NFs in Alabama
Transportation System Analysis
Process (TAP) Report July 9, 2015
Recommended by: Odell Sanders and Shantae Guy, Team Leaders Revised August 2016
Reviewed by:
Carl Petrick, Forest Supervisor
NFs in Alabama USDA Forest Service Southern Region
NFs in Alabama
Unit Scale Transportation System Analysis Process (TAP) Report Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ...... 4 Objectives of Forest-Wide Transportation System Analysis Process (TAP) 4 Analysis Participants 4 Overview of the NFs in Alabama’s Road System 4 Key Issues, Benefits, Problems, Risks, and Management Opportunities Identified 5 Comparison of Existing System to MRS as Proposed by the TAP 6 Next Steps 6 II. Context...... 7 Alignment with National and Regional Objectives 7 Coordination with Forest Plan 7 Budget and Political Realities 8 Anticipated 2012 Transportation Bill Effects 8 Alignment with Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) 9 Alignment with NFs in Alabama Core Restoration Area Analysis 9 III. Overview of the NFs in Alabama and the supporting Transportation System ...... 12 General Description of the NFs in Alabama Land Ownership Patterns, Land Use and Historic Travel Routes 12 Description of the NFs in Alabama’s Transportation System 13 Road Maintenance Funding 15 IV. Cost of Operating and Maintaining the NFs in Alabama’s Roads and Bridges ...... 16 Operations Costs 16 Road Maintenance Costs 16 Bridge Maintenance and Replacement Costs 17 Total Cost of Operating and Maintaining the NFs in Alabama’s Roads and Bridges to Standard 18 V. Assessment of Issues, Benefits and Risks ...... 19 Financial 19 Environmental and Social 19 Safety and Function 19
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 2
Measurement and Rating 19 VI. Recommendations and Proposed Mitigation Measures ...... 20 Rationale Used to Arrive at Proposed Minimum Road System 20 Suggested Conversion of Existing Road System to Minimum Road System 21 Best Management Practices (BMPs) Applicable to the NFs in Alabama 21 VII. Description of Pubic Involvement to Date, and Proposed Future Public Interactions ...... 22 VIII...... Appendices 23 Appendix A – Map of Proposed Unneeded Roads 24 Appendix B – Motor Vehicle Use Maps 326 Appendix C – Existing Road System Benefits and Risks Assessment Data 32 Appendix D – NFs in Alabama Proposed Unneeded Roads Lists 39 Appendix E – Chief’s Letter of Direction 40 Appendix F – Southern Region Expectations 53 Appendix G – 6th Level HUC Watershed Condition Classification 59 Appendix H – District Level Travel Analysis Reports 60
INDEX OF TABLES Table 1: MRS miles by Core Area and District ...... 11 Table 2: NFs in Alabama road system mileage by Operation ML ...... 14 Table 3: NFs in Alabama Road Maintenance Costs by ML ...... 17 Table 4: Total Cost of NFs in Alabama Transportation System ...... 18 Table 5: Proposed Unneeded Roads in Impaired Watersheds ...... 21 Table 6: Risk & Benefits of Existing Road System by ML ...... 38 Table 7: Minimum Road System Mileage by District ...... 39 Table 8: Total Costs of MRS by District ...... 39 Table 9: Proposed Unneeded Roads List ...... 40 Table 10: WCC by District ...... 59
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 3
I. Executive Summary Objectives of Forest-Wide Transportation System Analysis Process (TAP)
The objectives of Forest-Wide TAP conducted over the past several years was to:
- identify key issues related to the NFs in Alabama’s transportation system, in particular affordability and cumulative effects; - identify benefits, problems and risks related to the NFs in Alabama’s transportation system; - identify management opportunities related to the existing transportation system to suggest for future consideration as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions (examples included items such as road decommissioning within priority watersheds and needed aquatic passage improvement projects); - create a map to inform the identification of the future Minimum Road System (MRS); - indicate the location of roads likely not needed and possible new road needs.
(Note: Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) requires the Forest Service to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System (NFS) lands.) This report is the first step towards identifying the minimum road system.
Analysis Participants
The Forest Leadership Team decided to form an interdisciplinary team to conduct the TAP. There was also some participation by partners and the general public. The primary participants were:
- Erika L. Davis, P.E., Team Lead - Odell Sanders, III, Staff Officer and Recreation Program Manager - John Moran, Ryan Shurette, Art Goddard, Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist(s) and Soil and Water Specialist(s) - James Flue, Fire Specialist, succeeded by Michael Heard - Charles Blake, Law Enforcement, succeeded by Anthony Bolton - Doug Massaro, Engineering - Eugene Brooks, Silviculture Specialist - Stanley Glover, GIS Specialist
Overview of the NFs in Alabama’s Road System
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 4
The NFs in Alabama’s road system currently comprises some 2000 miles, providing access to approximately 670,000 acres of national forest, as well as to interspersed private tracts and nearby local communities. The system supports both recreation and resource management. It is comprised of a combination of old “public” roads, roads constructed to access timber sales and subsequent silvicultural activities, roads constructed to access recreation areas, and a variety of other routes. These range from double lane paved roads to single lane gravel or native surface roads that may be useable by passenger cars, to high clearance routes, to travel ways that are closed for periods of time greater than one year. Funding for the construction or reconstruction of all types was generally provided either by congressional appropriations, or authorized as a component of a timber sale. Maintenance funding is primarily by congressional appropriations, although timber sales generally funds any maintenance required during the life of a particular sale operation.
Key Issues, Benefits, Problems and Risks, and Management Opportunities Identified - Current appropriations and supplemental revenue sources are not sufficient to adequately maintain the NFs in Alabama’s 2000 mile road system as currently configured. Without changes, the existing transportation system requires an annual expenditure of approximately $ 3,200,596. Only about $838,288 is currently available, (FY12 road maintenance budget), resulting in a shortfall of about $ 2,362,308 or 26% of the total $ needed. - There is some system mileage which primarily serves either as access to private inholdings, or as general access to adjacent communities (approximately 24 miles, or 1% of the total). As opportunities allow, jurisdiction and maintenance costs should be considered for transfer to the most appropriate entity in order to allow the limited maintenance funding to be applied most effectively to the system roads of the NFs in Alabama. - Certain roads, particularly those located relatively low in the watersheds, may be causing undue stress to water quality and associated aquatic organisms, especially if they cannot be regularly and properly maintained. This is particularly the case in watersheds that are classified as “impaired.” There are 88 miles of forest roads located on impaired watersheds on the NFs in Alabama. Overall there are 139 miles of roads found to be likely not needed. See Appendix E, Table 9 for a complete list. In some cases there appear to be opportunities to decrease the total system maintenance costs, while at the same time better protecting water quality by decommissioning those roads with the highest risk and least benefit. Less than a mile has been identified by the TAP to be considered for decommissioning. - There are a number of roads that will most likely be needed at some time in the future, but which do not appear to be needed for actions currently being proposed. Storage of these roads (closure for at least a year, with only custodial maintenance provided) should be strongly considered. The TAP analysis suggests that
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 5
about 754 miles should be considered for storage and custodial maintenance only until needed. - In order to meet budgetary limitations some roads currently opened year round will need to be identified to be considered for seasonal closure (160 miles); and some roads currently maintained for passenger car use will need to be identified to be considered for conversion to high clearance use only (371 miles). - Relatively high road densities may be impacting some sensitive wildlife species in a few specific areas of the forest. However, road density limits are not recommended by the forest plan. As configured the overall road density, exclusive of non-FS jurisdiction roads, is 1.9 miles/square mile, and the open road density is 1.2 miles per square mile. - In the future, several roads or portions of roads may have to be closed due to insufficient bridge replacement funding. There are 53 bridges on the Forest located on open roads, of which 3 appear to be load restricted or otherwise deficient. - Opportunities should be sought to increase road maintenance revenues where possible through the use of stewardship contracts and partnerships, including volunteer groups, such as hunters, equestrian organizations, ATV user groups and others.
Comparison of Existing System to Minimum Road System as Proposed by the TAP
Refer to Appendix D for a summary of proposed changes to the existing road system suggested by the TAP, as information available to frame future NEPA analysis and decisions.
Next Steps
- TAP recommendations will be used to inform NEPA decisions, some of which will eventually be implemented in conjunction with various restoration projects on the Forest. - Prior to implementing these recommendations, NEPA determinations will be conducted at the appropriate scale, using the TAP to inform issues, particularly cumulative effects and affordability. - The road system should be revisited with an updated forest-wide TAP, probably on about a 10 year cycle, with the next one due by perhaps the year 2025.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 6
II. Context
Alignment with National and Regional Objectives
Sub-Part “A” Travel Analysis is required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.5). Forest Service Manual 7712 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55-Chapter 20 provide specific direction, including the requirement to use a six step interdisciplinary, science-based process to ensure that future decisions are based on an adequate consideration of environmental, social and economic impacts of roads. A letter from the Chief of the Forest Service dated March 29, 2012 was issued to replace a November 10, 2010 letter previously issued on the same topic. It reaffirms agency commitment to completing travel analysis reports for Subpart A of the travel management rule by 2015, and also provides additional national direction related to this work, addressing process, timing and leadership expectations. The letter requires documentation of the analysis by a travel analysis report, which includes a map displaying the existing road system and possible unneeded roads. It is intended to inform future proposed actions related to identifying the minimum road system. The TAP process is designed to work in conjunction with other frameworks and processes, the results of which collectively inform and frame future decisions executed under NEPA.
The document entitled “Sub-Part “A” Travel Analysis (TAP), Southern Region Expectations, Revised to align with 2012 Chief’s Letter” and attached in Appendix F, supplements the national direction for Forest Scale TAPs developed for the Southern Region.
