, 182, 184, 2, 285, OBJ. ML2: 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, OBJ. ML2: 10.A, 130.A, 136.1A, 164, 173, 175, 176, 176, 134, 136, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 160, 288.A, 288.B, 136.1B, 136.1C, 142.A1, 142.B, 145, 179, 183, 194, 201, 204, 168, 176, 190, 202.1A, 206, 206.A, 423.B, 426, 426, 161, 162, 163, 172, 175, 176.2A, 211.B, 213, 227.1A, 231, 208, 209, 211.C, 212, 212.A, 214, 427.1A, 431.2C, 176.2B, 192, 199, 201.2C, 205, 205.B, 231, 242, 244.E, 253, 214.A, 214.B, 214.C, 214.D, 216, 222, 435.4B, 436.2B, 206.A1, 211.A, 211.E, 211.F, 223.A, 254, 258, 258.A, 259, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 232, 233, 437, 44.2B, 44.2C, 226.A, 230, 234.A, 234.B, 237.A,

Roads Open to 261, 261.A, 261.B, 264, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 239.A, 239.B, 441, 448, 449, 237.B, 237.C, 238.A, 238.B, 240.A, 265, 266, 269, 270, 272, 449.A, 450, 451, all Vehicles 239.C, 240, 243, 244, 244, 244.A, 245, 243.1A, 234.1B, 234.1C, 243.2A, 288, 291, 291.A, 295, 246, 246.A1, 247, 251, 251.1A, 452, 452, 603, 698, 243.2B, 244.B, 244.C, 244.D, 246.A, 367, 393, 393.1B, 408, 251.1A, 251.1B, 252, 256, 259.C, 260, 809.A, 809.B, 247.A, 247.B, 247.C, 248, 249, 250, 423, 423.A, 430, 260.A, 261.C, 262, 263, 268, 270.A, 809.C, 811, 811.A, 250.A, 255, 255.A, 259.A, 259.B, 431.2D, 432, 433, 433, 273, 274, 275, 279, 280, 284, 287, 817, 852, 853, 259.D, 259.E, 271, 277, 287.B, 290.A, 433.2A, 433.2B, 433.2C, 287.A, 290, 292, 292.A, 292.B, 293, 853.A, 854, 856, 290.B, 309.2A, 360.2E, 393.2A, Road Classification 434, 435.4C, 44, 44.2A, 295.A, 296, 360.2C, 360.2D, 360.2D, 857, 857.A, 857.B, 393.2B, 393.2C, 393.2D, 393.2E, 442, 446, 824, 831, 834, 39.2A, 39.2B, 39.2C, 436, 704, 706, 860.D, 864, 865, 393.2F, 436.1A, 436.2A, 455, 56.3B, 844, 845, 875, 890, 896 809, 810, 826, 860, 860.A, 860.C, 861, 888.B, 889 669.2B, 669.2C, 704.A, 704.B, 704.C, OBJ. ML3: 33.3A, 431, 861.A, 861.C, 862, 871, 876, 876.A, 704.D, 704.E, 705, 706, 707, 750, 431, 435, 436 876.B, 877, 881, 882, 882.A, 883, 883, 750.1A, 751, 752, 752.A, 753, 754, 883.A, 884, 884.A, 884.C, 886, 886.A, 754.A, 755, 756, 802, 802.A, 807, 888, 891, 891.A, 892, 893, 897, 90.1A, 807.A, 810, 814, 823, 838, 860.B, 98.A 861.B, 863, 872, 873, 873.A, 873.B, 873.C, 874, 875.A, 878, 879, 884.B, OBJ. ML3: 141, 18.2A, 210, 431.2B 888.A, 895, 896.A, 94.A

OBJ. ML3: 813, 858 OBJ. ML2: 228, 427, OBJ. ML2: 18.2B OBJ. ML2: 870 OBJ. ML2: 23.2A 5.2C, 5.2D, 659, 669, 8, OBJ. ML3: 107, 108, 18.2C, 203, OBJ. ML3: 96.B, 870, 870.1A 37.2B, 37.2C, 37.2D, 37.2E, 37.2F, 96.C, 96.D, 96.H, Roads Open to OBJ. ML3: 112.1A, 33, 37.2G, 39, 407, 56.3A, 61.A, 77.A, 96.J Licensed 33, 37, 37, 54, 54.3D, 77.B, 652, 801.A Vehicles 56, 56, 56, 659, 659, 96, OBJ. ML5: 24.1A 96.A, 96.G, 96.E, 96.I Total Miles 257.01 248.51 79.72 121.97

Table 6-1. Summary of Roads by Benefit and Risk (Total Miles = 707.21 )

Note: Some road numbers may appear in multiple table cells. In these cases, the road was divided into 2 or more segments and each segment was analyzed separately (see matrix table). 6-1

6.2 Recommendations

Using the above Summary of Roads by Benefit and Risk table, the South Park Ranger District should consider those roads listed in the H/H (High Benefit and High Risk) category for future capital improvements. These roads are needed as part of the minimum road system, and at the same time they are causing unacceptable resource and/or financial impacts. Action should be taken in order to reduce the risk impacts along these roads.

Roads in the H/L (High Benefit and Low Risk) category are ideal roads and are needed as part of the minimum road system.

Roads in the L/H (Low Benefit and High Risk) category should be analyzed in depth and potentially eliminated from the system completely unless mitigation measures can be easily implemented that will change the high risk to a low risk. When decommissioning occurs, the risk impacts need to be addressed so they are eliminated or greatly reduced as a result of the decommissioning process. These roads are not needed as part of the minimum road system and they cause resource and/or financial impacts.

Roads in the L/L (Low Benefit and Low Risk) category should be reviewed by South Park Ranger District and considered for maintenance level reduction, conversion to motorized trails, administrative use only, or decommissioning. These roads are not needed as part of the minimum road system; but since they are not causing significant resource damage, they may be useful at a lower level of maintenance.

The information obtained from a complete project level travel analysis process sets the context for improving the road and motorized trail system on National Forest lands.

6.3 Travel Analysis Report (TAR) Map

The following TAR map covers the South Park Ranger District in five 11” x 17” sheets. Each benefit/risk category as shown in Table 6-1 above is displayed in a different color.

6-2 L

A 08 09 11 K 12 11 6 10 P 07 12 6 12.1B 449 10 07 09 9 10 11 E A .A 09 9.A .2 KJ 44 C R C 10 1 K KJ 4 4 O 696 1 KJ 8 C U 3

O 3 N 698 12 17 16 15 KJ 14 16 KJ U 13 17 15 KJ

T 14 1 18 6

3 6 16 15 14 5 18 5 9

Y N 9 698 9 6

6 T

21 21 23 24 1 9 20 22 23 24 19 20 22 21 22 23

«¬9 27 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 KSR1 KJ659 J

4 14 4 KJ 0 Sou 33 34 35 31 th Park 36 36 31 32 33 34 34 Range 32 33 r Station 4 35 35 23 .B 3 2 4

18 01 0 04 03 02 06 05 .2C 03 6 04 0 18 04 02 3 02 01 KJ 05 18 .2B 423.A A .2 12 8 691 1

10 07 09 10 FT5 0 12 07 K 09 10 11 09 11 3 8 18 08J

60 11 KJ 1 7

9 4 6 1

6 0 8 7 9 8 K18 6 J P 66 6 0 0 6 i 13 9 1 1 13 18 k 176.2B 7 2 16 15 9 14 e 18 17 1 15 6 18 17 16 15 14 17 6 N .2 14 6 A 9 ILLE 17 7 «¬ DV a 3 LEA 9 TO t 1 176 i 7 23 o 5 22 20 n 20 21 23 19 20 K 22 24 J 21 22 23 21 7 a 4 24 KJ 19 2 6 l r e F 1 g 73 n o a r 27 26 30 28 R 26 e 3 28 25 0 29 28 27 175 29 e t s 27 2 ll c 25 6 i i t v tr KJ5 ad is Le D 35 3 32 32 3 34 36 34 35 3 33 36 31 32 1 33 34 35

W eston Pass 1 0 6 05 0 2 2 03 4 03 01 06 05 0 4 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 161

5 08 10 12 07 5 12 09 11 09 4 08 10 11 07 08 09 10 11 1 7 1 LAKE COUNTY

17 1 17 16 5 15 14 18 16 13 5.2D 13 15 14 18 17 16 1 1 4 74 172

K22 £2288 BUFFALO PEAKS 20 J ¤¤£55 20 21 22 23 24 WILD 19 21 22 ERNESS 19 20 21 2 23 22 23 4 24 5.2C 5. 2B

P JK22 A 2 29 28 27 26 2 4 R 25 30 29 8 4 27 26 25 K 29 28 27 26 25 43 0 1 30 LAK C E COUNTY 5 1 8 67 O 432 36 CHAFFEE COUNTY U 1 6 6 32 33 34 35 N

31 32 33 C T 35 36 31 3 33 3 36

34 2 4 35

H Y A

F 3

F . 1 2 1 6

0 C

6 E

0 3 03 05 4 03 02 1 04

01 0 05 . E 6 6 1 04 03 02 2 3 4 01 06 4 A 05 0 0

4 2 1 1

6 3 C 3 1 1 . 2

O 6 1 B

4 43 U

C N 4 31 .2

3 08 09 T 9 3 10 12 07 5 10 4 56 11 08 09 1 11 0 1

Y 7 08 09 10 11 12 12 431.2D Benefit/Risk Legend BUFFA LO PEAKS

S WILDE 1 Hi1g6 h/High Ro15ad Rat14ing 13 RNESS 6 18 8 a 17 16 15 14 17 1 13 18 16 15 14 13 7 1 n 5 High/Low Road Rating 5 I s

a 4

Low/High Road Rating 4 3

b 3 3

20 3 .