Coordination with Forest Plan The current Forest Plan for the NFs in Alabama was adopted in 2004. It provides specific direction for overall management of the NFs in Alabama. The Forest-wide TAP tiers to the NFs in Alabama’s Forest Plan by informing future NEPA actions that implement the Forest Plan and have transportation components. The risk-benefit assessment incorporate the following Plan goals pertaining to the transportation system:
• GOAL 35 - Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access for forest users while protecting forest resources. • GOAL 36 - Accelerate the pace of decommissioning unneeded roads (classified and unclassified). • GOAL 37 - Improve the condition of forest roads/bridges that are adversely effecting surrounding resource values and conditions. • GOAL 38 - Identify and acquire easements and/or rights-of-way for existing forest roads and access needs.
The watershed conditions in the TAP are reflective of guidance in the 2011 FS Watershed Condition Framework guide, and likewise, the TAP is intended to inform future forest restoration activities, including watershed restoration. All watersheds in Alabama per the Watershed Classification Assessment Tracking Tool (WCATT database) are in good condition.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 7
However, two of the twelve components that make up the ratings standout as fair to poor. The fair and poor ratings are given for roads and trails and soils. These components contribute sediment that affects watershed condition.
Budget and Political Realities
The roads located on the NFs in Alabama are a combination of historic trails that have undergone improvement over the years, roads that were built in the decades of the sixties, seventies and eighties to access timber sales, roads constructed for access to communities, either internal or adjacent to the Forest, roads constructed by recreational users, and roads constructed or otherwise acquired through a variety of means to comprise the current system. As is the case for much of the rest of the infrastructure on the Forest, funding has been inadequate to properly maintain all of the Forest’s roads and bridges. In some cases these roads and bridges have become superfluous to our administrative needs, and many no longer meet public needs either. Changes are becoming inevitable, being driven both by the budget as well as by the need to have the most efficient and effective transportation system on the ground as possible, and no more. The TAP process is an attempt to begin to identify a proposed “minimum road system” (MRS) which will only come into place as NEPA decisions are made and then actual on-the-ground decisions are implemented. The MRS will probably change over time as well, as public needs and financial resources change. Therefore it is expected that new Forest-wide TAP analyses will continue to be needed, probably on about a 10 year cycle.
The Forest Service is committed to using whatever funds are available to accomplish the purposes of the travel management rule in a targeted, efficient manner. The Agency makes appropriate use of all other sources of available funding and has many successful cooperative relationships. Volunteer agreements with user groups and others have proven successful in extending agency resources for trail construction, maintenance, monitoring, and mitigation. Regardless of the level of funding available, the Forest Service believes that the travel management rule and its implementing directives provide a better framework for management of motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.” (from Federal Register/Vol. 73, Nol. 237/ Tuesday, December 9, 2008/Notices)
Anticipated 2012 Transportation Bill Effects MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012 and authorizes the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) for two years (2013 – 2014). Extensions of this bill are expected until a new reauthorization is enacted. The FLTP provides dedicated funding to improve access within Federal lands owned by the Federal government. Of the $300 million allocated for this program, the USDA Forest Service competes with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Corps of Engineers for up to $30 million per year. The central theme of the program is
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 8
performance management. As amended by MAP-21, 23 U.S.C 203(c) requires that the USDA Forest Service along with the other four core partners eligible for FLTP funding define the part of its transportation system to be included in the FLTP. In addition, a baseline condition for this system should be determined and progress on the improvement of this system should be reported annually to FHWA. The NFs in AL have designated 89.02 miles of NFSR to be under the FLTP and another 170 miles proposed.
The projects to be funded by the FLTP are selected at the Southern Region office. The amount of funding that each Forest unit receives varies from year to year depending on the priorities for the region. The NFs in Alabama have received $0 and $45,000 on FY13 and FY14, respectively.
Under MAP-21, the Forest Highway program was repealed and in its place a new program, the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), was created. This program differs from the old Forest Highways program in that funding is available to improve access to all federal lands, not only national forests. In addition, transportation projects are funded for infrastructure that is under the State, county or other local government’s jurisdiction. No road network needs to be designated and, as a result, no projects located on the NFSR system are eligible for FLAP funding.
Alignment with Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) Along with the other national forests across the country, NFs in Alabama recently conducted an analysis of its watersheds, categorized them as to their condition and prioritized them for future efforts at improvement. Three categories were identified: Class 1 – Functioning Properly, Class 2 – Functioning at Risk, and Class 3 – Impaired Function. These classifications were performed on watersheds at the 6th order hydrologic unit classification (HUC) according to standard procedures described in the “Watershed Condition Framework” technical guide, found at. It was determined that 32 watersheds on the NFs in Alabama are Class 1, 36 are Class 2 and 3 are Class 3. Table 10 in the Appendix shows the break out by class and by district. The Rush Creek-Brushy Creek watershed and the Upper Tallaseehatchee Creek watershed were selected as priority watersheds for focus work in the next decade.
The forest-wide TAP analysis was informed by the WCF. For example, roads located near streams within impaired watersheds, and especially priority impaired watersheds, were particularly considered as possible decommissioning candidates. Continuing watershed improvement work is intended to be informed in the future by the TAP.
Alignment with NFs in Alabama Core Restoration Area Analysis
In FY 13 the NFs in Alabama identified “ Core Restoration Areas” for resource management work on each district. The Core Areas would facilitate greater integration of Fire, Timber, Wildlife, Silviculture, Watershed, and Forest Health to prioritize restoration efforts. Core Areas have compatible prescription allocations, fewer boundary lines with adjacent private land per area, and support infrastructure, like permanent roads, which could also act as
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 9
permanent fire lines. They are areas where we and our management partners are committed to long term restoration efforts.
On a map Core Areas look like a bull’s eye target. It is defined by a Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary “ring” with prioritized goals for achieving long-term restoration. The long-term importance of the Core Restoration Area lies in the ability it will give the forest to increase its restoration capacity, despite staffing and funding challenges.
Defining parameters of Cores Areas are as follows:
• Consider Forest Plan Prescriptions and the Desired Future Conditions and fire regimes compatible with each;
• Consider our Management Partners and collaborative opportunities (Wildlife Management Areas);
• Consider legal mandates, such as Endangered Species Act and Red Cockaded Woodpeckers sub- Habitat Management Areas (HMAs) and HMAs;
• Consider watersheds; effects, bound analysis, other agency initiatives (~ 50, 10K-30K ac, 6th- HUCS)
• Consider logistics… as potentially limited by staffing, smoke management, weather, funding, etc.
Approximately 40% of the MRS lies within the initially determined Primary Core Restoration Areas. Additionally, 10% of the unneeded miles are found there as well. Table 1 illustrates a comparison of the existing road system mileage with the MRS in the Primary and Secondary Core Areas. On some units, the Core Areas aligns with the MRS. As Core Areas are continually refined and resource management analysis are conducted better alignment of the MRS is anticipated. Future management decision will be informed by the TAP.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 10
Table 1: MRS miles by Core Area and District
Likely Existing Primary Secondary Unneeded Miles MRS MRS Miles
Bankhead RD 555 73 29 0.7
Conecuh RD 292 179 63 1.8
Oakmulgee RD 515 178 51 7.9
Shoal Creek RD 376 218 42 0.04
Talladega RD 225 74 132 0.5
Tuskegee RD 33 16 4 3
TOTAL 1996 738 321 14
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 11
Overview of the NFs in Alabama and the supporting Transportation System
General Description of the NFs in Alabama Land Ownership Patterns, Land Use and Historic Travel Routes
The NFs in Alabama is comprised of approximately 670,000 acres, occupying almost 52% of the proclamation boundary. Almost all is forested, with about 55,000 acres (or 8%) being Wilderness or otherwise classified as Roadless. Interspersed within the proclamation boundary, and adjacent to the National Forest are several large tracts managed as TIMOs (Timber Investment Management Organizations) or REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) as well as some scattered large forest industry tracts, some small farms and a variety of other ownership types. There are a many small communities within the proclamation. When the land came under the ownership of the NFs in Alabama it was riddled with a legacy of historic travel routes that were primarily located low in the watersheds, alongside stream channels, presumably as these were the simplest locations on which to construct primitive travel ways.
The Skyway Motorway was one of the primary construction projects for the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) companies that worked in the Talladega NF. The work is reported to have started in 1936. The Skyway Motorway was proposed to span 75 miles along the crest of the main ridge running through the newly created Talladega NF, connecting Sylacauga to Borden Springs.
National Forest System Road (NFSR) 600-2 runs between Adams Gap and Clairmont Gap. This section of the Skyway Motorway has retained much of the original 1930’s characteristics. The culverts with the stone head walls represent the distinctive characteristics of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) stonework.
NFSR 600-2 is one of several surviving sections of the Skyway Motorway between Bulls Gap (west of Sylacauga) and Piedmont. The original route of the motorway is basically today’s NFSR 500, on the Shoal Creek Ranger District (approximately 26 miles), and NFSR 600-1, 600- 2, 600-3, (approximately 27 miles) on the Talladega Ranger District. Portions of the motorway have never been surveyed and reported as historic transportation routes.
NFSR 600-2 is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A and C (36CFR60.6), as it “(a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” and “(c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction”. The road was built by African- American CCC enrollees of Company 3478 at Camp F-7 at Chandler Springs.
Preserving and maintaining a representative sample of the metal and concrete culverts is a practical and economical alternative to replacement of all damaged drainage structures. This will better ensure the preservation of the historic route during road maintenance projects. Wherever possible, the stone headwalls will be preserved when the culverts are replaced.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 12
The lands of the NFs in Alabama are administered by six ranger districts: Bankhead, Conecuh, Oakmulgee, Talladega, Shoal Creek and Tuskegee. The number of acres administered by each district is indicated in the following Table:
Wilderness/Roadless District Acres Acres
Bankhead 181,288 25,852
Conecuh 83,892
Oakmulgee 157,543 622
Talladega 117,550 9,622
Shoal Creek 117,550 18,572
Tuskegee 11,252
Totals 669,015 54,688
There are 6 major developed recreation areas on the Forest, including Corinth Campground and Day Use Area and Clear Creek Campground and Day Use Area. There are approximately 400 miles of trails, supporting a variety of uses, including OHVs, equestrian, biking, pedestrian, and mixed use. Motor vehicles are restricted to those roads shown on the official Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) included in, Appendix B.
Description of the NFs in Alabama’s Transportation System Several Federal and State highways and quite a number of roads under county jurisdiction traverse various parts of the NFs in Alabama. Some of these roads comprise a portion of the 676 miles of Forest Highway, which provides access to relatively large tracts of the Forest. Forest Highways are roads maintained under another agency’s jurisdiction, which on occasion receive reconstruction project funding through the Highway Trust Fund.
There are approximately 2000 total miles of National Forest system road under the jurisdiction of the NFs in Alabama. This mileage is comprised of 539 miles suitable for passenger car use, almost all of which are open to the public on a year round basis, 757 miles only suitable for high clearance vehicular traffic. There are 741 miles on the system inventory that are closed for periods of time greater than one year, being in “storage” for future use when needed.
The Forest Service catalogs its roads in the official inventory, I-Web, by Maintenance Levels, loosely defined as follows:
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 13
- Maintenance Level 5 – Single or Double Lane Paved Roads w/ high degree of user comfort - Maintenance Level 4 – Moderate User Comfort; primarily double lane aggregate roads with ditches - Maintenance Level 3 – Lowest level maintained to accommodate passenger car traffic - Maintenance Level 2 – Maintained primarily only to accommodate use by high clearance vehicles
- Maintenance Level 1 – Closed to all traffic for periods greater than one year.
Table 2 below shows the current break down of the NFs in Alabama’s road system by maintenance level.
Table 2: NFs in Alabama road system mileage by Operation ML
ML 5 ML 4 ML 3 ML 2 ML 1
Bankhead 14 3 128 146 273
Conecuh 5 14 17 248 9
Oakmulgee 2 40 102 148 230
Talladega 2 0 90 130 6
Shoal Creek 5 51 44 80 214
Tuskegee 1 0 20 5 9
Totals 29 108 401 757 741
Private and Coop Roads Certain roads located on the NFs in Alabama are needed to provide access to private tracts of land, or by municipalities or large private landowners in cooperation with the Forest. The maintenance responsibility for and jurisdiction of these roads are identified in the official inventory. Generally costs for maintaining these roads are pro-rated to the appropriate benefitting entity, as further specified in the enabling agreements.
Unauthorized Roads At any given time there may be roads found to be in existence on the landscape that are not shown in the inventory or on an official map. These roads are considered to be unauthorized roads, unneeded for use by the National Forests in Alabama. They are subject to decommissioning at any time funding becomes available for that purpose.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 14
Road Maintenance Funding The NFs in Alabama maintains its road system primarily with funding provided through the annual Interior and Related Agency’s budget, specifically the CMRD line item. The NFs in Alabama received $809,775 of this funding in fiscal year 2012 in the final budget. Another source of revenue available for certain types of maintenance on the NFs in Alabama road system is CMLG. $294,130 of CMLG was received in FY 2012 for roads. Roads that support forest management operations may be maintained with timber sale or stewardship dollars during the life of the operation, but that is not typically a long term solution. Finally, partners and user groups may provide some road maintenance support.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 15
IV. Cost of Operating and Maintaining the NFs in Alabama’s Roads and Bridges Operations Costs
As indicated in the previous section, there is on an annual basis a total of approximately $800,000 available with which to operate and maintain the NFs in Alabama’s road system. Of this, approximately $250,000, or 31% is required in order to cover fixed costs, including management salaries, rent, fleet, travel and training and cost pool contributions. This amount also covers items such as data management, contract preparation and administration and upward reporting. Regardless of the size of the road system being managed this base amount is required. This leaves only about $550,000 to go on the ground for actual maintenance of the road system, and it must cover replacement of deficient major culverts and road reconstruction as well. Deficient bridge replacements are only funded from off forest funds.
Road Maintenance Costs The primary components of road maintenance on the NFs in Alabama include (in addition to inspections) 1) blading and ditching, 2) surfacing (repaving in the case of ML 5), 3) signs and markings, 4) drainage structures, and 5) mowing and brushing. Table 3 displays typical unit costs for these items on the NFs in Alabama’s road system by maintenance level.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 16
Table 3: NFs in Alabama Road Maintenance Costs by ML
Maintenance Activity ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 4 ML 5 Aggregate Asphalt
Grading / Ditching / Shoulders $ 450 $ 900 $ 900 $ 325 $ 325
Surface Replacement $ 200 $ 400 $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Drainage Repair/Replacement $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600
Drainage Repair/Replacement $ 100 $ 100 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
Sign Replacement/Repair $ 100 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
Gate Repair $ 300 $ 300 $ 300
Vegetation Removal, Mechanical $ 100 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300
Vegetation Removal, $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 Chemical
Hazard Tree Removal $ 200 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400
TOTALS $ 400 $ 1,100 $ 2,950 $ 3,050 $ 3,075 $ 3,075
Bridge Maintenance and Replacement Costs
The NFs in Alabama has 69 bridges and major culverts. These have to be inspected every other year, at an average cost of about $ 800 per bridge. At the present time, 3 are either known or suspected to be load limited and need to be replaced because they are on roads intended to be left open to traffic. (Load limited bridges will be rated and posted in the interim until funding for replacement can be obtained). Typical bridge replacement costs for the NFs in Alabama are about $700 per square foot for a typical two lane bridge. These costs need to be added to the total road maintenance costs above to get a true picture of the total road and bridge maintenance costs for the next 10 years on the NFs in Alabama.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 17
Total Cost of Operating and Maintaining the NFs in Alabama’s Roads and Bridges to Standard Combining the information from the previous sections results in the following table which shows the total annual cost to maintain the NFs in Alabama’s roads and bridges and major culverts(BMC) to standard as the system currently exists:
Table 4: Total Cost of NFs in Alabama Transportation System
Item Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Fixed Cost to Operate 1 $250,000 $250,000 Maintenance of Level 1 Roads 741 $400 $296,400 Maintenance of Level 2 Roads 757 $1,100 $832,700
Maintenance of Level 3 Roads 401 $2,950 $1,182,950
Maintenance of Level 4 Roads 108 $3,062 $330,696
Maintenance of Level 5 Roads 30 $3,075 $92,250 Inspection of ½ of BMC each 35 $800 $28,000 Year Average Maintenance of Existing 70 $1,500 $105,000 BMC 1 per Year, 118’ Replacement of Deficient Bridges $82,600 $82,600 Av. Length Total Annual Cost $ 3,200,596 Note: Compare current available budget of $800,000 to the needed amount of $3,200,596.
Note: Appendix D shows the cost of maintaining the Minimum Road System”.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 18
V. Assessment of Issues, Benefits and Risks Financial
The primary financial issues relate to the inability to adequately maintain the existing road system with current funding sources. As indicated previously, there is on an annual basis the average total of only about $800,000 is available with which to operate and maintain the system, whereas the needed funding for the system as currently configured is about $3M. Congressional appropriations and funding from timber receipts have decreased, as well. As a result, deferred maintenance continually accrues on the system, but more importantly, it is not possible to maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to adequately protect water quality and associated aquatic life. Meanwhile, roads and bridges are becoming unsafe and may have to be closed, and as a result, the system is failing to meet the needs of both the recreating and traveling public, and to provide for adequate resource access for forest management activities, including prescribed fire and fire suppression.
Environmental and Social
The primary issues in the environmental arena relate to 1) erosion of the roadbed, cut slopes, fill slopes and ditches, with the resulting sediment discharge affecting water quality and associated aquatic resources; 2) in some cases, road density effects on certain wildlife species; and 3) the roads serving as a conduit for invasive species. In the social arena, the effects are primarily the demand for adequate access, sometimes offset by the need for providing solitude. Additionally, law enforcement faces challenges due to the high demand. Access is needed by a wide variety of forest users, including hikers, hunters, fishermen and other recreationists, as well as for forest management activities, such as restoration projects and fire suppression. Also, roads require surveillance, as they can easily become sites for crime, illegal dumping and similar activities.
Safety and Function
The primary issues related to safety and function of the NFs in Alabama’s road system include 1) maintenance of a clear and smooth travel way, 2) access in the proximity of the use, 3) steep road grades, 4) functioning of the drainage features, 5) width and stability of the road bed, 6) proper signs and markings, 7) and structurally and functionally sufficient bridges.
Measurement and Rating
Benefits and Risks of the overall system were tabulated and appear in Appendix C, Table 6 of the Appendices. Additionally, the standard list of questions in FS-643 Roads Analysis Guide was used as a guide to further assist in identifying the benefits and risks. The TAP ID Team identified rating criteria for each risk and benefit. This criteria made use of available data in GIS to rate each road. The degree of benefit or risk was rated as being high, medium or low for the system. The degree of risk was rated subjectively as being high, medium or low for the system
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 19
by appropriate specialists. Then, after considering the entire system, each road was also considered. As projects are identified at some time in the future, this list may be referenced to inform proposed changes in the Minimum Road System and future management decision. In some instances roads with low benefit and high risk are not recommended for decommissioning but closure. This is due to the cyclic nature of resource management work that access may only be needed at 15-30 year intervals and can be better assessed at the project level.
The following individual roads or groups of roads and their associated issues were identified by this TAP:
- Roads # 603 (1.2 mi.), 607 (4.4 mi.), 612 (3.9 mi.), 615 (4.1 mi.), 651 (4.0 mi.), 687 (5.6 mi.), and 689 (1.1 mi.), need to be considered as soon as possible for transfer to Talladega and Clay County. Total mileage for transfer roads such as county roads and community roads is 24.3 miles.