23 e 19 4 . 2 2 2

22 0 2 19 3 A 3 24 3 2 A 21 l 22 .2 1 22 24 Low/Low Road Rating 24 B 23 Nationa 21 20 l Forest 433 Motorized System Trails 4 24 3 ¤£ 4 2 8 27 26 29 25 27 30 29 28 26 26 2 Other Public Routes 5 30 29 28 27 25

4 3 5 0.5 0 0.5 1 4 .4 32 33 34 35 3 B 4 36 31 32 35 6 35 33 34 .2 36 .4 436 B 31 32 33 A 36 Miles 4 3 35 3 43 4 5 5 ± 436. 2A 4 4 L 3 35 0 6 .4 04 05 04 0 2 C 3 01 e 0 05 04 6 435 03 02 05 S a 06 436. 01 1A R o 01 d S 6 a u 2C 43 t 02 September, 2015 436. n h 03 v a g 309 e P i l .2 3 3 08 A 0 0 r 9 a l i 30 9 d 9 D r 08 09 10 11 12 l .A k e 09 10 08 i a 11 12 0 s 9 t 11 1 07 07 r 10 2 R R Sheet 1 of 5 R i a S ct a n a a n g l n e i 17 16 1 13 g d 5 14 18 g r 17 1 a e 6 15 15 14 13 18 17 D e San 14 13 r Isa i 16 r bel s Nat Pike National Forest D ion t D al r Forest i Road Benefit/Riski Assessment c i s South Parkt Ranger District 20 21 22 23 s 24 19 t 20 t 21 22 20 22 r 23 1 r 9 21 23 24 i i c c t t 26 t 30 29 3 27 s 25 28 27 0 29 28 e 25 t 26 s r 26 Pike National Forest re o 35 F 36 31 32 33 o 34 35 36 31 32 3 l 3 36 F 34 35 31 a South Park Ranger District 3 l 34 2 a n 36 31 35 32 91 n 33 o 33 34 35 «¬ io ti at a 06 02 01 N 05 04 03 N 02 05 06 01 04 01 r 04 e 01 06 03 e 02 Road Benefit/Risk Assessment 02 05 k S 06 v i o 05 i R 04 03 0 03 u 2 R P a 01 e n th 06

1 t . g i 5 .1 P h 5 58 e 1 3 2 l 1 12 07 08 S0h9 eet 2 o10 f 5 11 r a 11 1 10 2 07 08 12 W 07 D t 09 11 09 11 t 08 08 12 is e 09 07 t 10 10 8 r 11 12 06 ic 9 07 September, 2015 t t 0 37.2G 8 15 k c 14 1 17 r i Y 13 8 16 14 1 E

3 r 1 L

3 3 7

1 16 14 13 a t 1 17 16 1 14 18 I 7 8 15 8 5 7 13 9 15 A s 0 16 B P 810 8 14 17 i O 13 5 37.2F T 18 h D 4 37.2E 811 t 1 r 4 81 u 8 2 e 70 23 24 7 811.A 23 o 4 8 2 19 20 21 22 23 2 22 2 0 4 4 g 80 7 9 5 .1 19 . 22 23 S 20 21 22 B 20 19 21 19 A 8 21 23 20 2 n 8 Benefit/Risk Legend 4 8 0 7 0 0 80 9 a .1 8 7 8 .2D 9.A 8 24 A 7 0 37 . 1 10 K C 8 10 0 0 enosh KJ 804 7 a 19 Bo R .A High/High Road Rating reas Pas 37 809 Pa s .2C ss 25 29 803 26 High/Low Road 2R8 ating 26 27 26 25 28 27 25 3 27 26 25 30 7 37 28 28 29 . 30 29 30 2 8 Low/High Road Rating 30 29 B 4 27 26 54.3 9 25 30 Low/Low Road Rating D 1 3 Y 6 Motorized System Trails T 31 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 N 34 35 3 36 80 31 33 3 32 2 34 35 54 36 Other Public Routes 3 U .A 33 KJ 37 32 31 2 O KJ 33 34 35 36 C Y 31 8 £22885 T T 801 02 ¤5 0.5 0 0.5 1 I N KJ ¤£

M 5 1

01 U 1 JK56 3

02 06 05 Miles M O 3 KJ 6 ± 04 136.1C 6 54 03 U C 02 13 KJ 01 S 04 03 01 6.1 03 02 0 05 K 06 B 03 02 0 White R 6 1 06 05 04 06 iver Nati R 05 0 03 02 01 onal Forest A 4 1 6.1A P A 13 . 9 1 ¬ 0 5 « 6 2 8 Hoosi 30 11 er Pass 1 07 10 12 10 11 12 1 0 09 12 35 8 1 12 9 07 08 191 801 07 08 09 10 11 KJ 1 408 1 .A 33.3A 07 08 09 10 11 4 0 9 12 3 8 188 9 1 2 8 07 407 130 50 3 KJ 9 .2 5 E 77 130.A C 3 6 LL 13 1 1 16 JK 9 I 1 5 3 13 .2 V 3 18 17 1 B D t 18 16 14 14 5 14 13 18 17 16 15 EA 14 4 18 17 193 14 39 L s 15 KJ TO e 17 16 196 18 r 0 2 o 8 9 12 437 5 9 F 6 22 l 20 24 22 23 24 19 23 a 19 20 24 19 20 21 1 23 21 24 9 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 8 9 n 5 2 1 39 1 o 23 8 3 3 .2 i 3 JK34 1 A JK 8

t 2

1 a 3 28 4 9 N KJ 8 25 2 26 30 27 3 30 l 2 2 27 8 288.A 25 30 28 27 26 5 30 29 28 26 25 3 26 e 29 8 29 0 29 28 27 b 8 288.B a 25 85 857.B 33 132 s 7 26 KJ 824 I 82 5 6 4

28 KJ 1 8

8 33 9 5

n 5 35 4 6

a 36 31 6

3 32 3

.A 36 31 32 33 34 3 8

9 34 5 36 31 32 33 3 35 9 S 7 4 35 36 31 32 33 34 36 31 2 5 787 4 8 6 KJ 4 6 3 45 1 JK34

5 K 6 2 6 J

9 6

448 6 15 826 9

9 KJ

. .

2 2 B 03 «¬9 B 4 02 01 0 5 04 5 06 05 0 06 0 0 06 12 1 01 3 01 5 4 03 02 01 KJ 02 04 06 05 04 1 01 8 03 02 06 4 6 6 9

L 8 1

192 1 9 08 KJ 9

A 4 450 10 4 K 12 1 08 6 P 1 12 07 0 6 12.1B 449 10 07 9 9 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 E A .A 12 09 .A .2 07 09 11 K 449 C 12 07 J 10 08 R C 10 1 K KJ 4 K32 4 JK O 696 J 1 KJ 8 U C 3

O N 16 698 KJ12 17 U 13 17 15 KJ

T 14 1 18

6 3 6 1 1

6 5 14 13 18 17 16 15 1 15 5

5 4 13 18 9 13 18 17 16 14

Y N 9

698 9 6 18

6 T

21 24 19 20 26

25 3 2 0 9 2 26 Pike National Forest 7 25 28 S o South Park Ranger District u th 3 3 5 6 31 32 3 3 3 4 35 P 3 31 6 32 LO la W S I T t L CR t DE E e 0 R EK R 2 NE 01 0 05 0 S a 6 4 03 S 02 0 0 Road Benefit/Risk Assessment 0 4 1 n 6 05 g 03 56 e 30 r 1 0 11 12 8 8 D Sheet 3 of 5 1 3 4 3 i 1 1 S 0 3 09 1 s 1 0 814 0 11 o 0 t 1 8 7 u 7 r 08 1 t 10 130 h i 0 12 0 12 c 9 7 3 September, 2015 9 P t . 2 5 1 130 C 3 6 a .A 9 18 3 3 r .2 k 14 B 15 39 17 16 R 14 13 a 17 13 1 16 1 Benefit/Risk Legend 0 1 8 n 5 14 2 9 1 1 8 0 g 8 6 12 17 e 17 9 8 r 13 D High/High Road Rating 24 19 i 9 s High/Low Road Rating 2 20 2 2 1 39 1 2 23 2 1 t 1 3 .2A 2 4 9 r 1 2 1 5 i 2 3 8 78 6 c 0 Low/High Road Rating 2 2 2 t 2 19 2 23 1 2 2 3 0 2 9 4 2 23 1 Low/Low Road Rating 8 6 2 84 3 26 30 135 Motorized System Trails 26 25 30 2 2 9 8 27 2 5 2 132 6 9 28 2 2 Other Public Routes 824 27 7 9 3 25 3 2 2 2 0 82 7 0 8 7 6 25 4 8 01 26 84 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 4

0 3

3 8 3 Miles 9

9 2 4 ± 35 36 31 3 3 6 2 3 35 3 32 1 134 36 7 847 0 3 826 33 2 3 36 3 3 33 3 3 31 3 5 1 2 4 5 36 32 8 3 8 5 4 4 1 4 0 85 06 852

8 0 J 0 0 4 3 03 02 5 4 5 02 0 0 1 E 6 05 0 02 4 01 F 0 01 0 5 01 0 0 0 0 06 05 4 0

4 6 6 5 4 2 P 2

4 4 .

1 3 3A F 4 84 4 0 03

5 3 A

6 6 6 8 E 8 2 9 A R 5 3. R 5 09 85 K 11 12 0 S 1

7 2 1 1 1 O 0 1 2 07 0 C 08 8 10 1

1 N

8 O 43 12 10 1 07 0 0 1 1 8 0 9 0 0 8 07 08 9 1 8 0 1 7 1 5 9 5 41 5 U 4 6 C 844 3 .3B 12

T 8 U 1 42 1 1 6 Y 4 3 18 N 17 1 1 13 1 5 4 8 17 L O T 15 1 S 1 6 4 1 1 1 T 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 7 5 4 Y 8 7 6 4 3 44 C 13

1 1 R 15 1

1 4 6 E 4

4 2 E 1 1 . K 8 B 82 8 1 W 2 3 4 I 0 9 3 L 2 24 2 D 3 2 2 22 E 3 2 23 R 1 1 2 N 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 9 1 2 19 2 4 9 0 21 E 2 2 9 2 4 . S 3 4 21 22 23 4 1 A 2 S 20 4 1 0 8

1 A 4 . 8 2

2 2 29 8 1

6 5 3 3

4 3 4 28 27 26 2 0 0 5 28 2 2 25 2 7 6 3 2 2 4 0 9 8 2 2 26 2 1 2 6 5 30 29 2 2 5 9 27 8 7

8 2

8 8 3 3

3 3 . .

2 2

1 1 A

35 A 31 1 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 83 3 3

146 32 3 4 3 3 32 2

2 2 31 32 3 4 35 36 3 3 3 3

1 JK3 36 3 1 3 34 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 46 6 1 2 3 4 6 35 1 49 02 02 0 0 04 1 05 4 03 0 0 1 0 3 0 04 0 23 5 2 01 0 0 0 6 9. 1 6 3 2 01 0 0 0 0 0 C 4 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 0 5 4 6 01 5 1 46 4 1 6 .A 0 .B 39 8 K23 9 2 J 3 2 JK77 1 2 09 12 1 07 09 1 3 0 07 12 0 11 9 7 08 11 1 08 09 10 11 2 1 12 10 07 08 0 11 09 12

2 2 1 09 14 9 41 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 8 16 13 1 4 3 8 7 6 5 1 17 1 8 23 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 17 1 15 14 8 6 13 14 41 2 1 14 8 16 13 1 5 1 17 1 8 16 23 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 17 1 15 14 18 17 15 14

8 6 13 J 1 1 4 4 Benefit/RisE k Legend 5 Pike National Forest

4 P F 24

2 A

1 F 2 2 1 High/High Road Rating 2 4 2 2 R South Park Ranger District 2 9 0 2 2 E 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 23 6 9 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 22 6 K 9 0 1 2 1 24 R 4 9 0

2 High/Low Road Rating 23

37 S .C 66 C 2 O

Low/HO igh Road Rating N 2 .B 3 3 7 U

7 2 7 0 5 2 2 Low/Low Road Rating 26 9 C 27 1 N 2 27 25 2 2 4 28 2 5 9 8 . 3 7 2 2 A 0 6 O 2 6 T 3 2 2 7 .B 0 9 28 27 26 25 30 29 8 26 4 2 2 Motorized System Trails 1 U 1 14 Y 2 4 2 .