VI. Recommendations and Proposed Mitigation Measures Rationale Used to Arrive at Proposed Minimum Road System
The Chief’s March 29, 2012 letter reaffirms that “the Agency expects to maintain an appropriately sized and environmentally sustainable road system that is responsive to ecological, economic, and social concerns. The national forest road system of the future must continue to provide needed access for recreation and resource management, as well as support watershed restoration and resource protection to sustain healthy ecosystems.” Budget realities being what they are, roads which are not really needed cannot be supported in the future. Roads that primarily provide access to the public or to a local community need to be considered for transfer of maintenance responsibility, as appropriate. 24 miles were identified that need to be considered in this category. Roads that appear to be unneeded, or which appear to have little benefit, yet which are high risks to various environmental or social values were flagged for consideration to be closed to public use, but not planned for decommissioning. There are 242 miles in this category. Roads that did not appear to be currently needed for project access during the next decade, and which appear currently to be receiving extremely low use by the public or which appear to not be otherwise needed for management purposes such as fire suppression access were flagged to be considered for storage; there are 683 miles in this category. Some roads which are primarily needed only for administrative use, or by hunters and which are currently useable by passenger vehicles were recommended to be considered for conversion to the high clearance. About 140 miles were identified that should be considered in this category. Roads which are receiving the highest amount of use, especially by the motoring public, or which access major developed recreation areas, should probably not be downgraded in general.
Inclement weather has a particularly costly impact on native and gravel surfaced roads. Therefore, to the extent possible, roads should be identified for seasonal closure.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 20
Each district's roads likely not needed are given in the appendices of the district level travel analysis reports referenced in Appendix H of this document and shown in tabular format in Appendix E.
Miles by ML Proposed as Unneeded
The total number of miles on the National Forests in Alabama which have been suggested as “unneeded” by the TAP is 139. The number of un-needed miles in “impaired” watersheds is illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5: Proposed Unneeded Roads in Impaired Watersheds
Miles of District HUC Name HUC No. Unneeded Roads
Bankhead Elam Creek 060300021009 18
Bankhead Upper West Flint Creek 060300021010 54
Bankhead Upper Town Creek 060300050302 16
Suggested Conversion of Existing Road System to Minimum Road System
Table 7 in the Appendices lists the proposed changes which respond to the rationale above to comprise the future minimum road system. Although some roads have been suggested to comprise these changes, there are others which have not yet been identified. During the next decade the suggested changes in overall road system makeup should inform projects, and additional individual road change proposals will be identified, with the goal of achieving the proposed minimum road system, and associated financial sustainability as quickly as is practical.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Applicable to the NFs in Alabama
When maintaining the forest roads located on the NFs in Alabama the following Best Management Practices should be adhered to as a minimum:
- National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on Forest System Lands
- Applicable State Best Management Practices
- Best Management Practices listed in the current Forest Plan.
- Maintenance recommendations and BMPs of Watershed Action Plans
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 21
VII. Description of Pubic Involvement to Date, and Proposed Future Public Interactions In accordance with initial TAP direction the NFs in Alabama planned the following for public involvement:
- Breakfast meeting with partners and stakeholders identified on MVUM public involvement action plan (DOT, FWS, etc.) during third/fourth quarter FY11. Will inform the purpose and objective of this process. Comments will be taken and considered. Respondents to the initial meeting will be invited to the presentation of the final document (all districts), during third quarter FY12. Will also send a letters to District/SO mailing lists.
Upon receipt of additional guidance and based on recommendation of the Forest Engineer, the NFs in Alabama conducted the following efforts to engage the public:
- Developed a letter and mailed to each district “roads” mailing lists in April 2012. - Developed and mailed a letter to each of our partners to include local sheriffs and key contacts throughout the state in March 2015.
In response to the outreach efforts the NFs in Alabama only received 4 responses of which 3 were supportive of our ability and efforts to manage the NFs in Alabama’s transportation system.
Unit scale TAPs are NOT NEPA decisions; they are analyses intended to inform future projects regarding affordability and cumulative effects. These projects, depending upon the specific impacts, will generally require NEPA decisions prior to implementation. The public will be provided opportunities for comment near to the time that that actual projects are being proposed. This would be expected to include a broad spectrum of participation by citizens, other agencies, and tribal governments as appropriate.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 22
VIII. Appendices A: Map of Proposed Unneeded Roads
B: Motor Vehicle Use Map(s) MVUMs
C: Existing Road System Benefits and Risks Assessment Criteria
D: Spreadsheets of Existing Road System and Suggested MRS showing Maintenance Costs
E: Nfs in Alabama Proposed Unneeded Roads
F: Chief’s Letter of Direction
G: Southern Region Expectations
H: 6th Level HUC Watershed Condition Classification
I: District Level Travel Analysis Reports
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 23
Appendix A – Maps of Proposed Unneeded Roads
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 24
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 25
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 26
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 27
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 28
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 29
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 30
Appendix B – Motor Vehicle Use Maps. This is an oversized document, therefore only the link is provided: Motor Vehicle Use Maps
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 31
Appendix C – Existing Road System Benefits and Risks Assessment Data Risk Assessment Criteria
Wildlife Risks
Risk of adverse impacts to HIGH wildlife due to roads • located within habitat for Open road density in management prescriptions 4.D – Botanical species that have a high and Zoological Areas and 4.L – Canyon Corridors >= 1.5 mi/1000 potential for impacts from acres. roads • Open road within 0.25 mi of cave entrance during periods when bats are present.
MEDUIM
• Seasonally closed roads • Other roads not described elsewhere
LOW
• Closed roads
Sediment Delivery Risks
Risk of eroded soil being HIGH delivered into stream • channels where it could fill Roads within 100 year floodplains and riparian areas (excluding channels, disrupt stream crossings) flow, or impair aquatic • Open roads with natural surface rd organism habitat • Open roads with multiple 3 order or higher stream crossings • Roads providing access to gas pipeline
MEDUIM
• Open roads with aggregate or improved natural surface • Seasonally closed roads with natural surface • Open roads with single 3rd order or higher stream crossing
LOW
• Open roads with paved surface • Seasonally closed roads with aggregate or improved natural surface • Open roads with no 3rd order or higher stream crossings • Closed roads that are vegetated or with aggregate or improved aggregate surface
Invasive Species Risks
Risk of introducing new HIGH populations of undesirable • plant or animal species Open roads with known NNIPS infestations • Roads with multiple jurisdictions
MEDUIM
• Closed roads with known NNIPS infestations
LOW
• Roads with no known NNIPS infestations
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 33
Aquatic Organism Passage Risks
Risk of roads adversely HIGH affecting the passage of • aquatic organisms Roads with known aquatic organism passage barriers for PETC species and/or designated critical habitat
MEDUIM
• Roads with known aquatic organism passage barriers of perennial streams
LOW
• Roads with no known aquatic organism passage barriers
Law Enforcement / Public Safety Risks
Risk of roads contributing HIGH to law enforcement issues • Roads with known dump sites • Roads in areas of high violation history • Roads providing access to gas pipeline • Roads with a history of traffic accidents
MEDUIM
• Seasonally closed roads (closure enforcement) • Roads adjacent to private land (illegal OHV use)
LOW
• Other roads not described elsewhere
Benefit Assessment Criteria
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 34
Resource Management Access Benefits
Benefit of roads in HIGH accomplishing planned • work Roads accessing stands under NEPA decision • Roads accessing open timber sales • Roads used as prescribed burn control line • Roads accessing RCW clusters • Roads accessing permanent wildlife openings / linear strips • Roads accessing migratory bird monitoring points • Roads used as deer survey routes • Roads used as ANABAT survey routes • Roads used to access pine beetle trapping / monitoring sites • Roads used to access feral swine trapping sites • Roads accessing fire towers
MEDUIM
• Roads accessing NNIPS treatment areas • Other Roads not described elsewhere
LOW
• Roads not currently needed to implement planned work
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 35
Recreation Access Benefits
Benefit of roads in HIGH providing access for • roaded and unroaded Access to recreation development scale 3 and 4 facilities. recreation opportunities • Access to ORV and Horse Trail Systems. • Access to National Recreation Trails. • Access to condition class 4 and 5 trails. • Access to trails that have an active volunteer organization. • Access to high value hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing sites. • Access to fee sites. • Roads with scenery concern level 1.
MEDUIM
• Access to recreation development scale 1 and 2 facilities. • Access to medium value hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing sites. • Access to condition class 3 trails. • Access to recreation event sites. • Access to medium and high value dispersed recreation sites.
LOW
• Access to condition class 1 and 2 trails. • Access to low value dispersed recreation sites.