38.B D Other PubN lic Routes 2

2 Road Benefit/Risk Assessment

T 0 4 0

23 1 6

8 2 2 6

Y .

. 3 C . A

3 A 7 7 3 . A 34 7

4 23 .B 3 5 4 31 7 0.5 0 0.5 1 6 7

3 1 7 K8 2 2 J

3 2 3 3

5 3 3 2 . 3 3 5 1 1 3 A

2 4 20 A 35 3 3 3 4 5 6 3 3 3 3 4 4 6.A 3 3 1 3 Mi1les 2 3 1 2 3 4 6 2 1 36 3 ± 6 Sheet 4 of 5 3 3 7 238 . A DOUGLA 206 S COUNTY 0 September, 2015 5 04 2 0 0 0 S 0 TELLER COUNTY 5 1 4 1 2 06 02 2 652 ou 4 JK 05 03 3 01 06 0 th 0 0 02 2 0 0 1 P 3 6 0 2 0 5 2 l 05 K3 3 JK3 4 04 0 att 0 03 J 231 3 0 e R 2 0 6 ange 1 12 r D 2 istr 11 2 ic 33 2 1 t K 2 0 J0 7 2 9 2 0 0 1 1 K5 1 9 2 0 J 0 1 1 8 . 1 0 9 2 8 1 9 23 A 1 2 07 10 1 0 1 07 11 12 08 09 10 11 1 7 09 0 0 2 0 17 1 230 8 07 7 1 2 A 0 1 0 . 23 2 227 7 7 2 5 2 2 2 JK21 2 18 211.B 9 227 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 40 JK3 15 3 JK1 17 6 5 2 1 5 18 1 1 15 213 JK11 1 1 1 6

8 17 1 1 8 .F 1 3 1 1 2

2 6 1 4 7 5 4

1 4 4 44 4 1 1 7 6 8 4 8 7 5

4 8 4

4 4 3 1

0 0 1

9 4

. 1 6

2 2 3

2 2 6

A A

7 2 2

A 211.E 7 7 . 1 2 2 1 20 1 B 9 896.A K77 .C .B .2 44 J 1

4 2 4 2

44 2 2 3 4 4 3

2 1 0 60.2 6 2

4 2 2 E 4

2 4 4 8 2

.2 1 6 9 2 0

C 2 2 2 2

2 . 1 5

2 K .

6 0 0 2 3 2 J 6 6 1 2

2 9 D 2 1

4 9 2 A

A 2 2 2 2 t D 2

2 2 3 1 2 2 4 1 2 . 3 4

4 4 4 9 8 3 9 0 2 2 8 2 8 7 3 0 0

8 2 2 36 6 c

1 1 7 2 3 i

. 9 .

A A 2 2 B 2 4 r 0 2 2 28 2. 2 36 t 2 2 7 29 0 7 6 5 . 71 s

2 . 29 2 2

K3A A 2 2. 22 K51 C i 2

J 2 2 2 A J 1 1 K

2 2 J0

9 9

8 8 7 6

JK44 6 5 8 D

2 2 3

7 7 2

5 3 7 2 3 9

3 7

. . 2 4

. 23 9 2 6 0 B B 10 A r 55 2 73

2 2 3 2 2 2 2 7 7 1. e 2 7 2 2 2 9 2 7 A 2

6 2 0 9 7 6 25 3 2 6 0 2 2 2 3 3 27 6 9

7 9 5 9 2 8 2

5 23 2 0 2 . 3 8 97 1 g 0 K 0

J 8 B 0 7 7 2

2 9 2 3

3 K .

. 8 5 J3

3 3

2 A n

9 5

. . A 23 A a JKA 734 28 2 90 290 732 R 24 2 2 2 1 3 5 3 k 3 3 3 3 2 7 .E 6 3 5 2 3 717 3 4 9 3 0 a 3 4 3 32 3 5 2 3 2 4 5 6 897 4 7 3 . e 4.E 3 291.A 6 1 A 3 0 2 3 3 . 1 7 2 3 5 A 0 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 35 70 6 A P 3 36 3 3 2 33 5. 2 3 2 3 2 9 3 6 3 s 1 2 1 A 7 ¤£ 6 3 0 4 2 .1 753 7 e . 2 0 B 31 K3 2 5 J 01 06 0 7 k

5 0 2

02 70 5 0 2 01 50 2 i

7 0 7

5 7 704.D 4 03 7 1 1 0

0 7 3 P

7 5 2

7 2 0 2 4

0 24.1A 0 4 06 0 5

3 9 5

0 0 1 .

4 . .C 24 0 3 B B 1 0 4 1 8

0 .A 04 8 0 3 0 4 704 7 2 05 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 7 2 7 5 4 3 2 0 0 6 2 5 5 0 2 860.B 4 . 0 1 1 7 A 2 2 1 6 2 . 5 7

5 1 74 A 7 2

2 2 47 2 2

2 1 2 7 2

90 07 08 0 0 1 2 2 2 5 5 3

.1A 9 3 2 4 7 3

1 4 2

0 9 2 2

0 1 7 2

W 0

2 8 A 8 2 0

60.A 8 . 1 . 9

A 0 1 4

i 6 1 0 4 7 1 0

l 6 6 8 7 .

1 . 7

k 1 8 7 5

1 90 86 8 2 1 2 0 .

e K .

J 6 4 2 2 C C B B 8 09 V r 6 0. 1. 7 2 11 JK51 10 08 so 70 D 0 C .C 59 1 10 1 1 07 is n 86 .E 0 0 09

1 2 it 1 9 7

2 P 2 7

o a .C JK12 5 7 7

r 7 5 5 4 2 s £2 9 2

c ¤ 5 2 6 4 4 4 5 0 e s 60.C 861.B 2 25 0 A 0

n 8 5 9 7 . 1

.D 4 1 te 9 75 r 15 2 13 5 14 1 16 9 1 3 1 . 6 8 1 1 A 4 252 2 8 15 5

1 16 9 8 8 1 8

17 7 . 1 6

15 14 13 6 B 15 14 13 8 1 16 15 2 2 7 864 112 .1A 3 K59 8 86 JK77 1 JK2

J 63 4 23 7

24 2 0

7 22 0 5

2 2 19 20 07 862 5

3 4 . B B 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 22 4 20 1 1 65 9 2 05 24 23 19 8 0 22 23 19 20 9 JK51 4 . 2 A JK94 2 2 28 JK90 2 248 2 2 9 25 6 5 3 26 29 2 2 0 5 29 28 7 2 3 7 25 3 2 27 26 0 30 28 27 26 0 9 28 5 JK9 A 3 K96 250 50. 4 36 J 2 A J3 .1 1 2 29 3 25 3 7 JK8 36 3 32 3 5 1 .J JK9 3 1 96 3 2 4 35 33 4 3 3 3 3 1 251.1B 3 3 3 6 3 3 35 6 3 25 1 4 5 1 2

31 2 61 8

.A 8 32 7

6.A 7 5 9 9 5 96.B 6 05

03 T

0 3 8 D O

1 35 0 8 0 7

K 2 0 7 7

J 06 0 5 7 04 3 IV

6 1 6 5

02 0 5 0 I

. 0 D .

3 . 6

A 1 A A 2

0 0 878 ¤£4 E 8

0 0 0 0 5 2 6 8 7 6 0 7 0

3 2 1 0 2 4 51 2 05 4 4 4 4 6 246 73 2 873.A 8 877 ¤£4 9 JK2 96.C 73.B 87 8 3.C 6 0 87 7 2 B 1 44 0 6. 1 A . 8 87 2 6. E 24 96.C 87 3.C 6 0 87 7 2 .B 1 44 08 6 1 A 2 2 . 87 2 . 2 E 1 6 4 4 1 4 2 0 0 4 0 6 4 1 0 1 2 87 0 0 9 9 2 . 2 4 4 9 8 A . 4 0 0 D 4 9 1 1 1 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 . 0 4 0 1 2 8 9 0 1 2 7 B 0 8 2 . 9 A 1 1 4 0 . 1 C 4 96. 1 5 7 244 JK6 Pike National Forest D JK61 77 9 8 6 .2B C .E 2 3 .1 4 24 3

3 24

. 2

South Park Ranger District 1 2 2 4

6 A 4 4

1 1 1 42 2 4 1 1 14 3 8 5 2 2 1 7 9 16 5 43 8 JK8 17 3 9 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 1 393.2B 9 2 243.1A 8 1 7 3 4 . 5 . 3 A 2 14 .1 A B 16

1 4 3

3 3 6 8

2 8 K.

6 2C 9 4 JA

9 9 . 3 9

93 3 1

3 1 . .

1 3 1 .

2 9 .

0 3 A

2 B

9 9 .

21 2 1 3 2D 891 6

2 23 4 9 9 6 4

2 6 . .

G Road Benefit/Risk Assessment G B 2 .I 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 22 20 1 2 3 4 9 0 1 2 3 4 9 3 19 21 22 11 9 23 T JK6 3 24 3 89 E

.A 3 4 L 23 9

P 96.H 3 2 Sheet 5 of 5 . 4 892 L

2 A

2 0 2 E 8

3 8 3

0 6 K98 E 2

9 J 9 0 2 2 4 R 7

5 9 2 1 2 9 1 2 2 28 7 26 8 3 3 8 R 0 K 9 4 2 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 2 2 30 393.2F 7 240.A 6 5

C 2 September, 2015 8 2 C

9 O 8

8 25 O

8 8

4 U 1

1 K0

J3 U

3 3 K98 8 N J N 27 1 2 8 0 3 3 4 . 3 3 6 4 T Benefit/Risk Legend 3 A 1 3 5 . 3 3 3 3 33 4 3 C 1 32 33 T 3 Y 33 34 35 36 31 32 4 3 2 5 35 3 «¬9 5 JK9 4 6 Y 34 3 88 6 1 High/High Road Rating JK00 254

885 8 8

8 0 8

4 8 8

High/Low Road Rating 0 8 884 8 4

3 2 .A 4

6 6

2 2

0 8 .

8 B

. 4 . 5 5

A 0 2 A

0 1 2 . 0 3

4 3 16 0 3 254 0 0 A 3 K 0 5 7 Low/High Road Rating J 1 2 6 05 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 5 4 3 02 01 06 06 1 0 6 0 0 4 883 2 6 4 3 Low/Low Road Rating 0 0 25 8

5 2 8 1

8 K0

8 J0

7 7

270 8 1 1 3

Motorized System Trails 887 3

. . A 0 A 8 2 1 8 8 25 5 1 1 7 Other Public Routes 6 0 1 0 2 0 2 7 10 11 1 0 10 1 8 09 2 0 09 10 11 12 07 08 9 11 2 8 0 7 0 1 8 8 9 9 0 0 8 08 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 7 8 88 8 8 9 ± Miles .A 1 17 1 258.A 1 8 7 6 1 13 8 16 15 14 1 1 4 8 3 18 1 1 16 15 14 13 18 16 15 14 13 18 17 5 8 7 5

. Cu B r 2 16 ra 6 2 nt 7 60 C .A P r 2 a e 6 s e 0 s k 23 2 2 19 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 4 9 0 2 3 4 9 20 2 21 22 23 24 19 22 23 24 21 1 2 2 2 2 1 0

5 0 8 8

27 3 2 3 2 25 0 2 28 27 26 5 29 28 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 0 27 6 9 3 8 7 6 5 0 9 2 5 29 28 0 28 6 1 2 6 JK59

08 2

3 2 35 6

3 3 6 35 3 3 3 36 3 3 1 C 3 1 3 3 2

2 1 . 4 3 35 6 1 2 3 4 3 3 .

3 3 3 3 0 1 . 3 3 3 3 4 1 B

4 5 6 1 6 B 6 1 2 3 3 7 3 2 .A 261

261

0 0 0 06 04 3 1 5 01 06 05 0 02 04 0 02 10 06 04 03 10 04 03 01 5 06 05 3 JK2 02 JK2 0 26 2 3 01

8 6 2

1 0 1 7 2 0 08 10 7 07 1 11 12 07 08 0 10 11 TO 08 09 10 1 1 09 1 12 07 08 09 0 9

1 2 1 CRIPPLE CREEK

2 2

6 6

4 4 2

2 2 1 1

6 1 6 6

8 5 5 4 1 1 1 8 13 8 18 1 16 15 4 18 17 1 15 14 3 8 16 15 14 1 13 7 6 6 13 1 JK88 269 7 4 28 265

2 8 6 1 6 9 0 2 7 2 20 24 3 24 2 2 1 24 1 1 2 24 19 20 2 22 23 9 22 23 21 22 9 1 20 19 23

2 2 3 29 8 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 5 28 27 26 30 29 27 26 25 0 25 28

2 7 2 3 1 34 36 9 3 33 3 33 34 35 «¬ 31 32 33 34 35 6 35 36 35 36 31 2 32 PARK COUNTY Appendix A. Final TAP Matrix Table

Following is the matrix table which shows the benefit and risk ratings for each road under analysis. Page 1 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

Recommend eliminating public access after the intersection 130 CLARK SPRING 0-1.90 1.90 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L with 39.2C, and keeping as an Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 130.A ROCK 0-1.03 1.03 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L Admin road 131 PEARL 0-1.54 1.54 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 4 0 H/L 132 MUD SPRINGS 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 133 ROCK CREEK 0-1.90 1.90 2 NAT R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 2 H/L Rec Site Access 133 ROCK CREEK 1.90-1.99 0.09 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 7 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 134 NORTH FORK 0-3.90 3.90 2 NAT R *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 10 3 H/L Rec Site Access 135 ENGLEMANN 0-3.40 3.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 5 1 H/L OP ML1 136 VOLZ 0-3.20 3.20 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 3 H/L Seasonal 136.1A OLD VOLZ 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L 136.1B CUT BLOCK 0-0.90 0.90 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 1 L/L 136.1C DINKY 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 0 L/L 140 LONG 0-3.70 3.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 6 H/H 141 CABIN SPRING 0-2.45 2.45 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 8 2 H/L Rec Site Access 141 CABIN SPRING 2.45-4.00 1.55 2 NAT R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 7 6 H/H Rec Site Access 141 CABIN SPRING 4.00-5.00 1.00 2 NAT A *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L Admin Rd 142 CHALLENGE 0.40-2.70 2.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 6 H/H 142.A POTATO GULCH 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 6 H/H 142.A1 PROMONTORY 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L 142.B THICKET 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L 143 DERBISHIRE GULCH 0.39-3.07 2.68 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 8 6 H/H 144 PACKER GULCH 0-7.40 7.40 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 8 4 H/L 145 PAIGE 0-1.15 1.15 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L 145 PAIGE 3.46-4.34 0.88 2 AGG *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L 146 EAGLE ROCK 0-9.61 9.61 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 148 OBSERVATORY ROCK 0-2.00 2.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 4 H/L 149 BAKER 0-2.24 2.24 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 2 H/L 155 TRANSECT 0-1.40 1.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H OP ML1, Recommend open to public use 156 BUCK AND POLE 0-3.40 3.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 3 H/L OP ML1 158 BEAR GULCH 0-3.00 3.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 6 H/H 158.A JUICE 0-0.20 0.20 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 8 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 159 FJS 0-2.00 2.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 6 L/H OP ML1 160 SNAG 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 1 H/L 160 SNAG 0.30-0.90 0.60 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 2 L/L OP ML1 161 VIEW 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 3 L/L 162 RUBY 0-1.90 1.90 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 3 L/L 163 MIDDLE 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 163 MIDDLE 0.20-0.80 0.60 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 163.2A EAST WILLOW 0-0.30 0.30 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 164 WILLOW CREEK 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 5 H/H 164 WILLOW CREEK 0.20-1.30 1.10 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 4 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 166 WATERSHED 0-1.00 1.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 167 BUG TREE 0-2.00 2.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 168 PONDEROSA 0-2.30 2.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 3 H/L

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 2 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ACCESS 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 3/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, RESOURCE (Mileposts) ROAD NAME BOTANY RISK Rating Combined WILDLIFE RISK RISK WILDLIFE ROAD LENGTH SURFACE TYPE ADM/SUP/REC (H/H, H/L, L/H, L/L) TIMBER ACCESS 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, OBJ. LEVEL MTC FS JURISDICTION FS JURISDICTION WATERSHED RISK Total Risk Score (0-11) Score (0-11) Risk Total FIRE/FUELS ACCESS RECREATIONAL USE SPECIAL USE ACCESS ARCHAEOLOGY RISK FINANCIAL BURDEN/ Total Benefit Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Benefit Total ROAD NUMBER - NFSR MANAGEMENT/RANGE If score is >3, then rating = H = If score then >3, rating is H = If score then >4, rating is (FS JURISDICTION MILES) (FS JURISDICTION PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY ANNUAL MAINT COST/MILE SITE/SEASONAL RD (A,S,R,SE) RD SITE/SEASONAL 168 PONDEROSA 2.30-2.80 0.50 2 NAT A *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 3 H/L Admin Rd 170 FENCE 0-0.50 0.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 171 GUTBUSTER 0-1.40 1.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L OP ML1 172 ELKHIDE 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 1 L/L 173 TWELVEMILE LAKE 0-1.70 1.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 7 6 H/H 174 POWERLINE 0-1.90 1.90 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L OP ML1 175 BREAKNECK PASS 1.61-5.63 4.02 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 175 BREAKNECK PASS 5.63-6.10 0.47 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L 175 BREAKNECK PASS 6.10-7.00 0.90 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 7 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 176 BROWNS PASS 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 5 H/H 176 BROWNS PASS 0.50-0.74 0.24 2 NAT S *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 4 H/L Special Use Access 176 BROWNS PASS 0.74-4.21 3.47 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 6 H/H 176.2A MOTHER LODE 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 176.2B SHORTY 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 178 MC FERRAN 0-3.00 3.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 9 L/H 179 HI CREEK 0-1.69 1.69 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 1 M 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 5 6 H/H 18.2A HORSESHOE CG 0-0.60 0.60 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 H/L Rec Site Access 18.2B HORSESHOE 0-1.40 1.40 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 3 H/L LVO 18.2C FOURMILE CG 0-0.24 0.24 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 182 PEART 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 6 L/H Recommend converting to non-motorized trail 183 BEAR PARK 0-1.04 1.04 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 6 H/H 184 RIDGE 0-2.60 2.60 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 6 L/H 188 COLUMBINE 0-1.50 1.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 6 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 190 AIRPORT 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 2 H/L 191 LITTLE FRENCH 0-1.50 1.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 192 TABOR 0-2.50 2.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 3 L/L 193 ROBINSON 0-1.70 1.70 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 194 TROUT CREEK 0-4.99 4.99 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 7 H/H 195 ELK PLOT 2.30-3.00 0.70 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 196 SILVERHEELS CRK 0-1.50 1.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 199 DEADWOOD 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L SUP road or Decommissioning 2 LING 0-1.52 1.52 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 3 6 L/H 2 LING 1.52-2.70 1.18 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 6 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 201 CRYSTAL CREEK 0-5.20 5.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 6 5 H/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 201.2C CRYSTAL CREEK SPUR 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L SUP road 202.1A TRUMAN 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 2 H/L 203 ROUND MOUNTAIN CG 0-0.39 0.39 3 NAT R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 M 2 0 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 204 BOX 0-1.96 1.96 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 6 H/H 205 BLADDER BAG 0-1.38 1.38 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L 205.B LIKELY 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 0 L/L 206 HARBOUR 0-2.35 2.35 2 NAT *** 2 HH 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 206.A MIKE 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 2 HH 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 1 H/L 206.A1 MIKE SPUR 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 208 HAYMAN 0-0.64 0.64 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 7 0 H/L 208 HAYMAN 0.64-2.56 1.92 2 NAT A *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 1 L/L Admin Rd, Recommend Decommissioning 209 WEST PACKER 0-1.61 1.61 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 210 PLATTE SPRINGS 0-2.09 2.09 3 NAT R, SE *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 M 7 1 H/L Rec Site Access, Seasonal 211.A STAGE STOP 0-0.55 0.55 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 3 L/L 211.B LENTINUS 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 2 HH 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 3 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

Recommend on the segment past NFSR 227.1A eliminating 227 MARKSBURY WEST 0-3.00 3.00 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 2 H/L public access and keeping as an SUP road