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 36
Special Use/Shared Ownership Access Benefits
Benefit of roads in HIGH providing and maintaining • access areas with special Roads accessing utility rights-of-way use permits or other non- • Roads accessing private inholdings with no alternate access Forest Service uses • Roads accessing long-term special use permits (e.g., NEON) • Roads accessing churches and cemeteries • Roads accessing FS land across private land with deeded rights- of-way • Roads providing primary access to FS lands
MEDUIM
• Roads accessing private inholdings with alternate access • Roads accessing short-term special use permits (e.g. Perry Mt. Enduro) • Roads accessing FS land across private land without deeded rights-of-way
LOW
• Other roads
Emergency& Fire Access Benefits
Benefit of roads in HIGH providing access for fire • suppression and Road provides only means of access to residences evacuation routes • Road provides only means of access into high use areas • Key road for fire suppression activities (access to water, below fire prone community) • Identified emergency access routes or evacuation routes
MEDUIM
• Road provides limited means of access to residences • Road provides limited means of access into high use areas
LOW
• Other roads not described elsewhere
NFs in Alabama –Travel Analysis Report Page 37
Table 6: Risk & Benefits of Existing Road System by ML
Criteria Miles of Roads[1] Total Benefit Risk ML-1 ML-2 ML-3 ML-4 ML-5 Miles H L 0.5 0.5 H M 7.1 27.8 1.1 35.9 H H 0.1 16.1 35.5 50.3 1.7 103.7 M L 26.0 76.7 9.3 0.2 0.5 112.6 M M 30.3 205.0 184.4 22.3 11.3 453.3 M H 4.6 94.9 75.0 30.8 5.0 210.2 L L 427.0 118.7 15.2 0.2 561.1 L M 230.3 175.9 35.5 1.8 3.8 447.4 L H 26.1 47.5 17.6 1.3 1.7 94.3 Total 744.5 742.4 400.2 107.8 24.2 2019.1 [1] Miles are based on INFRA data
Appendix D –Existing Road System and Suggested MRS showing Maintenance Costs and Comparisons Data Table 7: Minimum Road System Mileage by District
ML 5 ML 4 ML 3 ML 2 ML 1 TOTAL
Bankhead RD 13 8 122 113 280 536
Conecuh RD 4 14 11 219 19 267
Oakmulgee RD 2 28 48 169 224 471
Talladega RD - 2 46 77 91 216
Shoal Creek RD 5 33 34 95 204 371
Tuskegee RD 1 - 12 9 8 30
Total 61 85 273 682 826 1,891
Table 8: Total Costs of MRS by District
Road Cost Bridge Cost MRS Cost Bankhead $ 227,406 $ 22,800 $ 250,206 Conecuh $ 115,095 $ 13,700 $ 128,795 Oakmulgee $ 274,007 $ 34,200 $ 308,207 Talladega $ 100,417 $ 11,400 $ 111,817 Shoal Creek $ 147,979 $ 13,700 $ 161,679 Tuskegee $ 20,897 $ 3,800 $ 24,697 Forest Totals $ 885,801 $ 99,600 $ 985,401 Note: Bridge Costs are not covered by forest’s allocation.
Appendix E – NFs in Alabama Proposed Unneeded Roads Table 9: Proposed Unneeded Roads List
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 40
EXISTING OPERATIONA ROUTE STATU JURISDICTIO ROUTE NAME BMP EMP L NO. S N MAINTENANC E LEVEL 105A3 LONG RIDGE 0 0.9 EX FS 1 107M MCDANIEL 0.1 0.3 EX FS 1 108K1 SLATE ROCK 0 0.4 EX FS 1 108K3 BLUE MARBLE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 109A11 CHEROKEE 0 0.3 EX FS 2 109B5 FAT BACK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 109O VULTURE BAIT 0 0.7 EX FS 2 109V COPPERHEAD 0 0.4 EX FS 1 112 WADE 0 0.2 EX FS 2 119E BIG BEND 0.6 0.7 EX FS 2 122B BULL BRANCH 0.7 0.9 EX FS 2 126B FLINT ROCK 0 0.1 EX FS 2 128A BLAKE 0 0.1 EX FS 2 135A5 SHARON 0 0.3 EX FS 1 202G RINGTAIL 0 0.4 EX FS 1 204A WARREN 0 0.1 EX FS 2 210C LA PLACE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 PENETENTIARY 213W MOUNTAIN 0 0.2 EX FS 1 218A LEFT FORK 0 2.5 EX FS 2 228A1 TURNER 0 0.4 EX FS 2 245G CREEK 0 0.2 EX FS 1 245Q FULL MOON 0 0.1 EX FS 1 246X GRASSHOPPER 0 0.6 EX FS 1 247A1 BLACKBERRY 0 0.4 EX FS 1 247A2 TULIP 0 0.5 EX FS 1 249A1 WEASEL 0 1.3 EX FS 1 249A1 WEASEL 1.3 1.6 EX FS 1 249R FREEMAN 0 0.2 EX FS 1 254H LITTLE MULE 0 0.5 EX FS 1 255B1 HENDERSON 0 0.1 EX FS 1 255L EDNA 0.2 0.5 EX FS 1 259A CHURCH 0 0.2 EX FS 1 262C BEAVER POND 0 0.2 EX FS 1 262D FISCHER 0 0.7 EX FS 1 262E FISCHER SPUR 0 0.1 EX FS 1 NORTH KEY 262M MILL 0 0.1 EX FS 1 PANTHER CAT 262R SPUR 0 0.4 EX FS 1 WHITE 263I POWDER 0 0.1 EX FS 1 264F LEE CREEK 0 0.5 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 41
ANTIOCH 267 CHURCH 0 0.9 EX FS 2 270E HOG HEAVEN 0 0.3 EX FS 1 279 ELROD 0 0.4 EX FS 1 300N DEAD BIRD 0.00 0.21 EX FS 2 300R OAK CAMP 0.00 0.09 EX FS 2 DISTANT 0.00 0.36 EX FS 2 301D GOBBLER PRIVATE 0.00 0.22 EX FS 2 301F ACCESS BIG 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 301H SHELTERWOOD POINTDEXTER 0.00 0.27 EX FS 2 301K CUTOFF 301P DIM 0.00 0.19 EX FS 2 301Q CHUFA STRIP 0.00 0.14 EX FS 2 301R GOBBLER RUN 0.00 0.19 EX FS 2 301T VIDEO 0.00 0.07 EX FS 2 FOOD PLOT 0.00 0.16 EX FS 2 302B SPUR 304G DAISY PEARL 0.00 0.67 EX FS 2 DEAD 0.00 0.22 EX FS 2 304H PULPWOOD 305F FIR 0.00 0.20 EX FS 1 305H HAWTHORN 0.00 0.20 EX FS 1 305X COUNTY LINE 0.00 0.12 EX FS 2 306C BIG TIMBER 0.00 0.14 EX FS 2 306D QUAIL STRIP 0.00 0.26 EX FS 2 306E SNAG 0.00 0.20 EX FS 2 306J HOOD BENT 0.00 0.13 EX FS 2 306K BIG RED 0.00 0.22 EX FS 2 309A LEAF ROAD 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 NO NAME 0.00 0.26 EX FS 2 309H ROAD 310C HATTAWAY 0.00 0.09 EX FS 2 311BB DEAD OAK 0.00 0.18 EX FS 2 311E REFRIGERATOR 0.00 0.60 EX FS 1 DOGWOOD 0.00 0.13 EX FS 2 311F TRAIL LONESOME 0.00 0.11 EX FS 2 311FF PLOT 311HH SOIL SAVER 0.00 0.11 EX FS 2 311JJ ROCK HILL 0.00 0.45 EX FS 2 311MM ELLIOT HILL 0.00 0.17 EX FS 2 311NN HOT FIRE 0.00 0.32 EX FS 2 311SS BEE HIVE 0.00 0.17 EX FS 2 311XX FIRELINE 0.00 0.55 EX FS 2 312P NIPPER 0.00 0.23 EX FS 2 314A MACS BRANCH 0.00 0.80 EX FS 2
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 42
314E WATERPUMP 0.00 0.09 EX FS 2 314F MCMILLAN 0.00 0.30 EX FS 2 314G WAX MYRTLE 0.00 0.08 EX FS 2 314J C-FRAME 0.00 0.21 EX FS 2 315 ASHWOOD 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 319B RALPH'S ROAD 0.00 0.05 EX FS 2 BEAR BAY 0.00 0.18 EX FS 2 319G PLOT 320B GROUND SAW 0.00 1.01 EX FS 2 BLACK WATER 0.00 0.90 EX FS 2 321B ROAD CROOKED 0.00 0.50 EX FS 2 326A CREEK 329A HICKORY 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 330G WILLOW 0.00 0.20 EX FS 2 330I MOSSY ROAD 0.00 0.20 EX FS 2 330J SCRUB OAK 0.00 0.03 EX FS 2 RUN CREEK 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 331S LANDIN ROAD 332B SALT POND 0.00 0.70 EX FS 2 332C RIDGE 0.00 0.80 EX FS 2 332D RACCOON RUN 0.00 0.30 EX FS 2 HARDWOOD 0.00 0.78 EX FS 2 332H HILL 332I CHINKAPIN 0.00 0.14 EX FS 2 334A CHUFFA 0.00 0.40 EX FS 2 335B DOZIER 0.00 0.60 EX FS 2 338B BUCKHORN 0.00 0.20 EX FS 1 339H POLE BRIDGE 0.00 0.34 EX FS 1 339I OLD PLACE 0.00 0.17 EX FS 2 339J SCRUB OAK 0.00 0.13 EX FS 2 350A PLANTATION 0.00 0.50 EX FS 1 351A TURKEY SPUR 0.00 0.70 EX FS 1 367A PARCEL ROAD 0.00 0.80 EX FS 2 372 LARRY COOK 0.00 0.09 EX FS 2 NO NAME 0.00 0.16 EX FS 2 374R ROAD 375A TWIN FORKS 0.00 0.60 EX FS 2 377 BIG CREEK 0.00 0.30 EX FS 2 BLACK BOTTOM 0.00 1.60 EX FS 2 392A BRANCH SHOT GUN 0.00 0.50 EX FS 2 392B ROAD WOODPECKER 0.00 0.30 EX FS 2 392C HOLLOW 401C2 OBJECT 0 0.7 EX FS 2 401C3 NEEDLESS 0 0.4 EX FS 2 404A RUBY 0.2 0.3 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 43
404A RUBY 0.5 1 EX FS 1 404L STEWART 0.25 0.45 EX FS 1 405F DUNCAN 0 0.25 EX FS 2 GUM STAND 0 1 EX FS 2 409A SPUR 409D DEE 0 0.8 EX FS 2 MARTIN 1.6 2.5 EX FS 2 409K HOLLOW (PG) MARTIN 0 0.6 EX FS 2 409M HOLLOW LOOP 409N CR0SS RD 0 1.6 EX FS 2 409O CHAIN RD 0 0.4 EX FS 2 409P ROGERS 0 0.9 EX FS 2 411C SUMMERFIELD 0 0.2 EX FS 1 411C SUMMERFIELD 0.2 0.5 EX FS 1 411H2 HILL SPUR 0 0.5 EX FS 1 LITTLE PRYOR 0 0.2 EX FS 1 411K SPUR MEDLINE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 415K RIDGE 415L MEDLINE LOOP 0 0.3 EX FS 1 LOVELADY 0 0.2 EX FS 1 424C SPUR 424E YATES SPUR 0 0.4 EX FS 1 424K WEST FRITH 0 0.2 EX FS 1 500K1A MOSES 0.1 0.3 EX FS 1 501L2 RED WOLF 0 0.35 EX FS 1 502L HOOK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 COLE 0 0.2 EX FS 1 502M CEMETARY 503B1 DEER RUN 0 0.6 EX FS 1 507C1 LAWDOG 0 0.3 EX FS 1 508F MOOSE 0 1 EX FS 2 508H1 SEMMES 0 0.9 EX FS 1 HILLABEE 0 0.7 EX FS 1 508H1A CREEK MOONSHINE 0 0.5 EX FS 1 509-4 RIDGE 509B BONNIE BLUE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 WEST TATER 0 0.5 EX FS 1 509G HILL 509R BOONE EX FS 1 SKINT 0 0.03 EX FS 2 511J1 BONE_SPUR ARMSTRONG 0 0.2 EX FS 1 512K5 HILL YELLOW 0 0.15 EX FS 1 512Y1 RIDGE_SPUR 514H TRUDY LAKE 0.3 0.35 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 44