227.1A LINCOLN 0-0.96 0.96 2 NAT *** 2 HH 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 1 M 5 5 H/H 227.1B NO HURRY 0-1.00 1.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 2 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 228 LOOKOUT 0-1.25 1.25 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 5 H/H LVO, Recommend Decommissioning 228 LOOKOUT 1.25-4.50 3.25 2 NAT A *** 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 5 H/H Admin Rd Recommend Decommissioning for the segment from NFSR 229 MARTLAND 0-1.94 1.94 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 3 H/L 44 to NFSR 44.2A 23.2A FISHLINE 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L LVO, Recommend Decommissioning 230 THORPE 0-3.00 3.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning

231 BURNS PARK 0-2.38 2.38 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 5 H/H

Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 231 BURNS PARK 2.38-6.10 3.72 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 5 H/H administrative or SUP road 232 HANDY 0-2.30 2.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 1 H/L 233 GET AWAY 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 4 H/L Recommend Decommissioning 234 RIMROCK 0-1.70 1.70 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 1 H/L 234.A BIG DOUG 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 1 L/L 234.B ROCKY 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 1 L/L 236 SKINNY 0-2.10 2.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 3 H/L 237 SCHOOLMARM MOUNTAIN 0-6.30 6.30 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 2 H/L Seasonal 237.A SCHOOLMARM 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 3 L/L 237.B BROKEN JUG 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L 237.C SOFT END 0-1.30 1.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 3 L/L 238 STEELE 0-2.47 2.47 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 4 1 H/L

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 4 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ACCESS 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 3/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, RESOURCE (Mileposts) ROAD NAME BOTANY RISK Rating Combined WILDLIFE RISK RISK WILDLIFE ROAD LENGTH SURFACE TYPE ADM/SUP/REC (H/H, H/L, L/H, L/L) TIMBER ACCESS 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, OBJ. LEVEL MTC FS JURISDICTION FS JURISDICTION WATERSHED RISK Total Risk Score (0-11) Score (0-11) Risk Total FIRE/FUELS ACCESS RECREATIONAL USE SPECIAL USE ACCESS ARCHAEOLOGY RISK FINANCIAL BURDEN/ Total Benefit Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Benefit Total ROAD NUMBER - NFSR MANAGEMENT/RANGE If score is >3, then rating = H = If score then >3, rating is H = If score then >4, rating is (FS JURISDICTION MILES) (FS JURISDICTION PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY ANNUAL MAINT COST/MILE SITE/SEASONAL RD (A,S,R,SE) RD SITE/SEASONAL 238.A DRY LAKE EAST 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning the western half of the road 238.B DRY LAKE WEST 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L and changing the eastern half to an administrative use only road 239 WINDY 0-2.70 2.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L 239.A PERMAFROST 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 239.B SHORTENED 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 239.C IN BETWEEN SPRING 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 24.1A WILKERSON PASS OVERLOOK 0-0.18 0.18 5 AC R *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 2 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 240 DOG HUNT 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 240.A DINGER 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 242 BURMA SHAVE 0-1.30 1.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 5 H/H 243 SLEDGE HAMMER 0-3.60 3.60 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L Seasonal 243.1A GOOSE CHASE LOOP 0-1.38 1.38 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 1 L/L 243.1A GOOSE CHASE LOOP 1.38-1.77 0.39 2 NAT A *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 1 L/L Admin Rd, Recommend opening road to public use 243.1B WIGGLER LOOP 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 243.1C JACKPOT 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L Recommend Decommissioning 243.2A SPAGHETTI LIGHTNING 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 243.2B CRASH & BURN 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 244 MISTLETOE 0-1.29 1.29 2 NAT S *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L Special Use Access 244 MISTLETOE 1.29-1.50 0.21 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 244.A NICE CAMP 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 244.B S.T.I.T. 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 244.C LAZY 0-0.27 0.27 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 244.D GENUINE 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L 244.E DUTCH'S HAIR 0-0.90 0.90 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 5 H/H 245 GREAT VIEW 0-1.90 1.90 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 246 SPRINGER GULCH 0-3.40 3.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 6 3 H/L 246.A SLOT DOZING 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 1 L/L 246.A1 BILL'S DREAM 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 1 H/L 247 CONFIRMED 0-3.20 3.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 7 4 H/L 247.A UNBEKNOWN 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 4 L/L 247.B BACKYARD 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 4 L/L 247.C R-COASTER 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 4 L/L 248 ABEL 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 1 L/L 249 BY-PASS 0-1.28 1.28 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 249 BY-PASS 1.28-1.30 0.02 2 NAT A *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 2 H/L Admin Rd 250 ADAMANS CREEK 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 1 L/L 250.A JENNY'S SMOKE 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 251 MESSENGER 0-3.60 3.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 1 H/L 251.1A ORIGINAL 0-0.83 0.83 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 1 H/L 251.1A ORIGINAL 0.83-1.75 0.92 2 NAT S *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 1 H/L Special Use Access 251.1B HATHAWAY 0-1.23 1.23 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 6 1 H/L 252 GOLD CITY 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 5 2 H/L 253 PRUDEN CREEK 0-3.40 3.40 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 6 H/H 254 THIRTYNINE MILE 0-4.70 4.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 7 H/H 254 THIRTYNINE MILE 4.70-5.00 0.30 2 NAT A *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 7 H/H Admin Rd 255 NEVER 0-1.40 1.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 2 L/L 255.A ZAPPABLE 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 0 L/L 256 LOCO 0-1.50 1.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 3 H/L 258 THREEMILE 0-5.80 5.80 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 5 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ACCESS 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 3/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, RESOURCE (Mileposts) ROAD NAME BOTANY RISK Rating Combined WILDLIFE RISK RISK WILDLIFE ROAD LENGTH SURFACE TYPE ADM/SUP/REC (H/H, H/L, L/H, L/L) TIMBER ACCESS 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, OBJ. LEVEL MTC FS JURISDICTION FS JURISDICTION WATERSHED RISK Total Risk Score (0-11) Score (0-11) Risk Total FIRE/FUELS ACCESS RECREATIONAL USE SPECIAL USE ACCESS ARCHAEOLOGY RISK FINANCIAL BURDEN/ Total Benefit Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Benefit Total ROAD NUMBER - NFSR MANAGEMENT/RANGE If score is >3, then rating = H = If score then >3, rating is H = If score then >4, rating is (FS JURISDICTION MILES) (FS JURISDICTION PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY ANNUAL MAINT COST/MILE SITE/SEASONAL RD (A,S,R,SE) RD SITE/SEASONAL 258.A WINDMILL 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 5 H/H 259 FIGURE 9 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 5 7 H/H 259.A SMOKESTACK 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L 259.B R.I.M. 0-0.90 0.90 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L 259.C NOBLE 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 259.D 3 SECTIONS 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L 259.E ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L 260 CORRAL 0-1.70 1.70 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 7 2 H/L 260.A WALKER 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 5 2 H/L 261 DICKS PEAK 0-3.50 3.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 9 7 H/H 261.A HILL TOP 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 9 5 H/H 261.B SPRING 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 5 H/H 261.C BRIEF 0-0.16 0.16 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 9 2 H/L 262 SORE FOOT 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 9 2 H/L 263 SHIMMINS 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 7 3 H/L 264 PARIS CREEK 0-2.00 2.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 265 ANTELOPE 0.50-3.00 2.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 266 GOOSEBERRY 0-0.78 0.78 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 6 H/H 267 LELAND 0-1.46 1.46 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L OP ML1 268 RYE SLOUGH 0-4.70 4.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 4 H/L 269 BLACK 0-2.50 2.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 2 H 7 8 H/H 270 UNION 0-5.20 5.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 6 H/H 270.A LOTS O' NINES 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 8 2 H/L 271 STAR 0-2.90 2.90 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Seasonal 272 GRIZZLY 2.20-3.30 1.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 273 KRASS 0-1.20 1.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L 274 GOETHITE 1.02-4.10 3.08 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L 275 STARGAZERS 0-0.68 0.68 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 4 H/L 276 RATCLIFF 0-1.80 1.80 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 6 H/H OP ML1 277 CHAIN BRAKE 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 3 L/L 278 DUNLAP 0-1.80 1.80 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 5 H/H OP ML1 279 LOUSY CUTTING 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L 280 SHANGRI-LA 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L 284 MEAL-READY TO EAT 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 3 H/L 285 PRIVATEER 0-1.30 1.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 3 9 L/H 287 QUIST 0-2.36 2.36 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 9 2 H/L 287.A TENNESSEE 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 6 2 H/L 287.B BABY QUIST 0-0.39 0.39 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 0 L/L 288 MORNING STAR 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 4 9 H/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 288.A SHERMAN 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 10 L/H Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 288.B DEACON 0-0.07 0.07 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 10 L/H Admin road 289 BLUE BIRD 0-0.30 0.30 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 10 L/H OP ML1 290 SIXTEENER 0-2.68 2.68 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 8 3 H/L 290.A GILLEY 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 0 L/L 290.B ROCK CLIMB 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 0 L/L 291 QUARTZ ROCK 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 9 5 H/H 291.A PICNIC 0-0.95 0.95 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 9 5 H/H 292 TAPPAN 0-2.00 2.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 292.A LOOKOUT 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 6 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

37.2B JEFFERSON BOUNDARY PG 0-0.05 0.05 3 NAT R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 2 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO

37.2C LODGEPOLE CG 0-0.40 0.40 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 1 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 37.2D ASPEN CG 0-0.20 0.20 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 1 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 37.2E BEAVER PONDS PG 0-0.10 0.10 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 1 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 37.2F JEFFERSON CREEK CG 0-0.30 0.30 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 3 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 37.2G JEFFERSON LAKE PG 0-0.20 0.20 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 1 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO 39 ROCK CREEK HILLS 0.30-5.41 5.11 3 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 5 1 H/L LVO 39.2A EAST BRANCH 0-2.20 2.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 4 H/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 39.2B LONE CHIMNEY SPRING 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 5 2 H/L Admin road 39.2C TILDEN 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 393 WAGON TONGUE 0-4.90 4.90 2 NAT SE *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 10 6 H/H Seasonal 393.1B GOOD CLIFFS 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 10 6 H/H 393.2A DUTCH 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 393.2B HEELER 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 393.2C DOGBANE 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L Admin road 393.2D TOMPKINS 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 3 L/L

duplicate access to preivate, Recommend eliminating public 393.2E CALF 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L access and keeping as an Admin road