516C ROLLY POLLEE 0 0.2 EX FS 1 MOSSY 0 0.1 EX FS 1 516E4E HORN_SPUR 516J JOLLY 0 0.2 EX FS 1 516K1 RED CLAY 0 0.15 EX FS 2 518B3 KITTY 0 0.35 EX FS 1 518F2 WOODPECKER 0 0.3 EX FS 1 HICKORY 0 0.25 EX FS 1 518H STICK 522A2 WOOD DUCK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 522C SKUNK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 BOUNDARY 0 0.4 EX FS 1 522F RIDGE 531D1 DOOROCK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 531G GOOSE 0.2 0.4 EX FS 1 531I2 SLATE 0 0.05 EX FS 1 531I2 SLATE 0.2 0.3 EX FS 1 531M2 MCKENZIE 0.3 0.5 EX FS 1 531N3 HELICOPTER 0.2 0.5 EX FS 2 POTTER 0 0.5 EX FS 1 532G MOUNTAIN 532I WELCH 0 0.3 EX FS 1 534F1 BLOODHOUND 0 0.4 EX FS 1 534T WEST BURNS 0 0.01 EX FS 1 534T WEST BURNS 0.11 0.955 EX FS 1 535 SPRING 0 0.3 EX FS 2 536B PERCUSSION 0.2 0.3 EX FS 1 536B1 RAMROD 0.25 0.35 EX FS 1 536G1 FOREST 0.4 0.6 EX FS 1 536G1A LIGHTNING 0 0.1 EX FS 1 537E ELLIS 0 0.3 EX FS 1 538 WHITE 0 2 EX FS 3 538 WHITE 2.2 2.9 EX FS 2 538B COLD RIDGE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540A RED FOX 0 0.4 EX FS 1 540C GREY FOX 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540E1 BIRD DOG 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540E2 SETTER 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540F REDBUG 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540H REDMAN 0.4 0.7 EX FS 1 540I2 RED FARMER 0.6 0.8 EX FS 1 540J JENNINGS 0.4 0.4 EX FS 1 540K HEDRICK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 540M MARENGO 0 0.3 EX FS 2 541A SCARLET OAK 0.1 0.6 EX FS 2 541C1 MARTIN 0 0.4 EX FS 1 541D1A COWHIDE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 GOLDEN 0 0.3 EX FS 1 541E EAGLE
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 45
CRIPPLED 0 0.2 EX FS 2 543B TURKEY 544C2 RED SPIDER 0 0.3 EX FS 1 544E MULBERRY 0 0.4 EX FS 1 545C1 BEASLEY 0 0.297 EX FS 1 546A TATER 0 0.35 EX FS 1 547H REMINGTON 0 0.05 EX FS 2 548C2 OWENS LAKE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 548W3 MR WILSON 0 0.1 EX FS 1 549D2 CABLE SET 0 0.3 EX FS 1 549I A.J.C. 0.3 0.8 EX FS 1 552E GOURD 0 0.3 EX FS 1 558A TURKEY PEN 0 0.35 EX FS 1 559C RAVEN RIDGE 0 0.1 EX FS 1 570T EAST BURNS 0.02 0.15 EX FS 2 DUNN 0.3 0.35 EX FS 2 570U CEMETARY 587A VIGO 0.05 0.4 EX FS 1 590 RINCÓN 0 0.95 EX FS 1 601C SITE ONE SPUR 0 0.1 EX FS 1 604 LOST 2.254 2.3 EX FS 2 604G OXBOW 0 1.254 EX FS 2 HAMMONDS 604K SPUR 0 0.3 EX FS 2 604M GREASEY 0 0.1 EX FS 2 606 ROCKY TOWER 0.7 1.2 EX FS 2 608G RED MUD 0 0.2 EX FS 2 608U RAM BALL 0 0.6 EX FS 2 RENDALIA 612A FORK 1.8 2.5 EX FS 2 LITTLE 616C BRANCH 0 0.2 EX FS 2 PONDER SPUR 621G #3 0 0.1 EX FS 2 PONDER SPUR 621K #4A 0 0.2 EX FS 2 631M FLINT (PT) 0 0.6 EX FS 1 643E BANNISTER 0.5 0.6 EX FS 1 644A TOWER 0 0.2 EX FS 2 644E HEADRICK (G) 0 0.2 EX FS 2 645B REDOAK (PG) 0 0.3 EX FS 2 645D COLEMAN 0.219 0.3 EX FS 1 645G TURKEY (G) 0 0.5 EX FS 2 646B EAKES 0 0.3 EX FS 2 649A RAY BRANCH 0 0.7 EX FS 2 654A CHEAHA W/S 0.595 1.1 EX FS 2 676A FORTY ACRE 0.2 2.36 EX FS 2 676AEX T COQUI 0 0.13 EX FS 2
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 46
680 WHITES GAP 0.3 0.6 EX FS 2 WHITE GAPS 680A SPUR 0 0.7 EX FS 2 HOLLINS 680B TOWER 0 0.5 EX FS 2 HOLLINS HUNTER CAMP 685 (G) 0.25 0.3 EX FS 2 693 WHITE OAK (G) 0 0.3 EX FS 2 WATERGAGE 695 (G) 0 0.2 EX FS 2 700D IDLE PINE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 700E BLACKBERRY 0 0.3 EX FS 1 700F CANEMILL 0 0.5 EX FS 1 700F1 DEER HEAD 0 0.4 EX FS 1 700G DUCKHILL 0 0.5 EX FS 1 700H MISSY 0 0.3 EX FS 1 700J GRASSHOPPER 0 0.3 EX FS 1 701D DELTA 0 0.25 EX FS 1 701E ECHO HOLLOW 0 0.5 EX FS 1 701F FOXTROT HILL 0 0.3 EX FS 1 703B RAM 0 0.4 EX FS 1 706H HOTEL BAY 0 0.45 EX FS 1 706I EYES ONLY 0 0.25 EX FS 1 706K SIX KAY 0 0.3 EX FS 1 708E HONEY PINE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 708F GREENBRIAR 0 0.3 EX FS 1 708H BUCKEYE 0 0.25 EX FS 1 708I PEPPERCORN 0 0.4 EX FS 1 708M ABALONE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 708Q GULLEY 0 0.3 EX FS 1 710J SHADY PINE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 711D MOSSY 0 0.2 EX FS 1 711F TURNIPSEED 0 0.4 EX FS 1 712B WOODPECKER 0 0.6 EX FS 1 712C WALTON 0 0.4 EX FS 1 CABBAGE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 712D PATCH 712F ABRAHAM 0 0.4 EX FS 1 715G JEFFERSON 0 0.3 EX FS 1 715G JEFFERSON 0.3 0.6 EX FS 1 715J WADE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 715K SHILOH_BAY 0 0.4 EX FS 1 715L CHEYENNE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 FIVE MILE 0.75 1 EX FS 2 716B CREEK 716E OLIVE BRANCH 0 0.3 EX FS 1 716F PEAR TREE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 716G BISON 0 0.7 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 47
716H EAGLE 0 0.25 EX FS 1 716I WILLOW 0 0.3 EX FS 1 716J SPRINGFIELD 0 0.5 EX FS 1 716J SPRINGFIELD 0.5 0.8 EX FS 1 716K HOLLY HILL 0 0.3 EX FS 1 716L MAPLE 0 0.2 EX FS 1 716M FRANKLIN 0 0.5 EX FS 1 716N LINCOLN 0 0.17 EX FS 1 717A STORM 0 0.3 EX FS 1 717A STORM 0.3 0.7 EX FS 1 717B MUSTANG 0 0.3 EX FS 1 717B MUSTANG 0.3 0.4 EX FS 1 717B MUSTANG 0.4 0.8 EX FS 1 717C JESSE 0 0.25 EX FS 1 717C JESSE 0.25 0.5 EX FS 1 717D ROYAL 0 0.2 EX FS 1 717D ROYAL 0.2 0.25 EX FS 1 717E CROWN 0 0.15 EX FS 1 717E CROWN 0.15 0.4 EX FS 1 717F PEACHTREE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 718B1 PINE BLUFF 0 0.4 EX FS 1 718B2 NAPLES 0 0.25 EX FS 1 718C1 MAGNOLIA 0 0.4 EX FS 1 718D1 RAGSDALE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 718F VICTORY 0 0.6 EX FS 1 718F1 ALLIGATOR 0 0.3 EX FS 1 718J1 YANCEY 0 0.4 EX FS 1 718K DILLINGER 0 0.1 EX FS 1 718K DILLINGER 0.1 0.4 EX FS 1 718L MILESTONE 0 0.4 EX FS 2 718N LEGEND 0 0.5 EX FS 1 FONDREN 0 2.8 EX FS 2 719 ROAD 719B PINE HILL 0 0.5 EX FS 1 719C BEAR FOOT 0 0.4 EX FS 1 721F1 MIMOSA 0 0.4 EX FS 1 723G1 BROOKSVILLE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 723I PINCHOT 0 0.5 EX FS 1 723L FISHER 0 0.5 EX FS 1 724E1 APPLEBEE 0 0.1 EX FS 1 724E1 APPLEBEE 0.1 0.4 EX FS 1 724F1 BACKSLIDE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 724G NOLIA 0 0.4 EX FS 1 724H LOCUST 0 0.5 EX FS 1 724H1 PLUM 0 0.25 EX FS 1 724L1 TARA 0 0.3 EX FS 1 726B GERMAN 0 0.3 EX FS 1 726C SHEPHERD 0 0.5 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 48
726D DNICE 0 0.4 EX FS 1 726E COGO 0 0.3 EX FS 1 726F2 TROPPER TWO 0 0.4 EX FS 1 727C3 CADD 0 0.4 EX FS 1 727F FIXIT 0 0.4 EX FS 1 727G GUY 0 0.5 EX FS 1 727I BLACK BEARD 0 0.3 EX FS 1 727J POPE SPUR 0 0.3 EX FS 1 727N2 NICETABE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 729A ZELDA 0 0.4 EX FS 1 729B1 PATRICK 0 0.3 EX FS 1 729C MORGAN 0 0.25 EX FS 1 731E COLONIAL 0 0.3 EX FS 1 731H MIDWAY 0 0.75 EX FS 1 738C BURBANK 0 0.4 EX FS 1 738D ROXBORO 0 0.3 EX FS 1 741B1 GIBBS 0 0.4 EX FS 1 741M MIDDLEMAN 0 0.4 EX FS 1 745A1 WHITE ACRE 0 0.3 EX FS 1 745E1 BOTTOM 0 0.38 EX FS 1 747S PERRY 0 0.3 EX FS 1 749A BLUEJAY 0 0.6 EX FS 1 749N COPPPERFIELD 0 0.3 EX FS 1 751C1 FINLEY SPUR 0 0.4 EX FS 1 751I BOTTOM SINK 0 0.5 EX FS 1 752C APPLE JACK 0 0.2 EX FS 1 901 DANNER 0 0.34 EX FS 3 901A SWEETGUM 0 0.4 EX FS 1 901B TUPELO 0 0.5 EX FS 1 910A MAYPOP 0 0.5 EX FS 1 913A LOOKOUT 0 0.1 EX FS 1
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 49
Appendix F -Chief’s Letter of Direction File Code: 2300/2500/7700 Date: March 29, 2012 Route To:
Subject: Travel Management, Implementation of 36 CFR, Part 202, Subpart A (36 CFR 212.5(b))
To: Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and WO Directors
This letter is to reaffirm agency commitment to completing a travel analysis report for Subpart A of the travel management rule by 2015 and update and clarify Agency guidance. This letter replaces the November 10, 2010, letter on the same topic.
The Agency expects to maintain an appropriately sized and environmentally sustainable road system that is responsive to ecological, economic, and social concerns. The national forest road system of the future must continue to provide needed access for recreation and resource management, as well as support watershed restoration and resource protection to sustain healthy ecosystems.
Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) requires the Forest Service to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System (NFS) lands. In determining the minimum road system, the responsible official must incorporate a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(2) require the Forest Service to identify NFS roads that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives.
Process