393.2F GULCH TO RIMROCK 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 3 L/L 407 HOOSIER PASS OVERLOOK 0-0.10 0.10 3 AGG R *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 2 H/L Rec Site Access, LVO, this is a parking lot, not a road 408 WHEELER LAKE 0-3.60 3.60 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 5 11 H/H 423 THOMPSON PARK 0-3.13 3.13 2 NAT R? *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 423.A DOG HAIR 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 423.B MA BELL 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 7 L/H SUP road 425.A SOUTH PEAK ACCESS 0.41-0.48 0.07 2 NAT A *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 9 L/H Admin Rd, Recommend Decommissioning 425.A SOUTH PEAK ACCESS 0.57-0.84 0.27 2 NAT A *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 9 L/H Admin Rd, Recommend Decommissioning 425.A SOUTH PEAK ACCESS 1.00-1.57 0.57 2 NAT A *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 9 L/H Admin Rd, Recommend Decommissioning

426 ROUND HILL 0-2.28 2.28 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 7 L/H Recommend converting to a single track motorcycle trail

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 7 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

426 ROUND HILL 2.28-3.20 0.92 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 7 L/H

427 DEADMAN 0-2.00 2.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 6 7 H/H LVO Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 427.1A BURN 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 6 L/H Admin road 430 CRITERION 0-2.18 2.18 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 431 BUFFALO PEAKS 0-0.14 0.14 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 10 7 H/H Rec Site Access 431 BUFFALO PEAKS 0.14-8.88 8.74 3 AGG R, SE *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 10 7 H/H Rec Site Access, Seasonal 431.2B BUFFALO SPRINGS CG 0-0.60 0.60 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 2 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 8 4 H/L Rec Site Access 431.2C DEER CAMP 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 431.2D END 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 5 H/H Admin road 431.2E BEAN 0-0.90 0.90 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 432 LONG PARK 0-2.74 2.74 2 NAT SE *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H Seasonal 433 PONY PARK 0-1.21 1.21 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 433 PONY PARK 1.21-7.55 6.34 2 NAT SE *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H Seasonal 433.2A NORTH SPRING 0-1.03 1.03 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 433.2B PONY CREEK 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 7 H/H 433.2C UPPER POLE 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 6 7 H/H 434 ARROWHEAD 0-0.91 0.91 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 8 8 H/H 435 SALT CREEK 0-6.60 6.60 3 NAT SE *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 8 8 H/H Seasonal 435.4A BATTLEGROUND 0-0.60 0.60 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 8 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning

435.4B BRUSH PARK 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H Recommend Decommissioning

435.4C NORTH SALT 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 4 7 H/H 436 SOUTH SALT CREEK 0-1.26 1.26 3 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 5 11 H/H Seasonal 436 SOUTH SALT CREEK 1.26-5.10 3.84 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 5 4 H/L Seasonal Recommend Decommissioning the last segment to shorten 436.1A FORK 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L this road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 436.2A SAWMILL 0-0.40 0.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 3 L/L Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 436.2B MIDDLE 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 6 L/H SUP road 436.2C WILD 0-1.70 1.70 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 6 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 437 MT. LINCOLN 0-2.74 2.74 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 10 L/H 437 MT. LINCOLN 2.74-3.80 1.06 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 10 L/H OP ML1 44 PUMA 0.50-7.20 6.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 9 7 H/H 44.2A POWERLINE 0-1.72 1.72 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 7 H/H 44.2B SPRING 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H 44.2C DEAD MINE 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 6 L/H 440 FAIRPLAY WC 0-0.30 0.30 3 AGG A *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 2 L/L Admin Rd 441 HIGH PARK 0-4.40 4.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 7 L/H 442 TUMBLE CREEK 0-1.63 1.63 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 7 8 H/H 446 TOPAZ MOUNTAIN 0-7.77 7.77 2 NAT SE *** 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 7 8 H/H Seasonal 447 PROSPECT 0-0.30 0.30 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 10 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 448 PARIS 0-0.14 0.14 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H M 2 H 2 H 1 M 0 8 L/H Admin road 449 NARROW GAUGE 0-2.20 2.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 3 9 L/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 449.A DRAKE 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 8 L/H Admin road Special Use Access, Recommend eliminating public access 450 LOVELAND 0-2.80 2.80 2 NAT S *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 11 L/H and keeping as an SUP road Special Use Access, Recommend eliminating public access 451 FARO 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT S *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 11 L/H and keeping as an SUP road 452 COONEY LAKE 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 9 L/H

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 8 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

669.2A CROOKED CR CUTOFF LOWER 0-0.50 0.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning

669.2B TILLY 0-1.39 1.39 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 4 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 669.2C CROOKED CR CUTOFF UPPER 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L Admin road 698 PENNSYLVANIA 1.30-3.70 2.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 9 L/H LVO 701 NORTHUP 0-3.00 3.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 5 7 H/H OP ML1 702 D TAPE 0-1.00 1.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 5 7 H/H OP ML1 704 LOOKOUT HILL 0-2.90 2.90 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 704.A SECLUSION 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L Admin road 704.B ST. JOE 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 4 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 704.C STATE 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 704.D CHEAT 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 704.E NEW BOOTS 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 705 INVISIBLE 2-TRACK 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 4 L/L Admin road 706 WEDGED 0-0.08 0.08 2 NAT S *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 2 H/L Special Use Access 706 WEDGED 0.08-1.30 1.22 2 NAT *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 707 ZIG-ZAG LOOP 0-1.30 1.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 2 L/L Admin road 750 AMAZONSTONE 0-2.00 2.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 750.1A SAFE AGAIN 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L Admin road 751 CRYSTAL CABIN 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Recommend eliminating public access on segment past intx 752 SMOKEY QUARTZ 0-1.50 1.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L with 752.A, and keeping as an Admin road 752.A 4 POINT 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 9 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ACCESS 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 0/L=Low 3/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, 2/H=High, RESOURCE (Mileposts) ROAD NAME BOTANY RISK Rating Combined WILDLIFE RISK RISK WILDLIFE ROAD LENGTH SURFACE TYPE ADM/SUP/REC (H/H, H/L, L/H, L/L) TIMBER ACCESS 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, 1/M=Moderate, OBJ. LEVEL MTC FS JURISDICTION FS JURISDICTION WATERSHED RISK Total Risk Score (0-11) Score (0-11) Risk Total FIRE/FUELS ACCESS RECREATIONAL USE SPECIAL USE ACCESS ARCHAEOLOGY RISK FINANCIAL BURDEN/ Total Benefit Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Benefit Total ROAD NUMBER - NFSR MANAGEMENT/RANGE If score is >3, then rating = H = If score then >3, rating is H = If score then >4, rating is (FS JURISDICTION MILES) (FS JURISDICTION PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY ANNUAL MAINT COST/MILE SITE/SEASONAL RD (A,S,R,SE) RD SITE/SEASONAL 753 CARR 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L 754 OUT BACK 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 754.A JUNIOR 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L Admin road 755 SKIRMISH 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 2 L/L 756 BATTLE 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L access road to mines 77.A SPRUCE GROVE CG 0-0.45 0.45 3 AGG R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 2 3 H/L Rec Site Access (campground), LVO 77.B TWIN EAGLES CG/TH 0-0.30 0.30 3 NAT R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 1 H/L Rec Site Access (campground), LVO 8 BUCKSKIN 4.70-5.53 0.83 2 NAT *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 2 10 H/H LVO 801.A SELKIRK CG 0-0.33 0.33 3 NAT R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 H/L Rec Site Access (campground), LVO 801.A1 WATERWORKS 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 1 M 0 L 2 H 3 8 L/H OP ML1 802 HAMM 0-1.20 1.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L Recommend eliminating all motorized access and keeping 802.A BOLLINGER 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L as a Ml1 road 803 ANTELOPE 0-2.00 2.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L OP ML1 804 FRENCH CREEK 0-1.70 1.70 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L OP ML1 805 LIQUOZONE 0-1.00 1.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L OP ML1 806 PEACOCK IRON 0-2.00 2.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L OP ML1 807 OHLER 0-2.59 2.59 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L 807.A UPPER OHLER 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 3 L/L 809 WAHL 0-3.10 3.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 809.A OLD UNIT 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 5 L/H 809.B HALFWAY 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 5 L/H 809.C BAKER LAKE 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H 810 GUERNSEY 1.85-3.30 1.45 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 810 GUERNSEY 3.30-4.60 1.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 3 L/L 811 T-PIT 1.54-2.20 0.66 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 6 L/H 811.A FOREIGN 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 6 L/H Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as a SUP 813 INGRAM 0-0.30 0.30 3 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 1 L/L road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 814 JOHNSON GULCH 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L Admin road 814 JOHNSON GULCH 0.50-2.00 1.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 2 L/L OP ML1 814 JOHNSON GULCH 2-2.70 0.70 1 NAT S *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L Special Use Access, OP ML1 817 HOOPER 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT R *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 8 L/H Rec Site Access (trailhead) 820 LINE FENCE 0-1.40 1.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 821 CROSS-COUNTRY 0-1.45 1.45 D NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 2 H/L OP ML2 822 WILLOW SPRING 0-0.17 0.17 2 NAT A,S *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 0 L/L Admin Rd, Special Use Access 823 RIPPER 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 4 L/L Recommend eliminating public access on segment past intx 824 TREE DIGGER 0-1.70 1.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 6 H/H with 826, and keeping as an Admin road 826 EXCLOSURE 0-2.70 2.70 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 828 JOHNSTON 0-0.70 0.70 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning

829 YEARLING 0-1.20 1.20 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 6 H/H OP ML1, Recommend allowing public access as a ML2 road

831 WHITEFACE 0-0.80 0.80 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 6 H/H 832 BAKER 0-0.40 0.40 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 5 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 833 WILLOW 0-0.60 0.60 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 5 L/H OP ML1, to tank 834 BERKEY 0-2.40 2.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 5 H/H 835 HARRIMAN SPRING 0-0.50 0.50 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 2 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 838 ACCESS 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 0 L/L Admin road OP ML2, Recommend eliminating public access and keeping 839 SCHOOL HOUSE 0.01-0.60 0.59 D NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 1 L/L as an Admin road

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 10 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

843 LITTLE OLD HOUSE 0-3.20 3.20 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 1 M 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L OP ML1, Recommend allowing public access as a ML2 road