Travel analysis requires a process that is dynamic, interdisciplinary, and integrated with all resource areas. With this letter, I am directing the use of the travel analysis process (TAP) described in Forest Service Manual 7712 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55, Chapter 20. The TAP is a science-based process that will inform future travel management decisions. Travel analysis serves as the basis for developing proposed actions, but does not result in decisions. Therefore, travel analysis does not trigger the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The completion of the TAP is an important first step towards the development of the future minimum road system (MRS). All NFS roads, maintenance levels 1-5, must be included in the analysis.
For units that have previously conducted their travel or roads analysis process (RAP), the appropriate line officer should review the prior report to assess the adequacy and the relevance of their analysis as it complies with Subpart A. This analysis will help determine the appropriate scope and scale for any new analysis and can build on previous work. A RAP completed in
accordance with publication FS-643, “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System,” will also satisfy the roads analysis requirement of Subpart A.
Results from the TAP must be documented in a travel analysis report, which shall include:
• A map displaying the roads that can be used to inform the proposed action for identifying the MRS and unneeded roads. • Information about the analysis as it relates to the criteria found in 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).
Units should seek to integrate the steps contained in the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) with the six TAP steps contained in FSH 7709.55, Chapter 20, to eliminate redundancy and ensure an iterative and adaptive approach for both processes. We expect the WCF process and the TAP will complement each other. The intent is for each process to inform the other so that they can be integrated and updated with new information or where conditions change. The travel analysis report described above must be completed by the end of FY 2015.
The next step in identification of the MRS is to use the travel analysis report to develop proposed actions to identify the MRS. These proposed actions generally should be developed at the scale of a 6th code sub watershed or larger. Proposed actions and alternatives are subject to environmental analysis under NEPA. Travel analysis should be used to inform the environmental analysis.
The administrative unit must analyze the proposed action and alternatives in terms of whether, per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1), the resulting road system is needed to:
• Meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan; • Meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; • Reflect long-term funding expectations; • Ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance. The resulting decision identifies the MRS and unneeded roads for each sub watershed or larger scale. The NEPA analysis for each sub watershed must consider adjacent sub watersheds for connected actions and cumulative effects. The MRS for the administrative unit is complete when the MRS for each sub watershed has been identified, thus satisfying Subpart A. To the extent that the sub watershed NEPA analysis covers specific road decisions, no further NEPA analysis will be needed. To the extent that further smaller-scale, project-specific decisions are needed, more NEPA analysis may be required.
A flowchart displaying the process for identification of the MRS is enclosed with this letter.
Timing
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 51
The travel analysis report must be completed by the end of FY 2015. Beyond FY 2015, no Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CMCM) funds may be expended on NFS roads (maintenance levels 1-5) that have not been included in a TAP or RAP.
Leadership
The Washington Office lead for Subpart A is Anne Zimmermann, Director of Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants. Working with her on the Washington Office Steering Team are Jim Bedwell, Director of Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources, and Emilee Blount, Director of Engineering. I expect the Regions to continue with the similar leadership structures which have been established.
Your leadership and commitment to this component of the travel management rule is important. Together, we will move towards an ecologic, economic, and socially sustainable and responsible national road system of the future.
/s/ James M. Pena (for): LESLIE A. C. WELDON
Deputy Chief, National Forest System
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 52
Appendix G – Southern Region Expectations
Sub-Part “A” Travel Analysis (TAP) Southern Region Expectations Revised to align with 2012 Chief’s Letter
A. Background. During the period 2005 - 2010 the National Forests of the Southern Region successfully completed Sub-Part “B” (Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use) Travel Analysis. The result was a set of Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs) which prescribe the Forest Service roads that allow traffic; and in doing so it also prohibited cross-country travel by off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Forests are now beginning work on Sub-Part “A” (Administration of the Forest Transportation System) Travel Analysis to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for the protection, management and use of NFS lands; and also to identify roads no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives.
TAP analysis identifies risks and benefits of individual roads in the system, but especially cumulative effects and affordability of the entire system. Consideration is given to the access needed to support existing Forest Plans, and for informing future Forest Plans and resulting projects. TAP is intended to identify opportunities to assist managers in addressing the unique ecological, economic and social conditions on the national forests and grasslands.
B. Agency Direction. Sub-Part “A” Travel Analysis is required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.5). Forest Service Manual 7712 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55 Chapter 20 provides specific direction, including the requirement to use a six step interdisciplinary, science-based process to ensure that future decisions are based on an adequate consideration of environmental, social and economic impacts of roads. A letter from the Chief of the Forest Service dated March 29, 2012 was issued to replace a November 10, 2010 letter previously issued on the same topic . It reaffirms agency commitment to completing travel analysis reports for Subpart A of the travel management rule by 2015, and also provides additional national direction related to this work, addressing process, timing and leadership expectations. The letter requires documentation of the analysis by a travel analysis report, which includes a map displaying the existing road system and possible unneeded roads. It is intended to inform future proposed actions related to identifying the minimum road system. The TAP proc ess is designed to work in conjunction with other frameworks and processes, the results of which collectively inform and frame future decisions executed under
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 53
NEPA. These other analyses and procedures include Watershed Analysis Framework and mapping; Recreational Framework planning and analyses; and forest-wide planning under the new Planning Rule. This document (Southern Region Expectations) supplements the national direction for Sub-Part “A” TAPs developed for the Southern Region.
C. Geographic Scale. Like smaller scale road analyses (RAPS) that have been underway at the project level, TAPs consider economic, environmental and social effects of roads. Analysis at the smaller project scale, however, does not adequately address cumulative effects and affordability. The Chief’s letter requires that proposed NEPA actions be informed by work at the 6th order HUC watershed as a minimum. Southern Region Expectations are for a Unit TAP at the District level or equivalent; and since budgets are generally allocated to the Forest level, District analyses are not considered complete until all other Districts on the same Forest are also complete and have been integrated to create a Forest Scale TAP. As projects which involve travel (road) decisions are subsequently proposed on a unit, additional project level analysis will be required in advance of associated NEPA decisions only if the proposal varies substantially from the Unit Scale TAP covered by it. The purpose would be to show any additional impact on cumulative effects and affordability.