844 REESE 0-3.40 3.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 7 H/H 845 HALL-REESE 0-1.40 1.40 2 NAT *** 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 5 7 H/H 846 NIMROD 0-1.00 1.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 4 L/L OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 847 LITTLE RATCLIFF 0-0.50 0.50 D NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 6 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 848 WOOD THIEF 0-1.30 1.30 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 6 L/H OP ML1, Recommend Decommissioning 849 WELL 0.34-0.90 0.56 2 NAT A *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 3 L/L Admin Rd, Recommend Decommissioning 850 CHOKER 0-3.00 3.00 1 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 6 L/H OP ML1 851 NORTHRUP 0-1.35 1.35 1 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H OP ML1 852 RYAN 0-1.20 1.20 2 NAT SE *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H Seasonal 853 BONIS 0-2.60 2.60 2 NAT SE *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H Seasonal Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 853.A BANANA PEEL 0-1.48 1.48 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 6 L/H Admin road 854 WALLACE GULCH 0-3.60 3.60 2 NAT SE *** 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 1 M 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 6 L/H Seasonal 855 BORDENVILLE PIT 0-0.27 0.27 2 NAT A *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/L Admin Rd, Recommend changing to SUP road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 856 PIRATE 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 1 9 L/H SUP road 857 SWITCHBACK 0-0.85 0.85 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 3 9 L/H 857.A KEOUGH 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 10 L/H Recommend Decommissioning Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 857.B CRESKILL 0-0.44 0.44 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 9 L/H Admin road Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 858 QUARTZVILLE 0-0.50 0.50 3 AGG *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 3 L/L SUP road 860 GUNBARREL 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 860.A HARD DIGGING 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 860.B REC VEHICLES 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/L Leads to FS structure 860.C KIDS TRUCK 0-0.61 0.61 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 860.D MIKE'S DISCOVERY 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 7 L/H Admin road 861 HUMPS 0-1.60 1.60 2 NAT R *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L Rec Site Access (Pulver Mountain picnic site) 861.A ALTHEA 0-1.00 1.00 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/L

Recommend eliminating public access on the segment east 861.B PARALLEL 0-1.02 1.02 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/L of the intx with 861.C, and keeping as an Admin road

861.C THE DIP 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 5 4 H/L 862 WARLING 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 4 H/L 863 EGORE IV 0-0.96 0.96 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 4 L/L Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 864 SAPLINGS 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 5 L/H Admin road 865 OLD COUNTY SHOP 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 1 M 0 L 3 H 2 H 0 L 0 L 2 H 3 7 L/H 870 OHLER 0-0.90 0.90 2 NAT S *** 1 M 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H Special Use Access, LVO

870 OHLER 0.90-2.30 1.40 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 5 L/H LVO, Recommend Decommissioning

870.1A OHLER LAKES 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT S *** 1 M 1 M 2 H 2 H 0 L 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H Special Use Access, LVO 871 COUNTRY SONG 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 4 1 H/L 872 PINK BOTTOMS 0-0.90 0.90 2 NAT *** 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 1 L/L 873 "Y" 0-0.60 0.60 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 1 L/L 873.A FAKE FIRE 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 873.B "Y" SPUR NW 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 873.C "Y" SPUR SE 0-0.10 0.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L 874 CANE HILL 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 2 L/L

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 11 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

888.A GLOBE & ANCHOR 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 0 2 L/L Recommend Decommissioning

888.B MUD WINCHING 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 5 L/H Recommend Decommissioning

889 COORS CANS 0-0.55 0.55 2 NAT *** 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 5 L/H Recommend Decommissioning

890 DRY GULCH 0-4.10 4.10 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 1 M 1 M 2 H 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 8 5 H/H 891 CARNIVAL 0-2.50 2.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 891.A SIDE SHOW 0-0.20 0.20 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 892 CIRCUS 0-0.50 0.50 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 893 CLOWN 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 2 H 1 M 1 M 1 M 2 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 7 2 H/L 895 PREDATOR 0-2.20 2.20 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/L 896 MILL 0-2.56 2.56 2 NAT *** 2 HH 1 M 0 L 1 M 2 H 3 H 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 5 H/H 896.A BOOMERANG 0-1.10 1.10 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 2 L/L 897 SPORTSMAN 0-2.65 2.65 2 NAT *** 2 H 2 H 0 L 2 H 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 H 7 3 H/L 897 SPORTSMAN 2.88-4.70 1.82 2 NAT A *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 1 M 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 4 2 H/L Admin Rd 90.1A PIPE SPRINGS CG 0-0.70 0.70 2 NAT R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 3 H/L Rec Site Access (campground) 94.1A LAKE GEORGE RS 0-0.30 0.30 3 AGG A *** 0 L 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 0 L/L Admin Rd Recommend eliminating public access and keeping as an 94.A FAT CHANCE TRAIL 0-0.30 0.30 2 NAT *** 1 M 1 M 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 3 4 L/L Admin road 96 ELEVENMILE CANYON 0.80-9.50 8.70 3 AGG R *** 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 H 2 H 0 L 1 M 2 H 10 8 H/H Rec Site Access, LVO 96.A RIVERSIDE CG 0-0.15 0.15 3 NAT R *** 2 HH 0 L 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 4 3 H/H Rec Site Access, LVO 96.B O BRIEN PG 0-0.10 0.10 3 NAT R *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/H Rec Site Access, LVO 96.C ELEVENMILE CANYON PG 0-0.10 0.10 3 NAT R *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 2 3 L/H Rec Site Access (parking lot), LVO 96.D MESSENGER GULCH PG 0-0.10 0.10 3 NAT R *** 2 H 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 3 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 2 4 L/H Rec Site Access, LVO 96.E SPRINGER GULCH CG 0-0.50 0.50 3 NAT R *** 2 HH 2 H 0 L 2 H 0 L 3 HH 0 L 0 L 0 L 1 M 6 4 H/H Rec Site Access, LVO

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 12 of 12

TAP Matrix Table ROAD BENEFIT RATINGS ROAD RISK RATINGS FINAL SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT High, Moderate, or Low (2/H, 1/M, 0/L) High, Moderate, or Low

707.21 Note: The abbreviation LVO in the Comments/Recommendations block means that the road is open to licensed vehicles only. No mixed use is allowed on these roads. Note: *** indicates that actual costs for maintenance are not available

O:\NFS\PSICC\Program\7700TransportationSystem\SO\7710TransportationPlanning\travel_mgt\RAP_TAP\2015TAPs\South Park TAP\Final Docs\SouthPark TAP Matrix Final20150910.xlsx Page 1 of 9

Appendix B. Public Comments: On June 15, 2015, the Forest Service posted a draft TAP for the South Park Ranger District on the PSICC webpage seeking public comments. The Forest Service received a total of one electronic message and one fax in response to the posted draft TAP. Following are the comments from those individuals/organizations, along with Forest Service responses. Some responses resulted in changes to the draft report, matrix table and maps.

Comment #1: Seasonal closures that were identified in the Hayman Fire Roads Management DN have never been implemented. Specifically, roads 211.A, 211.B, 211.C, 211.e, 211.F & 360.2E should be seasonally closed in the winter, presumably for wildlife risks, and the wildlife risk rating should be elevated to a “HH” rating.

Response #1: The Decision Notice for the Hayman EA was re-evaluated, and the results of that re- evaluation are as follows:

• The issue of gates is not part of the TAP • It is unknown why these roads, 211.1B, 211.1C, 211.E, 211.F and 360.2E were selected for seasonal closure. These roads have been changed to a H for wildlife.

Comment #2: The 2003 Hayman RAP scored certain roads with a Low timber access benefit rating, and therefore they should still be rated Low for timber access. Specifically, roads 210, 223, 225, 228, 247, 247.C, 259, 259.C, 262, 287, 290, 291, 291.A, 295, 704, & 861.A were listed.

Response #2: Timber Access ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Reviewed all roads, many are part of L.G. analysis and no changes required

Comment #3: The 2003 Hayman RAP scored certain roads with a High watershed risk rating, and therefore they should still be rated High for watershed risk. Specifically, roads 205, 223 & 224 were listed.

Response #3: Watershed Risk ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• After review 205 changed from L to M

Comment #4: Roads with inadequate seasonal closures in elk, deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn winter concentration areas require a higher risk rating. Specifically, roads 158, 212, 244, 260, 260.A, 264, 269, 270.A, 861.A, 861.C, 872, 873, 873.A, 873.B, 873.C, 874, 875, 882, 882.A, 883, 883.A, 884,

Page 2 of 9

884.A, 884.B, 888.A, 253, 254, 256, 270, 871, 890, 23, 39, 140, 141, 142, 143, 175, 178, 179, 226.A, 227, 228, 231, 252, 261, 264, 277, 280, 809, 809.C, 810, 811.A, 823, 824, 826, & 882 have no or inadequate seasonal closures and should have a higher and/or HH wildlife risk rating.

Response #4: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for wildlife risk rating, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• After review of all roads listed, based on 50% or more of road length in 5B, the following wildlife ratings were changed to H (High): 178, 179, 809, 809.C, 810, 811.A, 823, 824, 826, 140, 141, 142, 142.A, 143, 226.A, 228, 277, 280, 252, & 264

Comment #5: Roads in big game winter range areas have extremely high risks to wildlife because they lack seasonal closures. Specifically, roads 54, 158, 173, 175, 176, 244, 254, 256, 260, 261, 264, 269, 270, 426, 452, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 879, 888, 889, 890, 244.A, 244.C, 244.E, 260.A, 261.A, 261.B, 33.3A, 873.A, 873.B, 873.C, & 888.A lack seasonal closures and must be elevated to a “HH” wildlife rating

Response #5: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for wildlife risk rating, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Roads within 5B receive a H, same as comment 4 above

Comment #6. Some existing seasonal closures in elk calving areas end on June 16, but the Forest Plan prescribes closures to extend until June 30. Specifically, roads 56, 194, and 659 should be elevated to “HH”, with a comment that the closure date needs to change to June 30. Also, the wildlife risk for road 194 needs to be elevated to High because it is in a 5B winter range area and the existing closure does not begin until March 1.

Response #6: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated by the wildlife specialist, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Elk calving closure dates are not part of the TAP process • Wildlife risk rating for NFSR 194 changed to H (High); 50% or more in 5B

Comment #7: The risks posed by unauthorized motorized use off designated roads must be fully considered. Specifically, roads that show evidence of unauthorized use emanating from the authorized road and should have elevated risks include 129, 140, 143, 168, 175, 178, 183, 190, 204, 212, 231, 237.A, 276, 278, 280, 433.2A, 435.4B, 455, 809.A, 844, 846, 847, 848 & 872.

Page 3 of 9

Response #7: Evaluating unauthorized motorized use is outside the scope of this TAP. While there is recognition by the ID team that unauthorized motorized use is occurring on the district, this TAP only evaluated the transportation system that is accepted as National Forest System Roads and the risks and benefits associated with that system. The TAP simply addresses the existing approved system. As future travel management NEPA analysis is initiated, that would be the time at which unauthorized motorized use would be addressed.