D. Process, Review and Approval. Forests Interdisciplinary Teams (IDTs) are expected to conduct analyses, with guidance and review by the Regional Office TAP Review Team (members listed below). Standard boilerplate, spreadsheets and Executive Summary format will be developed by the Review team for incorporation into the TAP reports. Final review will be by the Forest Supervisor, indicating that the analyses comply with national and regional direction. Upon completion of the last District TAP on a Forest, the Forest Supervisor needs to submit a forest-wide Executive Summary and verify that the cumulative results meet the expectations defined in this guidance.
The Regional TAP Review Team consists of Team Leader Paul Morgan (Engineering), Emanuel Hudson (Biological and Physical Resources), Mary Hughes Frye (Recreation), Paul Arndt (Planning) and various other ad hoc members as needed. They will submit their review comments to the TAP Steering Team prior to officially conveying them to the Forest. The Steering Team will be responsible for overall direction and oversight of the process. This team consists of Randy Warbington, TAP Steering Team Lead and Director of Engineering, Dave Schmid, Director of Biological and Physical Resources, Chris Liggett, Director of Planning, and Ann Christensen, Director of Recreation as well as George Bain, Forest Supervisor on the Chattahoochee Oconee NF’s and Steve Bekkerus, Regional Legislative Affairs Specialist.
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 54
E. Information Systems. Analysis will be based upon field-verified spatial data (GIS, or Geographic Information System road and trail layers), and official tabular data (from I-Web, the corporate Forest Service data base) as applicable. ARC Map products will be included as a part of all completed Unit Scale TAPs, and will be provided to the Regional Office TAP review team as a part of the final TAP report.
F. Access. As prescribed by 16USC532 the Forest Roads and Trails Act TAPs should identify an adequate system of roads and trails to provide for intensive use, protection, development, and management of National Forest System lands. As such, they should address user safety and environmental impacts, and provide for an optimum balance of access needs and cost. Roads, trails and bridges that are unsafe and where unacceptable risks cannot be eliminated or mitigated due to a lack of funding should be identified for closure or possibd le ecommissioning. Unneeded, temporary and unauthorized routes should be identified for possible decommissioning. TAPs should support current Forest Plan direction and anticipate future Forest Plan analysis needs, as well as Recreational Framework planning and analyses. As unit scale TAPs are completed, associated MVUMs must be reviewed. After appropriate NEPA decisions are made to implement TAP recommendations, future MVUM revisions need to be revised to assure that they are in agreement with those decisions.
G. Environmental. One major analysis component of the TAPs is impact of the road system on water quality. In those cases where high road densities on National Forest lands are a major factor in causing watersheds to be at risk or impaired, some roads should be identified for decommissioning in order to reduce the impacts and change the classification. Also, it should be recognized that some existing roads are poorly located and should be eliminated, while some new roads might be needed to replace them and provid e essentially equivalent access in better locations, generally farther away from live streams or wetlands. The Watershed Condition Framework should inform each unit’s travel analysis. An overriding objective for all roads should be compliance with provisions cited in National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, April 2012.
While a reduction in maintenance levels may be a desired option for cost reduction, it is not an appropriate strategy when it results in more environmental impacts. Similarly, changes in recreational use should be considered, especially for roads that cannot be maintained to standard and which may begin to attract challenge- oriented four- wheelers that create even further impacts on the environment and on the road.
H. Financial. Units should consider all expected sources of funding available to maintain the road system to appropriate standards (based upon 3 year history and current trends), and include all costs that are required to comply with applicable Best
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 55
Management Practices (BMPs) for their maintenance. Include associated bridge maintenance as well, and replacement costs for those routes which include bridges that are deficient or expected to need major work in the next ten year period. Identify and account for fixed costs (program management, fleet, etc.) when analyzing financial feasibility. Ultimately units must balance the costs of maintaining the identified system such that the recommendation will not result in accrual of deferred maintenance on roads and bridges once the TAP is implemented (i.e. there should be a zero balance between anticipated maintenance revenue and anticipated maintenance cost on an annual basis).
The focus of this analysis should not be primarily on disinvestment, i.e. just reducing passenger car roads to high clearance roads in order to meet funding constraints. Roads receiving minimal maintenance have the high likelihood, at least those roads located relatively low in the watershed, of creating additional siltation impacts. They can also have unintended consequences for recreation management. Therefore a better strategy might be to identify roads not required for current operations but which might be needed at some time in the future for seasonal or intermittent closure, or “storage”. Other strategies might include scheduling maintenance over a two to three year cycle on less used roads, adding seasonal restrictions, identifying roads to transfer to state or local jurisdiction, and identifying unneeded roads for possible decommissioning. Total mileage of high clearance roads should not generally increase over the amount in the current system unless it is determined that there has been substantial maintenance level “creep” over the years and therefore a substantial increase in high clearance roads is warranted. However it is expected that the number of roads identified to be placed in storage will generally increase from the current level. Finally it should be noted that similar to the road system, the trail system is also over-committed to be managed within its maintenance budget. Therefore, unless maintenance funding is verified to be available over the long-term, it is not acceptable to identify roads for conversion to trails; the more appropriate options would be storage or decommissi oning, depending upon future need.
I. Public Involvement and NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) Requirements. Unit scale TAPs are not NEPA decisions; they are analyses intended to inform future projects regarding affordability and cumulative effects. These projects, depending upon the specific impacts, will generally require NEPA decisions prior to implementation. The public will need to be provided opportunities for comment on TAP recommendations near to the time that that actual projects are being proposed. This would be expected to include a broad spectrum of participation by citizens, other agencies, and tribal governments as appropriate.
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 56
J. Products. All final products to be posted on an internal website or on the “O” drive available for access by other Forests and the Regional Office. The final product should consist of the following items:
1) A Travel Analysis Report summarizing the process the results of all analyses conducted. 2) A map showing the entire Road System, ML 1-5, and delineating potential unneeded roads. 3) A list of roads that are proposed for transfer to another jurisdiction and whether acceptance by that jurisdiction is likely within the next three years. 4) A tabular summary of issues, benefits and risks for each road in the system. (Although not included in this write-up an example format is available and will be provided to each unit as they begin work on their TAP.) 5) A spreadsheet identifying available maintenance funding and expected costsfor applying affordable operational maintenance levels and associated BMPs (best management practices) to the road system to result in a financial strategy that balances funding and costs such that no deferred maintenance will accrue if fully implemented. 6) Signature sheets with dates, indicating preparation and review officials, and Review by the Forest Supervisor.
K. Schedule and Completion Date.
The chief’s letter directs that all units be covered by a TAP by the end of FY 2015. The proposed schedule is as follows:
FY10 George Washington NF, GW/J NFs Talladega Ranger District, NFs in Alabama Andrew Pickens RD, FM/S NF Davy Crockett Ranger District, NFs in Texas
FY11 Jefferson NF, GW/J NFs - Completes GW/J NFs Oakmulgee Ranger District, NFs in Alabama Oconee Ranger District, Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs Appalach/Wakulla Ranger District, NFs in Florida Enoree Ranger District, FM/S NF Croatan NF, NFs in North Carolina
FY12 Shoal Creek Ranger District, NFs in Alabama
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 57
Bankhead RD, NFs in Alabama Conecuh RD, NFs in Alabama Tuskegee RD, NFs in Alabama Conosauga Ranger District, Chattahoochee Oconee NFs Chattooga River RD, Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs Blue Ridge RD, Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs – Completes CH-O NFs Osceola RD, NFs in Florida Long Cane RD, FM/S NFs Winn RD, Kisatchie NF Pisgah NF in NC Angelina/Sabine Ranger District, NFs in Texas Sam Houston RD, NFs in Texas Redbird RD, Daniel Boone NF Magazine RD, Ozark-St. Francis NFs
FY13 Stearns RD, Daniel Boone NF Shoal Creek RD, NFs in Alabama– Completes NFs in AL Caney and Kisatchie RDs, Kisatchie NF LBJ/Caddo RD, NFs in TX – Completes NFs in TX Nantahala NF in NC Oca al RD, NFs in Florida – Completes NFs in FL Francis Marion RD, FM/S NFs – Completes FM/S NFs Big Piney, Pleasant Hill and Boston Mountain RDs, Ozark-St. Francis NFs Land between the Lakes – Completes LBL RA
FY14 NFs in Mississippi – Completes NFs in MS London RD, Daniel Boone NF Ouachita NF (Districts to be named) Sylamore and St. Francis RDs, Oz-St. Francis NFs Lee Creek, Lake Weddington RDs, Ozark St. Francis NFs – Completes Oz-St. Francis NFs Calcasieu and Catahoula RDs, Kisatchie NF – Completes Kisatchie NF Uwharrie RD, NFs in NC – Completes NFs in NC
F Y15 El Yunque NF – Completes EYNF Cumberland RD, Daniel Boone NF – Completes DBNF Cherokee NF – Completes Cherokee NF Ouachita NF (Remaining Districts) – Completes Ouachita NF
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 58
Appendix H – 6th Level HUC Watershed Condition Classification
Table 10: WCC by District
WCC WCC WCC 1 2 3 Total Bankhead 6 6 3 15 Conecuh 6 7 13 Oakmulgee 12 4 16 Shoal Creek 4 10 14 Shoal Creek/Talladega 1 1 Talladega 3 7 10 Tuskegee 2 2 Grand Total 32 36 3 71
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 59
Appendix I – District Level Travel Analysis Reports.
National Forests in Alabama–Travel Analysis Report Page 60