Comment #8: High road density must be considered an additional risk. Specifically, roads in the Kenosha Pass area, near Badger Flats, between Elevenmile reservoir and Blue Mountain, and south of Crystal Creek should be assessed for the negative impacts to watershed, fish and wildlife, habitat fragmentation, ecological disturbance and human impacts. Specifically, roads 754 and 754.A were listed.

Response #8: All roads and areas identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for watershed risk and wildlife risk, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• No changes are required

Comment #9: Mixed motorized use on certain roads creates additional risk. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 18.2A, 431.2B, 141, 210 & 33.3A

Response #9: The risk ratings for Public Health & Safety took into consideration the presence of motorized mixed use on the roads on the South Park Ranger District. On campground roads, OHV use is only allowed for the purpose of entering or leaving the site (36 CFR 261.16(o)). The Financial Burden/Public Health & Safety risk rating for the listed roads was re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• No changes are required

Comment #10: Motorized use in 3A management areas poses high risks and should be limited to non- motorized uses. Specifically, roads 133, 144, 233, 807, 807.A & 814 enter 3A areas and should have a “HH” Health & Safety risk rating and be closed to all motorized use.

Response #10: The issue of roads located in a 3A management area is being addressed in the ongoing MVUM lawsuit settlement process. The South Park District will fully comply with the final decision for these routes.

Page 4 of 9

Comment #11: Impacts of noise must be fully considered in this TAP.

Response #11: See the 2009 PSI TAP, Section 4.3, Question and Answer EF(5), and a District-specific answer to that question as follows:

Motorized and non-motorized uses are equally legitimate uses on the National Forest roads system, and motorized use noise is to be expected in areas open to motorized use. Likewise, recreational target shooting is a legitimate activity, and noise from shooting is to be expected in areas open to target shooting. In 2010 a law in the state of Colorado took effect requiring ATV’s and dirt bikes operating on public lands to meet sound limits of 93dB(A). While in some areas it is feasible to separate the motorized from the non-motorized, in other areas total separation is unlikely as there is limited resource.

The roads listed by the commenters that they state are causing conflicts with quiet recreationists are roads open to all vehicles and are popular with OHV’s and high clearance vehicles. Noise from motorized vehicles should be expected on these roads.

Comment #12: The timber access benefit of certain roads should be re-evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 194, 136, 136.1A, 37, 237.C, 144, 346, 434, 442, 436.2C, 829 & 843

Response #12: Timber access ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Roads listed were reviewed and no changes were completed

Comment #13: Closed ML1 roads should not have any recreational motorized benefit, but the draft TAP shows a Moderate recreational use benefit rating for the 155, 276, 278, 289, 295.B, 829 & 843 roads. These ratings should be lowered to a Low rating on the TAP.

Response #13: Recreational use ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• All roads listed above have been changed to a L value for recreation

Comment #14: The recreational benefit of certain roads should be re-evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 233, 254, 425.A, 540, 155, 178, 231, 237.A, 277, 279, 280, 425.A, 435.4B, 807, 807.A, 810, 811, 814, 829, 843, & 844.

Response #14: Recreational use ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Reviewed list and no changes to ratings are necessary

Page 5 of 9

• 175 changed to L (Low) (0.90 mi. segment)

Comment #15: An uneven breakpoint scoring method exists for overall risk and benefits.

Response #15: The scoring method used in the South Park TAP Addendum differs slightly from what was used in the 2009 PSI forest-wide TAP. The reason for this difference is that when the specialists started looking at what type of scoring method best fits into a sub-forest analysis, minor adjustments were needed to better reflect an accurate picture of the benefits and risks to roads on the PSICC.

There is no need to use the same breakpoint scoring for both the Total Benefit and Total Risk ratings. The method for the scoring of roads that has been used in this TAP Addendum was developed so that informed management decisions can be made in the process of determining an optimum transportation system.

Comment #16: The commenters are supportive of the following specific roads that show a recommendation for decommissioning; 163, 163.2A, 176.2A, 176.2B, 196, 233 & 455

Response #16: We appreciate the support for the recommendations for decommissioning.

Comment #17: Some roads have segments that would be rated differently if the road is divided into 2 or more segments. Specifically, roads 175, 810 & 844 should be segmented.

Response #17: Ratings for the specific roads listed above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re- evaluation are as follows:

• Roads reviewed, no change on 844 • 810, west of 809 should be a different segment, (MP 3.30 – 4.60); New ratings are: R-L, F-L, T-M, SU-L, R-L, W-M, W-M, B-L, A-L, FB-M • 175, north of 176 (MP 5.63-6.10); R-L, F-L, T-L, SU-L, R-L, W-M, W-M, B-L, A-L, FB-M

Comment #18: The watershed risk of certain roads should be re-evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 178, 184, 810, & 843.

Response #18: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for watershed risk rating, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Reviewed all roads; no changes necessary except 843 – Watershed to H (High)

Page 6 of 9

Comment #19: The financial burden/public health and safety risk of certain roads should be re- evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 178, 210, 279, 33.3A, 133, 144, 233, 807, 807.A, 810, 814,

Response #19: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for financial burden/public health and safety risk rating, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• Reviewed all roads – no changes necessary

Comment #20: The commenters are supportive of the 182 road that shows a recommendation for conversion to a non-motorized trail.

Response #20: We appreciate the support for the recommendations for conversion to a non-motorized trail.

Comment #21: The wildlife risk of certain roads should be re-evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 184, 204, 212, 277, 810, 811, 888.A, 888.B, 889

Response #21: All roads identified by the commenters were re-evaluated for wildlife risk rating, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• All roads were reviewed and no changes necessary except the following three roads within 5B areas have been changed to H (high) for Wildlife Risk : 277, 810 & 811

Comment #22: The commenters are supportive of roads that show a recommendation for eliminating public access and keeping it as an admin or SUP road. Specifically, the following roads are listed: 231, 436.2B, 669.2C, 814 & 870

Response #22: We appreciate the support for the recommendations for eliminating public access.

Comment #23: The ratings for one road, 425.A, located on the border between the Leadville and South Park districts, were analyzed separately by each district, and the ratings for this road do not match for 8 of the 10 categories. There is reason to question the validity of the methodology used in scoring.

Response #23: Ratings for road 425.A were re-evaluated by the South Park specialists, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

Page 7 of 9

• All segments of 425.A were changed to L (Low) for Recreational Use Benefit; all other ratings remain the same

Comment #24: The recommendation to keep certain roads for administrative purposes rather than to decommission them is being questioned. Specifically, roads 435.4B, 870, 888.A, 888.B & 889 should be re-evaluated for decommissioning.

Response #24: Recommendations for the above-mentioned roads were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• 435.4B is listed as eliminate and decommission • 870 (segment 1) is listed as eliminate and decommission • 888.A, 888.B & 889 are listed as eliminate and decommission

Comment #25: The special use access benefit of one road, 810, should be re-evaluated.

Response #25: The special use access rating for the 810 road was re-evaluated, and the result of that re-evaluation is as follows:

• S.U. rating changed to L as there are currently no S.U. permits on road

Comment #26: The fire/fuels access benefit of certain roads should be re-evaluated. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 810 & 844

Response #26: Fire/fuels access ratings for the specific roads mentioned above were re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• All roads were reviewed and no changes were necessary

Comment #27: The resource management/range access benefit of one road, 844, should be re- evaluated.

Response #27: The resource management/range access rating for the 844 road was re-evaluated and the result of that re-evaluation is as follows:

• Road was reviewed and no changes are necessary

Page 8 of 9

Comment #28: Some roads in the Mosquito Range have high risks and are good candidates for conversion to ML1 or Administrative roads. Specifically, the following roads were listed: 2, 285, 437, 450, 451, 452, 603, 856 & 857.

Response #28: The conversion to ML1 or administrative roads for the specific roads mentioned above was re-evaluated, and the results of that re-evaluation are as follows:

• 450 & 451 – change rating S.U. to H, change comment to S.U. permit roads • 603 change S.U. to H • 856 is recommended for conversion to a S.U. permit

Comment #29: A commenter is supportive of the overall high benefit rating of roads 423 and 18.2B. These are important roads for motorized recreational use as well as for mining access and non- motorized uses.

Response #29: We appreciate the support for the overall high benefit rating.

Comment #30: A commenter believes that the gate system at road 423 needs to be better managed.

Response # 30: The management of the gate system at road 423 was evaluated and as a result, no changes to the TAP ratings are necessary

Comment #31: A commenter wants road 178 to have an overall High benefit rating because it is the only connector from CR 20 to the Horseshoe area.

Response #31: The recreational use benefit of road 178 was re-evaluated to see if a “HH” rating was warranted. The result of that re-evaluation is as follows:

• No change necessary

Comment #32: A commenter believes that road 426 is an important road historically and recreationally, and they want it to show an overall High benefit rating to keep it on the system.

Response #32: The recreational use benefit of road 426 was re-evaluated to see if a “HH” rating was warranted. The result of that re-evaluation is as follows:

• Split 426 into two segments at 175; ratings for north of 175 stay the same except comment change to convert to motorized single track; ratings for south of 175 as follows: R-L, FF-H, T-L, SU-L, R-L, W-H, W-H, B-M, A-L, FB-M

Page 9 of 9

Comment #33: A commenter emphasized the importance of the road/trail systems in the Thompson Park and Weston Pass areas.

Response #33: The South Park District recognizes the importance of these recreational areas and will manage these areas accordingly.

Comment #34: A commenter stated that the Forest Service needs to consider how to accommodate the increasing recreational demand by keeping and managing the existing road/trail system rather than by closing more of the system.

Response #34: The USFS is committed to using this science-based TAP approach for travel analysis to provide the public with an appropriate balance between the benefits of access to National Forest System lands and the risks of route-associated effects to ecosystems. Our goal is to provide a road and motorized trail system that is safe for the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and efficient to manage.

Comment #35: A commenter stated that the proper method for closing a route needs to consider the area’s aesthetics, its subsequent use (both human and wildlife) and its ability to be incorporated into the overall ecology of the area.

Response #35: The Forest Service’s objective for road decommissioning is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads to a more natural state to protect and enhance NFS lands. Typical decommissioning treatments include one or more of the following: 1. Reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and restoring vegetation; 2. Blocking the entrance to a road or installing water bars; 3. Removing culverts, reestablishing drainages, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, and scattering slash on the roadbed; 4. Completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes; and 5. Other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road.

Comment #36: A commenter expressed concern for the public having adequate time to provide input for the TAP.

Response #36: In addition to the 30-day public comment period for this TAP, there will be many other opportunities for public involvement and comment during the future travel management NEPA processes, when the results from this TAP study will be used to propose alternatives to improve the transportation system on the Pike National Forest. Our website and the local district offices will be the key places to look for future information on all upcoming projects.